Podcasts about servier

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Big data in cardiology Measuring lipids: what clinicians need to know Milestones Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Karim Lekadir, Kostas Koskinas Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1808 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Karim Lekadir have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Kostas Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker fees / honoraria from MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Perry Elliott Guest: Karim Lekadir Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1808?r Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Karim Lekadir have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson."

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

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Heart disease risk: Framingham Heart Study insights Sudden death in female athletes Mythbusters: Owning a pet reduces the risk of heart disease Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Sabiha Gati, Vasan Ramachandran Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1809 Want to watch that extended interview on sudden death in athletes? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1809?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video.The English-language always prevails. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Sabiha Gati, Nicolle Kraenkel, Susanna Price and Vasan Ramachandran have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Sabiha Gati Want to watch that extended interview on LDL management? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1809?resource=interview Want to watch the full episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1809   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Sabiha Gati, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

JCO PO author Dr. Philip Philip at Henry Ford Cancer Institute and Wayne State University shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing Into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Philip discuss how prospective trials are required to clarify the role of ctDNA as a valid surrogate end point for progression-free or overall survival in GI cancers. Transcript Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philip Philip, Chair of Hematology and Oncology, as well as leader of GI and Neuroendocrine Oncology. He's also the Professor of Oncology and Pharmacology, as well as Co-Leader of the Pancreatic Cancer Program and Medical Director of the Cancer Clinical Trial and Translational Research Office at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute at Wayne State University. Dr. Philip is also the Senior Corresponding Author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, "Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Philip, welcome to our podcast, and thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Philip Philip: Thank you so much, Dr. Naqash, for providing me this opportunity to be discussing this with you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: This is a very timely and interesting topic. We've done a couple of podcasts on ctDNA before, but none that is an opinion piece or a guidance piece based on what you guys have done. Could you tell us what led to this perspective piece or guidance manuscript being published? There is some background to this. Could you tell us, for the sake of our listeners, what was the initial thought process of why you all wanted to do this? Dr. Philip Philip: The major reason for this was the fact that investigators were considering using ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Obviously, you hear my focus will be on gastrointestinal cancers. So, the idea was, can we use ctDNA instead of using the traditional endpoints such as disease-free survival, progression-free survival, or overall survival? And the question was, do we have enough data to support that in patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Now, the article obviously goes over some review of the data available, but the core of the article was not to do a comprehensive review of ctDNA use and the evidence so far, although we used that in really putting our recommendations. So, we really had to evaluate available data. But the focus was, what are the gaps? What do we need to do? And are we ready to use ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that background. Obviously, a very broad, complicated topic with a bunch of emerging data that you've highlighted. But most importantly, for the sake of, again, trainees and listeners, could you help us understand the difference between tumor-informed and non-tumor-based ctDNA assessments? Dr. Philip Philip: Sure. So, the tumor-informed is simply meaning that you're taking the genomic makeup or the DNA fingerprint of the cancer in a given patient, and you create a profile, and then use that profile to see whether that DNA is present in the blood. So, it's very simple. It's like barcoding DNA and then going and looking for it in the blood, which means that you have to have the primary tumor. When I say primary tumor, you need to have the tumor to start off with. It doesn't really apply, maybe easily, if you just have a fine-needle aspirate and things like that. So, you really have to have a good amount of the tumor for you to be able to do that. So, that's a tumor-informed, and from the name, you can easily understand how it's done, compared to the other one, which is uninformed, whereby off-the-shelf probes are used to look for tumor DNA. And again, they're based on prior experience and prior identification of the key DNA changes that will be seen in tumors. So, that's the difference between the two in terms of the principle of the test. The uninformed will not require you to send the original tumor that you're trying to test. However, the informed, you do. The turnaround time is, again, a bit different because, as you would expect, it's shorter in the uninformed. And the reason for that, again, is the initial preparation of the profile that is going to be used in the future when you do serial testing. The sensitivity has been a bit of a discussion. Initially, people have thought that tumor-informed assays are more sensitive, more specific, more sensitive, et cetera. But in our review, we come to the conclusion saying that we don't think that's going to be a major difference. And there are obviously improvements happening in both types of assays. The sensitivities have been improving. So, at this point in time, we do feel that you have two types of assays, and we didn't feel strongly about recommending one over the other. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. You mentioned something about sensitivity, specificity. Obviously, many of us who have ordered both tumor-informed and tumor-uninformed, we understand the differences with respect to the timing. The tumor-informed one can take more time. The uninformed one, being a sort of a liquid biopsy, may not necessarily have as much of a turnaround time. Could you briefly speak to those limitations or advantages in the context of the two versions? Dr. Philip Philip: I just really want to also highlight that when we say turnaround time, so for the tumor-informed assays, the first assay that we do will be requiring a turnaround time. But once the pattern has been set and the profile has been documented, the subsequent testing doesn't require much in the way of waiting. However, when you're using this for the minimal residual disease, then you have a window of opportunity to work at. That's number one. So, it means that in patients who have resected cancer, you may end up having to wait longer than the tumor-uninformed assay, especially if you don't have easy access to your material for the baseline material to send. And also, what we'd like to do is not do the test immediately after the operation or soon after the operation. Give it some time. There's a window where you can work at, and starting minimally two weeks after the surgery. But in my experience, I'd like to wait at least four weeks just to make sure that we got an accurate reading. Sometimes when you do it very early after surgery, because of the effect of the surgery and the release of the normal DNA is also, it may dilute the tumor DNA, and then you may get a false negative. So, basically, it depends on the clinical situation. And your question is, is one better to be used than the other? I think ultimately, it ends up with the turnaround time not being as much of an issue. It might be in certain situations, depending on when you see the patients after the operation or any definitive treatment you've done and you want to look for minimal residual disease. But in general, I don't think that's going to be a real major issue. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember discussing this with one of the tumor-informed platforms with regards to this barcode you mentioned. They generate a fingerprint of sorts for the tumor on the tissue, then they map it out in the blood and try to assess it longitudinally. And one of the questions and discussions we had was around the fact that most of the time, these barcoded genes are not the driver genes. If you have a KRAS mutant tumor, it's not going to be the KRAS gene that they map out. It's something that is specific. So, is there a possibility that when you are mapping out, let's say, a metastatic tumor where there is truncal and subclonal mutations at different sites, that you capture something that is not necessarily truncal, and that does not necessarily reflect some other metastatic site having a recurrence? So basically, over time, you don't see a specific mutational pattern or the signature on the tumor-informed, and then you see something on the scan which makes you think, "Well, it was not the right test," but actually it could be a different subclone or a clone mutation at a different site. Is there a concept that could help us understand that better? Dr. Philip Philip: I think you raise a very important point. Although, I have to say from my practical experience, that is not a common thing to see. In fact, for some reason, we don't see it that often in any frequency that should, at this point in time, make us concerned about the serial testing. But what you were mentioning is a real challenge which can happen. Now, the question is, how often does the clonal evolution or the divergence happen to the point that it's going to be like a false negative, is what you're saying. At this point in time, we don't really have good information on that, or any good information, practical information. And when we went through the literature and we were looking for the evidence, that wasn't something which was there clearly telling us. Although, this is something that has to be studied further prospectively. And I don't know of a study, but I might be missing it, I don't know of a study which is systematically looking at this. Although it's a very valid hypothesis and theoretical basis for it, but in real life, we still have to see how much does it really interfere with the validity of this kind of testing. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Which brings us to the more important discussion around your manuscript. And I think that the overarching theme here is the consensus panel that you guys had recommended that ctDNA-based metrics be used as a co-primary endpoint. Could you tell us, for early-phase trials, maybe phase two studies for that matter, could you tell us what were some of the aspects that led to this consensus being formed from your working group? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, there were a number of reasons, in any order of priority, but one of them is we don't have a good sense of dynamics of the ctDNA. And again, remember this article was about gastrointestinal cancers. Maybe we know more about colon cancer, but, or colorectal cancer, but we don't know that well about the upper GI, like gastroesophageal, pancreatic, et cetera. So, we don't know what is the false negative percentages. And in fact, we know that there are certain sites of the disease, metastases, that do not lead to enough shedding of the DNA into the circulation. So, that was something else. I mean, false negativity, not knowing exactly what the dynamics are, especially in different disease types. So, that was another reason, which we felt that it may not be at this time primetime to really have those ctDNA tests as a primary endpoint. We wanted to make sure that, on the other hand, we wanted to make sure that people consider including ctDNA more like a secondary endpoint so that we can gain the information that we're lacking, at least the ones I mentioned to you. So, that was an important point of our discussions and deliberations when we were writing the article. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And I myself have been on both sides of the aisle where - I treat people with lung cancer, you mentioned appropriately that most of the data that we have for ctDNA is generated from GI cancers, especially colorectal - on the lung cancer side, I myself had a patient with an early-stage cancer, had treatment, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had ctDNA that was tumor-informed, was positive four to five months before the imaging actually showed up. And on the other side, I've also had an individual where early-stage lung cancer, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had PET scans that showed a positive finding, but the ctDNA, tumor-informed ctDNA, was negative multiple times. So, I've seen both aspects of it, and your paper tries to address some of these questions on how to approach a negative, radiologically negative imaging but positive ctDNA potentially, and vice versa. Could you elaborate upon that a little bit? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, obviously, we do see this in practice. Again, I do GI oncology. I have patients who, you do ctDNA. I mean, my advice to anyone, when you order a test, you have to make sure that you know what you're going to do with the test, because that's the most important thing. You get a positive test, you do something. You get a negative test, you do something. But most importantly, our patients who you're following up, they are very anxious for a diagnosis they have that is not- I mean, it's cancer. If you're doing these tests, if we get continuous, repeatedly negative testing, then you really have to also tell the patient that there's a false negativity. And I mentioned to you earlier, there are certain sites of disease, like peritoneal, they may not be producing enough, or there are some tumors, their biology is such that they don't release as much to be detected in the blood. Now, one day we will get maybe a more sensitive test, but I'm talking about the tests we have now. On the other hand, if you get a positive testing, you have to make a distinction for ctDNA in the minimal residual disease situation. If you get a positive test, there is enough evidence that the patient has a worse prognosis. There's evidence for that. No one can dispute that. Again, I'm talking about colorectal cancer where there are a lot of data for that. So, in that situation, there are studies that are looking, if you get a positive test in someone who you're not intending to give any adjuvant treatment, there are studies looking into that, both in terms of intensifying, like chemotherapy, in certain patients. And also, there's work being done, if you have a negative test in someone who has stage III disease, for example, or definitely stage II disease, they may not need to give them chemo. Those things are happening. But in metastatic disease, it's a different situation. Or even in someone who has received surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, in those patients where they, whether they're now under, in the surveillance mode, those patients, if you have a positive, it may be positive. I had a recent patient like those, eight months before we saw anything on the scans. So, the question is, if you have a positive test, is there any advantage in giving them treatment, systemic treatment? Of course, we're assuming that the PET scan is negative. So, is there really any advantage in giving someone treatment ahead of time, before you see the imaging changes? That kind of data, in my opinion, is not really available or strong. You can always think of it in different ways, explain it in different ways. It's minimal disease, maybe you get a better response. But I don't know if we really can justify at this time. Therefore, in my practice, my own practice, I do not treat just a positive ctDNA. Again, that's different than after surgery when you're thinking of whether to give adjuvant treatment, no adjuvant treatment. But someone who's finished treatments and then you're just serially monitoring the disease, those patients, I do not treat