Podcasts about y90

Is surgery truly the "cure" for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and when is it a viable option? In this episode, Dr. Sabeen Dhand leads a roundtable discussion with interventional radiologist Dr. Siddharth Padia and transplant/hepatobiliary surgeons Dr. John Seal and Dr. Gabriel Schnickel, delving into the complexities of surgical treatments for HCC and the evolving landscape of liver resection and transplantation. Physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants can follow this link to earn CME / CE credits for completing an accredited learning activity related to this discussion: https://www.cmeuniversity.com/course/take/125741 --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Boston Scientific. --- SYNPOSIS The doctors begin by discussing how they manage patient expectations regarding both palliative and curative treatments, highlighting the risk of recurrent HCC as a new lesion. They then outline key factors that influence their recommendations for liver transplant versus resection, such as the extent of underlying liver disease, the function of the future liver remnant, body habitus, overall health, and organ availability. The surgeons also review various surgical approaches to liver resection and recent advancements in liver transplantation, including living donor transplants and the ability to refer patients for downstaging procedures. Dr. Padia explains the original role of Y90 as a bridging treatment to downstage tumors and promote hypertrophy in the non-diseased liver segments, preparing the organ for surgical resection. However, Y90 treatment can also lead to the formation of adhesions, which may complicate future surgeries. Finally, the doctors discuss strategies to improve care coordination between community physicians and transplant centers to optimize patient outcomes. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Curative vs. Palliative Treatment 04:03 - Choosing Between Transplantation and Resection 05:47 - Liver Resection Types 07:27 - Bridging Role of Y90 12:14 - Evolving Landscape of Liver Transplantation 20:59 - Patient Counseling in Minimally Invasive Procedures 28:40 - Considerations for Surgery After Y90 33:32 - Coordination Between Specialists 40:08 - Immunotherapy as a Bridge to Transplant --- RESOURCES CME Accreditation Information: https://f7cae4ec-b69e-490d-9e0f-19b16a6f146d.usrfiles.com/ugd/f7cae4_a7c37ea3cd1b4d3fa53d5edf8dfe255b.pdf

The process of liver transplantation involves many complexities, and each patient's path to transplant is unique. To offer insider perspectives on this process, Dr. Zachary Berman sits down with transplant and hepatobiliary surgeon Dr. John Seal, as well as transplant hepatologists Dr. Heather Patton and Dr. Steve Young. Physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants can follow this link to earn CME / CE credits for completing an accredited learning activity related to this discussion: https://www.cmeuniversity.com/course/take/125740 --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Boston Scientific. --- SYNPOSIS The panel begins by discussing the multidisciplinary pre-transplant evaluation process, which assesses factors such as liver function, comorbidities, surgical risk, and the availability of psychosocial support. Once a patient is listed for transplant, they enter a system that prioritizes those with the highest Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. During the waiting period, several comorbidities should be carefully monitored. Dr. Seal explores the impact of portal vein hypertension and portal vein thrombosis, explaining how these conditions may necessitate intraoperative thrombectomy or bypass. Dr. Patton and Dr. Young focus on considerations for using anticoagulation in patients with a high baseline bleeding risk and selecting the appropriate anticoagulant for patients listed for transplant. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), eligibility for MELD exception points may depend on factors such as time spent on the waiting list, adherence to the Milan criteria, and the presence of extrahepatic complications of liver disease. The panel also discusses bridging therapies to transplant, including Y90 and TACE. In the peri-transplant phase, they highlight innovations such as living donor transplants, liver perfusion pumps, and the use of hepatitis C- and HIV-positive organs. Finally, the discussion turns to post-transplant considerations, including surgical complications, organ rejection, immunosuppression, predictors of HCC recurrence, and long-term surveillance. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction 01:16 - Current Landscape of Liver Transplantation 03:22 - Transplant Evaluation Process 09:48 - Timeline from Listing to Transplantion 11:16 - Treating Portal Vein Thrombosis and Hypertension 18:44 - MELD Exception Points 22:05 - Bridging Therapies 25:34 - Peri-Transplant Considerations 30:53 - Post-Transplant Period 37:39 - Repeat Transplantation --- RESOURCES Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers (Wiesner et al, 2003): https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2803%2950022-1/fulltext Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis- Milan Criteria (Mazzaferro et al, 1996): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8594428/ Validation of the prognostic power of the RETREAT score for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence using the UNOS database (Mehta et al, 2019): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6445634/ CME Accreditation Information: https://f7cae4ec-b69e-490d-9e0f-19b16a6f146d.usrfiles.com/ugd/f7cae4_a7c37ea3cd1b4d3fa53d5edf8dfe255b.pdf

For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who are not candidates for liver transplant or resection, lesion ablation can be a curative treatment. With multiple ablation options available and still under investigation, it can be challenging to navigate the differences between them. In this episode, Dr. Tyler Sandow hosts a discussion with interventional radiologists Dr. Kirema Garcia-Reyes, Dr. Sabeen Dhand, and Dr. Kevin Burns on the various ablation options for HCC and when to use each one. Physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants can follow this link to earn CME / CE credits for completing an accredited learning activity related to this discussion: https://www.cmeuniversity.com/course/take/125738" --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from: AstraZeneca https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-therapy-areas/oncology.html With additional support from: Boston Scientific https://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/medical-specialties/interventional-radiology/interventional-oncology.html --- SYNPOSIS The doctors first discuss Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage A patients, where lesion size and location are key factors in deciding between ablation and transarterial therapies. They then compare cryoablation and microwave ablation, highlighting that cryoablation offers better visualization and control of the ablation zone, while microwave ablation is more effective for treating larger lesions. Dr. Burns introduces histotripsy, a noninvasive treatment that uses ultrasound energy to mechanically ablate tumors. He shares his experiences as an early adopter of this technology and discusses how intraoperative cone beam CT can help treat lesions located near critical structures or those poorly visualized on ultrasound. Finally, Dr. Garcia-Reyes and Dr. Berman provide insights into patient selection, pre-procedural imaging, and technical tips for Y90. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction 02:04 - Ablation vs Y90 in BCLC A Patients 05:58 - Same-Day Y90 15:55 - Y90 for Large Tumors 17:51 - Ideal Cases for Cryoablation 19:38 - Explanation of Histotripsy 32:09 - Procedural Specifics for Histotripsy 38:21 - Technical Tips for Y90 --- RESOURCES Including the Hollow Viscera (Stomach or Bowel) within the Ice Ball during Cryoablation: A Review of Adverse Events (Abramyan et al, 2024): https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(24)00681-X/abstract

