ASCO Podcasts

•

Channel • 7 Shows

Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Updated 4 days ago
Medicine

Medicine

Every two weeks
Medicine

Medicine

Twice monthly

24/02/2025

JCO Article Insights: Long-Term Outcome of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Peter Li summarizes "Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years," by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. published on December 13, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Peter Li: Hello and welcome to the JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Peter Li and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years," by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. For a reminder to the audience, the FOWARC study is a Chinese-based study that looked into the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based regimens with or without radiation. This study was first published back in 2019 where the three-year data showed no difference in three-year disease-free survival over survival between the three study arms. As a reminder of what those arms were, there were one historical control and two interventional arms. The control arm used 5-FU with radiation therapy with five cycles of 5-fluorouracil with radiation during cycles two to four followed by surgery and then seven cycles adjuvantly. Their first interventional arm was the same as the control arm with the addition of oxaliplatin on day 1of each cycle. And lastly, the third arm was FOLFOX only for four to six cycles followed by surgery and then six to eight cycles adjuvantly completing about a total of 12 weeks of chemotherapy. They recruited about 495 patients with 165 patients randomized to each arm. They were relatively well balanced by age, clinical staging and distance from the anal verge. Median age was about mid-50s with a slight male predominance and patients were primarily stage 3 with 20% to 30% being stage 2. About 30% had clinical T4 disease and about 25% had clinical N2 disease. Median follow up time was 122.5 months or 10 years and their follow up endpoints were disease-free survival, overall survival and local recurrence, and they also performed subgroup analyses based on post surgical pathological staging. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a significant threshold of p being less than 0.05. About 451 patients actually underwent surgery, which is about 91% of patients. The main reason for not going through surgery was due to refusal but one was due to toxicity and two were due to disease progression in the control arm. Follow up loss rate was about 10% in each group. Now looking at their primary endpoints in their initial study, local recurrence was about 8.8% in the control arm versus 7.9% in the FOLFOX radiation group versus 9.2% in the FOLFOX only group. Distant metastasis was about 30% in each arm and the sites of metastases were primarily in the lung and liver. Now, following up with 10 years, there were only three new events in the chemoradiation group with local recurrence happening at 10.8% in the control arm versus 8% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 9.6% in the chemo only group. These findings were not statistically significant. In their subgroup analysis by pathological staging, they found that pathological CR or complete response had a lower rate of local recurrence compared to those with increasing pathological staging coming in at 3% versus 4.3% versus 11.6% versus 15.8% in pCR versus Stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. And they found no difference in each stage with each interventional arm. Looking at long term survival their 10-year disease free survival showed 52.5% in the 5-FU radiation group versus 62.6% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 60.5% in the chemotherapy only group with no statistically significant difference between three groups. By pathological staging, they found improved 10-year disease survival in those who achieved pathological complete response versus those who did not with 84.3% in the pCR group versus 78.7% versus 56.8% versus 27.7% in the stage 1 versus 2 versus 3 group. And again they found no statistical significance difference between each arm. Now looking at the 10-year overall survival rates between the three arms, in the control arm the 10-year overall survival was 65.9% versus 72.3% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 73.4% in the chemo only group. By pathological stage, again, they showed a statistically significant difference in those who achieved pCR versus those who had pathological stage 1 to 3 disease with overall survival being 92.4% in those who achieved pCR versus 84.9% versus 68.6% versus 48.8% in stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. Now in the discussion, authors mentioned that with a median follow up of 10 years, FOLFOX alone had similar disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis and overall survival compared to those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, justifying the omission of radiation without compromising results or outcomes for each patient. There were no differences in subgroup analysis for disease free survival local recurrence or overall survival based on pathological staging. There were only three new events compared to the last follow up, with local recurrence happening only in the chemo radiation groups. Local recurrence rates at 10 years was about 10%. Compared to other clinical trials such as CAO, ARO or AIO-94, the rate of local recurrence was similar to those historical trials. The authors also compared their findings to the PROSPECT study which looks at the use of total neoadjuvant chemo radiation versus chemotherapy alone, which boasted only about a 2% local recurrence rate. But as a reminder, high risk locally advanced rectal cancers were excluded, mainly those with T4 or N2 disease, which may explain the difference in terms of local recurrence in the PROSPECT versus this study. Another finding is that pathological complete responses are also an important prognostic marker with lower 10-year local recurrence rate, disease-free survival and overall survival with worse outcomes with increased pathological staging. Distant metastasis rates were still at 30%, with the most common site being lung then liver then lymph nodes consistent with other historical studies. Chemotherapy seemed to be better at reducing liver mets than lung metastasis per their findings. In their post hoc analysis of their own study, chemo radiation was also associated with higher incidence of low anterior resection syndrome and persistent ostomy compared to chemotherapy alone, meaning that they had better quality of life with the chemotherapy only approach. In conclusion, a chemotherapy only approach can be safe and a feasible treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer without compromising outcomes. Omission of radiation may reduce the risk of overtreatment and improve quality of life for some of these patients. However, this does not necessarily exclude the role of radiation as it may still play a role in a response escalation approach for those who do not respond to chemotherapy alone. This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit 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.

