ASCO Podcasts

•

Channel • 7 Shows

Medicine

Medicine

Twice monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Updated 19 Feb
Medicine

Medicine

Every two months

28/08/2024

JCO PO Article Insights: Publication Trends in JCO Precision Oncology

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Miki Horiguchi summarizes an editorial: "Expanding the Reach of Personalized Medicine in Cancer Care: Current Progress and Future Directions of JCO Precision Oncology" by Dr. Yushu Shi et al. published on May 30, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host Miki Horiguchi, an ASCO Journals Editorial Fellow. Today, I will be providing a summary of the article titled "Expanding the Reach of Personalized Medicine in Cancer Care: Current Progress and Future Directions of JCO Precision Oncology". This is an editorial by Dr. Yushu Shi and colleagues that investigated trends in publication, peer review, and global influence of JCO precision oncology. Before getting into the editorial, I would like to briefly introduce to precision oncology and the JCO Precision Oncology journal as a leading platform for research in this field. Precision oncology is a personalized medicine approach that leverages advances in genomics and molecular profiling of tumors, biomarker-driven decisions, and targeted therapies to enhance clinical care for patients with various cancer types. Since there are many aspects to consider, such as biologic, clinical, and statistical aspects, advances in precision oncology also come with numerous challenges. These include identifying targetable mutations and addressing tumor heterogeneity and drug resistance. Other challenges are developing new study designs and statistical analysis methods to evaluate new approaches, as well as developing methods to manage large and complex datasets. Since the American Society of Clinical Oncology introduced the journal JCO Precision Oncology (or JCO PO) in 2016, it has played an important role as a dedicated platform for publishing high-quality research and promoting discussions on those challenges. JCO PO is a peer-reviewed, online-only, article-based journal publishing articles across multiple categories. These include original reports, case reports, review articles, commentaries, correspondence, editorials, special articles, and molecular tumor board case discussions. The journal's contribution to the advancement of the field is reflected in the journals' impact factor, which was 4.6 in 2022 and 5.3 in 2023. In the editorial, Dr. Shi and colleagues first investigated the publication trends from 2017 to 2022, highlighting cancer types, article types, the number of citations, and topics of papers published in JCO PO that have had broad impact. The papers accepted at JCO PO covered a broad range of research topics, including genomics-driven tumor treatments, molecularly selected targeted therapy, translational oncology, cancer biomarkers, gene expression and profiling, biostatistics and clinical trial methodology, epidemiology, and cancer prevention and control. The most common cancer types are thoracic, GI, and breast cancers. Original reports were more likely to be cited than case reports. The average number of annual citations for original reports was 4.33, while it was 1.39 for case reports. The authors listed the 10 most cited papers published in JCO PO in a table. The most cited paper was an original report titled "Landscape of Microsatellite Instability Across 39 Cancer Types" by Bonneville and colleagues. The paper has been cited more than 600 times since it was published in 2017. Next, the authors conducted an analysis to see trends in peer-review. When manuscripts are submitted to JCO PO, they go through a rigorous peer-review process. Reviewers evaluate them based on five key metrics: importance of the study, originality, quality of writing, relevance to clinical practice, and scientific strength. Each metric is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating better performance. Dr. Shi and colleagues compared the rating scores between accepted and rejected manuscripts of original reports and case reports. They found that the median score of accepted manuscripts was above 3.5 for all metrics. The findings highlight that no single metric determines acceptance, underscoring the importance of excelling in all five areas when developing manuscripts. Finally, the authors looked at trends in global influence in JCO PO. Counting the country where the corresponding author's institution is located, Dr. Shi and colleagues found that JCO PO has accepted manuscripts from 36 countries, indicating a steady increase in its global reach. The United States accounts for about 71% of the total contributors. The other top contributors include France, Canada, Italy, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and China. Notably, global collaborations among authors have significantly increased, with the proportion of papers from multiple countries more than doubling from 12.5% in 2016 to 26.5% in 2022. These facts reflect JCO PO's ongoing commitment to engaging with the international precision oncology community and encouraging global research submissions. At the end of the editorial, the authors provided some guidance for future authors. Across original reports and case reports, successful submissions to JCO PO typically have a translational focus. They provided a mechanistic understanding of tumor biology and utilized cancer genomics to inform clinical decision making. The authors also highlighted several underrepresented but growing areas of interest at JCO PO. These include pediatric oncology, sarcomas, ethics, trial methodology, informatics, computational approaches, and statistical methods related to precision oncology. Furthermore, the increasing significance of germline genetics, pharmacogenetics, molecular diagnostics, and molecular epidemiology in precision oncology has been recognized and valued by JCO PO. JCO PO also has special series issues. The special series feature timely research topics, such as Equity in Precision Medicine, Statistical Methods for Precision Oncology, and Next Generation Sequencing. Through these special series, JCO PO continues to lead the advancement of the application of precision oncology across a diverse patient population. The authors also provided points to consider when submitting case reports. For successful case report submissions, especially n-of-1 reports that showcase novel findings with potential clinical impact, it is crucial to include robust data to support the clinical observations, investigate underlying mechanisms, and ensure proper protection of patients' identity and autonomy. An n-of-1 report alone is often insufficient for publication. Successful case reports typically extend beyond a single patient, examining the phenomenon in multiple patients and providing mechanistic validation, either in vitro or through preclinical models. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights and please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.