Of all the topics covered during interventional radiology training, dosimetry education is often delayed until after IRs enter clinical practice. In this episode, Drs. Tyler Sandow and Sabeen Dhand host a roundtable discussion with experts on the dosimetry fundamentals that all Y90 operators should understand. They are joined by interventional radiologists Drs. Zachary Berman, Kirema Garcia-Reyes, and Siddharth Padia, who provide their expert insights. Physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants can follow this link to earn CME / CE credits for completing an accredited learning activity related to this discussion: https://www.cmeuniversity.com/course/take/125736 --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from: AstraZeneca https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-therapy-areas/oncology.html With additional support from: Boston Scientific https://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/medical-specialties/interventional-radiology/interventional-oncology.html --- SYNPOSIS The group agrees that dosimetry is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Dosing strategies depend on factors such as tumor size, perfusion territory, underlying liver function, the choice between glass versus resin spheres, and treatment intent. These considerations are illustrated with real-life case examples. The doctors also explore voxel-based dosimetry, a method for calculating the amount of radiation absorbed by different parts of the tumor. They stress the importance of learning how to perform accurate dosage calculations. Finally, the conversation touches on data from major Y90 trials, current guidelines, and the evolving perspective on Y90 as a potential curative treatment, rather than merely a bridging therapy. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction 01:59 - Dosimetry Education During Training 05:46 - Benefit of Individualized Dosing 11:01 - Complications from High Doses 15:19 - Dosage Calculation Cases 22:51 - Duration of Response to Y90 25:00 - Dosing Based on Treatment Intent 29:11 - Challenging Case Example 42:31 - Voxel-Based Dosimetry 45:15 - Using Dosimetry Software --- RESOURCES LEGACY Trial (Salem et al, 2021): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8596669/ Voxel-based tumor dose correlates to complete pathologic necrosis after transarterial radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma (Pianka et al, 2024): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38913189/ RAPY90D Trial (Kappadath et al, 2023): https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/64/supplement_1/P268 Clinical, dosimetric, and reporting considerations for Y-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: updated 2022 recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group (Salem et al, 2023): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36114872/ International recommendations for personalised selective internal radiation therapy of primary and metastatic liver diseases with yttrium-90 resin microspheres (Levillain, 2021): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-020-05163-5)