24/02/2025

•

9 min
09/11/2022

Cancer Topics - Impact of Implicit Racial Bias on Oncology Patient Care and Outcomes

"What exactly is implicit racial bias? How does it manifest in physician-patient interactions and what is the potential impact of such bias on oncology patient outcomes? In this ASCO Education Podcast episode, Dr. Lauren M. Hamel (Wayne State University) and Dr. Nimish Mohile (University of Rochester) share their insights and perspectives on these topics with host Alissa A. Thomas (University of Vermont). If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. Resources: Blindspot: The Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin R. R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald Implicit Associations Test 21-Day Racial Equity Challenge TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nimish Mohile: We had a patient a few years ago who had presented to our clinic, who ended up having a diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma, and she was a young black woman, and it took about nine months for her to get that diagnosis. She had gone into multiple emergency rooms, she was only 22, had not had prior interaction with the medical system, but based on some of her socioeconomic demographics, her skin color, she was never given the kinds of testing that any other patient I think should have gotten at that time. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Hello, and welcome to another episode of ASCO Education podcast. Today's topic is, 'Implicit racial bias and its impact on patient care.' My name is Alissa Thomas, and I'm a Neurologist and Neuro-Oncologist at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. I'm delighted to introduce our two guest speakers; Dr. Lauren Hamel, who is an Associate Professor of Communication and Behavioral Oncology at Wayne State University, and the Co-program Leader of the Population Studies and Disparities Research Program of the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Her ongoing research explores racial attitudes in non-verbal behavior of oncology patients and physicians, and how those behaviors influence treatment decisions. Dr. Nimish Mohile is a Professor of Neurology and Oncology at The University of Rochester. He also serves as the Diversity Officer, Associate Chair for Career Development and Leadership, and Neuro-Oncology Division Chief. I'll get us started with the first question, really a definition. What do we mean by the term, 'implicit racial bias'? Dr. Lauren Hamel: I'm happy to go first. I think understanding what the definition of what implicit racial bias is is really important. You know, for good or for ill, over the last few years, it's gotten a lot more attention. And I think what's important to remember about it is that it's not a cognizant or a conscious bias, and it really is implicit, and it really is more of an association than it is anything else. It's sort of like the built-up associations that we have for anything. You know, could be race, could be gender, any number of demographics, or other factors that make our lives as humans. So, you know, associating certain aspects of people with positive or negative valuations. I think when we're talking about implicit racial bias, it's kind of like the gut associations we have for members of different racial groups. So often, it's kind of paired with "white is good, black is bad." It's a very rudimentary description of it, but that's a real kind of basic association that this kind of definition is built around. Dr. Nimish Mohile: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that's a great discussion of what this is. I think it's really important for us to remember that these are really ingrained behaviors. It's, based on, you know, how we've been socialized and conditioned. And I think it's helpful to also put it in the framework of knowing that we all have some biases, we all probably have racial biases, and age biases, and other kinds of biases, and there's no sort of good or bad about having these biases. And the important part of this is, how do we recognize some of the biases that we have so that we can be more conscious about how we might fix those or think differently about the patients that we're seeing so that it doesn't result in actions that can be harmful. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, I agree with everything that Dr. Mohile just added. It is these ingrained associations. Really, it isn't about blaming ourselves for them because it's kind of the result of how our brains are structured. But to his point, it's once we know that we have them, and you know, we have data showing how they affect our behavior, it's then on us to identify them and then work to mitigate them. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you. How do racial biases in patients and physicians influence treatment decisions or ultimately, how does this affect patient outcomes in Oncology? Dr. Lauren Hamel: You know, I think the direct relationship between certain biases and outcomes is still kind of being uncovered and investigated. But there are some interesting patterns that have been uncovered in data, specifically in the Oncology context too, because as you can imagine, a variety of professional organizations and groups examine the influence of bias. But just within Oncology, we see physicians who have higher levels of implicit bias who tend to see their patients who are black as less trustworthy, less educated, and less adherent to treatment recommendations. We also know that higher levels of implicit bias may be associated with less aggressive treatment programs recommended for black patients. We see some associations between levels of implicit bias and verbal dominance. But what was I think, especially interesting, is that we also see patterns of kind of perceptions from the patients that these physicians are communicating with. So, we see some manifestations in behavior, but we also see patients kind of "picking up" on some of these, whether or not they can identify them as bias necessarily. But for example, we see that patients who are seeing a physician with higher levels of implicit bias tend to see their physicians as less patient-centered, and less trustworthy. And I think that's a really important piece to identify because these biases are by definition kind of operating outside of our own consciousness, but they're manifesting themselves in a way that the people that we're communicating with are noticing. Dr. Nimish Mohile: We had a patient a few years ago who had presented to our clinic, who ended up having a diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma, and she was a young black woman, and it took about nine months for her to get that diagnosis. She had gone into multiple emergency rooms, she was only 22, had not had prior interaction with the medical system, but based on some of her socioeconomic demographics, her skin color, she was never given the kinds of testing that any other patient I think should have gotten at that time. That was a real sort of wake-up call for our clinic, because as some of you know, this is a disease that we can really treat, especially in younger patients. So, there's real consequences to these kinds of biases. And some of them are personal, the ways they're ingrained in us, but some of them are built into our systems, and it's based on; what our ERs are designed like, where our hospital systems are, what kind of relationships we have with primary care physicians in different communities, what kind of access some of our patients have to primary care physicians. This patient in particular didn't have great access to primary care, so she didn't have this other team of people to advocate for her and to say, "Hey, you know, this is something really different in this patient, and we need to take this seriously." So, I think it can get complicated as we think about biases in ourselves, in other people, in the whole health system, and then also as we get out of our health system, some of these things are so influenced by what's going on in our communities. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, I think that's a really important point. At least with my work, I examine kind of at the interpersonal level, but these biases, as Dr. Mohile points out, exist in all levels of our society, and they interact, and they're-- I don't want to say additive, it's probably much more exponential. But yeah, it's a layer, on top of layer, on top of layer problem. Dr. Alissa Thomas: So, Dr. Mohile, you commented earlier that part of it is recognizing these biases in ourselves. Can you discuss how we might approach this with the impact of an anti-racism education program has been in your department and applications for that? Dr. Nimish Mohile: So, we've worked on anti-racism in our department on a couple of levels. One of the main levels is just building awareness for individuals to understand that they have biases, that they have racial biases, and starting to understand why they have those. So, we've gone through exercises like book clubs and talks, for people to really do some of that self-reflective work to understand how they've been conditioned as they grew up. I've personally done that and have found it very revealing and understood some of the biases that I grew up with based on people I was around, and based on my schools, and based on segregation within my school systems. So, I think that that's one piece of it. I think another piece is we don't often get taught about the history of racism in the United States, and how widespread it is. It's a very small part of our curriculums, and I think we have to take it upon ourselves now in our medical systems to go through that education. Education that we probably should have had all through elementary school, high school, college, we have to do that learning now because then we can really start seeing that impact of race on our society. And I think for physicians specifically, what is that impact of racism on patient care in our medical systems and how it's been ingrained in US healthcare. Understanding that we had segregated hospitals right until the 1960s, those are all thin