28/08/2024

•

11 min
11/04/2024

Commonly Held Beliefs About Cancer Survivorship

Dr. Shannon Westin and her guests, Dr. Emily S. Tonorezos and Dr. Michael Halpern, discuss their article, "Myths and Presumptions About Cancer Survivorship" recently published in the JCO. TRANSCRIPT The guests on this podcast episode have no disclosures to declare. Shannon Westin:Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we go in depth on manuscripts published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Social Media Editor of the JCO, Shannon Westin, and also a GYN Oncologist by trade. I'm thrilled to bring a topic that is very close to my heart. We're going to be talking about a Comments and Controversies article published in the JCO on November 16, 2023, entitled "Myths and Presumptions about Cancer Survivorship." I know you all will find this topic as enthralling as I have, and the authors do not have any conflicts of interest. I'm joined by two of the authors on this important work. The first is Dr. Michael Halpern, he's the Medical Officer in the Health Assessment Research Branch of the Health Care Delivery Research Program. Welcome, Dr. Halpern. Dr. Michael Halpern: Thank you for having us on. Shannon Westin: We're also accompanied by Dr. Emily Tonorezos, the Director of the Office of Cancer Survivorship, and both of them work in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Welcome. Dr. Emily Tonorezos: Thank you for having us. Shannon Westin: So, let's get right into it. I want to level set first. I would love for one or both of you to speak a little bit about the state of cancer survivorship currently. What's the prevalence of cancer survivors here in the US? Globally? What do we expect as time passes? Dr. Emily Tonorezos: Thank you for starting with this question. In the Office of Cancer Survivorship, we use a definition of cancer survivor that we got from the advocacy community many years ago. We use a definition that says "a person is a cancer survivor from the time of diagnosis through the balance of life." That means in the United States, we estimate that we have a little over 18 million cancer survivors, and globally, it's a little more difficult to estimate those numbers. Not every country has a cancer registry to count the number of cases, but we think there are upwards of 53 million cancer survivors diagnosed within the last five years in the world. Shannon Westin: Wow. And so this is why it's so important, such a large number, and that's just an estimate. And we know this is only going to be growing. I personally learned so much from your manuscript, which is critically based on the understanding that our beliefs as practitioners truly impact the way we care for our cancer survivors. I admit, I definitely held or hold some of these beliefs, and I'm certainly grateful that you're providing that objective evidence to support or refute these claims. So, with that being said, let's tackle the first one that you all approached: Shared care results in the best outcomes for cancer survivors. I think first I'd love to hear about what your definition of shared care is. What does that really mean in the context of cancer survivorship? Dr. Michael Halpern: Shared care is a deliberate process to coordinate and integrate components of survivorship care between specialty, in this case, oncology providers, and primary care providers. And part of the issues with this belief about shared care being the best have to do with the broad practice experience of survivorship care. While the ideal definition is this integrated and coordinated care, shared care can range from one extreme to being essentially oncologist-led care - where the oncologist also sends information to the primary care providers; and to the other extreme - care led by primary care providers and an oncologist is available to answer questions as needed. So part of the issue with the available literature is that there is a tremendous range in terms of the definition of shared care that's being used in studies. Shannon Westin: So, understanding those limitations, obviously, based on what you just said, what have we seen in some of the studies that have been exploring shared care and what it might mean for cancer survivors? Dr. Michael Halpern: So there have been some wonderful studies and some very well-done research in shared care. The majority of it indicates essentially no benefits, not any worse, but definitely not any better than other survivorship care models among multiple domains, quality of life, patient preference, clinical outcomes, in some cases, costs. So there isn't at this point a rationale for believing that shared care leads to better outcomes than does other types of models of care. And that's not to say that we don't think that shared care is a valuable model, that it's potentially very useful and beneficial for certain groups of cancer survivors. It's just that at this point, we don't have evidence to say who it is going to have optimal outcomes for compared to other kinds of survivorship care models. Shannon Westin: And that makes sense. I mean, I think we're seeing this over and over again in all aspects of cancer care that one broad stroke or one broad plan isn't right for everybody, whether that's therapeutic or surgical or prevention, so it makes sense to me that that's what we're seeing here in survivorship as well. So I see this manuscript as a call to action about what are we missing, what data do we need to generate to really be able to move this care forward. So that makes total sense to me. And I guess in line with that, another belief, and I've heard this all the time from my patients, too, is this idea that primary care providers feel unable to provide survivorship care. They're not comfortable. "Oh, you have a diagnosis of cancer. You have to be seen there at the cancer center." What does our evidence demonstrate here? Dr. Emily Tonorezos: This is another belief that was found to be a presumption. So that means that this is a belief that we think was true, but which convincing evidence does not confirm or disprove. So what the available evidence tells us is that primary care providers do have challenges in taking care of cancer survivors, particularly with regards to certain cancer-related care needs. But at the same time, we found lots of evidence that primary care providers are more than willing and able to take care of cancer survivors. They express confidence in their skills. They think that they are capable of taking care of cancer survivors. And especially for survivors of more common cancers, primary care providers, in general, express a lot of confidence in their ability to take care of those patients. What they might lack could be things along the lines of survivorship-specific knowledge. So that is a gap that we identified. But this idea that primary care feels unable to take care of survivors really was not supported by the evidence. Shannon Westin: I mean, and that makes sense, right? If we're seeing more and more cancer survivors, primary care is going to adapt to that. We adapt to the things we see commonly in our clinics, and that goes across all specialties. So that certainly makes sense. I guess you've already kind of said this, and I'll just highlight it for the listeners. You know, clear guidelines seem to be a clear, nice option to potentially improve this situation. So let's discuss this next myth that you all identified, that oncology providers are hesitant to transition survivors to primary care. Now, I understand this one because I definitely, we get this a lot, and I'm a center medical director in GYN, and we've definitely tried to put patients that are free of disease out back in the community to be able to free up space for other patients. And we definitely get pushback because seeing patients that are in this state of being free of disease and they're living their life, it's inspiring. We remember why it is we're doing the things we do. What did the data show us about this myth? And are we creating barriers to this transition to survivorship care outside of the oncology centers? Dr. Emily Tonorezos: Exactly. So this belief is a myth. We found evidence that this belief is not true, and it seems to be one of those things that feels true, that oncologists want to take care of cancer survivors, that it contributes to the joy of medicine. But that evidence really does not suggest that that's the case. In fact, the opposite is true in the evidence. We found when we looked at the available research Oncologists want to take care of people who are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment. That is really what they think their role is. That's what they feel they're contributing. And so, even though there is a pleasure in seeing a person who has finished treatment, most oncologists say that the amount of time that they spend taking care of people who are done with treatment is appropriate - meaning they're not looking to expand their panel of post-treatment patients. They really want to take care of people who need treatment currently and then perhaps have a little bit mixed in of people who are done with treatment or who are in that survivorship phase. We found a lot of evidence, also hard evidence, that oncologists are, in fact, transitioning survivors to primary care. There is a lot of evidence that people who have been diagnosed with cancer are being seen in primary care and that that proportion increases over time. So if oncologists were really creating these insurmountable barriers to transition to primary care, we would not be seeing so many survivors in the primary care setting. But the fact is they're there, and they are being moved there by their providers. Shannon Westin: I love hard evidence. I do have a few patients that have said, "Can I just come see you every once in a while?" And I love seeing them,

11/04/2024

•

18 min
17/06/2022

How to Confront Climate Change: A Framework for Change in the Operating Room and Hospital as a Whole. A Conversation with Dr. Anaeze Offodile and Dr. Elizabeth Yates.

Dr. Shannon Westin discusses the topic of climate change in the operating room with Dr. Anaeze Offodile and Dr. Elizabeth Yates. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hey everybody! Welcome back to JCO After Hours, a podcast where we get a little bit more intense, a little bit more specific about articles that are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. My name is Shannon Westin, and it is my honor to serve as the social media editor for the JCO. I'm an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and a gynecologic oncologist. Today, we are going to be discussing a really exciting paper which was published in the March online JCO. It's a Comments and Controversies piece called, "Prescriptions for Mitigating Climate Change-Related Externalities in Cancer Care: A Surgeon's Perspective." I have several guests with me today, none of whom have any conflict of interest. The first is Dr. Anaeze Offodile, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery, as well as in the Department of Health Services Research at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center. He also serves as the Executive Director of Clinical Transformation at MD Anderson. He is the senior author on the paper, so he will have a lot to offer here. But we're also accompanied by Dr. Elizabeth Yates, who has the title of clinical fellow in surgery at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, but tells me she's a rising PGY 4 resident, which makes it even more impressive that she is already published on the role of the surgeon in climate change. And so, we're so honored to have her with us today to share her perspectives as well. Welcome both of you. Thank you for being here. Dr. Anaeze Offodile: Happy to be here. Dr. Elizabeth Yates: Thanks so much for having us. Dr. Shannon Westin: So, I'm definitely someone that has been interested in climate change for some time, and living in the state of Texas, does what I can to rally the political climate here. But I was really intrigued because I never really thought of it in terms of what we do in the operating room. So, I'd love for each of you to give just a little bit of background on your careers and how you kind of got involved with this idea of climate change and environmental sustainability here in the operating room and in medical care? Do you want to start, Anaeze? Dr. Anaeze Offodile: Liz can start first. Dr. Elizabeth Yates: Absolutely! So, I actually came at it from an interesting perspective, I have always been interested in issues of resource distribution and disparities. And when I was in medical school, I started to think about these issues pretty deeply, especially because my younger brother was at the University of Michigan at the same time as I was, studying Environmental Science for his undergraduate and kept nagging in my ear about this problem of climate change and why I wasn't thinking about it as a doctor. And with my kind of ongoing interest in disparities, I came to realize and become compassionate about the role that climate change will play in driving the existing disparities that we see both nationally and globally. And I realized that nobody was really talking about it yet, at least in the surgical field. It had started to permeate some of the medicine and subspecialties, but really, there wasn't a conversation in our world yet. It became all the more relevant to me because I did see this dual relationship where not only do the downstream factors of climate change, like heat waves and major storms, impact our patients' access to care and their outcomes, but on the flip side, we contribute to climate change, because the delivery of surgical care, particularly in high-income countries, is so energy intensive and so wasteful. And so, I felt like if any clinician has a role in this space to really lead and change the narrative, it would be us as surgeons. Dr. Anaeze Offodile: It's really interesting to listen to Liz's journey to this issue, which affects all of us. I came at it from the micro level, bottom-up level. So, when I was a fellow about four years ago, under the mentorship of Nancy Perrier, we launched and have since scaled, I don't know if you're aware of this, Shannon, so the 'Know Your Costs' program. For the audience, this is a project at MD Anderson where we really try to minimize cost variability and waste in the operating room by providing a feedback tool to surgeons that sort of made them more conscious about the spending directly attributable to disposable supplies, implants, devices in the OR. One direct outcome of the project that we found was that actually narrowing the variability in these disposable instruments, supplies implants surely had no impact on the outcome, but also got sort of the cost structure of what we do in the OR down. So, that's the value-based care proposition. And in doing this work as I dug more into literature, I learned as we so highlighted in the article, my co-authors and I, that actually the perioperative environment is a major driver of waste in the hospital setting. I think that recognition certainly led to this work, which we're very glad that JCO looked upon favorably to champion. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I love 'Know Your Cost'. My fellows make fun of me, because I always take the electrosurgery devices, they're the cheapest. And they're like, 'Oh, you're using the Costco version!'. And I'm like, 'You know what? We're reducing costs. So, just hold it a little bit longer there, and you're gonna be fine.' So, I was really struck by one of the first sentences out of the gate in your commentary that the healthcare industry accounts for roughly 8.5% of total GHG emissions in the United States, the most in the world in per-capita and absolute terms, I mean, to me, that was so eye-opening within the first few sentences. What are some of the other major takeaways that you hope that readers of the JCO get from this piece? Anaeze, I think we can start with you and then I'd be interested to hear your perspectives as well, Liz? Dr. Anaeze Offodile: So, I will say, a couple of high-level, and I can touch on the sort of specific prescription that we put forward, but I think the big takeaway is, one, is healthcare has a certain moral imperative to keep our contributions to sort of environmental sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, to control that, there's a moral imperative to this work, right? One, climate change effects are differential. So, the vulnerable populations, like Liz said, tend to suffer the worst. So, when you think about communities and countries in the global south, they bear the brunt of this, not industrialized nations. And number two, our activity directly maps to greenhouse gas emissions. And as surgeons, the relationship is much more direct. So, carbon-intensive procedures like the robot, the perioperative environment, and the supplies, the waste, and the supply chain that sort of feeds into that. So, those are the things high-level that I want to call out. And many ways this paper is intended to start a conversation that will be ongoing amongst the community, the academy, and I'll say in both surgical and medical respect: to what extent do we take ownership of this problem and contribute to the meaningful solutions of the problems? And I can certainly talk about some of the recommendations we put forward, but I think that's the key takeaway. Dr. Elizabeth Yates: Yeah, as not an author, but a reader of this paper. I really thought it summarized the high-level ideas, and really did serve as a conversation starter in the best way. What I really liked, and I try to strive for in my own work at our hospital, and we implement sustainability initiatives, was the perspective that you took coming from more of a cost-saving perspective initially, because I think people have a misconception if they do ever think about sustainability and care delivery, that somehow quality has to be compromised for sustainability - to go green, you have to do less - and that's not necessarily true. And you really highlighted a lot of opportunities in the four domains you emphasize in this paper about how you can change the way your system works, or the choices you make, for the devices you use or the energy supply, without actually compromising outcomes for patients, that we can maintain a high level of quality that makes them smarter choices for our systems to also be more sustainable. And then a lot of the time there are cost savings. It could be a triple win but we just need to put more time and effort into the surgical world thinking about these issues. Dr. Anaeze Offodile: Liz, thank you so much. What we tried to articulate was, there is no trade-off between planetary health and value-based care and high-quality care. I think those two are actually synergistic, and certainly mutually reinforcing. So, that's the one thing we tried to do. I'm glad it came out to push forward. Dr. Shannon Westin: I was joking about our bipolar use and such, but that's really what I'm trying to teach our fellows is that you can do the right work with an instrument that doesn't cost as much. And in this case, the robot is perfect. I was reading that as a robotic surgeon who also does laparoscopy and I thought, 'Gosh! When I'm making these decisions, this is such a trickle-down effect.' And so, I really do think that I'm interested in strategies to offset those things. Because sometimes, for us in gynecologic oncology, the robot is a superior tool as far as visualization and also surgeon back pain and such. But you really have to understand that trade-off or what else you're impacting. So, I guess, what can we do with the framework of this piece in mind, what can the clinical care providers really do across the country to meaningfully address climate change and improve overall healthcare sustainability?

