ASCO Podcasts

•

Channel • 7 Shows

Medicine

Medicine

Updated Fortnightly
Medicine

Medicine

Updated Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Updated Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Updated 2 Apr
Medicine

Medicine

Updated Monthly
Medicine

Medicine

Updated Fortnightly
Medicine

Medicine

Updated Bi-monthly

2 APR

Groundbreaking Results Shift Treatment Paradigm in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Dr. Monty Pal speaks with internationally acclaimed hematologists Dr. Vincent Rajkumar and Dr. Saad Usmani about the AQUILA trial in high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma, as well as advances in CAR-T and other evolving treatment strategies in the myeloma space. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello everyone and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, underline medical oncologist, a professor, and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. You're going to understand why I underlined "medical oncologist" there. I'm actually on the line today with two amazing hematologists. Today, we're going to actually explore treatments for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma following the FDA's approval last year of daratumumab for the first-ever treatment of this indication. Now, this is based on the AQUILA trial, and this represents a huge shift in our traditional watch-and-wait approach to active disease interception. We're going to consider whether this landmark trial published in The New England Journal translates to day-to-day practice. I think it does, and we'll certainly make an argument for that. And I'm so fortunate today to have two internationally acclaimed experts here in the conversation: Dr. Vincent Rajkumar, senior author on the manuscript, and Dr. Saad Usmani, also an expert in his own right in myeloma. Dr. Rajkumar is the lead investigator of the AQUILA study. He's a professor of medicine and consultant in the divisions of hematology and hematopathology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. He actually chairs the Myeloma, Amyloidosis, Dysproteinemia Program. He is also editor-in-chief of the Blood Cancer Journal. Dr. Usmani, he and I actually go way, way back. We actually did the AACR Molecular Biology in Clinical Oncology course, I want to say in 2006, so this is our 20-year anniversary, Saad. He's the chief of the myeloma service at the MSK Cancer Center and a professor of medicine at the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Saad, Vincent, welcome. Dr. Saad Usmani: Thank you so much for having me, Monty. Dr. Vincent Rajkumar: Yeah, thanks, Monty. A pleasure to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks. And just a quick note for our listeners, all of our disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. First off, Saad, did I get that right? Was it 2006 when we did that course together? Dr. Saad Usmani: Yeah, 20 years. We are coming up to our 20-year anniversary. It's remarkable to have seen our careers move the way they have, Monty. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh my gosh. And for all the fellows who are on the line, that AACR Molecular Biology and Clinical Oncology course, it's sometimes overlooked. Wonderful primer on translational science. Okay, now we're going to get to the heart of the matter here, the AQUILA trial. So this was a study, Vincent, that you led. I wonder if you'd walk us through the primary endpoints in the study. What are we looking at in the AQUILA trial specifically? Dr. Vincent Rajkumar: Thanks so much. Again, as you mentioned, smoldering multiple myeloma has just been a condition that we watch and wait. And the first thing that I want to clarify here is that the AQUILA trial is looking at only a subset of smoldering multiple myeloma. That is the high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. It was defined the way high-risk smoldering myeloma was defined at the time the trial was designed. It randomized 390 patients. One arm got daratumumab single agent in an attempt to delay progression to active myeloma and possibly prolong survival. And the other arm was the traditional observation. The primary endpoint, therefore, was time to active multiple myeloma. Other endpoints included time to when patients needed to start therapy for active multiple myeloma, which can vary based on physician judgment, and overall survival. Of course, response rate, complete response rate, and others were also endpoints. Dr. Monty Pal: That's interesting. And you know, I wanted you to riff a little bit on this definition of high-risk smoldering myeloma. Can you tell our audience how that's sort of evolved over the years? Dr. Vincent Rajkumar: Yes. I mean, if you step back, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance has only a 1% per year risk of progression. Smoldering multiple myeloma, all comers have a 10% per year risk of progression. And over the years, trials have been done in the whole population, and then more recently, we felt we should really focus on the people with high-risk smoldering, defined as a 50-50 risk of progression in 2 years. That's like a 25% per year risk of progression in the first 2 years, which is a very