them with chemotherapy. And that was something which, based on the literature we reviewed, there was nothing out there to definitely- I mean, if you see something positive, you will do a scan earlier, you will talk to the patient, examine the patient, whatever. But if there's nothing there, starting a treatment, that's not justified at this point in time. Now, you need to do a study like that. Definitely, you need to do a study. But I can tell you that from my experience, having been involved with study design and all that, it's not an easy trial to do. It's going to be a trial- at a minimum, it will take many patients, it will take longer time to complete, and there are a number of variables there. If someone is willing to put a lot of money into it, it can be done. But I can tell you that that kind of intention to do a study like that has been very much a challenge at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Of course, as you mentioned, the follow-up time that you need for a study like that is going to be very long to get to meaningful outcomes. Dr. Philip Philip: You need to be very patient to do such a study. But the problem with a very long study is that things change, standard of care changes with time, and the assays will change. So, that's why we don't have that kind of data. I'm not sure if there are people in the community or in the academic centers who do treat based on only positive ctDNA. The other thing is that you really have to always consider the psychological impact of these tests on patients and caregivers. Sometimes it can be really very stressful, burdensome to people to sit there just waiting for the disease to show up on a scan. And therefore, in my opinion, I'm not saying definitely don't use it in that situation, I'm just saying that you have to personalize it also, to see the patient who you would like to do it and then other patients who may not do it, or you think that it's not good for them to do it. And the patient also has to understand the outcome of the test and how you're going to be interpreting it. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's a lot of great insights, Dr. Philip, and I know you've been involved in trial designs. I'm sure NCT and cooperative groups are actively thinking and incorporating ctDNA-based metrics as one of the endpoints in their trial. I know of a GU study that's, I think it's an Alliance study, trying to de-escalate treatment based on ctDNA. I have one of my colleagues who's also a GU investigator at OU, he's doing a ctDNA-based, tumor-informed-based de-escalation. So, obviously, more and more data, hopefully, that'll be generated in the next couple of years. Dr. Philip Philip: But remember, these studies are not using it as an endpoint. They're using it as a means of optimizing treatment, which is a bit different. So, as an endpoint, can you do a phase III trial of, let's say, a thousand patients, and your primary endpoint is not survival, but you're saying, "Can I reduce the ctDNA, clear it earlier, or whatever?" That's the sort of thing this article was about. We can't do that at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I totally understand. Thank you for explaining the difference, and hopefully more to come in this space in the next couple of years. I briefly wanted to touch upon your personal career and journey based on all that you've done and accomplished. Could you tell us about how you started, what your journey has been like, and how that connects with what you're doing right now, including mentoring other trainees and junior faculty? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, when I was in high school, I wanted to be an engineer, but I grew up in Baghdad, and all my friends wanted to do medicine, so I went with the tide, so I did medicine. I don't regret that. I would do it again if I had the opportunity. The reason why I did oncology was, I left the country and did a PhD in clinical pharmacology at the University of London. And that really got me, it was a topic which included, which was on cancer. So, I really got interested in a disease that is really a lot of science, and things are new, or were new at the time. And if I want to look back what I was doing, the beginning of my training in the 80s, second half of the 80s, and now, it's unbelievable how things have changed. But one of the things which I really have to say is that almost all my life I've been in what we call academic institutions. But I firmly believe that for people, whether academic or not, you have to be a very good, astute clinician, because many of the things we do, really, we're trying to put the patients in the center. It's not only doing fancy science, it's to do things that help the patients. And you can bring in bits and pieces of fancy science or less fancy science, but that's something which is really extremely important for us to think about, being a very good clinician, very good doctor, because medicine is a science, whether you're practicing as a solo practitioner or you're part of a large academic center. It's the way you think, the way you interrogate things that you're not sure of, the way you collaborate, the way you learn every day. I mean, at my age, I still don't like to miss any tumor board, because in each tumor board, there's something you learn, even if you think that you know everything. So, that's really the whole thing of it, is that be a very good clinician, be open-minded. Always, you have to think of things that, they look interesting, they look somehow unexplained. Always try to help find the solutions and do that. One of the major things that I feel that people should do is being also very focused on things. I mean, you have to also know what you want to do in the next 5, 10, 15 years. Because although everyone is in it in the same way when we start, but there are different things that drive people, people who want to do more of the formal research, like being an academic-like institution. But there are also a lot of people who are very successful outside of a- what we call an academic setting. In the United States, most people are not working in an academic kind of setting. Although, for me, the distinction between academic and community is getting less and less, because if you think that you do phase I trials in academia only, that's not true, because there are, in fact, in the state of Michigan, the most active phase I doctor is not even in academia, he's in private practice. So, you can do all these things. It's a matter of what you like to do, and you really have to make sure you know what you want to do. Because sometimes people are, especially early on, they get a bit confused, “What I want to do.” There's an issue of doing general oncology versus subspecialist. If you're a subspecialist doing only GI, you have to make sure that you really also have some kind of recognition that you're only a GI oncologist, recognition regional, national, international, but some degree of recognition that you feel that people are coming to you for advice as a second opinion or whatever it is. But again, you have to decide what you think you want to be, how you want to be, because there's a lot of options here between community practice, academic practice, industry, and of course, there's always the administrative thing. Some people tend to be more like going into the line of being an administrator. So, there's a lot of options for you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again, Dr. Philip, for those pearls of wisdom. I think that was very insightful. I'm sure all the trainees and early-career investigators will find all that advice very helpful. Thank you again for joining us today. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Philip Philip Disclosures Honoraria: Bayer, Ipsen, incyte, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Astellas Pharma, BioNTech SE, Novocure, TriSalus Life Sciences, SERVIER, Seagen Consulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Ipsen, Merck, TriSalus Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, SynCoreBio, Taiho Pharmaceutical Speakers' Bureau: Incyte Research Funding: Bayer (Inst), incyte (Inst), Merck (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), novartis (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Genentech (Inst), halozyme (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), merus (Inst), BioNTech SE (Inst) Uncompensated Relationships: Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Caris MPI  