17/06/2022

•

28 min
12/07/2023

Cancer Cachexia Rapid Recommendation Update

Dr. Charles Loprinzi shares the latest update to the management of cancer cachexia guideline. Dr. Loprinzi discusses the evidence that prompted the rapid update to the guideline and reviews the new evidence-based recommendations, including the addition of low-dose olanzapine as a treatment option for patients with advanced cancer to improve weight gain and appetite. Dr. Loprinzi reviews the limitations of the update, and outstanding research questions in the domain of cancer-associated cachexia. Read the latest update, "Cancer Cachexia: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update" at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.01280 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Charles Loprinzi from Mayo Clinic, Co-Chair on "Cancer Cachexia: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Loprinzi. Dr. Charles Loprinzi: It's a pleasure to participate. Brittany Harvey: Then, just before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Loprinzi who has joined us here today, are available in line with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. Then, to get into the content of this rapid recommendation update, first, Dr. Loprinzi, what prompted this rapid update to the ASCO management of cancer cachexia guideline, which was previously published in 2020? Dr. Charles Loprinzi: The impetus for the updated guideline was a recent JCO publication regarding the results of a randomized controlled trial looking at olanzapine. This prompted the expert panel to revisit this topic. The trial, conducted in India, involved 124 patients with stomach, hepatopancreatobiliary, or lung cancers as they initiated chemotherapy. Weight gain greater than 5% occurred in 60% of patients in the olanzapine arm versus 9% of the patients in the placebo arm with a p-value of 0.001 or less. Substantially improved appetite was seen in 43% versus 13%, with placebo also a p-value of less than 0.001. Grade 3 or greater chemotherapy toxicity was less common with olanzapine 12% versus 37%, with placebo with a p-value of 0.002. No substantial olanzapine-associated toxicity was apparent. There was one evidence of this with olanzapine versus two for placebo. So that was the reason for going ahead with this update. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that background information. So then, based on this updated study on olanzapine, what are the updated recommendations from the expert panel for treating cancer cachexia? Dr. Charles Loprinzi: So, let me start to address this question by reviewing what the 2020 ASCO guidelines published said regarding the management of cancer cachexia in adults with advanced cancer. It concluded that evidence was insufficient to strongly endorse any pharmacologic agent for established anorexia/cachexia. Nonetheless, the guideline recommendation supported that clinicians could offer a short-term trial of a progesterone analog such as megestrol acetate or a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone to patients experiencing weight loss and/or appetite stimulation. These drugs stimulated appetite and caused weight gain, but they did not improve quality of life, they did not improve survival, and there was toxicity associated with these agents and therefore it was not strongly recommended. The expert panel thoroughly discussed a potential role for olanzapine because of a couple of trials suggesting it was beneficial but concluded that the evidence was insufficient for a recommendation. Now, there was evidence from two randomized trials that supported olanzapine was an effective alternative for treating cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia. Thus, olanzapine was considered promising, but the data were not conclusive enough to support a guideline treatment recommendation. The new JCO publication was the impetus for making this guideline change. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then, based off this new change to the recommendations, what is the breadth of these recommendations and what do these options mean for patients with advanced cancer? Dr. Charles Loprinzi: The updated guidelines recommended that for adults with advanced cancer, clinicians could offer low-dose olanzapine once daily to improve appetite and cause weight gain. It was noted that the majority of the evidence for this recommendation came from patients with lung or GI cancers, and the largest study enrolled patients who were receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy concurrently. Having said this, there's evidence from the other two randomized trials noted above that olanzapine is helpful in patients with a wide variety of cancers and regardless of whether patients were receiving concomitant chemotherapy. Of note, extensive data support that olanzapine leads to significant appetite stimulation and weight gain in patients without cancer who were taking olanzapine for psychiatric reasons. This was known from a long time ago in patients in that situation, who don't necessarily want to gain weight, would gain 10-20-30-40 pounds, get prediabetes, and get diabetic sort of troubles. The guideline update continues to support that clinicians may offer a short-term trial of a progesterone analog or a corticosteroid to those experiencing weight loss and/or appetite when there's a good reason for not using olanzapine. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing those two updated recommendations from the guideline panel. So then you've talked about this a little bit already in describing the study details, but what is exciting about olanzapine in this setting and what should clinicians know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Charles Loprinzi: It's exciting that olanzapine is now the best-studied established treatment available for patients suffering from cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia in different oncologic situations, for prevention and/or for treatment of cancer-associated or cancer treatment-associated nausea and/or vomiting, and for treatment of cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia. Varying daily doses of olanzapine have been used, ranging from 2.5 to 10 milligrams per day. Data support that it is quite appropriate to use the 2.5-milligram per day dose for the initial treatment of cancer-associated appetite and/or weight loss. For patients who do not appear to benefit and have no apparent olanzapine toxicity, it seems reasonable to me to try a higher dose. Another thing to note is that olanzapine is a generic drug which is relatively inexpensive. While this drug has been noted to cause sedation, such sedation is usually short-lived despite drug continuation. Brittany Harvey: So then, it's great to hear that recent data have caused an update to these guidelines. But in your perspective, Dr. Loprinzi, what are the most pressing outstanding questions regarding the management of cancer cachexia? Dr. Charles Loprinzi: My goodness, you're putting pressure on me. I've been involved with a large number of cancer anorexia/cachexia trials for the better part of four decades, which did not support as strong an ASCO guideline recommendation as we now have with olanzapine. Noting that I was involved with one of the trials that supported that olanzapine was helpful for treating cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia. This is one of the trials. It was a short trial. We were mainly looking at nausea and vomiting treatment for advanced cancer, but we saw a marked increase in appetite in over just a day or two of using olanzapine. Having said this, there's always room for improvement, and a number of drugs are under development for treatment of cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia. Recent discussions regarding the topic of olanzapine for treating cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia noted that the primary endpoint of the current trial was weight gain and that this was felt to be a more objective endpoint than appetite would be. As noted in the earlier part of the discussion, substantial improvement was seen both in weight gain and appetite, both with p-values of less than 0.001. My own opinion is that appetite improvement is as important, if not more important than is weight gain in the study population. Given that the trial was double-blinded and placebo-controlled, appropriate questionnaires regarding appetite should be able to be considered as an objective evaluation of a subjective symptom in the same way that appropriate questionnaires regarding a patient's pain can be considered an objective evaluation of a subjective symptom. For some of these subjective symptoms, you just don't have other good ways we can figure these things out by a blood test or something like this. So it's what the patient says which is most important. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Incorporating how the patient feels is key to achieving better outcomes for patients. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly update this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Loprinzi. Dr. Charles Loprinzi: You're welcome. Pleasure to participate. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines pod