high risk for the patient and something that would justify prophylactic intervention. And that definition initially was based on just high levels of monoclonal protein like more than 3 grams, the IgA subtype of myeloma, the suppression of uninvolved immunoglobulins. Others have used bone marrow flow cytometry markers, cytogenetics. Those combinations of factors were available at the time the AQUILA trial was designed, and a select combination was used. Later on, we found that we could match almost all of that in a very simple risk stratification using just the percentage of bone marrow plasma cells, the level of the M-spike, and the free light chain ratio, all three of which are available to all patients with smoldering at the time of diagnosis. So you don't need any special testing. So more than 20% plasma cells, more than 20 for the light chain ratio, and more than 2 grams for the M-spike. If someone has any two of the three, that is high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma according to the IMWG, but that definition, of course, came in 2020 after the AQUILA trial completed accrual. Dr. Monty Pal: That's interesting because this sort of flips the traditional paradigm where biomarkers get more and more complex as time goes on. Am I right in saying this sort of simplifies things a little bit? It uses standard laboratory or clinical parameters to gauge this category? Dr. Vincent Rajkumar: Absolutely. People were using suppression of uninvolved immunoglobulins, and those levels are not standardized, often vary by race. Also, the other aspect was the abnormal plasma cells on flow cytometry. Again, labs define it differently. So this makes it much more simple. But the IMWG also did a separate exploratory cohort within that paper where we added cytogenetics and we added scoring systems to improve on this further. So it simplified it for regular clinical practice and for like trials. But if you have a patient in front of you, the IMWG paper also has more complex scoring systems where you can take more than 20; 21 is more than 20, so is 51. And so, you can use the actual numbers that a patient has, additional variables like cytogenetics, and get a more refined estimate of what is the true risk of progression. Dr. Monty Pal: That's really helpful. Now, you told us about the primary endpoints, you've helped us define high-risk smoldering myeloma. Can you give us a sense of the top-line results from AQUILA? Dr. Vincent Rajkumar: Yes, I think the most important one was the primary endpoint, time to multiple myeloma, was at 5 years, the progression-free survival was 63% in the daratumumab arm compared to 41% in the observation arm. So, you know, approximately 60% of patients in the observation arm had already progressed by 5 years. And that number was about 40% for the daratumumab arm. We also looked at time to starting myeloma therapy, which is clinically actually quite meaningful because, you know, myeloma therapy means patients get a quadruplet for induction, they get stem cell transplant, they get endless maintenance, they get ongoing therapy virtually for the entire duration. So, preventing the need for myeloma therapy is in and of itself, I think, a major endpoint. And that at 3 years, 40% of people in the observation arm required full myeloma therapy compared to only 20% in the daratumumab arm. So there's a significant reduction in the risk of developing active myeloma as well as the need for myeloma therapy by using a time-limited 3 years of daratumumab single agent. Dr. Monty Pal: Perfect summary of the results. And maybe, Saad, I'm going to bring you into the conversation now. How does this sort of influence your day-to-day practice for smoldering myeloma? Is this something that you've incorporated for that high-risk subset? Dr. Saad Usmani: Thank you, Monty, and I agree. I think that's a really nice summary from Vincent. This study is very important for several reasons. It's actually the third clinical trial that has demonstrated that patients who are in the high-risk smoldering myeloma category benefit from an early intervention that delays the progression to active myeloma or to end-organ damage. And so having a nuanced discussion with our patients in the clinic becomes very important. Having this discussion around as an option becomes very important. And like Vincent said, when we look at that high-risk smoldering myeloma patient population, someone who has 22, 23% plasma cells versus, you know, 45, 50, you know, it's going to be a different discussion each time. But I think it's a very important first step. And I think this sets up the stage for us to design clinical trials where we can ask other questions on what would be better than daratumumab alone in terms of delaying progression in these patients. The other thing that I do want to highlight, and Vincent touched upon this a little bit, that the treatment in this clinical trial was for a fixed duration of treatment. So it was not forever treatment. This is maybe something that Vincent, you can even comment on a little bit more because the question we get after having this discussion is, "Okay, what do we do with patients who are going to be progressing to active myeloma?" Whether we ca