This episode covers:  Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies Coronary sinus reducer: promise in refractory angina Best strategies to reach LDL cholesterol goals in high-risk patients Snapshots Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Rasha Al-Lamee, J. Wouter Jukema, Steffen Petersen Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1807 Want to watch that extended interview on LDL management? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1807?resource=interview Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Rasha Al-Lamee has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker's fees for Menarini pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Philips, Medtronic, Servier, Shockwave, Elixir. Advisory board: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Philips, Shockwave, CathWorks, Elixir. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. J. Wouter Jukema has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: J. Wouter Jukema/his department has received research grants from and/or was speaker (CME accredited) meetings sponsored/supported by Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, Athera, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Dalcor, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare Johnson and Johnson, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck-Schering-Plough, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Shockwave Medical, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, CardioVascular Research the Netherlands (CVON), the Netherlands Heart Institute and the European Community Framework KP7 Programme. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: J. Wouter Jukema Want to watch that extended interview on LDL management? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1807?resource=interview Want to watch the full episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1807 Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. J. Wouter Jukema has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: J. Wouter Jukema/his department has received research grants from and/or was speaker (CME accredited) meetings sponsored/supported by Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, Athera, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Dalcor, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare Johnson and Johnson, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck-Schering-Plough, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis,Shockwave Medical, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, CardioVascular Research the Netherlands (CVON), the Netherlands Heart Institute and the European Community Framework KP7 Programme. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