12/07/2023

•

9 min
30/10/2023

JCO Article Insights: Safety and efficacy of a Novel ADC Targeting TROP-2 in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Davide Soldato interviews Dr. Jacob Sands, medical oncologist at Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA) and Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School, on their paper "First-in-Human, Phase I Dose-Escalation and Dose-Expansion Study of Trophoblast Cell-Surface Antigen 2-Directed Antibody-Drug Conjugate Datopotamab Deruxtecan in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: TROPION-PanTumor01". The interview offers a deep dive into the safety and efficacy data of this novel drug and puts these data in the context of the current treatment landscape of NSCLC and of the revolution that ADC are bringing into the oncology world. TRANSCRIPT Davide Soldato: Welcome to this JCO Article Insights episode for the October issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. This is Davide Soldato, and today I will have the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Jacob Sands, co-author of the manuscript titled, "First-in-Human, Phase I Dose-Escalation and Dose-Expansion Study of Trophoblast Cell-Surface Antigen 2-Directed Antibody-Drug Conjugate Datopotamab Deruxtecan in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: TROPION-PanTumor01." Dr. Sands is a Medical Oncologist working at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School. His main field of research and clinical interests revolve around improving screening and diagnosis of lung cancer and also on developing novel therapeutic agents for this disease. So, welcome Dr. Sans, and thank you very much for accepting our invitation today. Dr. Jacob Sands: Happy to join. Thanks for having me. Davide Soldato: I just wanted to start with a very general question because I think that we are going to discuss a very important study and the manuscript that you co-authored is going to look at the safety and the efficacy of this novel ADC datopotamab-deruxtecan that is targeting TROP2. But I just wanted to have a little bit of context before starting to discuss the safety and efficacy data. So the population that was included in the study included more or less 60% of patients that received three or more lines of therapy and also 20% of patients who received five or more lines of therapy. So I think that this is a very particular population, especially considering that we are speaking about non-small cell lung cancer. And so I wanted to get from you like a general context, like what are the therapeutic options for these patients normally in clinical practice and what do we expect in terms of outcomes and in terms of toxicity? Dr. Jacob Sands: Yeah, so as you point out, this is a highly pretreated population in general, which is to say that they've really gotten the most effective lines of treatment up to this point. Now, we certainly do see some efficacy from some of the later lines of therapies in some patients, but inherently there is a decreasing response rate and decreasing durability of these responses as patients get further along in their treatment courses as far as lines of therapy. So it's generally considered to be a challenging clinical scenario, which is part of what makes the data that we're going to discuss, I think, so meaningful. Davide Soldato: Yeah, I think that especially if we look at the population that was included first, I think that the very particular thing is that included both oncogene-addicted and non-oncogenic addicted patients, and also the great majority of these patients received the most effective treatments that are available because they all received more or less immunotherapy and platinum-based chemotherapy, if I'm not mistaken. Dr. Jacob Sands: That's right. And that's an important distinction that you're drawing in the patients with oncogenic drivers and, of course, there's plenty of data with this compound with Dato-DXD in that population as well. But broadly speaking, in the non-oncogenic actionable alterations where they've gotten chemo-immunotherapy, those really are the most meaningful. Of course, docetaxel has been a long-standing second line that I'd say there is less and less enthusiasm about that as a line of treatment as we've seen some of these other more novel therapies that have just a better toxicity profile in particular, but also some with really durability that we don't quite see with docetaxel as well. And so once you're getting past that, you're really now reaching a bit deeper to then have something that is well tolerated and has efficacy. That's a setting where we really need it even more. Davide Soldato: So, going back to the results of the study, as we kind of pointed out, this was a very standard classic with a Bayesian design, phase I dose escalation and dose expansion study of this novel ADC datopotamab-deruxtecan. So I just wanted to go over with you and to provide our listeners a little bit with some data regarding the doses that were explored and then what were the doses that were selected for the expansion. And also to discuss a little bit the safety data. We were discussing the tradeoff between risk and benefit, especially in patients that are very pretreated, searching for these kind of sweet spots between the toxicity and the efficacy. So I just wanted to put in context a little bit the data that you reported in the manuscript. Dr. Jacob Sands: Yeah, that's right. So, like phase I's go, we started with a low dose at 0.27 milligrams per kilogram, and dose escalations occurred up to 10 milligrams per kilogram. The 10 milligram per kilogram dose did have toxicities that really made it not considered to be tolerable, and that mostly being mucositis and skin. And so it was then back down to 8 milligrams per kilogram. And then there was a dose expansion at 4, 6, and 8 milligrams per kilogram. The 4 and 6 milligram per kilogram doses had 50 patients enrolled within those cohorts and 80 patients within the 8 milligram per kilogram cohort to then get much more data, of course, for efficacy and tolerability within those levels. Ultimately, each of them really demonstrated some efficacy as well as general tolerability. The 6 milligram per kilogram dose was really the one selected overall for further testing and future trials based upon the data out of this one that we're going to discuss further. Davide Soldato: What were the main side effects that you observed in the trial? And particularly, do you think that there is some kind of special toxicity that should be looked at when using this novel type of ADC? Dr. Jacob Sands: Certainly there are some novel toxicities to really pay attention to. And maybe I'll just point out before diving into the toxicities, that this is in many ways chemotherapy. The antibody drug conjugates, as listeners probably know, are an antibody that has a linker bound to chemotherapy, what's called the payload. And in this case, it's a topoisomerase I inhibitor with the antibody, the TROP2. So the cells on the surface, when there's TROP2 expression, the drug binds to that, gets pulled into the cell and releases that chemotherapy intracellular, but it is still chemotherapy. And so some of the toxicities are things that we commonly see with chemotherapy drugs. Although, broadly speaking, I would say we're able to deliver higher doses of that chemo to the cells in this kind of targeted dosing of chemotherapy to give the chemo intracellular. Now, that being said, some of the toxicities that we see from this drug in particular that are a bit different is the stomatitis, mucositis. That is something that has occurred. Now, I've found that if it's really severe, then with a dose reduction that has really substantially improved any toxicities with future dosing. And at a 6 milligram per kilogram dose, a dose reduction to 4 milligram per kilogram is still within a dose range where we saw plenty of efficacy within the trial that we're discussing. That being said, if one can help patients tolerate it better, if it's more mild symptoms, if it's not severe, then that's better in maintaining that dose. And interesting things like ice chips at the time of infusion, so cold within the mouth, kind of like the cold caps to try to reduce alopecia at the time of infusion of the chemo may help some steroid rinses also can be helpful. But really these are things to help prevent stomatitis from being severe. It's harder when that occurs, then the treatment for improving it is a bit different. We do know, though, that that does improve with time. So even when it was severe with that infusion, it does improve as patients get further out from those doses. Of course, another one is dry eyes or irritation within the eyes. And if that is severe, then or even mild actually, I'd say when there's any known toxicity like this is to involve ophthalmology. Now, within this trial, ophthalmology was involved and patients had to get a baseline eye exam and they would get checked at different time points throughout the course of the trial. And so they were being monitored. I did not have anyone who needed to stop the drug because of this. The patient I had with the longest standing response to therapy did have some dry eye. It was not bothering him so much. And he had this real aversion to using eyedrops. It was very hard for him to make himself use these. But when I told him, "Look, if this gets worse, you might have to come off the trial, that it might not be our decision just by the way the trial describes it, if this gets worse." And so for him, the fear of having to come off the drug was really the thing that helped him to then start using his eyedrops, which really helped to control that a bit more. And so that is something to monitor for. But the biggest thing really is interstitial lung disease. This is something that is a complex topic, I think because it's something that we need to be very aware of and monitor for. At the same time, a diagnosis of interstitial lung disease can be challenging. There really were not cases where we had pathologic confirmation of thi