2 Apr

•

20 min
4 DAYS AGO

Infections in Two Diet Strategies in HSCT and Leukemia Patients

Guest Dr. John Wingard and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "Randomized Non-inferiority Trial of a Liberalized Diet Versus the Neutropenic Diet in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant and Acute Leukemia Patients," the reason behind the trial, its design, methodology, results, and the implications for future dietary approaches in hematology. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

4 days ago

•

21 min
1 APR

Systemic Treatment of Thyroid Cancer Guideline

Dr. Nabil Saba shares the first evidence-based guideline on thyroid cancer from ASCO. He highlights recommendations on first- and subsequent-line systemic treatment – including multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), genomically targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy across four subtypes of thyroid cancer: well-differentiated, differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, anaplastic, and medullary thyroid cancer. He dives into the evidence supporting each recommendation and explains the importance of shared decision-making on the risks and benefits of each treatment option. Dr. Saba also touches on outstanding questions including sequencing of agents, addressing resistance, emerging biomarker targets, and management of toxicities. Read the full guideline, "Systemic Treatment of Thyroid Cancer: ASCO Guideline." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at https://ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/head-neck-cancer. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 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. Nabil Saba from Emory University, lead author on "Systemic Treatment of Thyroid Cancer: ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Saba. Dr. Nabil Saba: Pleasure to be here. Brittany Harvey: And 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. Saba, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Saba, could you start us off by providing a general overview of the scope and purpose of this first ASCO guideline for thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: So thyroid cancer is a complex disease, and the complexity has been added with the advent of multiple systemic therapeutic agents that have recently come on as part of the standard of care for treating this disease. The guidelines have lagged behind, I believe, in terms of being able to clearly delineate how to use these agents and what clinical settings to use them. And so this guideline, I think, is a much-needed and much-awaited guideline for clinicians to allow them to understand better the use of systemic agents in the treatment of thyroid cancer. And when we talk about systemic agents, what we want to specify is this applies mostly for patients with recurrent metastatic disease, patients who have failed the standard initial treatment, which continues to be surgical resection for these patients if surgery is possible, in addition to radioiodine therapy for the right clinical setting. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's a good point that this patient population for this guideline focuses mainly on recurrent disease and patients who have already received surgery and radioactive iodine therapy. So then this guideline covers four subtypes of thyroid cancer, including well-differentiated, differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, anaplastic, and medullary thyroid cancer. As you mentioned, you address clinical questions on systemic therapies, including multikinase inhibitors, genomically targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy in both the first-line and subsequent lines for each of these subtypes. So I'd like to review the key recommendations by subtype. So first, what are the key points for systemic therapy for well-differentiated thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: It's important to also stress the point that we have these different subtypes of thyroid cancer. So when we talk about radioiodine refractory, those are for patients who are candidates for radioiodine therapy, of course. This usually encompasses the well-differentiated thyroid cancer. So for this group of patients, the guideline focuses on whether the use of multikinase inhibitors compared to placebo or observation impacts the survival in the first-line setting, whether the use of targeted therapies compared to placebo impacts also the survival in the first-line setting, all in the radioiodine refractory setting, of course. And then we tackle the issue of immunotherapy because this also is a topic that has entered the realm, if you like, of thyroid cancer and is being used in some subtypes of thyroid cancer. So we thought it would be important to raise the question of the role of immunotherapy compared to targeted agents or multikinase inhibitors, in addition to the role of cytotoxic therapy or chemotherapy, as we say, in this patient population. So the guideline goes through all of these questions and then makes specific recommendations as to the use of some of the agents in the first-line setting and second-line setting in case these patients progress after first-line setting. So, for example, it's clear that for patients who are radioiodine refractory and who have well-differentiated thyroid cancer, multikinase inhibitors are centerpiece of the first-line treatment option. And for this patient population, the recommendation essentially is to use lenvatinib or sorafenib, even though lenvatinib is considered to be the first choice in this patient population in the first-line setting. For the subsequent line settings, patients should be offered cabozantinib, which has been also proven in randomized trials. As far as genomically targeted therapy, there is always the contention of whether these agents should be initiated first in case the patient has a genomically altered disease. And so, for example, if the patient has a RET alteration or NTRK alteration, the recommendation here is in favor of using RET-targeted therapies such as selpercatinib or NTRK-targeted therapies such as larotrectinib or entrectinib for these patients as a first-line setting. If they do have the BRAF alteration, which is a commonly seen alteration in these settings, the guideline essentially indicates that this may be offered initially prior to treatment with multikinase inhibitors as well, even though the quality of the evidence here is rather lower, and the strength of the recommendation is conditional. And so it's clear that multikinase inhibitors, in the absence of any of these genomic alterations, is really the first line, and then the question becomes when do we use these genomically targeted approaches in patients who have genomically altered disease? Which basically introduces also the complexity of the question here because we have multiple agents depending on these genomic findings. And then it is sometimes confusing for practitioners which one to use or what do we use first? And so I think the guideline provides clarity in terms of what is acceptable, what is rather not acceptable, what is based on a strong recommendation, what is based on a rather weaker recommendation. I think that's part of the value of such a guideline. And then finally we have the question of radioiodine well-differentiated and the question of immunotherapy as a first line. And here we do not recommend using immunotherapy for this patient population. For patients with subsequent line settings, potentially adding pembrolizumab to a multikinase inhibitor is mentioned, however the evidence is low, and the strength of the recommendation is also conditional here. As far as chemotherapy, this is not recommended in this day and age for this patient population, however it may be considered also in patients who fail or progress on genomically targeted therapy and/or multikinase inhibitors. So this is the summary of the recommendations for well-differentiated thyroid cancer, but certainly, for details, I would refer you to the actual guideline since there are many nuances that cannot be covered during just this discussion. Brittany Harvey: Certainly. The full guideline will be available for listeners in our show notes, and there are many recommendation tables and figures that can help folks as they think through these recommendations. A lot of those key points are really important as clinicians think through which systemic therapies to offer and sequencing of these agents, as you mentioned. Following those recommendations for well-differentiated thyroid cancer, what are the recommendation highlights for systemic therapy for differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma? Dr. Nabil Saba: This entity is rather a rare entity. It's important to stress the fact that this entity has not really been very well represented in clinical trials, and so when we talk about differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, the information here is limited. However, the guideline infers on the recommendations to this subtype of thyroid cancer based on what we know for other subtypes. And I think because of the strength of evidence we have in the well-differentiated and the anaplastic thyroid cancer, this guideline for this subgroup of patients draws from these two guidelines and sort of makes recommendations based on this. So in the first-line setting, of course, if patients don't have a genomically altered disease, we certainly would recommend lenvatinib or sorafenib like we do in the well-differentiated disease. For patients with genomically altered diseases, we follow sort of the same guideline as we have followed for the well-differentiated setting, with the caveat that the quality is rather lower here and the stren