At ASCO 2025, Servier presented data in the IDH-mutated cancer space. Onsite at McCormick Place in Chicago, pharmaphorum web editor Nicole Raleigh spoke with Becky Martin, chief US medical at Servier about the key data from the company's Tibsovo and Voranigo programmes, as well as the implications for patients and the wider themes of the Congress this year. Listen to this and other interviews from ASCO 2025 here.

Avez-vous déjà entendu parler de l'affaire Cambridge Analytica ? Ou encore du scandale des pentagones papers ou celui du médiator ? Si ces histoires ne vous disent rien vous serez surpris d'apprendre l'existence de ces véritables complots. Des histoires qui dépassent largement la fiction.  L'affaire Médiator  Murielle, jeune mère, découvre tardivement que les coupe-faim qui l'ont aidée à perdre du poids l'ont aussi gravement fragilisée. Elle frôle la mort, sans savoir qu'elle est l'une des nombreuses victimes du Médiator, un médicament prescrit à tort comme amaigrissant. En 2007, la pneumologue Irène Frachon, seule contre tous, commence à faire le lien entre ce médicament et des centaines de cas d'atteintes cardiaques. Son combat acharné contre les laboratoires Servier durera plus de dix ans. Finalement, le scandale éclate, révélant l'un des plus grands drames sanitaires français. Pour découvrir d'autres récits passionnants, cliquez ci-dessous : ⁠⁠[INÉDIT] Paul Watson, une vie d'engagement : combat contre l'Apocalypse (1/4)⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠[INÉDIT] Paul Watson, une vie d'engagement : la bombe mentale (2/4)⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠[INÉDIT] Paul Watson, une vie d'engagement : massacres et sauvetages (3/4)⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠[INÉDIT] Paul Watson, une vie d'engagement : l'ennemi public des braconniers (4/4)⁠⁠ Un podcast Bababam Originals Ecriture : Clément Prévaux Production : Bababam  Voix : Florian Bayoux Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host: Rick Grobbee Guest: Steffen Petersen Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1806?r Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies The role of cardiac magnetic resonance in myocardial disease Air pollution and heart disease Statistics Made Easy: Quasi-experimental study designs Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Steffen Petersen, Mark Miller Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1806 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee, Nicolle Kraenkel and Mark Miller have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

In this episode, I'm joined by Julia Geronimi from Servier and Dr. Pavel Mozgunov from the University of Cambridge to explore a topic that's absolutely central to advancing precision medicine—predictive biomarkers. We dive into the challenges of identifying predictive vs. prognostic biomarkers, especially in early-phase clinical trials with limited sample sizes. What makes their approach so exciting is that it offers a model-flexible, visually intuitive way to detect predictiveness—even before we talk about dichotomizing biomarkers or setting cutoffs. If you work on clinical trial design, translational science, or biomarker development, this conversation will give you fresh tools—and a lot to think about.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Colchicine for secondary prevention An algorithmic approach to the workup of syncope Milestones: CIBIS II Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Sanjit Jolly, Michele Brignole Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1805 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Michele Brignole, Diederick Grobbee and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Sanjit Jolly has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: grant support from Boston Scientific, honorarium from Boston Scientific, Shockwave, Abiomed, SIS, and Teleflex.  Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Rick Grobbee Guest: Michele Brignole Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1805?r  Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Michele Brignole, Diederick Grobbee and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Hypertension in the elderly The digital twin in cardiology Snapshots Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Gianfranco Parati, Nico Bruining, Joost Lumens Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1804 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Nico Bruining, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Joost Lumens has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Medtronic (all grants paid to institute, Maastricht University). Gianfranco Parati has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria for lectures by Omron, Merck, Viatris, Somnomedics. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Joost Lumens and Nico Bruining Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1804?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.  Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Nico Bruining, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Joost Lumens has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Medtronic (all grants paid to institute, Maastricht University). Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

"Je suis venue chercher ce que l'on m'a raconté. Et je l'ai trouvé."Cette phrase, Sybille Billiard l'entend souvent.Elle est Directrice de la Communication du Groupe Servier, un laboratoire pharmaceutique indépendant, gouverné par une fondation. Un modèle rare, qui change tout.J'ai eu la chance de rencontrer Sybille lors d'un talk pour les alumni du Celsa.Séduite par sa personnalité solaire, j'ai aussi été très impressionnée par l'évolution de ce groupe que j'ai connu — de loin — à mes tout débuts de carrière, et qui m'a toujours intriguée.Dans cet épisode de L'Entreprise de demain, nous décryptons comment Servier crée les conditions d'un engagement fort et durable, grâce à une alchimie puissante entre :✅ une gouvernance à part (fondation = vision long terme, réinvestissement total des bénéfices),✅ une culture vivante et incarnée (care, innovation, partage, audace),✅ une stratégie co-construite et projetée loin (2033–2035),✅ une dynamique d'innovation continue (thérapeutique, digitale, sociale),✅ une obsession du sens, pour et avec les patients,✅ un management responsabilisant.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Current indications for pulmonary vein isolation Conduction system pacing EHRA 2025 scientific highlights Host: Susanna Price Guests: Haran Burri, Isabel Deisenhofer, Helmut Puererfellner, Emma Svennberg Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1803   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Haran Burri has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research and fellowship support or speaker honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Microport. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Isabel Deisenhofer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker honoraria and travel grants from Abbott Medical, Biosense-Webster, Boston Scientific, BMS, Volta Medical, and research grant (for the institution) from Abbott Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Helmut Puererfellner has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker fees, honoraria, consultancy, advisory board fees, investigator, committee member, etc., including travel funding related to these activities for the following companies: Abbott, Biotronik, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