30/10/2023

•

28 min
14/09/2023

Impact of Smoking Cessation on Mortality From Kidney Cancer

Dr. Mahdi Sheikh and Dr. David Zaridze join Dr. Shannon Westin to discuss how quitting smoking after diagnosis may impact survival in kidney cancer. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours. This is the podcast where we get in-depth on manuscripts that have been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. As always, I'm your host, Shannon Westin, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Editor for the JCO. And I am so excited to be here today. We are going to be discussing the paper, "Smoking Cessation After Diagnosis of Kidney Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study," which was published in the JCO on March 29, 2023. And this very intriguing paper, I have two of the major authors from this paper. First is Mahdi Sheikh, who is a scientist and epidemiologist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization in Lyon, France. Welcome, Dr. Sheikh. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thank you very much, Dr. Westin, and thanks for having us. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then with Dr. Sheikh is Dr. David Zaridze. He is the Director of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology at the N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center in Moscow and also the President of the Russian Cancer Society. We are with greatness today. Dr. David Zaridze: Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice to be with you. Dr. Shannon Westin: Very nice to be with the two of you. So, let's get started. I first wanted to just level set. Could one of you review just the overall incidence of kidney cancer and what proportion of patients with kidney cancer are known to be smokers at diagnosis? Dr. David Zaridze: The figures I'm going to present are rates. They are adjusted to standard world population. Why am I saying that? Because in America you sometimes use adjustment to the US population. These figures will be different from what you are accustomed to see. Okay, incidence of kidney cancer in Russia, in men, 14.1 per 100,000. I compare this with the United States of America, men, 16.5. Very small difference. Women in Russia, 8 per 100,000. In the United States of America, 8.8 per 100,000 of population. Exactly the same. Very close. These rates are sort of high-ish, but there are very high rates, for example, in the Czech Republic, where rates are more than 20 and other Central European countries. In Russia, kidney cancer mortality in men is 6 per 100,000. In USA, 3 per 100,000. In women in Russia, 1.9. In the United States, 1.3. I would say that there is a difference in mortality in men, not much in women. The incidence of kidney cancer is increasing in Russia sharply, sharply. Since 1990 it has increased - it's tripled. It increased from 5 per 100,000 in 1990 to 14 per 100,000 in 2019. Mortality is stable or declining. This is suggesting that kidney cancer is overdiagnosed in Russia and probably elsewhere. But this is not a problem of our discussion now. The frequency of the prevalence of smoking in kidney cancer patients. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of patients with kidney cancer smoke. In Russia, we have results only from our study. 18% of patients smoked at admission to our cancer center. Dr. Shannon Westin: Got it. Okay, good. Well, that's really helpful, especially to those of us that don't take care of patients with kidney cancer every day. It helps us just understand. And I guess the next question is what do we know about the impact of tobacco cessation on the risk of kidney cancer? So you were talking about that increasing incidence. How does tobacco cessation impact that? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Tobacco smoking is a known risk factor for kidney cancer and an estimated 17% of the kidney cancer burden worldwide can be attributed to tobacco smoking. There is a recent meta-analysis of 56 studies that was published a few years ago that clearly showed a dose-response relationship between smoking and kidney cancer, meaning that the more cigarettes a day you smoke, the risk of kidney cancer will go up. For example, the risk that was shown for five cigarettes per day was 20%. It goes up until 70% for 30 cigarettes per day. And also with a duration, the more years you smoke, the risk for kidney cancer will go higher. However, the good news is that when you quit smoking, there is strong evidence that the risk for developing kidney cancer will be lower compared to if you continue smoking. And there is some evidence that shows again dose-response relationship, meaning that the more years you spend in quitting smoking, the lower your risk would be for developing kidney cancer compared to if you continue smoking. So this is not only about renal cancer or kidney cancer but also true about many other cancer sites as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, that's super helpful. And then I guess prior to your study that we're about to talk about, did we have any information on what happens when patients quit smoking after their diagnosis? Any limitations to those data that were available? Dr. David Zaridze: You mean the data which was prior our study? You know, the negative effect of smoking after diagnosis has been shown nearly three decades ago. The information exists already for thirty years, but it was largely ignored not only in clinical practice but also in clinical trials. And I have to stress that in clinical trials this information is still ignored. I came across these studies and decided to review them some time ago. All they were case-control studies and to my knowledge, none of them assessed the effect of quitting smoking. I decided to review these studies and included this review in my book, Smoking: A Major Cause of Cancer, which was published in 2012 and was dedicated to Professor Richard Doll's anniversary. In fact, this was a stimulus for the study we are discussing. And in fact, the component of this study we are discussing today was built in and baked into the existing cohort study to which we added the active follow-up component for assessing the changes in smoking habit and disease status. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: If you review the evidence, before publishing this study just like a few years ago, we find that there are many studies published talking about the effects of smoking cessation on cancer survival. However, as David mentioned when you go deep into these studies, you'll find a lot of limitations. First of all, most of these studies are retrospective studies, which means that either case-control or retrospective course that patients developed the outcome, and then some investigators came to see their records to assess or ask family members before they developed the outcomes. There are a lot of biases with these types of studies. And with the epidemiologic study, perspective study that we did, has less limitations compared to retrospective ones. Another one is that when we go into the study you see, they only assess a small number of patients, small sample size. Some studies just assess 10 smokers, some assess like 30. By this study we try to assess a large number of smokers who quit smoking after diagnosis. Another limitation is that– First, let's see what exposure and what setting we are talking about. We're talking about smoking which is a very dynamic behavior. People quit smoking and they relapse smoking and they quit smoking and so on. So if you access this exposure for only a limited time, for example, for one year, then you may miss what happens after that which results in misclassification of some of the participants. So repeated assessment was not done in other studies that we did here in this study. Another one, you are talking about special setting patients who are diagnosed with cancer. These patients have special circumstances, they have treatments, they have family support, they might go under the stress of cancer, and all these different stages at diagnosis. And most studies that are available, they didn't account for this. They didn't adjust or they didn't try to understand the role of these compounding factors, as we call it in epidemiology, on that, the thing that we're trying to address. And a prospective study, as I said, long follow-up time. Even the very few prospective studies that were available for other cancer sites that have only one year or maximum two years of follow-up with this type of exposure, so it is important to follow them for a long time. Another thing I would say was exposure assessment. Not only did we repeatedly try to assess exposure among participants, but try to call the people– David and his team who did the study in the field, called the participants and tried to ask the family members and sometimes their physicians about their smoking behaviors. When you go to current evidence you see, mostly smoking behavior was assessed using the record that is available like treatment records or patient records, which again has some limitations if you do not assess exposure among qualified participants. Finally, we're talking about a dynamic behavior in the follow-ups. Some people might change smoking. But there is a very important thing, in this study, we also collect at the time of quitting smoking. There's a very important thing in statistics we call Survivorship Bias, meaning that, if you were assessing an exposure doing the follow-up and if you do not pay attention to this, you will assess an exposure that is a proxy of people who lived longer. Meaning that people have enough time, they have a long time, and those who have longer time, will have more time to quit smoking. And then you will be assessing this, actually, not the exposure, but you're only assessing people who quit smoking, and then whatever you assess, you would end up with a beneficial effect. But if you have the time of quitting smoking and follow up and all these statistical things and lower sample size, you are able to account