1 Apr

•

23 min
9 MAR

Exercise as Medicine: Strategies for Integrating Exercise into Cancer Care

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Kathryn Schmitz discuss evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care and connect the right patient to the right program, and ultimately build a culture of exercise in oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist and a clinical trialist at the University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also happy to serve as a deputy editor for the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we'll be talking about exercise. We have plenty of evidence that exercise benefits symptoms, improves the quality of life of patients, and actually has been shown to reduce risk of recurrence of cancer but also improve survival. And I think that's increasingly clear as data emerges. Today, I'm delighted to be speaking to Dr. Kathryn Schmitz. She's a leading expert on integrating exercise into cancer care. Dr. Schmitz serves as the deputy director of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center and also a professor of hematology-oncology at University of Pittsburgh Medical School. She's the senior author of a fantastic article in the ASCO Educational Book that's titled "Implementation Science as the Secret Sauce for Integrating Exercise Screening and Triage Pathways in Oncology." She also led a really compelling piece that just got published in JCO titled "If Exercise Were a Pill, We'd All Prescribe It to Patients With Cancer. But It's Not" So I'm thrilled to have Dr. Schmitz joining us today and helping us explore evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care, and also how to connect the right patient to the right program. So with that, welcome, Dr. Schmitz. Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us. Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the highlights of ASCO last year and practice changing, in my opinion, data out of The New England [Journal of Medicine] is called the CHALLENGE trial. It did provide high level evidence that a structured, supervised exercise program could improve both disease-free survival and overall survival. This is a study in the GI world, but I think it got a lot of attraction and attention beyond the GI world, across solid tumors, really. Could you give us a little brief recap of that trial and what have you seen as being the impact in practices around oncology? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, CHALLENGE was very exciting. Prior to CHALLENGE, there were any number of observational studies that indicated that there was a relationship between being more physically active and reduced recurrence and improved overall survival for colon cancer in particular. You know, notably, in 2006, Jeff Meyerhardt published two papers in the same journal, of the same issue of JCO, showing very, very similar data from two very large studies. And those were studies number five and six in this area. You know, there's a lot of evidence observationally, but we don't generally change clinical practice on the basis of observational data. So, we were all waiting very impatiently for the results of the CHALLENGE trial. And it was very exciting to be in the front row when the results were reported out and to be part of the group with a standing ovation for the authors when it was presented. To summarize, 889 colon cancer patients, stage II and III, were randomized into either a structured exercise program or a health education control comparison group and followed for an average of 7.9 years. And the structured exercise group had a 27% reduced risk of recurrence and a 38% improvement in overall survival. One of the things that's really notable about this is that what we typically expect is that when we go from the observational literature to the clinical trial literature, that we expect effects to go down. We expect to see a larger effect in the observational than in the RCT land, and that did not happen here. We actually see an effect that matches what we've seen in observational literature, which is really, really exciting. And, you know, one of the reasons why this has been so exciting across not just GI but other cancers is the notable finding of a reduced risk of second primaries. So, they only observed two breast cancer second primaries in the treatment group and 12 in the comparison group. And overall, they reduced the second primaries occurrence, hazard ratio was 0.5, a 50% reduction of second primaries, which is just remarkable. It really got everybody very, very excited. And now the big question, of course, is, all right, how do I do this? How do I make this happen? The thing to note is that what they did in CHALLENGE is probably not doable in your clinic tomorrow. It's a heavy intervention. The number of touchpoints from staff is extensive, and the amount of time needed from staff for the coaching and supervised exercise is extensive as well. The criteria for getting people into the program required that people go through a series of blood tests and imaging tests that would just simply not be possible for the average community oncologist. So I'm guessing that you're going to ask me some questions about how we do this. Dr. Pedro Barata: Right. That's a fantastic segue. That's exactly right. Walk us through maybe starting by, what does that mean? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: The first thing to say is I have to go back to the observational literature. And the observational literature shows really compellingly that we have a strong reduction of breast cancer recurrence and mortality from being more physically active, prostate cancer recurrence and mortality, and colon cancer recurrence and mortality. I find it very difficult to believe in this day and age, in our current environment, if you will, that we are ever going to have the equivalent of CHALLENGE for prostate or for breast cancer. There is an ongoing study in prostate that's led by some Australian researchers, but I just don't think that it's likely that we're going to mount something similar for another tumor site. We have tremendous correlative data that indicates that there are a number of biomarkers and biological pathways through which breast, colon, and prostate cancer would be reduced in recurrence if people were more physically active. And so, there is really, from my thinking, very little to state that it would be just a colon cancer effect. And so this is something we probably can enact in more than just the colon cancer community, overall, which is great news, and it makes it easier for us to be able to enact this type of programming. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the things that comes up perhaps often is, if I were the leader of the cancer center and were to incentivize the different care teams to implement an exercise program at each level: GI team, GU, breast, thoracic, etc. How do we do that? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, I want to give you an analogy. You're a medical oncologist, and you prescribe your patients chemotherapy. Now, just imagine, if you will, what would happen and how likely it would be for your patients to get chemotherapy if there was no chemoinfusion suite. If the chemoinfusion suite disappeared tomorrow and you were to tell your patients, "Go get some chemotherapy," what proportion of those patients do you think would go find all of the equipment necessary and all of the drugs necessary and understand how to dose the chemotherapy for themselves and get that all done? Very few people would do it. So with exercise, why would we be surprised then that our patients don't actually do a whole lot if we just simply tell them to go get some exercise? Exercise is a medicine. It is effective like a medicine. We've shown this through the CHALLENGE trial and many other correlative studies and an ocean of observational data as well. So the question is, how do we build the infrastructure that is necessary in order for your patients to do this? So the very first thing that has to happen is that somebody has to tell the patient to exercise. We currently do not have a culture of exercise in oncology. We do in heart disease. If you ask the average person on the street, "Is exercise good for your heart?" Anybody with an eighth-grade education is going to say, "Yes, of course," because the American Heart Association has done an amazing job telling everybody that exercise is good for your heart. But what has ASCO done, frankly? Can I be that bold? What has ASCO done to tell patients that they should be exercising during and after their cancer treatment? I'm not sure that I know more than a guideline. There is a guideline, and that's great. And the guideline is very helpful, but I'm not sure that patients know that there's a guideline. In fact, I can tell you that patients don't know that there is a guideline. So, you know, making sure that there's a paradigm shift in the country that says exercise is good for patients during and after their cancer treatment is the first step. The second step is getting a medical professional to say something to the patient about the exercise. And I'm very careful with the two words that I just chose: medical professional. I do understand medical oncologists are very busy. I understand that there's a whole lot to say in that 15 minutes when you're with the patient. And so maybe it isn't the medical oncologist. Ideally, it would be, but I get it that there's limited time. So it could be a nurse practitioner, it could be a nurse, there could be a social worker, it could be somebody else on the team that says, "Hey, you know, we want you to do an exercise program. We want to connect you to an exercise program." And then there's what is the program itself? You know, I'm very interested in