"Je suis venue chercher ce que l'on m'a raconté. Et je l'ai trouvé."Cette phrase, Sybille Billiard l'entend souvent.Elle est Directrice de la Communication du Groupe Servier, un laboratoire pharmaceutique indépendant, gouverné par une fondation. Un modèle rare, qui change tout.J'ai eu la chance de rencontrer Sybille lors d'un talk pour les alumni du Celsa.Séduite par sa personnalité solaire, j'ai aussi été très impressionnée par l'évolution de ce groupe que j'ai connu — de loin — à mes tout débuts de carrière, et qui m'a toujours intriguée.Dans cet épisode de L'Entreprise de demain, nous décryptons comment Servier crée les conditions d'un engagement fort et durable, grâce à une alchimie puissante entre :✅ une gouvernance à part (fondation = vision long terme, réinvestissement total des bénéfices),✅ une culture vivante et incarnée (care, innovation, partage, audace),✅ une stratégie co-construite et projetée loin (2033–2035),✅ une dynamique d'innovation continue (thérapeutique, digitale, sociale),✅ une obsession du sens, pour et avec les patients,✅ un management responsabilisant.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Relevance and management of ventricular ectopic beats  Lp(a) in cardiovascular risk management Mythbusters: A vegetarian diet lowers cardiovascular risk Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Thomas Deneke, Kausik Ray Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1802 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Thomas Deneke, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Kausik Ray declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, consultant for Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biologix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cargene Therapeutics, CRISPR, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, NewAmsterdam Pharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Resverlogix, Sanofi, Scribe Therapeutics, Silence Therapeutics, Vaxxinity, and Viatris, honoraria for lectures from Novartis, BI, AZ, Novo Nordisk, Viatris, Amarin, Biologix Pharma, Sanofi, Amgen, Esperion, Daiichi Sankyo, Macleod and stock options New Amsterdam Pharma, Pemi 31, SCRIBE Therapeutics. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Susanna Price  Guest: Thomas Deneke  Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1802?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Thomas Deneke, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Roche has made a $1 billion investment in Oxford Biotherapeutics to gain access to their antibody-drug conjugate platform for cancer targets. Cargo has laid off 90% of its staff and is exploring potential business combinations. Trump is considering budget cuts to the CDC's HIV prevention program, which could impact HIV drugmakers like Gilead and Merck. The rise of GLP-1 weight loss drugs is compared to the early days of PD-1 inhibitors, with differences in the market suggesting history may not repeat itself. Sino Biological has developed recombinant antigens for the 2025-2026 influenza vaccine strains. Servier has acquired a solid tumor asset in a deal with Black Diamond.The text discusses the similarities between the rise of GLP-1 weight loss drugs and PD-1 inhibitors in the pharmaceutical industry. It also explores the impact of ongoing conflicts on drug development, highlights a new company, Mirador, focusing on inflammatory and fibrotic diseases, and looks at drugs facing patent cliffs. Additionally, it mentions Wacker Biotech as a partner for advanced therapies and provides updates on various pharmaceutical companies.Thank you for tuning in to Pharma and Biotech daily. Stay informed with us for more updates on the latest news in the industry.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies AI and the future of the Electrocardiogram The heart in rheumatic disorders and autoimmune diseases Statistics Made Easy: Bayesian analysis Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Paul Friedman, Maya Buch  Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1801 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Antonio Greco, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Maya Buch has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: grant/research support paid to University of Manchester from Gilead and Galapagos; consultant and/or speaker with funds paid to University of Manchester for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Medistream and Pfizer Inc; member of the Speakers' Bureau for AbbVie with funds paid to University of Manchester. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Paul Friedman has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: co-inventor of AI ECG algorithms. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Maya Buch Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1801?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Maya Buch has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: grant/research support paid to University of Manchester from Gilead and Galapagos; consultant and/or speaker with funds paid to University of Manchester for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Medistream and Pfizer Inc; member of the Speakers' Bureau for AbbVie with funds paid to University of Manchester. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis Managing cardiovascular risk in transgender people Milestones: RAVEL Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Kyle Klarich, Christian Delles Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1800 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes.  The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Christian Delles, Kyle Klarich and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Perry Elliott Guest: Christian Delles Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1800?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Christian Delles and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Atrial fibrillation in athletes 'Work and life' of a medical journalist Mythbusters: Female doctors with better outcomes Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Isabelle van Gelder, Shelley Wood Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1799   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests  Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel, Isabelle van Gelder and Shelley Wood have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Perry Elliott Guest: Isabelle van Gelder Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1799?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Nicolle Kraenkel and Isabelle van Gelder have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Dual antiplatelet therapy in 2025 Optimal communication with patients Snapshots Host: Emer Joyce  Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Michelle Kittleson, Gilles Montalescot Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1798   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce, Michelle Kittleson and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Gilles Montalescot has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research funds for Action Groupe or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celecor, CSL Behring, Hexacath, Idorsia, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, SMT, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Gilles Montalescot Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1798?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Gilles Montalescot has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research funds for Action Groupe or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celecor, CSL Behring, Hexacath, Idorsia, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, SMT, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Coronary spasm management Sex differences in heart failure Milestones: London Bus Driver Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Filippo Crea, Lynne Stevenson Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1797 Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Filippo Crea, Emer Joyce, Nicolle Kraenkel and Lynne Stevenson have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Filippo Crea Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1797?resource=interview Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Filippo Crea, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy Depression and heart disease Mythbusters: "The French Paradox" Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Martha Gulati, Hector Bueno Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1796 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Martha Gulati, Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Hector Bueno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research funding from the European Union (EU4H-2022-JA-03), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FORTALECE program, PI21/01572), Sociedad Española de Cardiología, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Novartis; and has received in the past consulting/speaking fees from Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Organon. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly.  This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Aortic aneurysms Return to elite sports after a severe cardiac event Milestones: CAST Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Jose Rodriguez Palomares, Harald Jorstad Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1795 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce, Nicolle Kraenkel and Jose Rodriguez Palomares have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Harald Jorstad has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: unrestricted research grants to institution: Dutch Olympic Committee, Dutch Heart Foundation, Zon-Mw, Heart to Handle. Unrestricted, unrelated research grants to institution: Novartis, Amarin, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Unrelated advisory fees to institution: Amarin, Amgen. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly.  This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Heart disease in dialysis patients Substance abuse and heart disease Snapshots: Pneumopericardium Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Patrick Mark, Theo Pezel, Stephan Achenbach Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1794 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce, Nicolle Kraenkel and Theo Pezel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Patrick Mark has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: lecture/advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pharmacosmos, Astellas, GSK, Vifor. Grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