Drs. Shaalan Beg and Rachna Shroff discuss key abstracts on GI cancers that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including SKYSCRAPER-08, EMERALD-1, and NEST-1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer, respectively. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice president of oncology at Science 37. Today, we'll be discussing key abstracts and other exciting highlights from the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. Joining me to discuss some key takeaways from the meeting is the chair of this year's Symposium, Dr. Rachna Shroff. Dr. Shroff is the division chief of Hematology Oncology and chief of GI Medical Oncology at the University of Arizona Cancer Center. She also serves as the associate dean for clinical and translational research at the University of Arizona College of Medicine – Tucson. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.  Dr. Shroff, welcome back to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, and congratulations on a great Symposium. The scientific advances and innovative, multidisciplinary approaches that were featured throughout the meeting were really inspiring and reflect the incredible strides we're making in GI cancer research. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much for having me back. I am delighted to be here.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Dr. Shroff, the theme of this year's symposium was "Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level." I'd love to hear your reflections on the sessions that you found most exciting and really resonated with the attendees.  Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yes, thank you. We were really excited about this theme because we really felt that “Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level” translated to thinking through personalized approaches to patient care, not just in the traditional ways that we think of with precision oncology and genomics driving our care, but also how we can think through multidisciplinary approaches and an individualized care plan. Thinking through how artificial intelligence and novel clinical trial designs can and should be implemented to meet the needs of our individual patients. And so we really highlighted that in what was a somewhat new reboot of a session called “Intersections,” which were every day and were really more cross-tumor; they were tumor agnostic but were thematic focused. As I mentioned, those themes were really based on feedback that we had from prior attendees, as well as from the program committee's feeling on what are really the questions that we are dealing with and that are burning in the clinic today and that includes the emerging role of artificial intelligence and machine learning and how we integrate that into our clinical care, approaches to oligometastatic disease, and it's not really just something that we think of in colorectal cancer but haven't fully used that paradigm to really apply it to other GI malignancies. And then the art and science of clinical trial design where, again, traditional randomized phase 3 trials might not be the best and most innovative and most expedient way of bringing novel therapeutics to our patients. And so, I thought that all of those sessions were really highlighting different important topics that we deal with day to day. Additionally, we had a really fantastic keynote lecture from Dr. Kimmie Ng of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She is a world-renowned expert in the early-onset colorectal cancer space, and the timing of her keynote was perfect with the new cancer statistics that came out literally days before GI ASCO that demonstrated this just dramatic rise in early onset GI malignancies as a whole, not just colorectal. And she spoke really in a comprehensive manner not just on clinical approaches, screening approaches, and how to find these patients at an earlier stage, but also kind of gave us a call to action, if you will, in terms of public health initiatives, as well as like I said, clinical care and really thinking outside of the box for how to reach these patients.  And then, of course, we always have what I think is one of my favorite aspects of the meeting, which are the networking opportunities that include the Trainee and Early Career Networking Luncheon, the Women's Networking Reception, and the Meet the Experts Luncheon where, especially as junior career investigators, you have an opportunity to meet what we think of as the “big names” in GI cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely, I remember my first couple of GI ASCO meetings and those were probably the most memorable sessions that I attended as junior faculty as well.   So let's take a deeper dive into some key abstracts from the meeting. I'd like to begin with Abstract 245. This is the SKYSCRAPER-08 study. It's first-line tiragolumab and atezolizumab with chemotherapy in an Asian patient population with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. What are your key takeaways from this study?  Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah. This was an exciting study in my opinion in the sense that thinking through how we can build on immunotherapy backbones is obviously a pressing question across the GI cancer space. So this was a phase 3 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that looked specifically at patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. And the study was enrolled fully with an Asian population. It looked at taking the traditional chemotherapy backbone and adding to it an anti-PD-L1 with atezolizumab and an anti-TIGIT with tiragolumab. Again, that proof of principle of using anti-TIGIT and PD-L1 has been looked at across a lot of different GI cancer spaces and we know that the esophageal squamous cell cancers tend to be very immunotherapy responsive. So this was a really important question.  This involved a number of patients, a little over 460 patients, who were randomized one-to-one to receive the tiragolumab with atezolizumab with the standard paclitaxel and cisplatin, that's used for esophageal squamous versus chemotherapy alone with placebo. And the primary endpoint was independent review of progression-free survival, and overall survival. And so, out of the 461 patients randomized, there was at the primary analysis, a median improvement in progression free survival, from 5.4 months in the control arm to 6.2 months with a tira-paclitaxel plus chemo arm with a hazard ratio of 0.56, highly statistically significant. Similarly the median overall survival was also improved from 11.1 months to 15.7 months again with a hazard ratio of 0.7 and some of the other key efficacy endpoints were also improved with the addition of the anti-TIGIT PD-L1 approach. And importantly, there was not really safety signals that jumped out at us.  And so, to me, what this means is that, in our patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, we really should be thinking about chemotherapy with immunotherapy as a backbone and how we can build on it. And, you know, I would imagine that it's hard to argue with both the PFS and OS endpoint that adding anti-TIGIT won't necessarily be kind of the new approach to these patients. And importantly, I'll point out that it seems to be a benefit across the subgroups, including PD-1 status, which is always our big question here. I think the only thing to keep in mind is this was an all-Asian population and whether or not that kind of immune profile of the immune responsiveness is different in those patients, but regardless, a positive phase 3 trial. Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's really exciting to see immune checkpoint inhibitors or immunotherapy beyond PD-1 targeted, CTLA-4 targeted treatments making their way into GI Cancers.  Dr. Rachna Shroff: Absolutely. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Sticking with the immunotherapy theme, let's focus on hepatocellular carcinoma. So LBA432, the EMERALD-1 study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durva with or without bevacizumab looked at people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for embolization. So really a highly anticipated study, I'm wondering what your thoughts are and whether it'll be practice-changing for this field.  Dr. Rachna Shroff: I was excited to see the press release when it showed that the study was positive, and I think it's because now that we're using immunotherapy in the advanced HCC space, our obvious question is, can we integrate it into multimodality approaches? There are a lot of smaller studies looking at neoadjuvant IO approaches, and in this intermediate stage, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. We wanted to know if there was a utility to liver directed therapy with immunotherapy.  So, this was a large study. It was a global study looking at unresectable HCC with preserved Child-Pugh function. But it was Child-Pugh A and up to B7, importantly. And there were 616 patients randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion, with the control arm being just TACE alone. But then, there was also an opportunity for durvalumab with TACE, as well as durvalumab plus bevacizumab with TACE. The patients would receive durvalumab during their TACE treatments and could receive up to four TACE treatments and then subsequently were either continued on durvalumab alone, durvalumab plus bevacizumab, or the placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, powered specifically to look at TACE versus durvalumab plus TACE. In this study, the primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in PFS. Median PFS was 15 months versus 8.2 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.77. Most prespecified subgroups demonstrated this benefit.  Importantly, there was a secondary endpoint looking at durvalumab plus TACE versus TACE alone, and that actually did not show a statistically significant improvement in median PFS from 8.2 months in the control arm to 10.0 months. The overall response rates were slightly higher with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab approach at 43.6%. And importantly in these patients, who oftentimes have a higher burden of disease in the liver, median time to progression is a really important and clinically meaningful endpoint. That was 22 months with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab and TACE versus 10 months for TACE alone. I would just point out that the overall concern we always have with bevacizumab is the increased risk of bleeding and the treatment-related adverse event profile. Overall, there were no safety signals that emerged from this, with nothing that really, especially in that bleeding risk category, jumped out at us. Of course, we haven't seen the overall survival data yet because we have not seen enough follow-up to really see that number.  I do think that this is potentially practice-changing, and I think it just demonstrates that there's probably some synergy between anti-VEGF with anti-PD-1, and then the liver-directed treatments. The obvious question for us in the United States is that the vast majority of people are moving away from TACE and towards more radioembolization and what can we extrapolate from this? Does this really tell us much if people are using more of a Y90-based approach? I think those are a lot of the burning questions that most of us have.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and it's a very interesting direction that the HCC space is taking because we heard in previous meetings, the role of PD-1 inhibition as adjuvant therapy after resection. Now, we have data for local-regionally advanced disease over local-regional treatments. And of course, you already mentioned the data for more advanced disease. So it sounds like immunotherapy may be impacting the management of anyone diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma.  