09/11/2022

•

27 min
18/06/2025

A Position Paper on ctDNA Testing in Clinical Trials

JCO PO author Dr. Philip Philip at Henry Ford Cancer Institute and Wayne State University shares insights into his JCO PO article, "Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing Into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group." Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Philip discuss how prospective trials are required to clarify the role of ctDNA as a valid surrogate end point for progression-free or overall survival in GI cancers. Transcript Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philip Philip, Chair of Hematology and Oncology, as well as leader of GI and Neuroendocrine Oncology. He's also the Professor of Oncology and Pharmacology, as well as Co-Leader of the Pancreatic Cancer Program and Medical Director of the Cancer Clinical Trial and Translational Research Office at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute at Wayne State University. Dr. Philip is also the Senior Corresponding Author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, "Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Philip, welcome to our podcast, and thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Philip Philip: Thank you so much, Dr. Naqash, for providing me this opportunity to be discussing this with you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: This is a very timely and interesting topic. We've done a couple of podcasts on ctDNA before, but none that is an opinion piece or a guidance piece based on what you guys have done. Could you tell us what led to this perspective piece or guidance manuscript being published? There is some background to this. Could you tell us, for the sake of our listeners, what was the initial thought process of why you all wanted to do this? Dr. Philip Philip: The major reason for this was the fact that investigators were considering using ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Obviously, you hear my focus will be on gastrointestinal cancers. So, the idea was, can we use ctDNA instead of using the traditional endpoints such as disease-free survival, progression-free survival, or overall survival? And the question was, do we have enough data to support that in patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Now, the article obviously goes over some review of the data available, but the core of the article was not to do a comprehensive review of ctDNA use and the evidence so far, although we used that in really putting our recommendations. So, we really had to evaluate available data. But the focus was, what are the gaps? What do we need to do? And are we ready to use ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that background. Obviously, a very broad, complicated topic with a bunch of emerging data that you've highlighted. But most importantly, for the sake of, again, trainees and listeners, could you help us understand the difference between tumor-informed and non-tumor-based ctDNA assessments? Dr. Philip Philip: Sure. So, the tumor-informed is simply meaning that you're taking the genomic makeup or the DNA fingerprint of the cancer in a given patient, and you create a profile, and then use that profile to see whether that DNA is present in the blood. So, it's very simple. It's like barcoding DNA and then going and looking for it in the blood, which means that you have to have the primary tumor. When I say primary tumor, you need to have the tumor to start off with. It doesn't really apply, maybe easily, if you just have a fine-needle aspirate and things like that. So, you really have to have a good amount of the tumor for you to be able to do that. So, that's a tumor-informed, and from the name, you can easily understand how it's done, compared to the other one, which is uninformed, whereby off-the-shelf probes are used to look for tumor DNA. And again, they're based on prior experience and prior identification of the key DNA changes that will be seen in tumors. So, that's the difference between the two in terms of the principle of the test. The uninformed will not require you to send the original tumor that you're trying to test. However, the informed, you do. The turnaround time is, again, a bit different because, as you would expect, it's shorter in the uninformed. And the reason for that, again, is the initial preparation of the profile that is going to be used in the future when you do serial testing. The sensitivity has been a bit of a discussion. Initially, people have thought that tumor-informed assays are more sensitive, more specific, more sensitive, et cetera. But in our review, we come to the conclusion saying that we don't think that's going to be a major difference. And there are obviously improvements happening in both types of assays. The sensitivities have been improving. So, at this point in time, we do feel that you have two types of assays, and we didn't feel strongly about recommending one over the other. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. You mentioned something about sensitivity, specificity. Obviously, many of us who have ordered both tumor-informed and tumor-uninformed, we understand the differences with respect to the timing. The tumor-informed one can take more time. The uninformed one, being a sort of a liquid biopsy, may not necessarily have as much of a turnaround time. Could you briefly speak to those limitations or advantages in the context of the two versions? Dr. Philip Philip: I just really want to also highlight that when we say turnaround time, so for the tumor-informed assays, the first assay that we do will be requiring a turnaround time. But once the pattern has been set and the profile has been documented, the subsequent testing doesn't require much in the way of waiting. However, when you're using this for the minimal residual disease, then you have a window of opportunity to work at. That's number one. So, it means that in patients who have resected cancer, you may end up having to wait longer than the tumor-uninformed assay, especially if you don't have easy access to your material for the baseline material to send. And also, what we'd like to do is not do the test immediately after the operation or soon after the operation. Give it some time. There's a window where you can work at, and starting minimally two weeks after the surgery. But in my experience, I'd like to wait at least four weeks just to make sure that we got an accurate reading. Sometimes when you do it very early after surgery, because of the effect of the surgery and the release of the normal DNA is also, it may dilute the tumor DNA, and then you may get a false negative. So, basically, it depends on the clinical situation. And your question is, is one better to be used than the other? I think ultimately, it ends up with the turnaround time not being as much of an issue. It might be in certain situations, depending on when you see the patients after the operation or any definitive treatment you've done and you want to look for minimal residual disease. But in general, I don't think that's going to be a real major issue. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember discussing this with one of the tumor-informed platforms with regards to this barcode you mentioned. They generate a fingerprint of sorts for the tumor on the tissue, then they map it out in the blood and try to assess it longitudinally. And one of the questions and discussions we had was around the fact that most of the time, these barcoded genes are not the driver genes. If you have a KRAS mutant tumor, it's not going to be the KRAS gene that they map out. It's something that is specific. So, is there a possibility that when you are mapping out, let's say, a metastatic tumor where there is truncal and subclonal mutations at different sites, that you capture something that is not necessarily truncal, and that does not necessarily reflect some other metastatic site having a recurrence? So basically, over time, you don't see a specific mutational pattern or the signature on the tumor-informed, and then you see something on the scan which makes you think, "Well, it was not the right test," but actually it could be a different subclone or a clone mutation at a different site. Is there a concept that could help us understand that better? Dr. Philip Philip: I think you raise a very important point. Although, I have to say from my practical experience, that is not a common thing to see. In fact, for some reason, we don't see it that often in any frequency that should, at this point in time, make us concerned about the serial testing. But what you were mentioning is a real challenge which can happen. Now, the question is, how often does the clonal evolution or the divergence happen to the point that it's going to be like a false negative, is what you're saying. At this point in time, we don't really have good information on that, or any good information, practical information. And when we went through the literature and we were looking for the evidence, that wasn't something which was there clearly telling us. Although, this is something that has to be studied further prospectively. And I don't know of a study, but I might be missing it, I don't know of a study which is systematically looking at this. Although it's a very valid hypothesis and theoretical basis for it, but in real life, we still have to see how much does it really interfere with the validity of this kind of test