14/09/2023

•

30 min
20/09/2022

Light From Darkness - Navigating Postmortem Tissue Donation

On this episode, our guests discuss how postmortem tissue donation can provide meaning to patients and their loved ones. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours. This is when we get in-depth on articles that are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Shannon Westin, GYN Oncologist and Social Media Editor of the JCO. Excited to be here today to discuss a really awesome paper. It was a Comments and Controversies named "Postmortem Tissue Donation: Giving Families the Ability to Choose," just published on August 26th, 2022. And I'm joined by a number of the authors. It's going to be a really incredible discussion. I'd like to introduce each of them, and then we'll get right down to it. First is Allen Gustafson. He is the founder of the Swifty Foundation, which he started with his son, Michael, who sadly died in 2013 of medulloblastoma. And this foundation really was the catalyst of the group Gift from a Child, which we're going to really discuss today. In addition, I'm accompanied by Dr. Angela Waanders, the Interim Head of Neuro-Oncology and the Director of Precision Medicine and Associate Professor at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago; Beth Frenkel, a Tissue Navigator at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; and Dr. Mateusz Koptyra, a Senior Scientist and the Director of the Center for Data-Driven Discovery in Biomedicine at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. So, thank you all for being here. I'm so excited to discuss this paper. I think this is something that our listeners are going to be really interested in and really want to move forward. So, welcome. Allen Gustafson: Thank you. Dr. Mateusz Koptyra: Good morning. Dr. Shannon Westin: So, let's get started. You know, postmortem tissue donation is so critical for research and improving outcomes for our survivors. I think the best way to start, I'd be very interested to hear how each of you got involved with this. And Allen, let's start with you because I think that your story is so important. Allen Gustafson: Sure. Thanks, Shannon. Well, as you mentioned, our son, Michael, died of medulloblastoma in 2013 at the age of 15, and probably about four months before he died, he knew his life was going to end. And he got the idea of donating his body to science, so they could use him to find the cure. And he used to refer to that as his master plan. So, obviously, that charge was put on his mom and I to figure out how he could do that. And although we were being treated by two excellent hospitals, one here in Chicago and one in Boston, they were not helpful in terms of helping us with his final wish. And so, it was really through Nancy Goodman from Kids vs Cancer and his pediatrician going above and beyond the call of duty that Michael was finally able to donate his spine and his brain, some of which was sent to Texas Children's and some of it was sent to SickKids. And it became both very meaningful for him as his life ended, and it was also very meaningful for us in terms of the important step we took as a family in our grieving and our loss of him. And as you mentioned, our work with the Swifty Foundation, really, his choice there was prescient, in that we didn't realize how important postmortem collection is for advancing scientific discovery, nor did we realize how important this could be for other families. So, it all started with his experience in terms of our journey with Gift from a Child. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's so incredible. I'm so glad that you chose to do this work. Dr. Waanders, do you want to pipe in? Dr. Angela Waanders: Yes. So, I think reflecting back, it really was a serendipitous moment in meeting with Patti and Al. I can still remember it was in 2016, I believe, at a Children's Brain Tumor Network annual meeting. I'm a Physician Scientist, a practicing Neuro-Oncologist, and at the time, I was in the laboratory trying to dissect out, why do children die from brain tumors. I was also taking care of children who were losing their battle. And so, a couple of years prior, I had been trying to figure out how to set up a postmortem or a research-based autopsy program. I knew from talking to some of my own families and helping to make it happen, it was really important and meaningful to them. But the logistics were beyond me as a single provider. You know, it really takes a lot of logistics going from the initial conversation, to how to make it happen. And so, one of my colleagues, Dr. Rishi Lulla, introduced me to Patti and Al. We realized we had a shared mission. And so, I've been very fortunate and grateful to be involved in this project. And, you know, including some of the comments from the paper, as well as meeting and talking with families, and seeing even the larger scope, families do want us to ask. This is meaningful for many families. And it's a really special moment for me as a provider in any of the autopsies that I help to coordinate with our Tissue Navigator, Melissa Williams, at our hospital, we do try to have a follow-up conversation with families when they are ready, and those conversations are just so meaningful. I have several stories of things that I hadn't even imagined would be meaningful to families. And so, to me, this has really been something that wearing both hats as both a physician, and a scientist, that is one of my projects, and things that I've been involved with that I think will have the biggest impact when I look back at the end of my career. Dr. Shannon Westin: I completely agree with you. Dr. Koptyra, I'd be interested to hear your perspective of how you got involved with this. Dr. Mateusz Koptyra: Hello. So, working as a scientist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, I actually had the privilege of also working with Dr. Angela Waanders here at CHOP. And part of my scientific effort was really focused on utilizing biospecimens into research. And specifically in the lab, we are generating two more models which can be used in wet bench research that specifically relates to cell lines or xenograft models used in science to explore tumor biology, novel therapeutics, et cetera. And at that point, Angela actually introduced me to the Gift from a Child program. And initially, I offered my assistance, but quickly realized how working with the Gift from a Child program and with Swifty Foundation, adds additional meaning to our daily work in the laboratory. So, from initial assistance, I quickly became fully engaged in the process of tissue banking, processing, and model generation out of specimens we received on their website. Until today, I'm leading that effort on the laboratory side here at CHOP. Dr. Shannon Westin: Thank you. And then Beth, I think we'd be interested to hear your perspective as well. Beth Frenkel: So, thank you very much for having me. I started my career as a funeral director. I did that for about 10 years or so before moving into organ and tissue transplant. My job, specifically, was advocating with our community and our healthcare partners to make sure that every family was given the opportunity to donate, to help others. What really got me into my job here with Gift from a Child is that my mom was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and there were no treatment options for her at all. And so, after her death, it really led me to start researching brain tumors and to see the lack of treatments, not only for some adults, but for all of these kids. So, that's what really made me seek out this opportunity with Gift from a Child, and to work with all of these wonderful people to try to help these kids find better treatments and cures. Dr. Shannon Westin: You all have such incredible stories, and it's so inspiring to see people take terrible things that have happened to you and make it into something so much more positive. So, I'm so inspired by all of you. I know personally as a surgeon and a physician, I sometimes feel really uncomfortable approaching the idea of postmortem tissue collection with patients. So, I think one important aspect of it is—you know, of course, we've talked a little bit about the positive impact on research, but can you all speak a little bit more about how family members actually may benefit from this practice in being offered this opportunity? Allen Gustafson: I'd be happy to start. I think I can speak both from a personal experience, as well as from the many families we've spoken to and surveyed. I think the number one reason families want to make this choice is to help other families. I mean, it's the one bit of light that can come from perhaps the darkest time a family is ever going to go through. I know that's what prompted our son, Michael, in his words, to help as many as he can. And as we talk to other families, that is their principal reason for giving, as well as certainly to create a legacy for their child. As I mentioned, our son was older, so it also gave him some personal meaning at the end of his life. And helpful in the grieving process, both to know that your loss may be benefiting another, but also the researchers that have received Michael's tissue have been keeping up with us in terms of publications that his tissue has helped fuel. And there was even a protocol change in how recurrent medullo is dealt with that Michael's tissue was a part of. So, again, to know that is so gratifying for the family. Dr. Shannon Westin: I think that just knowing that and hearing that from personal experience should, hopefully, help our practitioners that are listening feel more comfortable with approaching it. The consensus conference that you all discussed in the paper, how did this come to be? What drove that discussion and where people ended up? Angela, if you want to tackle that? Dr. Angela Waanders: I can take this question. So, the consensus meeting in 2018 happened in Philadelphia when I was still at Children's Hos