9 Mar

•

19 min
19 MAR

Navigating Therapeutic Advances in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Vamsi Velcheti discuss the evolving treatment landscape in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer, including landmark trials like FLAURA2, novel drug therapies, and the growing importance of ctDNA and MRD testing. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today, I'm truly delighted to introduce Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, who's a professor of medicine and the chief of hematology-oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. We'll be discussing the expanding treatment landscape in EGFR-positive lung cancer and how to navigate the challenges of balancing treatment efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life in the EGFR-positive space. Just FYI, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Vamsi, it's so great to have you on the podcast. Thank you so much for being here. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Monty. It's a pleasure to be here with you. It's a really exciting topic and there are a lot of updates in the EGFR space. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to need your help with this because I'll be honest with you, I see very little lung cancer, if any, in my practice. I'm pretty much exclusively kidney cancer these days. I'm coming on 20 years at City of Hope now, and I still remember when trials like ECOG 1599 were presented with, you know, platinum doublets. And, of course, the field has changed a lot since then. But tell us a little bit about the first-line landscape, and I think just for the sake of time, we're going to stick with EGFR-positive disease here. What does it look like these days? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Monty, the foundation of care remains the third-generation EGFR inhibitors. These are selective EGFR inhibitors, like osimertinib. We've had an evolution of the development of these TKIs. Like, you know, we had the first-generation, second-generation, not-so-selective EGFR inhibitors. Now we have mutant-selective EGFR inhibitors in the clinic, and they're doing a really good job. And these are quite effective in patients who have classical activating mutations. But the reality is that these have not been transformative. These agents have fundamentally changed the response patterns, excellent CNS penetration, and very good tolerability profile. However, we don't see a lot of durability in terms of the response. So, what's different today is now there have been several trials in combination with these third-generation EGFR inhibitors that have really laid the foundation of how we kind of think about EGFR-positive disease. At the high level, there are a lot of challenges to selecting the patients for these combination-based modalities. I'm assuming we'll be talking more about these different trials and different approaches. Some of these combination-based strategies have really moved the needle in terms of improving overall survival and really improving long-term outcomes and durability in our patients. Dr. Monty Pal: And we are going to get into the weeds on this in just a moment. But I did kick off this podcast talking about chemotherapy, ECOG 1599. It does seem as though chemotherapy is still a component of management in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. So, can you tell us about, perhaps first, you mentioned osimertinib, you know, some of these next-generation EGFR inhibitors. Tell us about the role of chemo plus osimertinib. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: That's exactly where I was going with the combination-based strategies. You know, we first started off with our earlier trials in the EGFR space evaluating the question of, are targeted therapies, are these highly effective, third-generation, EGFR-selective inhibitors, superior to platinum-doublet chemotherapy? And we've had multiple trials demonstrating that, like the FLAURA trial and in the past with second-generation EGFR inhibitors like erlotinib and gefitinib and afatinib. So, we know that these TKIs actually perform better than platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Now, we have a large, global, phase 3 trial data from the FLAURA2 trial, which looks at the question, "Hey, you know, osimertinib is better than chemotherapy, platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Can we do even better by combining osimertinib with platinum-doublet chemotherapy?" So, FLAURA2 answered that question. This is a large, phase 3 trial, and it's a positive trial with improved durability of disease control and improving overall survival with combination with chemotherapy. So, it's a very important and landmark trial, and essentially combining osimertinib with a platinum-based chemotherapy improved responses, deepened responses, and improved overall survival and really changing the disease trajectory. And this strategy is definitely compelling, especially in patients who have certain clinical high-risk features like, you know, patients who have high disease burden or patients who are sometimes having rapid disease progression early on osimertinib, especially with patients who have a lot of visceral disease burden. So, intensifying treatments up front could alter the natural trajectory of the disease. Dr. Monty Pal: So, you sort of alluded to this in that last part there, but is that kind of how you in clinical practice select? Is it based on, you know, visceral involvement? Is it based on rapidity of disease where you think about adding chemotherapy to osimertinib? Maybe you can give us the corollary. Which patients do you just use osimertinib alone in, for instance? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, there are some patients who have low disease burden and they have the classical mutations, like an exon 19 deletion. And these patients, especially if they don't have a lot of disease burden, they don't have CNS involvement, there may be a subset of patients who could just do fine on osimertinib of course, with close monitoring of the disease. I guess we'll get into that later, how do we do that with either ctDNA or like closer imaging or both. So, there may be some opportunity to kind of escalate patients' treatments based on certain clinical characteristics or radiographic characteristics or certain biological characteristics informed by ctDNA or other approaches. Dr. Monty Pal: No, that's interesting. And you're right, we will chat about ctDNA in just a bit. But before we get there, I think one of the big agents that has really sort of come to the fore in advanced non-small cell lung cancer is amivantamab. I've heard a lot about this in the context of even kidney cancer because in certain subsets, I'm interested in MET-directed therapies and so forth, right? So maybe tell us a little bit about the mechanism of amivantamab first, and then maybe tell us about this pivotal MARIPOSA trial where it's combined with lazertinib. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, the MARIPOSA trial compared lazertinib alone with amivantamab plus lazertinib. And this trial demonstrated overall survival advantage, and there were key differences in terms of tolerability and the safety of amivantamab, which is an EGFR and MET bispecific, and there were certain kind of unique toxicity profiles that make it a little different than the intensification approach with chemotherapy through the FLAURA2 trial. So, there's a trade-off in terms of the toxicity profile. It's a different agent and a different management protocol in terms of dermatological toxicity management that clinicians need to be comfortable with. And also, there are certain unique issues in terms of amivantamab; there's a higher rate of infusion-related reactions, there's an increased risk for edema and VTEs because of amivantamab. Certainly a different toxicity profile, different management paradigm there in terms of longitudinal care of these patients requiring dermatological care and like, you know, close monitoring and prophylaxis VTEs. But having said that, definitely it's a different strategy, and it kind of changes the biology and the natural history of the cancers, and we do see some durability of responses that we see with the MARIPOSA. So, it's certainly a great alternative, at least for some patients. Dr. Monty Pal: That was a great overview of MARIPOSA. Now comes the really difficult question, which is, how do you choose between the two? You have these two great options, right, for EGFR-positive patients. You've already highlighted some of the distinctions in terms of toxicity. I think the audience is well aware of the side effects of chemo-doublet, perhaps even the EGFR-based therapies. Amivantamab is quite new. Give us a sense of how you in clinical practice decide between the two potential options here. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think that's the big challenge. I think these are two independent strategies that have evolved through the phase 3, and both of them have demonstrated overall survival benefit. So, the way I think about this is in three dimensions, right? Like, the disease biology, the patient priorities, and feasibility of care delivery. So, when I talk about the disease biology, you know, the mechanism is very different, and MET is a very dominant driver of disease in EGFR-altered patients and it's a significant mechanism of resistance, acquired resistance to TKIs. So, certainly I think there's a patient population that could benefit from a MET-directed therapy up front. However, we don't have great data to kind of really demonstrate how using amivantamab in the front line is going to change that. And are there like perhaps like some patients who we could identify who would benefit from such a strategy? Very recently, there have been some approvals in the second-line setting in lung cancer, not in the EGFR space, but like in generally in lung cancer, with the MET ADCs, and those drugs are approved with a companion diagnostic, which requires MET IHC testing. So,