Let's talk about the MONET trial, Abstract 249, which compared thoracoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. Do you think this is a study which may influence the treatment of patients with thoracic esophageal cancer? Dr. Rachna Shroff: So, this was, again, I think, a really important question. It was a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial comparing a more minimally invasive approach with TE — thoracoscopic esophagectomy — versus an open approach. This had patients with clinical stage 1-3, excluding T4 thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. They were randomized 1:1 to the open versus the TE approach, with a primary endpoint of overall survival and an important secondary endpoint of relapse-free survival. 300 patients were randomized, and at the second planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was a little over two and a half years. The 3-year overall survival was 82% in the TE group versus 70.9% in the open group. The DSMC of this trial actually recommended early termination based on the non-inferiority, which is what they were specifically looking at. There was a very statistically significant one-sided p-value for non-inferiority.  Importantly, the 3-year recurrence-free survival was also markedly better in the TE group versus the open group, with no real notable differences in R0 resection, or a large percentage of patients who needed to be converted from a TE to an open approach, and really not any significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity. I think this just supports the concept that minimally invasive approaches for our patients with GI malignancies can and should be considered. Again, esophageal squamous because they tend to be seen a lot more in Asia, this study was conducted in Japan, but I think that being said, a lot of our surgeons in Europe and in the U.S. are also very amenable to minimally invasive approaches. And I think this just supports the fact that an open approach is not necessary. So, I would think again, that this is something that is implementable and I think will affect the field.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving on to metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, there have been many FGFR inhibitors that have shown activity and promise and are approved for the management of cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR alteration. But at this ASCO GI, we heard the results of the safety and efficacy of an FGFR1, 2, and 3 inhibitor, tinengotinib, as monotherapy for advanced metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (Abstract 434). How do you see this fitting into the broad picture? Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah, so this was highly anticipated data, primarily because at this point, the FGFR space in cholangiocarcinoma is quite crowded. And so a lot of us were getting sick of the "me-too" drugs. What is really unique about tinengotinib is that, not only is it a selective multikinase inhibitor, but it also, in preclinical models as well as in early phase one trials, demonstrated potent inhibition of patients with FGFR2 fusions and rearrangements who had acquired resistance mutations. So, as we better understand the first generation of FGFR inhibitors and note the resistance mechanisms, these drugs are now being developed to try to circumvent or overcome those.  This study looked at 4 different cohorts: 1 cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had primary progression who never responded to FGFR inhibitors, a second cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had progression after primary response, so those with acquired resistance, and then there was non-fusion FGFR alterations because we do know that a number of cholangiocarcinoma patients have other FGFR alterations that are not fusions, and then those with FGFR wild-type. The primary endpoint was objective response rate, with a total of 48 patients enrolled across the four cohorts. And so the 40 patients who were evaluable in the group that had primary resistance, which was the first cohort, there was a response rate was 9.1% and that was partial response, and 31% had tumor reduction with tinengotinib. And similarly in those with acquired resistance, 37.5%, 3 out of 8 patients had a partial response and tumor reductions were noted with an overall disease control rate between those patients with FGFR2 fusions of 94.7%, between those with primary and secondary resistance.  In the patients who had FGFR alterations, there was 3 out of 9 patients with a partial response and again, tumor reductions were notable across the board and the disease control rate was 88.9%. The FGFR wild-type group, not surprisingly, did not see any partial responses, but interestingly, 75% of these patients had at least disease control, and the median progression-free survival was 5.26 months, again, kind of most notably impressive in the 2 cohorts that included FGFR2 fusions. The toxicity profiles are what we come to expect for FGFR inhibitors and we've gotten better at managing those and mitigating some of those so there was really nothing to jump out there. So there is now an ongoing randomized phase III trial specifically looking at tinengotinib versus physician's choice in patients with FGFR2-altered cholangiocarcinoma after having received prior FGFR inhibitors. So that's where I think it's in is for those of us who know that there are multiple drugs in the space, our big question is can we sequence through that? Can we offer multiple FGFR inhibitors in these patients? And I think we are all eagerly anticipating this data as well as the subsequent data to really justify the use of these novel second generation FGFR inhibitors.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's been fantastic to see the evolution of these compounds in precision medicine, or precision oncology at its finest, in terms of understanding mechanisms of resistance and treating refractory disease.   Let's focus on colorectal cancer. I'll tell you, there has been a lot of discussion, Dr. Shroff, on social media, on insurance companies sometimes rejecting one biologic or the other based on tumor sidedness. We have talked about tumor sidedness predicting response on this podcast based on data from previous studies. But this year in GI ASCO, Abstract 207 explored the role of tumor genomics and tumor sidedness and they said that it's tumor genomics, that tumor genomics better explains the differences on outcomes, and it explains it better than sidedness. What does this mean to the field? Because a lot of professional organizations have guidelines that are asking people to now incorporate sidedness. So how does that change based on these results? Dr. Rachna Shroff: I really commend these authors on leveraging real-world data, and I think we're getting better and better at recognizing that real world data actually informs our clinical decision making, possibly better than sometimes some of these studies that lead to the guidelines and algorithms that we develop. So this is a perfect example of a little bit cart before horse in trying to understand the way that sidedness and genomics may interplay.   So this was a study that basically leveraged both the Foundation Medicine and Flatiron Health clinical genomic database and looked at patients with microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer. There were a total of 3,845 patients included in a kind of two-thirds one-third split between left sided and right-sided colorectal cancer. And they found the typical genomic alterations that historically have been thought of more with left-sided colorectal cancer like APC and then more of the RAS BRAF alterations in the right-sided patients. But I think what they really thought and what I think was remarkable is they really looked at the patients and how they received chemotherapy with anti-EGFR or bevacizumab therapies, and they did a multivariate analysis to really see what is driving outcomes. And like you mentioned, what they found was patients in the RAS pathway, those classified as having alterations in the RAS pathway, had less favorable outcomes, while those with APC altered group had more favorable outcomes. And that was regardless of treatment received and sidedness.  And so when they did an analysis of what was called a “likelihood ratio test,” they found that when genomics was added to the sidedness evaluation, there was an improvement in outcome prediction, but not when sidedness was added to genomics. Like you said, it kind of demonstrates, at least in this mining of real-world data from Flatiron that tumor genomics is probably a better driver and a more important driver in determining outcomes than sidedness.  I totally agree with you. I would push for us to really kind of bring a little bit of noise to this and to make insurance companies and other companies that are looking at this to think through this a little bit more and make sure that we're putting all of the data together in a comprehensive passion before making the treatment plans and determinations. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The last abstract I'd like to ask you about is Abstract 117, the NEST-1 trial. This study looked at neoadjuvant botensilimab and balstilimab for resectable mismatch repair proficient and deficient colorectal cancer, both MSS and MSI. What are your key takeaways from this study?  Dr. Rachna Shroff: This is another study that is demonstrating that there may potentially be a role for immunotherapy in microsatellite stable patients. I will make the caveat that this was a single-arm study that really was looking at feasibility safety, with efficacy as a secondary endpoint. The combination of bot-bal in the neoadjuvant space for colorectal cancer patients, they received one dose of boten and two fixed doses of bal two weeks apart and then were taken to surgery. They limited the number of patients and out of the 12 patients that were enrolled, they limited the number of mismatch repair deficient patients. So to your point, they allowed both, but they wanted to make sure it was not just MSI-high patients. What they basically found is that it was safe and did not delay surgery or increase risks of adverse events. But importantly, there was significant regression of tumor noted. And some interesting spatial biology analyses demonstrated potentially novel mechanisms of action, especially in the MSS population, and that ctDNA reductions correlated with pathologic response. There were a lot of different things that they were looking at, basically suggesting that bot-bal is safe and can be used in both mismatch repair–deficient and proficient patients with colorectal cancer. And now importantly, they've added some additional cohorts and expanding the study. As I mentioned, this is right now just 12 patients, but does definitely have a provocative result.  Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thanks so much, Dr. Shroff.  Finally, the role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in GI cancers has been an exciting and important development in our field. There's tremendous data that emerged at the GI meeting, and we have decided to do a separate ASCO Daily News Podcast dedicated to ctDNA. So listeners, please look out for our coverage of key studies on ctDNA in GI cancers very soon here on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Many thanks, Dr. Shroff, for sharing your insights with us today and for your great work in building a robust GI meeting this year. Thank you very much. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Our guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. These statements do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an endorsement by ASCO.   Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Shaalan Beg @ShaalanBeg Dr. Rachna Shroff @rachnatshroff   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Employment: Science 37 Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals   Dr. Rachna Shroff: Consulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis, Merck, QED Therapeutics, Incyte, Astra Zeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, SERVIER, Genentech, Basilea Research Funding: Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Immunovaccine, Seagen, Novocure, Nucana, Loxo/Lilly, Faeth Therapeutics