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

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Optimal management of angina Artificial sweeteners and cardiovascular risk Statistics Made Easy: Network meta-analyses Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Christiaan Vrints, Marco Witkowski Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1793 Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Antonio Greco, Nicolle Kraenkel, Christiaan Vrints and Marco Witkowski have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Which MRA to use in which heart failure patient Managing electrical storm Mythbusters: garlic protects from the heart Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Sana Al-Khatib, Rudolf de Boer Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1792 Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Sana Al-Khatib and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Rudolf de Boer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: direct research funding from European Research Council (ERC), Netherlands Heart Foundation, Fondation leDucq, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Research funding to department or institution: AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior Pharmaceuticals GmbH, NovoNordisk. Direct fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Cardior Pharmaceuticals GmbH, NovoNordisk, Roche Diagnostics. Fees to department or institution: NovoNordisk. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies Strategic decisions in atrial fibrillation Critical evaluation of clinical trials Snapshots Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Stephan Achenbach, Carlos Aguiar, Jane Armitage, Isabel Deisenhofer Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1720 Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Jane Armitage and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Isabel Deisenhofer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker honoraria and travel grants from Abbott Medical, Biosense-Webster, Boston Scientific, BMS, Volta Medical, and research grant (for the institution) from Abbott Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics, AstraZeneca, Forbion. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies What is new in lipid management – therapeutic options beyond statins Cardiac papillary fibroelastomas Snapshots Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: Stephan Achenbach, Carlos Aguiar, Kyle Klarich, Konstantinos Koskinas Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1157 Disclaimer ESC TV Today and ESC 365, the cardiology knowledge hub are supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. The scientific content and opinions expressed in this programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee, Kyle Klarich and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Terumo, Medtronic. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: speaker fees / honoraria from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Sanofi.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research grants from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.This week in biopharma news, Novo's stock experienced a sell-off due to lower-than-expected obesity drug sales, Madrigal's new drug launch exceeded expectations, and Biomarin is focusing on narrowing its sales focus for its hemophilia gene therapy. Amgen discussed the differentiation of their obesity drug, Servier's brain cancer drug was approved by the FDA, and RSV vaccine makers remain optimistic despite CDC guidance. The rise of antibody-drug conjugates in cancer treatments is also highlighted.Medtronic has partnered with Abbott to develop a glucose sensor that can only connect with Medtronic's insulin delivery technology. Medtronic has also issued a recall for a nerve monitoring system linked to 10 injuries, warning users that the device may not alert when on a nerve during surgery. Henry Schein is facing slow recovery from a cyber incident, impacting their Q2 results. Ascensia's new head of CGM is planning a 365-day sensor, seeking FDA approval for a one-year sensor. The FDA is seeking feedback on health equity for medical devices, aiming to develop a framework for evaluating devices in diverse populations. Sales teams in healthcare are focusing on human-centered sales approaches.CVS has ousted the head of Aetna as the insurer's results are dragging down earnings. Premiums for ACA plans are expected to grow by 7% next year, with reasons cited including workforce shortages, hospital consolidation, and demand for expensive drugs. More than 700 rural hospitals are at risk of closing due to reimbursement challenges. Experts are concerned about patient harm from the FDA's lab developed test rule. The healthcare industry is leveraging technology such as virtual reality, robotics, and AI to improve patient engagement, staff burnout, and clinical decision-making.Madrigal's new drug launch, Rezdiffra, exceeded analysts' expectations in the U.S. prompting the company to market it in Europe independently. Novo's shares dropped after lower-than-expected sales of their obesity drugs, causing a significant loss in market value. Amgen discussed their obesity drug Maritide and its competitive profile, while Servier received FDA approval for their brain cancer drug. Biotech M&A activity is increasing, with Danish drugmaker Pharmacosmos Group acquiring G1 Therapeutics for $405 million. Despite CDC guidance affecting RSV vaccine makers, companies like GSK, Pfizer, and Moderna remain optimistic about the market.The text discusses the increasing attention on mental health and depression, particularly in the context of high-profile athletes like Noah Lyles speaking out about their struggles. Depression affects millions of people in the U.S., with many taking antidepressant medication. The text also highlights two biotech companies, Autobahn Therapeutics and Arialys Therapeutics, working on novel treatments for depression and autoimmune diseases that impact the brain, respectively. Autobahn Therapeutics recently secured significant funding to advance their depression drug into mid-stage studies.Novo Nordisk's stock dropped over 7% as sales of its semaglutide brands fell short of analyst expectations due to supply headwinds. The company also lowered its full-year profit guidance. Meanwhile, Amgen reported strong growth in the second quarter, Servier received FDA approval for a targeted therapy, and the pharmaceutical industry is hedging campaign contribution bets as the election nears. Intellia Therapeutics is working on potentially curative genome editing treatments.As the election approaches, lobbying groups and individuals from the pharmaceutical industry are supporting candidates from both parties, focusing on the future of programs like the 340b discount program and pharmacy benefit managers. Merck's distribution issue of Support the Show.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Drug treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Humour in medicine Statistics Made Easy: Regression analysis Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Milind Desai, Rohin Francis Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1156   Disclaimer: ESC TV Today and ESC 365, the cardiology knowledge hub are supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. The scientific content and opinions expressed in this programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Rohin Francis, Antonio Greco, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report.  Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Terumo, Medtronic. Milind Desai has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultant and research agreements with Bristol Myers Squibb, Tenaya, Edgewise, Cytokinetics and VIZ AI. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research grants from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme.