19 Mar

•

19 min
19/07/2023

Cancer Topics – Research to Practice: Prostate Cancer (Part 2)

In this episode of ASCO Educational podcasts, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. Part One involved a 72-year old man with high-risk, localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease. Today's scenario focuses on de novo metastatic prostate cancer. Our guests are Dr. Kriti Mittal (UMass Chan Medical School) and Dr. Jorge Garcia (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). Together they present the patient scenario (1:13), going beyond the one-size-fits-all approach (4:54), and thinking about the patient as a whole (13:39). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Kriti Mittal: Honoraria – IntrinsiQ; Targeted Oncology; Medpage; Aptitude Health; Cardinal Health Consulting or Advisory Role – Bayer; Aveo; Dendreon; Myovant; Fletcher; Curio Science; AVEO; Janssen; Dedham Group Research Funding - Pfizer Dr. Jorge Garcia: Honoraria - MJH Associates: Aptitude Health; Janssen Consulting or Advisor – Eisai; Targeted Oncology Research Funding – Merck; Pfizer; Orion Pharma GmbH; Janssen Oncology; Genentech/Roche; Lilly Other Relationship - FDA Resources ASCO Article: Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 ASCO Course: How Do I Integrate Metastasis-directed Therapy in Patients with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer? (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Hello and welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. In a previous episode, we explored the clinical scenario of localized prostate cancer progressing to metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. Today, our focus will be on de novo metastatic prostate cancer. My name is Kriti Mittal and I am the Medical Director of GU Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. I am delighted to co-host today's discussion with my colleague, Dr. Jorge Garcia. Dr. Garcia is a Professor of Medicine and Urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is also the George and Edith Richmond Distinguished Scientist Chair and the current Chair of the Solid Tumor Oncology Division at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center. Here are the details of the patient case we will be exploring: The patient also notes intermittent difficulty in emptying his bladder with poor stream for the last six months. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrates enlarged prostate gland with bladder distension, pathologically enlarged internal and external iliac lymph nodes, and multiple osteolytic lesions in the lumbar sacral, spine, and pelvic bones. A CT chest also reveals supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and sclerotic foci in three ribs. So this patient meets the criteria for high-volume disease and also has axial and appendicular lesions. The patient was admitted for further evaluation. A bone scan confirmed uptake in multiple areas identified on the CT, and a PSA was found to be greater than 1500. Biopsy of a pelvic lymph node confirmed the diagnosis of prostate cancer. This patient is somewhat different from the first case we presented in terms of timing of presentation; this patient presents with de novo metastatic high-volume disease, in contrast to the first patient who then became metastatic after undergoing treatment for high-risk localized disease. Would you consider these two cases different for the purposes of dosing docetaxel therapy when you offer upfront triplet therapy combinations? Dr. Jorge Garcia: That's a great question. I actually do not. The natural history of someone with localized disease receiving local definitive therapy progressing over time is different than someone walking in with de novo metastatic disease. But now, with the challenges that we have seen with prostate cancer screening, maybe even COVID, to be honest with you, in North America, with the late care and access to testing, we do see quite a bit of patients actually walking in the office with de novo metastatic disease. So, to me, what defines the need for this patient to get chemotherapy is the volume of his disease, the symptoms of his disease – to be honest with you – and the fact that, number one, he is clinically impaired. He has symptomatic disease, and he does have a fair amount of disease, even though he may not have visceral metastasis. Then his diseases give him significant pain. Oral agents are very good for pain control. I'm not disputing the fact that that is something that actually these agents can do. But I also believe I'm senior enough and old enough to remember that chemotherapy, when it works, can actually really alleviate pain quite drastically. So for me, I think that the way that I would probably counsel this patient is to say, "Listen, we can give you ADT plus an oral agent, but I really believe your symptomatic progression really talks about the importance of rapid control of your disease." And based upon the charted data from the United States, and equally important, PEACE-1, which is the French version of ADT, followed by abiraterone, if you will, and certainly ARASENS is the standard of care for me for a patient like this will be triple therapy with ADT and docetaxel. What I think is important for us to remember is that, in ARASENS, it was triple therapy together. I am worried sometimes about the fatigue that patients can have during the first six cycles of docetaxel. So oftentimes, I tell them if they're super fit, I may just do triple therapy up front, but if they I think they're going to struggle, what I tell them is, "Hey, we're going to put you on ADT chemotherapy. Right after you're about to complete chemo, we'll actually add on the darolutamide." So I do it in a sequence, and I think that's part of the data; we just still don't know if it should be given three at front or ADT chemo, followed by immediately, followed by an ARI. So I love to hear if that's how you practice or you perhaps have a different thought process. Dr. Kriti Mittal: So I usually start the process of prior authorization for darolutamide the day I meet them for the first time. I think getting access to giving docetaxel at the infusion center is usually much faster than the few weeks it takes for the prior authorization team to get copay assistance for darolutamide. So, in general, most of my patients start that darolutamide either with cycle two or, depending on their frailty, I do tend to start a few cycles in like you suggested. I've had a few patients that I've used the layered-in approach, completing six cycles of chemotherapy first and then layering in with darolutamide. I think conceptually the role of intensifying treatment with an androgen receptor inhibitor is not just to get a response. We know ADT will get us a PSA response. I think the role of an androgen receptor inhibitor is to prevent the development of resistance. So, delaying the development of resistance will be pertinent to whether we started with cycle one, cycle six, or after. So, we really have to make decisions looking at the patient in front of us, looking at their ECOG performance status, their comorbidities, and frailty, and we cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Yeah, I like that and I concur with that. Thank you for that discussion. I think that you may recall some of our discussions in different venues. When I counsel patients, I tell the patients that really the goal of their care is on the concept of the three Ps, P as in Peter. The first P is we want to prolong your life. That's the hallmark of this regimen, the hallmark of the data that we have. That's the goal, the primary goal of these three indications is survival improvement. So we want to prolong your life so you don't die anytime soon from prostate cancer. The second P, as in Peter, is to prevent, and the question is preventing what? We want to prevent your cancer from growing, from growing clinically, from growing radiographically, and from growing serologically, which is PSA and blood work. Now, you and I know and the audience probably realize that the natural history of prostate cancer is such that traditionally your PSA will rise first. There is a lead time bias between the rise and the scan changes and another gap in time between scans and symptoms. So it's often not the case when we see symptomatic disease preceding scans or PSAs, but sometimes in this case, it's at the same time. So that is the number one. And as you indicated, it's prevention of resistance as well, which obviously we can delay rPFS, which is a composite endpoint of radiographic progression, symptomatic progression, and death of any cause. But the third P is I called it the P and M, which is protecting and maintaining, and that is we want to protect your quality of life while we treat you. And we want to maintain your quality of life while we treat you. So to me, it's critically important that in addition of aiming for an efficacy endpoint, we don't lose sight of the importance of quality of life and the protection of that patient in front of us. Because, undoubtedly, where you get chemo or where you get an oral agent, anything that we offer our patients has the potential of causing harm. And I think it is a balance between that benefit and side effect profile that is so critically important for us to elucidate and review with the patient. And as you know, with the charted data, Dr. Alicia Morgans now at Dana-Farber, published a very elegant paper in JCO looking at the impact of docetaxel-based chemotherapy as part of the charted data in the North American trial and in