This recording features audio versions of December 2023 Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) abstracts:Sclerotherapy of Venous Malformations Using Polidocanol: Effectiveness, Safety, and Predictors of Outcomes and Adverse Events ReadComparison of the Safety of Transjugular and Percutaneous Liver Biopsies ReadEffect of Previous Transarterial Chemoembolization on Survival and Toxicity after Yttrium-90 Transarterial Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Radiation-Emitting SIR-Spheres in Nonresectable Liver Tumor Registry ReadHepatic Hypertrophy in Normal and Cirrhotic Livers Following Portal Vein Embolization: Comparative Assessment of 2 Different Embolic Regimens in a Large Animal Model ReadGenicular Artery Embolization for Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Interim Analysis of a Prospective Pilot Trial Including Effect on Serum Osteoarthritis-Associated Biomarkers ReadQuantifying Change in Perfusion after Genicular Artery Embolization with Parametric Analysis of Intraprocedural Digital Subtraction Angiograms Read JVIR and SIR thank all those who helped record this episode:Host:Rommell Noche, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, ConnecticutAudio editor:Manbir Sandhu, University of California Riverside School of MedicineAbstract readers:Melissa Millett, St. George's University, GrenadaAlena Khalil, MA, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, FloridaChristopher Loiselle, MS, Lincoln Memorial University-DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine, TennesseeJonathan Dzielski, Kansas City University, MissouriAndrew Brandser, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, ConnecticutTaji Kommineni, MD, JD, LLM, American University of Antigua©  Society of Interventional RadiologySupport the show

Current imaging options to assess the responses of liver cancer patients to treatment suffer from blurry resolution, making it hard to develop radiotherapy plans. Eye90 Microspheres, developed by ABK Biomedical, enables superior CT-based dosimetry , allowing for more more accurate dose estimates for treatment planning. This work was awarded the Best Paper of the Year in the journal EJNMMI, and is being further assess in the Route90  Study.Read the original research:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-022-00447-1

In this crossover episode between BackTable VI and BackTable Innovation, Dr. Chris Beck interviews Dr. Riad Salem (Chief of Interventional Radiology at Northwestern University) and Peter Pattison (President of Interventional Oncology at Boston Scientific) about how TheraSpheres for Y90 radioembolization became a mainstay in the IR toolkit for HCC and where the technology is heading next. --- CHECK OUT OUR SPONSOR Reflow Medical https://www.reflowmedical.com/ --- EARN CME Reflect on how this Podcast applies to your day-to-day and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CMEs: https://earnc.me/PvWJlD --- SHOW NOTES To begin, Peter outlines how the original concept of TheraSpheres began at the University of Missouri, as a collaboration between Drs. Delbert Day and Gary Ehrhardt, who combined their ceramic and nuclear chemistry expertises to create radioactive glass beads and published a paper in 1987. After animal and human testing, the product was licensed to the company Nordion, where Peter worked. The product was given a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) from the FDA, which allowed TheraSpheres to be used for investigational purposes. In the late 1990s, Dr. Salem was in his early interventional oncology career and heard about TheraSpheres. He recognized the enormous potential that this technology had to ensure known amounts of radioactive doses were delivered to the tumor and minimize adverse effects. In fact, he noticed that his Y90 patients had less pain, post-embolization syndrome, and hospitalization than his transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) patients. In the mid 2000s, he collected and submitted data to various conferences and journals, but he was met with criticism from the IR world, which was more comfortable with TACE, since it was the current standard of care. In 2011, Nordion decided to run a clinical trial, EPOCH, which eventually showed that the addition of TARE to systemic therapy for colorectal metastases to the liver led to longer progression free survival. Dr. Riad has focused his efforts on training more IRs on the methodology of Y90, since this was an important step to increasing adoption and minimizing missteps with the new technology. He believes that the advent of Y90 has resulted in better angiography, since IRs are more cognizant of off-target embolization. Dr. Salem also petitioned at the US Nuclear Regulatory Committee to allow IRs to become the authorized users for Y90 injection and advocated to add TARE to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for liver cancer. Both of these developments allowed TARE to become more widely adopted. Finally, Peter discusses the competition that TheraSpheres has faced from TACE and SIRSpheres (resin-based radioembolization). He shares exciting new developments that have occurred since acquisition by Boston Scientific. These include exploration for the extra-hepatic use of TheraSpheres in glioblastoma and prostate cancer. --- RESOURCES BackTable Ep. 223- Portal Vein Recan #ReCanDoIt with Dr. Riad Salem: https://www.backtable.com/shows/vi/podcasts/223/portal-vein-recan-recandoit Therapeutic Use of 90Y Microspheres: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3667306/ A phase I dose escalation trial of yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1327493/ Hepatic radioembolization with yttrium-90 containing glass microspheres: preliminary results and clinical follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7931662/ Humanitarian Device Exemption: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/humanitarian-device-exemption EPOCH Trial: https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.21.01839 Radioembolization with 90Yttrium Microspheres: A State-of-the-Art Brachytherapy Treatment for Primary and Secondary Liver Malignancies: https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(07)60901-4/fulltext