20/09/2022

•

25 min
26/03/2025

JCO PO Article Insights: Prognostic Artificial Intelligence Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Natalie DelRocco summarizes "Digital Pathology–Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase III Trial in Men With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer" by Felix Y. Feng, et al published January 31, 2025. Come back for the next episode where JCO Precision Oncology Conversations host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash interviews the author of the JCO PO article discussed, Dr. Tim Showalter. TRANSCRIPT Natalie DelRocco: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host Natalie Del Rocco. Today, we'll be discussing the article, "Digital Pathology-Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase III Trial in Men With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer." We will also be discussing the accompanying editorial, "Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Improve Risk Stratification in Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer." So, we're going to start by summarizing the original report and then we'll jump into a few of the high-level interpretations that were supplied by the editorial. The original report by Feng et. al. describes the application of multimodal artificial intelligence to data collected on a nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We will call this disease moving forward NMCRPC, a Clinical Trial. So, we're looking at data from an NMCRPC clinical trial. The SPARTAN trial was a randomized phase three trial and this study compared metastasis-free survival as the primary endpoint for those treated with traditional androgen deprivation therapy or ADT to those treated with androgen deprivation therapy plus apalutamide. Other secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival, but the primary endpoint there was metastasis-free survival or MFS. This study found that the addition of apalutamide resulted in a significantly longer median metastasis-free survival compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone. And we should note that this is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. In the overall study, 1,207 patients participated and over the course of this study histopathology slides were collected and they were digitized for future use. And that future use is what we are going to be discussing today. The authors do note that there are currently no good biomarkers for use in NMCRPC. The authors seem to be inspired by the ArteraAI prostate test, which was a recent application of multimodal artificial intelligence models. But in localized prostate cancer as opposed to NMCRPC, the authors constructed a multimodal artificial intelligence model or an MMAI model. They applied this to the SPARTAN trial with the intention of developing a risk score that could be used for risk stratification in NMCRPC. And we should note here that multimodal artificial intelligence or MMAI is a broad class of artificial intelligence models, and they can analyze different types of data at one time, hence the term multimodal. So in this example, the author's primary data source of interest were those digitized histopathology images because histopathology tells you a lot about NMCRPC. The authors though also wanted their model to consider traditional clinical factors that are known to be prognostic such as Gleason score, tumor stage, PSA level, and age. So those two different types of data, those histopathology images and that traditional clinical data are the two different types of data that make this model multimodal. So we should note here importantly, after dropping missing data, 420 patients contribute to this model, the MMAI model. The authors generate a risk score from this MMAI model and they categorize that risk score into low, intermediate, and high risk groups using clinical knowledge. The authors found in their results that an increase in this MMAI risk score was associated with an increased hazard of metastasis-free survival event with a hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model of 1.72. To summarize how the authors arrived here, they derived a risk score from this MMAI model which incorporates both imaging and regular data. They plugged this risk score into a Cox proportional hazards mode,l modeling metastasis-free survival and they found that an increase in that MMAI based risk score is associated with increased hazard of metastasis-free event with a hazard ratio of 1.72, which is quite large. Additionally, the risk score seemed to be associated with PFS2 and OS, which were two of the secondary endpoints from the SPARTAN clinical trial, though the effect sizes were more modest. Those are the highlights from the original report, the methods and the results. The accompanying editorial notes that both histopathology and Gleason score specifically are very critical to understanding prostate cancer, and Gleason score alone is not sufficient to summarize the complexity of the disease, although it is a well validated prognostic factor for prostate cancer. So this makes MMAI an excellent tool in the setting described by the authors. We have an existing prognostic factor that doesn't describe the entire picture of the disease by itself and so we can use those digitized histopathology slides to help bolster our understanding and provide the model more information. MMAI allows you to do this because it can take in different types of data. So that was the main conclusion of the editorial. They also summarize a number of recent validations of MMAI models in prostate cancer research, noting that it will be an important tool for risk stratification and has already been shown to outperform classical techniques. The editorial though does highlight a number of weaknesses of this paper, limitations and I think the most important one to highlight, and we touched on this earlier, is that 420 patients from the SPARTAN clinical trial contributed to the development of this MMAI score. That is a small proportion of the roughly 1200 patients that did participate in the SPARTAN clinical trial. So we have a small subgroup analysis that can be limiting and this model will need to be validated in a broader population in the future. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or a review and be sure to subscribe so that you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

26/03/2025

•

9 min
16/10/2024

Transcriptomic Profiling of Non-Localized Prostate Cancer

JCO PO author Dr. Amar U. Kishan, Professor, Executive Vice Chair, and Chief of Genitourinary Oncology Service in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles, shares insights into his JCO PO article, "Transcriptomic Profiling of Primary Prostate Cancers and Nonlocalized Disease on Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Multicenter Retrospective Study." Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Kishan discuss the relationship between Decipher genomic classifier scores and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT-based metastatic spread. 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 articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today we are joined by Dr. Amar Kishan, Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, and also the corresponding and senior author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, "Transcriptomic Profiling of Primary Prostate Cancers and Non Localized Disease on Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Multicenter Retrospective Study." Dr. Kishan, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Amar Kishan: Thank you so much for that kind introduction and the invitation to be here today. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, it seems to me that there's a theme that people in the GU space, investigators in the GU space, are very interested in trying to understand risk predictors for prostate cancer. We had somebody, I believe from Huntsman Cancer Center a few months back on a previous podcast, where they were trying to do risk prediction modeling as well. Could you tell us why that's something that the GU community is very interested in? What's the background? Is it because there's no risk prediction approaches currently? And would this somehow influence management in the near future? Dr. Amar Kishan: Yeah, that's a great question. So, I think this goes back to the point that we're in the era of precision medicine now, and many cancers have these molecular stratification scores and all that. Prostate cancer has lagged a little bit behind in that regard, despite the fact that it's such a common cancer that affects so many people across the country and across the world. So, we do have risk stratification schemes for prostate cancer. These are based off clinical and pathologic variables, like the level of PSA, the size of the tumor on digital rectal examination, now, we're incorporating MRI imaging as well, and then what the cancer looks like under the microscope, the Gleason score. And now there have been revisions to the Gleason score, but it's really kind of the architecture, what the biopsy looks like. And this was kind of developed many, many years ago by Donald Gleason, a pathologist at the VA. What we're not necessarily taking into account routinely is kind of the biology of the cancer per se. You know, what are the molecular drivers? How could that influence ultimate outcome? And that's very important because we have these risk groups, low risk, very low risk, favorable intermediate risk, unfavorable intermediate risk, high risk, very high risk. But within each of those groups, based on the clinical kind of pathological characteristics, there's a huge heterogeneity in outpatients too, and our treatments are effective, but they can be morbid. Putting someone on hormone therapy for an extended period of time has a lot of side effects. Dose escalating radiotherapy or doing surgery and then radiation afterwards, these are big things that have a big impact on the patient, and I think we really need better risk stratification tools to understand who needs intensification and who we can de-escalate treatment for. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I think those are absolutely valid points, perhaps not just for prostate cancer, more so for all cancers that we currently treat, especially in the current day and age, where we have a tendency to add more and more therapies, combination therapies for patients, and as you mentioned, risk stratification to help identify high risk versus low risk, where you can de intensify treatment, is of high value from a patient standpoint as well as from a financial toxicity standpoint. So then, going to this next part of the approach that you used, and from what I understand in this paper, you had the radiological aspect, which is the PSMA PET, which we'll talk about. Then you had the genomic aspect, where you did some genomic risk-based stratification. Then you had the transcriptomic score based on the Decipher score. So, could you go into some of the details, first, for the PSMA PET, when is it used? What is the utilization? What is it based on, the science behind the PSMA PET? And then we can talk about some of the other genomic transcriptomic predictors that you use in this study. Dr. Amar Kishan: Sure. Absolutely. So, a PSMA PET is an advanced molecular imaging tool. PSMA stands for prostate specific membrane antigen. It's a membrane protein that is expressed on the surface of prostate cancer cells. It is expressed elsewhere in the body as well. The utilization of this for imaging has been a revolution in the staging of prostate cancer, both upfront and in the recurrent setting. We basically had fairly recent approval for PSMA PET being used more routinely in upfront staging and recurrent staging in 2022. Essentially, what this is it gives us an ability to detect whether prostate cancer has spread at a time of diagnosis or try to localize the recurrence. Now, no imaging test is perfect, of course, and a PET has a resolution of about 3 mm. There are questions about the sensitivity of the PET. You get it on a patient with high-risk disease, the PET is negative; you do surgery, there are positive lymph nodes. That can happen, but it's far superior to the tools that we have had before. For instance, beforehand, all we would have is a contrast enhanced CT, bone scan, and MRI. And the sensitivity of those is far below that of a PSMA PET. And that has actually been shown in a randomized trial called the ProPSMA trial out of Australia, where they compared conventional upfront imaging versus PSMA upfront imaging with a crossover design, and there was better detection of disease with the PSMA PET. So that's been a revolution in how we stage prostate cancer. But I'm sure many of your listeners and others are aware of the concerns. When you get a new test and you're detecting disease that's extra prostatic, for instance, are you seeing truly significant new disease that we do need to change our management for, or are we just seeing stuff that wasn't there before that actually wouldn't impact anything? And what I mean by that is, let's say you're seeing things that would never have made a difference to the patient, but now you're saying they have metastatic disease. You're changing their entire treatment paradigm, all kinds of things like that. There's implications to this that hasn't been fully fleshed out. But very recently, like we're talking in July of 2024, essentially, there was a Lancet Oncology paper that looked at the long-term prognosis of patients who had extra prostatic disease on PSMA PET, judged by something called a PROMISE score, kind of gives a quantification on the volume of disease, the brightness of disease, and they correlated that with long term outcomes. And that was really the first time that we have long term follow up data that this extra prostatic disease on PSMA PET actually is prognostically important. So, we're getting there. I mean, now that it's approved and, in some sense, the cat is out of the bag, patients are coming in asking for a PSMA PET, etc. I'm sure everyone has experienced that, but I think we now do have good evidence that it actually is prognostically important as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation. And again, to put this into context for things that I've seen and that might also help the listeners in other tumors, so, for example, melanoma surveillance tends to be or while on treatment, patients tend to have more PET scans than what you see, maybe in individuals with lung cancer, where you get a baseline PET and then you have follow up CT scan based imaging is that something that you guys have shifted from in the prostate cancer space with the approval for PSMA PET, where follow up imaging, whether patient is on treatment or surveillance imaging, is PSMA PET based? Dr. Amar Kishan: Yeah, that's a good question. I think there's actually less robust data to support it as a means of treatment response. But in terms of evaluating a recurrence, then, yes, that has become kind of a standard tool. It's very complicated because all of the metrics that we have for, say, a treatment failing are based on conventionally detected metastases or something that shows up on a CT or bone scan. So, again, that question arises if someone is on systemic therapy and then you see something on a PSMA PET, are you going to abandon the therapy that you're on? It technically would be earlier than you would otherwise have done that, or what are you going to do? So, that hasn't been fully fleshed out, but it is used in that circumstance. So, I'd say less for treatment monitoring and more for evaluation of suspected recurrence. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Understood. And I'm guessing, as a futuristic approach, somebody out there may perhaps do a trial using PSMA PET based imaging to decide whether treatment change needs to be made or does not need to be made. Dr. Amar Kishan: Yeah. It is being incorporated into trials as we speak, I think. Dr. Rafeh Naqas