19/07/2023

•

31 min
10/01/2023

Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 1)

Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part One of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Dr. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College London, shares with us his intriguing life trajectory, encompassing a childhood in various parts of the world, aspirations for a veterinary career that turned to basic science, medicine, health policy (4:27), and even a long-term stint with the British Army Intelligence (12:22). Dr. Sullivan, who served as Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade also discusses traits he looks for in a cancer investigator (19:21), and how to be happy (21:16)! Guest Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University Cancer Center. Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what book have you read this last month? Dave Johnson: I have one I wanted to recommend to you. It's very interesting. It's by Steven Johnson, not of the syndrome fame. It's entitled Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer. You may have heard of this because PBS made a special documentary about this particular book. But in it, Johnson talks about the remarkable increase in human lifespan, especially over the 20th century, and the various factors that contributed to increased years of life from on average in the United States of about 48-49 in 1900 to just about 80 in the year 2000. So that beats anything in the history of mankind before. And he has a chapter about each of the factors that contribute to this, and some of which I think we all recognize. Things like antibiotics playing a role, but some of the things that I hadn't thought about were improved drug regulation and the development of randomized controlled trials, which all of us have participated in. How important that is. He also talked about, at least in the United States, the importance of automotive safety. And I'm sure some of us on this podcast are old enough to remember cars that did not have safety belts and certainly not other safety maneuvers that have really improved lifespan in that regard. So I found it a fascinating book. I think our listeners who are interested in medical history would also enjoy this text. Pat Loehrer: Did he mention this podcast? Dave Johnson: No, actually it wasn't mentioned, and I thought that was a tremendous oversight. So, I've sent him a letter and recommended that he add it. Pat Loehrer: We may not live longer, but it just seems like we're living longer. When you listen to this podcast, time stands still. Pat Loehrer: Well, it's my real great pleasure to introduce our interviewee today, Richard Sullivan. I met Richard several years ago through the late Professor Peter Boyle in Leon, and it's one of the greatest highlights of my life to be able to know Richard. Professor Richard Sullivan's Research Group studies health systems and particularly chronic disease policy and the impact of conflict on health. He's a professor of cancer and Global Health at King's College in London and director of the Institute of Cancer Policy and Co-director of Conflict and Health Research Group. As well as holding a number of visiting chairs, Richard is an NCD advisor to the WHO, a civil military advisor to the Save the Children Foundation, and a member of the National Cancer Grid of India. His research focuses on global cancer policy and planning and health system strengthening, particularly in conflict ecosystems. He's principal investigative research programs ranging from automated radiotherapy planning for low resource settings to the use of augmented or virtual reality for cancer surgery through the political economy to build affordable equitable cancer control plans around the world. Richard has led more Lancet Oncology commissions than anyone else. In fact, Lancet is talking about calling it the Sullivan Commissions. He's led five Lancet Oncology commissions and worked on four others. He's currently co-leading the Lancet Oncology Commission on the Future of Cancer Research in Europe and Cancer Care and Conflict in the conflict systems. His research teams have had major programs in capacity building in conflict regions across the Middle East and North Africa. He's done studies on the basic packages of health services in Afghanistan and worked in Pakistan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He's been a member of the British Army, intelligence and security, and in that capacity he's worked many years in biosecurity and counterterrorism issues. I think in some ways, this is the most interesting man in the world, and it's our pleasure today to have Richard join us. Richard, thank you for coming. Richard Sullivan: Pat, Dave, you're really too kind. Marvelous to be with you. Thank you for the invitation. Pat Loehrer: Can you tell us a little about your upbringing and early life before you became Dr. James Bond? Richard Sullivan: I'm not sure that's anywhere close to the truth, sadly. But, yeah, I have had a very interesting, eclectic life. I was born in Aden just on the cusp of where the British Aden Protectorate met a country which actually no longer exists, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. Because after the British left Aden, essentially the East Germans, and what was then the Soviet Union took over southern Yemen. So I was born in a very unusual part of the world, which sadly, since then has just deteriorated. I spent many years of my life with my parents, who were in the diplomatic service and doing other things, wandering around the globe, mainly in the Middle East and East Africa. We spent quite a lot of time, strangely enough, we washed up on the shores in the USA once as well. Dayton, Ohio, and eventually- Pat Loehrer: Not to interrupt you, Richard, there are no shores in Dayton, Ohio. So just correct you there. Richard Sullivan: That is so true. My memory - cornfields everywhere. I had a wonderful dog then, that's how I remember it so well. And I didn't really come back to the UK until, oh, gosh, I was nearly 10-11 years old. So, coming back to the UK was actually a bit of a culture shock for me. And then relatively classical in terms of the UK, sort of minor public school and then into medical school. In the old days when it was in the 80's. I had a fabulous childhood, going all over the place, seeing lots of things, being exposed to lots of different cultures. I think it remained with me all my life. I never really feel a foreigner in a foreign land. That's nice. That's really unique and it's been marvelous being able to tie in the passion for global health with my upbringing as well. So, yeah, I had a wonderful childhood. Dave Johnson: Would you mind expanding on your medical training, Richard? Tell us a little bit about that. Richard Sullivan: Yeah, so when I, when I went to medical school in the UK, we were still running the old system. And by the old system, I mean, you know, these small medical schools with entries of, you know, 70, 80 individuals, particularly in London, you had that St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, which is where I went, Charing Cross, Guy's, St. Thomas', and they were all individual medical schools. Now, most of these now have merged together into these super medical schools. But certainly when I went to medical school, I'll be absolutely honest with you, I wanted to be a vet to begin with, but actually discovered I wasn't bright enough to be a vet. It was harder to become a vet than it was to become a doctor. In my day going into medicine, and people listening to this, or some people who understand the A level system in the UK will recognize if you're offered a BCD, that's quite low grades to get into medical school. So I went to Mary's, to be absolutely honest with you, because I heard that they took people that played rugby, and I came from a rugby-playing school. And sure enough, 90% of the interview was based on my rugby prowess, and that was St. Mary's Hospital Medical School. So it was wonderful. And we'd already had people going there who were big rugby players. And again, it was, I remember thinking to myself, am I making the right decision here? But it was interesting, as soon as I went into medical school, I realized that was the life for me. I had done myself a favor by not going into veterinary science, which I would have been awful at. We had six years of very, very intensive pre-medicine, the classical medical rotations, and then that movement into the old schools of pre registration house officers, registrar jobs. We were quite an early stage. I kind of slightly went off-piste and started doing more academic work. Interestingly, most of my academic early days academic work was not in health policy and research. It was actually in very hard core cell signaling. So my doctorate was in biochemistry, and we worked on small GTPases, calcium-sensing proteins. There were some really extraordinary heady days, and I'm talking here about the early nineties and the mid-nineties of tremendous discovery, real innovation. I was at UCL at the time, but mixing and matching that up with a sort of surgical training, and again, surgical training in those days was pretty classical. You went into your general surgery, then sort of specialized. It was really, really interesti