18/06/2025

•

23 min
26/10/2023

Outcomes of the IMMray PanCan-d Test in High-Risk Individuals

JCO PO author Dr. Bryson Katona shares insights into his JCO PO article, "Outcomes of the IMMray PanCan-dTM test in High-Risk Individuals Undergoing Pancreatic Surveillance: Pragmatic Data and Lessons Learned." Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Katona discuss IMMray PanCan-d: A Blood-based Test for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer. 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 Precision Oncology articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, we are thrilled to be joined by Dr. Bryson Katona, Director of Gastrointestinal Cancer Genetics Program and Assistant Professor of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, and also lead author of the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Outcomes of the IMMray PanCan-d tm Test in High Risk Individuals Undergoing Pancreatic Surveillance: Pragmatic Data and Lessons Learned." At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. One of the other unique things about this article is that this will be a concurrent podium presentation at the 2023 CGA-IDC Meeting and also concurrent publication in JCO Precision Oncology. Bryson, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Bryson Katona: Thank you so much for the invitation and I'm looking forward to discussing the findings of our recent study. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So, one of the unique things about this topic or this publication is surveillance, which we often talk about a lot in lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, but not so much in pancreas cancer. For a listener who might be a community oncologist or for a trainee out there, fellow, who may not be as specialized in cancer genetics, what are the kinds of individuals that you would screen for pancreatic cancer? What are the high risk populations where there's a decent pretest probability that you could catch something early? And what are the implications of catching something early in people with pancreas cancer? Dr. Bryson Katona: The whole field of pancreatic cancer screening and high risk individuals, which we'll refer to as pancreatic surveillance, has just been an area of increasing growth and increasing data over the last five years or so. For individuals that we would consider pancreatic cancer surveillance in, really, we try to target those individuals that have a lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer of about 5% or more. And so those fall in two main groups. So one of those groups are individuals that would have what we would define as familial pancreatic cancer. That's where there's a very strong family history of pancreatic cancer without a known genetic susceptibility. And so by strong family history, what we typically refer to is having two members of that family with pancreatic cancer. And those two members of the family have to be directly related to one another, and your patient would then have to be directly related to one of those individuals. So, say your patient has a father and a brother or a mother and a maternal grandfather. Those would kind of fit the criteria. The other big group of patients that we consider doing pancreatic cancer surveillance in are those with genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. And this can come in multiple different forms. Some more of the common cancer risk syndromes, such as Lynch Syndrome, and carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Typically in the presence of one family member with pancreatic cancer, those individuals could be eligible for surveillance. But there are other rarer syndromes as well, such as carriers of an ATM or PALB2 mutation, individuals with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome or hereditary pancreatitis as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: My understanding of these mutations is they have to be germline in these individuals. Could you shed a little more light on germline mutations, what they are, how potentially to recognize them? Because in the current setup, at least, most patients with advanced cancer get next generation sequencing, which is not the same as germline testing. So, for somebody who sees these reports, I do early phase clinical trials primarily and do a lot of sequencing, and find a lot of interesting things which lead to germline testing in individuals, could you shed some light on the differences between NGS testing and germline testing, since you do this day in and day out? And in what scenarios would you test for germline things that could lead to downstream implications for individuals? Dr. Bryson Katona: Oftentimes, this is a point of some confusion or uncertainty. And so when we think about germline testing, basically we're looking for gene mutations that are going to be present in every cell throughout the body. When patients who have a tumor undergo somatic sequencing of that tumor, of