16/10/2024

•

27 min
15/03/2023

KRAS Variants, G12C, TMB, high PD-L1 Expression in Solid Tumors

JCO PO author Dr. Mohamed Salem shares insights into his JCO PO article, "Landscape of KRASG12C, Associated Genomic Alterations, and Interrelation With Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers in KRAS-Mutated Cancers" and the article's findings of a large-scale, pan-cancer genomic characterization of KRASG12C. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Salem discuss KRASG12C mutation, KRASG12C -mutated tumors and comutation with STK11 and KEAP1. Click here to read the article!   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Abdul 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. Abdul Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and assistant professor of Medical Oncology at the OU Stephenson Cancer Center. Today I'm thrilled to be joined by Dr. Mohamed Salem, Gastrointestinal Medical Oncologist, and Research Director at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Salem is the lead author of the JCO Precision Oncology article 'Landscape of KRASG12C, Associated Genomic Alterations, and Interrelation With Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers in KRAS-Mutated Cancers'. Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Salem, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Thank you for having me. A pleasure and honor. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: For the sake of this podcast, we'll be referring to each other using our first names. So thank you for coming on to our podcast and discussing this very interesting paper. And one of the reasons why we decided to incorporate this is because, as you very well know, KRAS is one of the most common altered genes in cancer, and I'm pretty confident and sure that oncologists, whether it's academic oncologists or community oncologists, have treated patients in different settings having tumors that harbor KRAS alterations. So give us a little bit of a background on where KRAS alterations stand currently and where is drug development in the space of KRAS to give our listeners some idea of why we're interested in this gene. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Sure, thanks again for having me. And as you mentioned, KRAS mutation happens to be, I think, by far the most common oncogenic mutation we see in oncology and solid tumors. The problem with KRAS is that, for a long, long time, there was very much nothing we could do about it; it was, in fact, called an undruggable target. Until recently, we started to realize this might not be true, and, in fact, we start to see successful efforts trying to target KRAS mutation. Currently, there are several KRAS inhibitors. I think it started with G12C. I personally don't think there was anything specific about G12C, but it just happened to be one of the first targets that we were able to approach. And the initial result from using anti-G12C therapy that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, I think, a year ago now, showed this is feasible and perhaps effective. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Dr. Salem, for that explanation. And being a Phase I trialist, I personally have seen a lot of exciting combination-based approaches in the setting of KRAS-altered tumors, especially KRASG12C. Now, specifically delving into your paper, given the extensive length and breadth of data that you've covered here, could you tell us a little bit about why you decided to use KRAS as an interesting topic for your study and the kind of data set that you chose to explore this question? Dr. Mohamed Salem: What happened once we started to realize how important it is to figure out which KRAS mutation we're dealing with because, at least in colorectal cancer, it's a very common mutation, almost like 40-50% of patients with colorectal cancer tumors carry KRAS mutation. Until very recently, we really didn't pay close attention to which variant it is. Is it KRAS G12D, 13, or G12C? And so on and so forth. And the reason we didn't really pay much attention to that is because there was nothing to do about it; whether the patient has this or that variant was really nothing therapeutically wise it really didn't have an impact. But once we started to realize now there is a therapeutic option and, in fact, now there is a change in the way we think about KRAS mutation, there is a proof of concept that we actually can target KRAS mutation, we started to pay closer attention to this. And I think this was a paradigm shift in our thinking. So for patients who have KRAS mutation, now we have data showing that KRASG12C is something we can target, whether with single agent or with combination therapy. But it was a new era for us because most of us realized it's not going to stop there. It's not going to be just G12C; I think G12C is the tip of the iceberg, and likely the science is going to go forward, try to target the other variants. So one of the obvious questions was what are the other variants and how commonly those exist, and which tumor types also carry those variants. Because as we were talking before the recording for Phase I, now it is not like one approach fits all; it started to kind of like focus on either molecularly driven or disease-type approaches. And it was very important for us to try to figure out, okay, which tumor type carries the most KRAS variants and, within that tumor, which variants are the most common. And this is what we're trying to answer in this paper. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Mohamed. I looked at your data set that you had access to, very large data set of around 79,000 tumor samples and close to 14,000 KRAS mutated tumors. Could you tell us a little more about this data set and how you started with looking at the distribution of KRAS across different tumors, and what were the kind of interesting results that you came across as far as KRAS distribution is concerned? Dr. Mohamed Salem: It's very obvious to all of us now that the field is moving from one size fits all to a targeted approach or treatment target approach. And this is very important and very interesting because usually, when we do that, we achieve better outcomes and lesser toxicity. But the problem that comes with this is that none of us, as a single, even two centers, will have enough data to ask and answer questions. And when you are talking about something like MSI-high or BRAF or KRAS, usually it becomes very challenging for one single institution, doesn't matter how big they are, to try to answer either prevalent or therapeutic approaches. Because of that, most of us now start to understand that cooperation is very important across centers and also across nations. So, like as you see here in this paper, there was a global cooperation between investigators in the U.S. and in Europe and Austria, and other countries. And what we did as a group we worked with one of the third-party profiling companies. Our group tried to answer what is the prevalence, just a very simple question, what is the prevalence of KRAS mutation, and what is the prevalence of each variant type in each tumor? And none of us could have answered that question on their own. Because of that, we actually collaborated with one of the third-party companies that do next-generation sequencing for tumors, and we were able to collaborate with them to have access to that database and answer some of those questions. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. As everybody knows, NGS is a standard of care testing that oncologists do, especially for advanced settings, to identify driver alterations or therapeutic interventions that may be relevant for patients. So in this data set, it seems you had access to NGS data, tumor mutational burden, and PD-L1 data for these tumor types. Could you tell us about the differences in the distribution for KRAS and the KRAS subtypes that you identified in this data set? Dr. Mohamed Salem: Sure. So, as you mentioned, we looked actually at almost 79,000 tumor samples that underwent next-generation sequencing by our collaborator. And it appears that about 17% of the tumors or so had some kind of KRAS mutation. And then, after that, we start to see G12C when we start looking at each variant. G12C were about 11%, 12%, and about 88% of the remaining KRAS mutant tumors harbored some different kind of KRAS mutation. The next question was, in general, in all tumors, what was the most common KRAS variant seen? I think it mimicked what was already out there. It appears that G12D happened to be perhaps the most frequent mutation seen in KRAS mutation tumors, followed by G12V, followed by G12C, and then G12/13, and then others. What was very interesting, actually, an observation we saw, is that we were able to realize the distribution of KRAS variants varies according to the tumor subtype. So, for example, in pancreatic cancer, we could see patients who had G12R KRAS mutation variants. This was not seen commonly in other tumors. And the reason that's important is because maybe that will be something in pancreatic cancer tumors that will be worth looking at and do therapeutic approach there. But also, I'm sure you're already dealing with this in your clinic quite often. It was interesting, obviously, that non-small cell lung cancer was the most common organ that actually carries G12C, followed by colorectal cancer; followed by a very interesting actual observation that was very interesting for us to see was in appendiceal cancer. As you know, appendiceal cancer is not a common disease; it's a relatively rare disease. And we were surprised to see some of them actually have G12C mutation. And again, the reason that's important is that it just opens the door for possible therapeutic options and in context of clinical trials. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Definitely, the advantage of having such a rich data set like you did enabled you to look into some of these unique distributions

15/03/2023

•

23 min

ASCO Podcasts by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, cover a range of educational and scientific content, offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. Hear innovative interviews with the authors, researchers, and clinicians who are defining today’s standard of care and tomorrow’s breakthroughs. You can find all ASCO podcasts and limited series at ascopubs.org/podcasts