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies   Lifetime management of aortic valve stenosis   Spirituality and cardiovascular health  Statistics Made Easy: Statistical Analyses using Chat GPT  Host: Perry Elliott Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Kavitha Chinnaiyan, Francesco Maisano Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1155   Disclaimer ESC TV Today and ESC 365, the cardiology knowledge hub are supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. The scientific content and opinions expressed in this programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Kavitha Chinnaiyan and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Tecnimede. Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report : Aleph, Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Guidotti, Innovheart, Meditrial, Menarini, Microport, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Terumo, Medtronic. Perry Elliott has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancies for Pfizer, BMS, Cytokinetics. Francesco Maisano has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report : Grant Institute, Edwards, Abbott, NVT, Medtronic, Jenavalve and Boston Scientifics. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research grants from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme.      

Solução Servier - Como melhorar a adesão do seu paciente by Cardiopapers

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Coronary artery calcium scoring Checklists in aviation and in medicine Mythbusters: Being married reduces cardiovascular mortality Host: Susanna Price Guests: Thomas Achenbach, Carlos Aguiar, Michael Blaha, Edward Nicol Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1154 Disclaimer ESC TV Today and ESC 365, the cardiology knowledge hub are supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. The scientific content and opinions expressed in this programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsor. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Thomas Achenbach, Michael Blaha, Edward Nicol, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Terumo, Medtronic. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research grants from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme. 

Send us a Text Message.A simple Tylenol order can require up to 62 clicks for approval in certain medical systems. Inefficiencies like this can extend far beyond inconvenience and even result in fatal outcomes.The Institute of Medicine reports that computerized prescriber order entry medication errors are the most common type of error in healthcare, contributing to approximately 7,000 deaths in the U.S. each year.With more patients and doctors relying on technology for accessing and delivering care, streamlined systems are more critical than ever before. Could AI offer a solution to this challenge?Join us on the latest episode of CareTalk Podcast: Healthcare. Unfiltered., where David E. Williams and guest Emmanuel Bilbault, CEO of POSOS, discuss AI's role in prescription fulfillment and their innovative system enhancing healthcare efficiency with voice ordering and personalized patient treatment recommendations.TOPICS1:15 What are the challenges of electronic prescribing?3:40 Disconnect between technology and doctors 5:37 How AI can drive progress in healthcare7:37 Are there problems with AI's use in healthcare?9:56 How AI support doctors11:51 How voice technology is improving care14:28 Understanding the partnership between Microsoft Nuance and POSOS17:35 Does AI need to change to match global needs?19:45 What are the issues with medical reconciliation and how AI can fix them21:30 What is the future of POSOS?

ESC TV Today brings you concise analysis from the world's leading experts, so you can stay on top of what's happening in your field quickly. This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Genetic testing in dilated cardiomyopathy Gut microbiome and heart disease Mythbusters: Sitting is the new smoking Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Arash Haghikia and Juan Pablo Kaski Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1153 Disclaimer This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee, Arash Haghikia, Juan Pablo Kaski and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Terumo, Medtronic. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: institutional research grants from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

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