course, we expect to find lots of gene mutations in the cancer itself. But then, typically, if there is a mutation in all cells in the body or i.e., a germline mutation, that mutation will oftentimes be picked up in the cancer as well. And so I think when you're looking at somatic sequencing reports, sometimes some of these mutations that you see in there in cancer predisposition genes may not be a cancer specific gene mutation, but may be germline and may merit kind of more additional testing. That's always one way that we can identify individuals that if one of these gene mutations is picked up on the somatic sequencing, they can get referred. Now, if we think about the population who may not have cancer yet but may have a strong family history, in those cases, those individuals are typically getting referred directly for germline testing since they don't have any tumor or anything like that that has been tested. So that also is another opportunity where, ideally, we would identify all these gene mutations in the ideal world just because we, of course, like to know about these before an individual actually does develop any cancer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I think the important point you brought out is doing this before the individual develops cancer is a huge opportunity for us in the cancer field to improve outcomes for certain cancers. As you pointed out in your paper, like pancreas cancer, survival outcomes in the later stages are not that great, and we haven't had any significant breakthroughs in treatments. Could you tell us a little bit more about how pancreas cancer screening could help change some of those aspects where you could see an opportunity where individuals who get screened timely, diagnosed timely, could also benefit in the long term? Dr. Bryson Katona: For pancreatic cancer, really, we know that if it can be detected at stage 1, that's really our only opportunity to meaningfully intervene and impact survival. And so when we talk about screening for pancreas cancer, basically our goal is that we either want to find very high risk lesions that are almost at the stage of cancer, or potentially stage 1 pancreatic adenocarcinomas. We know that for stage 1 disease, especially stage 1a, a five year survival is over 80%. And once you get to stage 2 disease, the five-year survival decreases dramatically. And so I think that if we're going to screen patients, really, our goal should be to detect these cancers at stage 1, where there's an opportunity for surgical intervention. Even stage 2 pancreatic cancers or any that are not surgically resectable, our ability to cure these patients essentially evaporates, and so really, screening should be done to detect things at a time when we can surgically intervene. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: In your program, from a practical standpoint at UPenn, is it the cancer geneticist, or is it the medical oncologist who makes the referral and determines need? Or how do you go about it so that other programs or individuals who might be listening to it would understand how a screening program for pancreas cancer actually works? Dr. Bryson Katona: I pretty much serve as the referral point for all of our pancreatic cancer early detection studies. We have a great collaborative group here and a lot of our oncologists who may be following these carriers with genetic susceptibility, oftentimes, if the patient is very convinced and wanting to go forward with screening, the oncologist will just order the screening tests themselves, and then me and my team will enroll individuals in studies once they come in for screening. So patients who are interested in screening oftentimes will come in for a full office appointment to really discuss the pros and the cons of screening and decide if this is something that they want to pursue themselves. Regardless of how patients get into the process, whether they get directly referred from oncologists or they come through our high risk pancreatic clinic through which I see patients, it's important that these individuals be offered the opportunity to enroll in pancreatic cancer early detection studies as really capturing data on all individuals who are getting screened is really our only hope of continuing to move this field forward. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I totally agree, and I think, as you mentioned in the manuscript, EUS, MRIs are decent tests, but nevertheless, one is invasive, the other one is probably not cheap, may not even be available outside of North America to a large extent. So you definitely need something that's easy, less invasive, perhaps can be implemented in a broader scale. Now, from a payer standpoint in the current landscape, do payers actually reimburse for pancreas cancer screening? Is that something that is easy to come by, or do you actually end up requiring, like, peer to peer prior auth, which is something that has become a theme, an unfortunate theme in the oncology