In this crossover episode between BackTable VI and BackTable Innovation, Dr. Chris Beck interviews Dr. Riad Salem (Chief of Interventional Radiology at Northwestern University) and Peter Pattison (President of Interventional Oncology at Boston Scientific) about how TheraSpheres for Y90 radioembolization became a mainstay in the IR toolkit for HCC and where the technology is heading next. --- EARN CME Reflect on how this Podcast applies to your day-to-day and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CMEs: https://earnc.me/PvWJlD --- SHOW NOTES To begin, Peter outlines how the original concept of TheraSpheres began at the University of Missouri, as a collaboration between Drs. Delbert Day and Gary Ehrhardt, who combined their ceramic and nuclear chemistry expertises to create radioactive glass beads and published a paper in 1987. After animal and human testing, the product was licensed to the company Nordion, where Peter worked. The product was given a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) from the FDA, which allowed TheraSpheres to be used for investigational purposes. In the late 1990s, Dr. Salem was in his early interventional oncology career and heard about TheraSpheres. He recognized the enormous potential that this technology had to ensure known amounts of radioactive doses were delivered to the tumor and minimize adverse effects. In fact, he noticed that his Y90 patients had less pain, post-embolization syndrome, and hospitalization than his transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) patients. In the mid 2000s, he collected and submitted data to various conferences and journals, but he was met with criticism from the IR world, which was more comfortable with TACE, since it was the current standard of care. In 2011, Nordion decided to run a clinical trial, EPOCH, which eventually showed that the addition of TARE to systemic therapy for colorectal metastases to the liver led to longer progression free survival. Dr. Riad has focused his efforts on training more IRs on the methodology of Y90, since this was an important step to increasing adoption and minimizing missteps with the new technology. He believes that the advent of Y90 has resulted in better angiography, since IRs are more cognizant of off-target embolization. Dr. Salem also petitioned at the US Nuclear Regulatory Committee to allow IRs to become the authorized users for Y90 injection and advocated to add TARE to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for liver cancer. Both of these developments allowed TARE to become more widely adopted. Both of our guests highlight the importance of focusing on patient outcomes and letting long term data prove efficacy. Finally, Peter discusses the competition that TheraSpheres has faced from TACE and SIRSpheres (resin-based radioembolization). He shares exciting new developments that have occurred since acquisition by Boston Scientific. These include exploration for the extra-hepatic use of TheraSpheres in glioblastoma and prostate cancer. --- RESOURCES BackTable Ep. 223- Portal Vein Recan #ReCanDoIt with Dr. Riad Salem: https://www.backtable.com/shows/vi/podcasts/223/portal-vein-recan-recandoit Therapeutic Use of 90Y Microspheres: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3667306/ A phase I dose escalation trial of yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1327493/ Hepatic radioembolization with yttrium-90 containing glass microspheres: preliminary results and clinical follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7931662/ Humanitarian Device Exemption: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/humanitarian-device-exemption EPOCH Trial: https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.21.01839 Radioembolization with 90Yttrium Microspheres: A State-of-the-Art Brachytherapy Treatment for Primary and Secondary Liver Malignancies: https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(07)60901-4/fulltext