26/10/2023

•

30 min
03/12/2012

Management of Metastases to the Brain: A Therapeutic Conundrum

Whole-brain radiation therapy of metastases to the brain is not innocuous - it is associated with decrements in health-related quality of life. It is still unknown if the potential benefits outweigh the impact of the side effects.

03/12/2012

•

10 min
19/12/2022

Therapy for Stage IV NSCLC With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline Update 2022.2 Part 2

Dr. Dwight Owen presents the first update to the ASCO living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. He identifies the latest trials that informed this update, and the updated evidence-based options for second- or later-line therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and an activating HER2 mutation or a KRAS-G12C mutation. Additionally, he provides important context on the reported toxicities associated with these therapeutics. Read the update, "Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2022.2" and view all recommendations at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Listen to Part 1 for recommendations for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network; a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at: asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and in our last episode, we addressed the living guideline updates for 'Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations.' Today, Dr. Dwight Owen from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, is joining us again to discuss the updates for therapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations, as the lead author on, 'Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, version 2022.2.' Thank you for being here, Dr. Owen. Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks for having me. Brittany Harvey: First, I'd like to note the ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full Conflict of Interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Owen, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Dwight Owen: Yeah, thanks for asking that really important question. My institution has received research funding for me to conduct clinical trials from Merck, BMS, Pfizer, and Genentech and Palobiofarma. I have no employment, stocks, stock options, or other disclosures to declare. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for those disclosures. Then getting into the content of this update, this is the first update to the living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer with driver alterations. What new studies were reviewed by the panel to prompt an update to this guideline? Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks for that question. This is a particularly exciting update because as we were preparing for this update, reviewing two manuscripts that we think offer new options for our patients with driver alterations, there were actually updated presentations at a recent meeting that showed us even more data for these targets. So, it's really an ongoing and dynamic place. So, we really focused on two updates; one was for KRAS-G12C alterations, and then one was for HER2 alteration-positive non-small cell lung cancer. So, I'll take them one at a time; for KRAS-G12C, we included an updated recommendation based on the CodeBreak 100 study - this was a multi-center, single group, open-label, phase II study of sotorasib, which is a KRAS-G12C inhibitor, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer positive for KRAS-G12C, who had received prior systemic therapy that could either be with chemotherapy or immune therapy, and the majority of patients had received both. 124 patients were evaluable for response, and the objective response rate was 37%, with the impressive median overall survival of over 12 months, of 12.5 months, specifically. Now, there were some notable toxicities. There's GI toxicities such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as some elevations in LFTs. We also heard recently at ESMO about CodeBreak 200, which was a randomized study of sotorasib compared to docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS-G12C non-small cell lung cancer. And that study did meet its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS for sotorasib-treated patients compared to docetaxel, and we are very much looking forward to seeing that final publication. For HER2 alteration-positive non-small cell lung cancer, we really focused our efforts on DESTINY-Lung01. Now, this was a multi-center, multinational, open-label, phase II study evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with previously treated HER2-positive non-small cell lung cancer. In this study, 91 patients were evaluable for response, and 50, which was 55%, had a confirmed objective response, and the median survival was presented at 17.8 months. A pretty unique toxicity was observed here. So, drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in just over a quarter of patients, and there were two deaths related to this. So, this needs to certainly be monitored for. Also at ESMO, we heard results for DESTINY-Lung02, which was a multi-center, multi cohort, randomized blinded study, which was also a dose optimization study. And this study eventually led to the accelerated approval of the 5.4 milligrams per kilogram dose that seemed to be just as effective as other doses, but perhaps with less toxicity. Again, we're currently awaiting the final publication of DESTINY-Lung02. However, these results are particularly impressive and especially leading to the FDA accelerated approval for a new treatment option for our patients with HER2 alteration positive non-small cell lung cancer. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing that data and the new updates for both of these drugs and targets in this population. So then, I'd like to review the recommendations that the panel updated for our listeners. First, what is the new recommendation for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and in activating HER2 mutation? Dr. Dwight Owen: So currently, these patients should continue to receive standard first-line treatment as we do not have head-to-head trials for HER2-directed therapy in the first line. However, for patients who have previously received systemic therapy and have a HER2-activating mutation, trastuzumab deruxtecan certainly should be offered to these patients. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then the second category of patients that you identified, what does the expert panel recommend for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a KRAS-G12C mutation? Dr. Dwight Owen: So, similarly, these patients should continue to receive standard first-line treatment, as we do not have head-to-head trials for KRAS-directed therapy in the first line. However, for patients who have previously received systemic therapy and have a KRAS-G12C mutation, sotorasib can be offered as a subsequent therapy. Keep in mind that this is only approved in patients with the KRAS-G12C mutation, and not other KRAS alterations. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those two recommendations for second or later-line therapies. What should clinicians know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Dwight Owen: So, I think what we're really excited about is that both of these agents offer new treatment options for patients who historically did not have a personalized targeted treatment option. We are awaiting publication of additional studies to help interpret these data, but for now, clinicians should discuss these treatment options with their patients, and also keep in mind the pattern of toxicities that seem to be unique to each treatment. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then, you've just addressed some of this in your last response, but what does this change mean for patients with stage IV non-small lung cancer with a HER2 or KRAS-G12C mutation? Dr. Dwight Owen: I think the bottom line is that our patients for whom their cancer does not respond, or where it progresses after first-line treatment, will now have additional effective and approved treatment options that are really tailored to the unique characteristics of their tumor and cancer cells. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have new options for patients in this field. So then finally, are there future research developments that the panel is considering for future living guideline updates? Dr. Dwight Owen: So, we're particularly looking forward to the final publication of the studies that were recently presented, including the CodeBreak 200, and DESTINY-Lung02 trials. There are multiple ongoing studies for additional targets, including in the targets that we talked about; so, KRAS-G12C as well as HER2, as well as a number of other targeted options that may benefit subsets of our patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Brittany Harvey: Great. Well, I appreciate you reviewing all this data and the updated recommendations, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Owen. Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks for having me. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to: www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. There's a companion living guideline update on therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations, available there and in the JCO. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available on iTunes, or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this pod

19/12/2022

•

8 min
29/08/2018

ASCO Guideline: Palliative Care in the Global Setting

Shadia Jalal, MD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine in the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine discusses updated guideline for palliative care in the global setting. TRANSCRIPT Welcome to the ASCO Guidelines episode of the ASCO University weekly podcast. My name is Alexander Drilon, and I am the clinical director of the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and editorial board member for ASCO University. Today, we feature an ASCO Guideline published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The episode you are about to hear was originally aired on the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. The ASCO Guidelines podcast series features interviews with panelists of recently-published ASCO clinical practice guidelines products, highlighting recommendations and noteworthy qualifying statements made by the expert panel. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernan, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nahla Gaffer, from the Radiation S Isotope Center in Sudan, an author on palliative care in the global setting, American Society of Clinical Oncology resource-stratified practice guideline. Thank you for being here today Dr. Gaffer. Good morning. Thank you, so much, Mrs. Shannon for this opportunity. First, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers, and what it means to be a resource-stratified practice guideline? Yes. These guidelines outline and they cover the recommended set of palliative care integration concerning personnel needed, training needed for this staff, structure, and availability of medicines at different resource levels. And by a resource-stratified guideline, we mean that it's suitable for different levels of development. Yes. For example, if you are speaking about a community level, you are speaking of primary care centers, or if we are speaking about in a different setting, like a regional hospital and also, the highest level might be the oncology center. And at every level, there should be a better structure and better training and availability of palliative care. But at all of these levels, we should have palliative care. What are the key recommendations of this guideline? Yes. The key recommendations, as I mentioned, is that we should have a coordinated system, where the patient's palliative care needs are identified and met at every level and from the moment of diagnosis. So we are speaking about, at the basic level, we should have at least a volunteer or community worker or better even, a nurse trained in palliative care. And these people have got the job to facilitate identification of patients who need palliative care at the community level. Another level is the limited level, and here, we should have at least one doctor and a nurse trained in basic palliative care, and they work with the people working in the community. And they address minor issues, prescribing basic medicines, referring patients, and they also have the ability to support the patient and the family in [INAUDIBLE]. At another enhanced level, and we are speaking here about setting like a regional hospital, there should be a team, at least of three personnel-- doctor, nurse, pharmacist. Of course, if there is a psychologist or religious chaplain, it's OK, but at least these three personnel should be trained about palliative care, so a minimum of six weeks training. And they can provide palliative care, and they can offer as outpatient service in this regional hospital. The best setting or the maximum setting is when we are speaking about a bigger hospital or an oncology center. And we are speaking that no oncology center or any facility for palliative care patients, like hospices, should exist without a well-developed palliative care team. And having personnel and all personnel working in that center should receive basic training in palliative care. The main treating doctors, for example, the oncologists, should have secondary training in palliative care, so it's a higher level of training in palliative care. And we need for palliative care physicians to supervise and develop the service. At such a setting, we should have psychologists, we should have chaplains all integrated in the service. Another recommendation is that palliative care should be given and provided at all levels ideally, at the moment of diagnosis of the patient, but especially for patients who are coming with overwhelming symptoms, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual or patients who have metastasis or patients who cannot receive active treatment for curative intent, for example, for comorbidities or age or patients with a disease with a known short life expectancy. All these patients should receive palliative care from the moment of diagnosis. Why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Yes, it is very important because palliative care is important to be given to all patients at every setting. It is not expensive. It doesn't require special equipment. It can be given. It not only should be given, but it can also be given. It's not difficult to change. And this guideline is very important, because sometimes people don't hear other colleagues or junior doctors. They hear high recommendations, like from the ASCO guidelines. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Yes. We hope the directors of hospitals, people or personnel at administerial levels, our fellow colleagues, they embrace these recommendations more and more. As I mentioned, sometimes it needs to come from higher up, and for that, we thank the American Society of Clinical Oncology for taking this task. Once we are caring for our patients holistically, which includes social, spiritual, psychological dimensions, in addition to physical, it leads to a better quality of life, affecting not only the patient and the family in all dimensions but even leading to a better survival, and here, I mean both in time and quality. Great. Thank you for your time today, Dr. Gaffer. Thanks. Thanks a lot. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague. [MUSIC PLAYING] The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

29/08/2018

•

8 min
03/07/2019

Annual Meeting 2019 - Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Dr. James Harding (Memorial Sloan Kettering) is a board-certified medical oncologist specializes in caring for people with liver cancer, gallbladder cancer, and bile duct cancer, as well as other gastrointestinal cancers. In this week's episode, he discusses a new checkpoint inhibitor with monoclonal antibodies to programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) for patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). He presents a clinical case and to highlight several aspects of immunotherapy for liver cancer.

03/07/2019

•

11 min
08/05/2019

Self-Evaluation: Central Nervous System

ASCO Education

08/05/2019

•

6 min
22/08/2018

Annual Meeting 2018 - ASCO Voices: Heroes, Mentors, and Hope

2018 Annual Meeting raised the curtain on a new session type: ASCO Voices. These noncompete session feature presentations no longer than 7 minutes each and bring a variety of perspectives to the stage to share stories on oncology, medicine, and the world. From big ideas to personal passions, ASCO Voices present stories that differ significantly from the remainder of session types available at Annual Meeting. Dr. Trevor Bayliss is an oncologist in Pittsfield, Massachusetts and is affiliated with Berkshire Medical Center. He received his medical degree from Albany Medical College and has been in practice between 6-10 years. He is one of 6 doctors at Berkshire Medical Center who specialize in Oncology. In his ASCO Voices presentation, Dr. Bayliss shares his personal story of overcoming cancer and how it lead him to a career in oncology.

22/08/2018

•

8 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