An interview with Dr. Van Morris from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX and Dr. Cathy Eng from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, TN, co-chairs on "Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline." Dr. Morris and Dr. Eng review the evidence-based recommendations from the guideline, focusing on areas of uncertainty in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, and highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network; a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at: asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Van Morris, from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr. Cathy Eng from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee - co-chairs on, 'Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, ASCO Guideline.' Thank you for being here, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Eng. Dr. Cathy Eng: Thank you. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: First. I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full Conflict of Interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Morris, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to the guideline topic? Dr. Van Morris: Not personally, but I do have research support to my institution from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb who have products that I'll be discussing on this podcast. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Morris. And Dr. Eng, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Cathy Eng: Also, not personally associated with any honorarium specific to this topic. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you both. So then, let's talk about the content of this guideline. So first, Dr. Morris, can you provide an overview of the scope of this guideline? Dr. Van Morris: Sure. So colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. And especially in the time of the recent COVID-19 pandemic with people less likely to go for screening colonoscopies, there's great concern that more and more patients will be presenting at the time of their initial diagnosis with later-stage, more advanced colorectal cancer. So with that said, research is moving very quickly for the benefit of patients with colorectal cancer, and we were interested in assembling a multidisciplinary team that consisted of medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists as well, to help us make guidelines that really summarize the most relevant up-to-date practices, based on rigorous literature review for treatment recommendations for advanced metastatic colorectal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then as you just mentioned, this guideline provides recommendations, and a lot of those focus on areas of uncertainty in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. And I'd like to review those key recommendations that you mentioned for our listeners. So, Dr. Eng, starting with - for patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, who are candidates for chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, is doublet or triplet cytotoxic chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Cathy Eng: For treatment-naive patients, bevacizumab has been approved, and we do agree that it's a very reasonable treatment option with doublet or triplet therapy for our patient population. Obviously, these are guidelines, and it's extremely important to keep in mind that as a provider, you need to discuss the potential side effects with the patient. With bevacizumab, you know, standard concerns must be discussed with the patient, especially in regards to wound healing, if they've had recent surgery or any potential risk factors for a recent cardiac event from a recent thrombosis. So, those things obviously, would preclude the patient from initiating treatment with bevacizumab. But currently, doublet therapy or triplet therapy could be a potential option for patients. Brittany Harvey: Great. And yes, as you mentioned, shared decision-making is paramount to these decisions. So then following that recommendation, Dr. Morris, which patients should be offered pembrolizumab in the first-line setting? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, I think that this represents really one of the exciting advances in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer over the past several years. We have great data now that suggests for patients with microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer, especially who have not had any prior treatment, we would recommend use of immune checkpoint blockade therapies, really coming from the seminal KEYNOTE-177 trial. This was a phase III international trial that looked at patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. And patients were either randomized to pembrolizumab monotherapy, or cytotoxic chemotherapy with FOLFOX, with or without bevacizumab. And this trial did meet its primary endpoint and showed an improvement in progression-free survival, with use of pembrolizumab as a single agent relative to cytotoxic chemotherapy. And based on this trial and the clear benefit that we see in patients with pembrolizumab, the FDA has approved this as an option for patients with MSI-high untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. There are other trials which have looked at use of immunotherapy; the CheckMate 142 trial looked at combination PD-1 CTLA-4 therapy as a single-arm study. And, you know, there's another trial, the CheckMate 8HW, which is looking at one versus two immunotherapy agents in this setting as well. But really, as it stands for now, patients with MSI-high untreated metastatic colorectal cancer are the ones who benefit from the use of immunotherapy. One of the questions that we often get in talking with other clinical oncologists is the FDA approval for pembrolizumab in any cancer type for a TMB, tumor mutation burden, greater than 10. And, we talked about this with our panel in this context, and we don't see that patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer, who have a tumor mutation burden over 10 benefit from use of immunotherapy. There is one exception to this for patients who harbor pathogenic POLE or POLD1 mutations, these patients oftentimes do experience sustained clinical benefit with immunotherapy. But in general, patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer, who don't have POLE/POLD1 mutations, we don't favor use of immunotherapy in that context at this point in time. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing that recommendation and the data behind who benefits and who doesn't benefit from immunotherapy in this setting. So then following that, the next question that this guideline addressed is for treatment-naive RAS-wild type metastatic colorectal cancer. So, for these patients, Dr. Eng, is anti-EGFR therapy recommended for patients with right or left sided primary tumors? Dr. Cathy Eng: That is such an important question, and thank you for asking this. We know based upon pivotal data from CALGB/SWOG 80405, that right-sided tumors treatment-naive, even if they're RAS-wild type, these patients should not receive anti-EGFR therapy. But also, we've learned from 80405, FIRE-3, and PEAK, which was a phase two study, that there appeared to be some benefit versus anti-VEGF therapy for left-sided tumors based upon studies that have been conducted. So, at this year's ASCO, actually, the PARADIGM trial was specifically a phase III trial, more focused on left-sided tumors. It was amended twice before it decided to focus on the left-sided patient population. And it was a phase III study where patients were randomized to FOLFOX plus panitumumab versus FOLFOX and bevacizumab. And the primary endpoint was overall survival. And we added this data to our guidelines. This data just came out, hot off the presses in June, at this year's ASCO. And the primary endpoint was fulfilled. And basically, it prospectively demonstrated that the data from the other three trials, based upon a pooled analysis, suggested left-sided tumors fare better with anti-EGFR therapy. And in fact, the PARADIGM trial basically validated those findings. Obviously, the PARADIGM trial just recently presented, we have not seen the final publication, we do not know much about the maintenance setting, but specifically, when thinking about anti-EGFR therapy, it is very reasonable to consider it in a left-sided tumor, all RAS-wild type patient population. I would like to mention though, and we do highlight this also in the guidelines, which is critically important, is that there was another study, which is a phase III trial called, TRIPLETE, that was presented as well, looking at FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab versus basically, standard treatment. And what it noted is that there is no additional benefit for FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab in left-sided tumors in regards to response or progression-free survival, there was no additional benefit. So, FOLFOX plus panitumumab seems very reasonable, FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab is not necessarily needed in left-sided tumors. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that explanation, and also for the work of the panel to rapidly include this new information recently presented at ASCO. So then following those recommendations, Dr. Morris, what recommendation did the panel make for patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, this recommendation was made essentially based on one randomized phase III clinical trial, which reported out about three years ago now, the BEACON trial. This is looking at patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, which we know accounts for probably eight to 10% of all patients with advanced colorectal cancer, and when found, really harbors a poor prognosis relative to BRAF-wild type counterparts. So, the BEACON trial was a trial that looked at patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer, who have BRAF mutations, either kind of standard of care cytotoxic chemotherapy, or a BRAF/EGFR combination with encorafenib and cetuximab or alternatively, a BRAF/EGFR/MEK combination. That trial showed that improvement in survival outcomes with a BRAF/EGFR-targeted approach, as well as the BRAF/MEK/EGFR. However, because there was no difference in survival with the addition of the MEK inhibitor, the FDA subsequently approved encorafenib and cetuximab as the recommended treatment for patients with BRAF V600E previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Because the MEK combination with binimetinib was not recommended by the FDA, you know, we did not include that analysis in our guidelines for ASCO. But as it stands right now, we do strongly encourage all clinicians to check for their BRAF V600E mutation status in their patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with the goal of getting them to a targeted therapy approach over their treatment course. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for providing that information. So, following that, Dr. Eng, what are the recommendations for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases? Dr. Cathy Eng: The current recommendations for colorectal cancer with peritoneal disease, really, there's no strong evidence to support the role of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We now know based upon the literature from one of the largest studies to date, the PRODIGE data, demonstrating that there may be some potential benefit from cytoreductive surgery for the patients in regards to overall survival. But these patients are at high risk for bowel obstruction, potentially for perforation, and obviously, quality of life is an issue. So, these patients should always be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board whenever possible, and hopefully, to meet with a surgeon that is more experienced, specifically, in treating peritoneal disease, because these patients do require a lot of multidisciplinary care and discussion. So currently, based upon the existing data, we don't recommend heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, but there may be a role for cytoreductive surgery. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Eng for going over those recommendations. So then following that, Dr. Morris, for patients with unresectable liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, which liver-directed therapies are recommended? Dr. Van Morris: So, this is I think a really good question and one that just like the prior question with regards to peritoneal surgery, is one that we felt was a challenging one, but a common one that we wanted to address. And specifically, I think this is an example of where level of evidence comes into the strength of recommendation. So, for patients with unresectable liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, we looked at the questions of, "What is the role of SBRT - stereotactic body radiotherapy, and what is the role of SIRT, which is selective internal radiotherapy?" And for both of these, we felt that the level of evidence was weak, and I think that it's very important to make note of that in assessing the recommendations. But to start with, for SBRT, we looked at one meta-analysis for patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer, and also analyzed 18 non-randomized control trials in this setting. Most of the patients in these studies had one to five liver metastases, with the majority having one or two liver metastases. From the meta-analysis, we saw kind of a one-year local control rate of around 67%, a two-year control rate of 59%. So, based on those and recognizing the limitations of non-randomized trials and making recommendations, the panel did feel that it was reasonable to consider use of SBRT for oligometastatic colorectal cancer. The SABR-COMET trial is one that had looked at the role of radiotherapy for treatment of oligometastatic colorectal cancer, and I just want to make the point as well, that we did not include that in our analysis or recommendations at this point in time, because this really didn't include a lot of patients with colorectal cancer that we felt warranted inclusion. Now, with regards to SIRT, we looked at kind of one meta-analysis and three randomized control trials for patients with mostly liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer. All patients had liver disease, but there were about 40% of the patients we looked at in the meta-analysis, had extra hepatic disease as well. In the frontline setting, there really was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival with the use of SIRT. And more recently, we've seen in a second-line trial, it was called the EPOCH trial, reported several years ago, this looked at patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer in the second-line setting. Patients were randomized to either chemotherapy with, or without transarterial radioembolization with Y90. While there was an improvement in overall response rate, there was no meaningful improvement in overall survival with the use of SIRT. But there were significant increases in grade 3 or grade 4 toxicities when SIRT was added to chemotherapy. So, kind of given this, we didn't feel at this point in time that SIRT should be recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Although, again, I do want to highlight that really these discussions should be happening at high-volume centers, kind of with a multidisciplinary group of clinicians. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And thank you for highlighting that multidisciplinary collaboration. And the last section of recommendations, Dr. Eng, what is recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and potentially-curable oligometastatic liver metastases? Dr. Cathy Eng: So, another controversial topic. And once again, this is why we decided to include this as part of the guidelines, because this is a common scenario where patients are potentially curable, following liver resection for oligometastatic disease. We cannot highlight enough the importance of multidisciplinary discussion. Prior data has not been strong regarding specific guidelines following liver resection. We do recommend that based upon the existing data, there is no level one evidence to say, you should go one way or another following metastatic resection, and whether or not adjuvant therapy is warranted in that setting. But we do recommend multidisciplinary management and engagement and discussion. So, although it's not definitive, it basically suggests that there is a role for resection. It does provide improved five year survival relative to systemic chemotherapy, if the patient is potentially resectable, but does require multidisciplinary discussion. And it is a shared decision-making process. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you. And I appreciate you highlighting the importance of shared decision-making throughout this guideline. So then, Dr. Morris, what is the importance of this guideline in your opinion, and how will it impact clinical practice? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, I think that we understand that management of metastatic colorectal cancer is extremely complex given the various molecular annotations and the multimodality therapies which are possible for our patients. So, we tried to limit the guidelines here to include what we feel are the most recent updates, but also kind of the most clinically-relevant multidisciplinary questions that get asked for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We also recognize that things are changing quickly. And for example, we didn't decide to include at this point in time, management of HER2 neu amplified metastatic colorectal cancer, although we are seeing more and more data coming out, suggesting targeted therapies. So, I think it's important for clinicians to realize that these are guidelines which are ever-changing, given the updates with new therapies available for our patients. And the other thing I think that's very good about these guidelines is that, even though we may be making recommendations about controversial topics in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer - specifically, I think the use of HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery, locally-directed therapies to the liver, and the role of perioperative chemotherapy and metastasectomy - I think it's important for oncologists to realize that these recommendations come with varying strengths of level of evidence and that we as oncologists should be considering the level of evidence that's out there when making recommendations that affect our patients as well. So, we really wanted to support these guidelines and recommendations and empower clinicians to know and understand the quality of evidence that exists in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. And yes, those are key points on the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations throughout the guideline. And then finally, Dr. Eng, you've talked a bit about shared decision-making and the importance of this guideline for patients. So, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? Dr. Cathy Eng: The reason that we created these guidelines is to help patients, their caregivers, and providers, learn of the most recent developments in colorectal cancer, and the best approach based upon the information that we have personally reviewed with our multidisciplinary team of faculty members that participated in this exercise. We really just want to make sure that patients do get optimal care. And we hope that these guidelines also will help provide a foundation for some of the clinical trials that may be under development, or for other clinical trials that are being considered. So, we really just want to provide the most up-to-date information to all individuals that are interested in colorectal cancer so we can help guide their care better. Brittany Harvey: So, I want to thank you both so much for your work on these guidelines, and all of the time it's spent developing these recommendations, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Eng. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to: www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this episode, host Dr. Ally Baheti interviews Dr. Jayson Brower about building a Y90 service line in his outpatient based lab (OBL). --- CHECK OUT OUR SPONSOR Boston Scientific Nextlab https://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/nextlab.html?utm_source=oth_site&utm_medium=native&utm_campaign=pi-at-us-nextlab-hci&utm_content=n-backtable-n-backtable_site_nextlab_1&cid=n10008040 --- SHOW NOTES First, Dr. Brower describes the IR/DR makeup of his practice and partnerships with surrounding hospitals. Inland Imaging's collaboration with the Providence healthcare system was formed to provide quality outpatient imaging and avoid duplication and competition of services. Over time, they added interventional services, including interventional oncology procedures, to their joint venture. The decision to move Y90 from the hospital to the outpatient setting was spurred by the need in the community, availability of more modern imaging equipment, and patient convenience. In 2019, it was not very common to perform Y90 in an OBL. Dr. Brower outlines the steps he took to move these services, starting with building consensus within the group. Next, he explained the benefits of the OBL to the hospital administration, which include freeing up time in the hospital for true emergencies and providing care for patients who prefer the OBL setting. Then, the group proactively reached out to payers and secured written agreements that they would provide coverage. After securing these agreements, they drafted pro formas, searched for adequate sites, and contacted vendors. Since each state has different regulations for “hot labs” that use radioactive materials, Dr. Brower recommends working with your radiation safety officer to help walk you through the regulations. His OBL has a “mini hot lab” that allows him to draw up the Sirtex dose that he prescribes. Nuclear medicine technicians assist in transporting the radioactive material. Patients have pre-Y90 SPECT mapping close by, at another center.

Hoy en RCN Digital hablamos de el anuncio de Elon Musk sobre los modelos Tesla autónomos que estarían disponibles a final de año, nace en Colombia un videojuego para niños y niñas con síndrome de asperger, además Huawei nova Y90 llega a Colombia, les contamos todas las características, buena música y mucho más!!

Jason Randall is a stage 4 colorectal cancer warrior and family man from Eudora, Kansas. He has become a fierce patient advocate and source of inspiration and knowledge for other patients and their families.  He is a leader in https://colontown.org/ (COLONTOWN), an online community for people with CRC. He is also a leader and administrator in the Man Up to Cancer community. On this episode, Jason shares some amazing stories from his cancer journey, and also shares 5 tips to make chemo suck less.  Jason has been through a lot of chemotherapy over the past few years. He has also endured six surgeries, Y90 radiotherapies, fistulas, a perforated bowel, biopsies, chemical burns, and the loss of more than 100 pounds. In short, he is a cancer badass.  The tagline for Man Up to Cancer is “Open Heart Warrior Spirit.” Jason lives and breathes that approach to cancer and life.

Every few months, we collect some of our favorite tunes and throw them together for a wonderful little recap we like to call REPLAY. We used to do replays on our shows, but people told us they didn’t get it, so we figured it’d be better to do it this way. Our BEST OF shows are stupid popular, so the best way for us to promote indie artists is to do these periodic collections, so that’s what we’re doing here. So there. First off, INDIECON! Moving along nicely, still time to enter at www.indieoriginalslive.com. Second, did you know our host Chuck Fresh is the voice of Sirius XM radio? You knew I sounded familiar, didn’t you… whatever.Third, there was some sad news in the IOL community last month. As Fast As I Can by Cigarettes and Roses 28Jenny Pagliaro — Massachusetts native, Santa Monica yoga instructor, lead singer of Roses & Cigarettes — -- succumbed to metastatic breast cancer at just 35 years old. Angela Petrilli recalls auditioning for a cover band Jenny fronted. “It was like I knew her my whole life. She’d always be the first person I’d hear from every day. Every. Single. Day. Always checking in, sending each other funny pictures, song ideas, shared plans back and forth on how we were gonna become rock stars…” Jenny beat back cancer in 2015, after Roses and Cigarrets released their self-titled debut album, but in 2016 she was diagnosed as Stage 4. When she returned to performing, one of her yoga students was surprised to find his teacher rocking onstage. She was an inspiration to a lot of people. Last January, Pagliaro had to stop teaching, and pretty much everything else, as she struggled with fatigue and prayed a last-ditch Y90 treatment would be “a light in a very dark tunnel.” Their last EP, “Echoes and Silence” was released in February, which accompanied the “Fast As I Can” video with Jenny’s comment that the song was “about not letting the biggest challenge you’ve ever faced stop you from living your dreams.” Here’s one out to Jenny, and any other people who are living with cancer, or who have lost someone to cancer. Here’s Cigarettes and Roses with AS FAST AS I CAN on IOL.Whisper In The Mist by Alto Key 21Alto Key is a British indie folk artist, led by singer-songwriter Keyan Barton. Barton actually got a scholarship when he went to university. He bought all the essentials for his degree and accommodations. But rather than saving the leftover money (like someone with common sense), he blew the rest on this keyboard. And thank goodness he did. Barton works with other musicians around the world to record and collaborate. Their emphasis on the beauty of real instruments makes for a warm acoustic sound. Check out this gorgeous track called Whisper In The Mist by Alto Key on IOL.Warning Signs by Chasing Shadows 22Chasing Shadows grew up in a town that has seen better days. Their journey started in August 2014 at the Kings Head in Rhuddlan, North Wales, and since then, Sam, Ben, Russ & Chris have been producing powerful harmonic songs that’ll stick in your ears for hours to come. Their new EP, Darker Days, sees the band return to their rockier roots. ‘Warning Signs’ was released first, with the track receiving placement on indie stations all over the world. Here’s Warning Signs by Chasing Shadows on Indie Originals Live. Facedown by 14 North (22)14 North is a Rock band from Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Their sound is a hard-rocking take on 90's grunge with influences from Nirvana and Alice in Chains to Foo Fighters and Puddle of Mudd. And these guys CRUSH it! Check out Facedown by 14 North on IOL.Is It Love by December Fades (22)December Fades is Los Angeles singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist Kevin Rogers. He has created a beautiful soundscape of heartfelt lyrics and catchy harmonic colorations. Kevin’s voice has been compared to “a soulful Sting,” and even Chris Martin of Coldplay. One listen and you’ll be a December Fades fan too. Here’s Is It Love on IOL.Go by Kid Nebraska (25)Kid Nebraska formed in the fall of 2017 when Josh Kidney messaged Travis Muzney, and Travis jumped at the chance to start a band and brought along Jon Packard on bass. Josh called his longtime friend and guitar mentor Todd Laird. Once the four-piece was established, the band started practicing and booking. Their first single “Go” was released on August 14 2018, and the rest, as they say, will be history. This is an awesome song! Here’s GO by Kid Nebraska on IOL.Balance by Ripley (27)Formed in 2015 RIPLEY in the UK, a three piece alternate rock band, is former classical guitarist Colin Elsworth’s attempt to come to terms with a neurological injury that left him unable to continue to pursue a career as a solo performer. The result is a powerful, anthemic and emotional sound rooted in the tradition of classic rock, compositionally fused with a life-long love of Hollywood film scores, delivered with absolute conviction. The band’s debut EP, Balance and its title track has HIT written all over it! Ripley is currently working on their first full-length album due for release next year. Until then, to hold you over, is BALANCE by RIPLEY on IOL!Cold heart by rebecca jane (27)22 year old Rebecca Jayne from the UK released her debut single ‘I Want More’ in July 2016. The single made it into the Top 100 iTunes Country Charts. Rebecca has spent time in Nashville playing at The Bluebird Cafe and Tootsies. She has been capturing audiences with her captivating voice and intricate guitar skills.Kassidy Lynne - Diamond (27)Kassidy Lynne is a Country singer/songwriter from Seattle. She wanted to be Hannah Montana when she was 9, so she began singing and acting. Acting didn’t work out but singing sure did. Kassidy recorded her first EP in Nashville on her 14th birthday. Kassidy also competed in the Miss Washington Teen USA Pageant and Miss International Junior Miss where she received 1st runner up in 2016. Here’s beauty queen Kassidy Lynne with Diamond on IOL. Jacob melton -- 90 proof smooth (27)Jacob Melton is a singer/songwriter from moonshine country in Tennessee. His great grandfather still plays bluegrass music at age 89 and in his younger days, he played bass in rock bands. From 2009 to 2016 Jacob was lead vocals and rhythm guitarist in the band "Burning Years" and wrote a majority of their original music. Now, he’s writing and performing solo, and this is exactly where the good lord meant him to be. You’ll hear why. In what might be the song of the summer this year, check out 90 PROOF SMOOTH by Jacob Melton on IOL.Goran -- call it quits (28)Under a Nashville Sky marks the return of Goran, lead singer and songwriter of Milwaukee’s “The Gufs.” What started out as songs meant to be pitched to the country market, became a Goran solo project! Check out the ever-hopeful Call It Quits on IOL.A bad called sad - mambo number 6 (28)SAD is an upbeat alternative rock band from New York City with -- brace yourself and put your thinking cap on - ready? “An undercurrent of sadness that tries to capture a nostalgia for things that never really happened.” Yeah. Marlon Marcy, C-Bunz, Taylor Crawford, Logan S--O-S, Jules AVALON, and Matthew Serianni are a band called SAD, and here’s Mambo Number 6 on Indie Originals Live.Explode by animal sun (28)Animal Sun takes on some classic genres, and gives them a fresh, youthful spin all their own. Formed in 2015 and lead by two brothers; vocalist and Songwriter Steven Alton and Drummer/Vocalist William Alton, Animal Sun have devastated Virginia with their talent. THe name Animal Sun was in dedication to the Alton's childhood friend James Sun, who's life was tragically cut short in 2011. Their debut single “Explode” will be featured on Animal Sun's first album, now in production. And we can’t wait! Here’s Explode on IOL.(yes, these are actually the show notes ;-)

Transarterial-chemoembolization (TACE) has been a palliative treatment or bridging treatment for liver cancer, whether primary or metastatic. TACE is a combination of local delivery of chemotherapy and a procedure to block of the blood supply to the tumor and trap the chemotherapy in the tumor. Here to discuss the latest advances in trans-arterial chemoembolization of liver tumors (TACE) & radioembolization of liver tumors (Y90) is Dr Ahmed M. Kamel, he is the Chief, Interventional Radiology Co-Medical Director, Heart and Vascular Center at UAB Medicine.

In our first podcast on pressure directed therapy, Dr. Charles Nutting and Dr. Nainesh Parikh discuss some of the first principles of Y90 radioembolization delivery, and the potential advantages of pressure directed devices over end-hole catheters in the treatment of HCC.

In this long term retrospective study of radiation synovectomy with Yttrium-90 (Y90), we evaluated the results of 164 applications in 82 patients with RA, OA with synovitis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Radiation synovectomy with Y90 has an overall success rate of approximately 50% and is therefore an effective alternative to surgical synovectomy in chronic synovitis which fails to respond to conservative treatment. Elbow and knee responded significantly better than shoulder and ankle joints. Patients with radiological stages from 0 to 2 showed a significantly better success rate than those with stage 3 changes. In responders, repeat therapy for recurrence of symptoms or treatment of a symptomatic corresponding symmetrical joint is advisable. Repeat therapy in a previous non-responder is associated with an unacceptably high failure rate. Therefore, when a joint fails to respond after 6 months, arthroscopy should be performed to evaluate further treatment procedures. A successful result was found in only 11 of 25 joints treated with arthroscopic synovectomy followed by radiation synovectomy within 2 weeks, indicating no benefit of this combination.