10/01/2023

•

25 min
10 MAR

Patient-Clinician Communication Guideline Update

Dr. Timothy Gilligan and Dr. Calvin Chou discuss the updated guideline on patient-clinician communication in oncology. They highlight clinical recommendations and strategies on topics such as communication skills and practices that apply at every visit, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, facilitating involvement of the patient's support network, discussing prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection – including clinical trials, end-of-life discussions, overcoming barriers to communication, facilitating discussions of cost of care and financial toxicity, mitigating stigma, and setting boundaries with patients. Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou also share how clinicians can enhance their communication skills through skills practice opportunities and experiential learning. They discuss how fundamental communication is to optimal patient care and look to the future on how generative AI may impact healthcare communication. Read the full guideline, "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update" TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-26-00118 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 am interviewing Dr. Timothy Gilligan from Taussig Cancer Institute and the Center for Excellence in Healthcare Communication at Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Calvin Chou from the University of California and Veterans Affairs Health Care System in San Francisco, co-chairs on "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Thank you for having us. Dr. Calvin Chou: Delighted to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would 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. Gilligan and Dr. Chou who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then I would like to dive into what we are here really today to talk about. So Dr. Gilligan, this guideline updates the patient-clinician communication guideline that was first published in 2017. What prompted this update and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So I think with the first guideline, that was the first draft of it that we published five or six, seven years ago, really we were focused on getting the content right, what was the state of the knowledge at that time, and I was very happy with what came out of that. But when I looked back on it, I thought there were ways we could make it more accessible and more practical. Because what we really would like would be for people to apply what we know and then communicate more effectively with patients and colleagues. And one of the reasons I was really excited on the membership of the panel we had this time was I thought they were very well selected to help us do that, is to really think about what are practical guidelines, practical steps we can tell people to take that will improve their own experience and the experience of patients and the quality of care. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, thinking about operationalizing that guideline really improves the dissemination and the uptake of these recommendations. So then, Dr. Chou, I would like to review the key recommendations and strategies across the clinical questions that the guideline addressed. I realize today with our limited time we may not be able to go through every recommendation and strategy, so we will start with some of the highlights. First, let's address the highlights of the process of communication with patients and their support networks. This includes the questions that address what communication skills and practices apply at every visit across the continuum of care, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, and facilitating involvement of the patient's support network. In your view, what are the most important recommendations across these clinical questions? Dr. Calvin Chou: I think the thing that all clinicians know in their bones that they want to be able to do effectively with patients is to communicate information clearly, as well as to communicate in a way that really deepens the relationship, demonstrates empathy, and also demonstrates understanding bilaterally between the various parties. So the communication guidelines that we established in this group, they are fundamental to communication in all conversations throughout healthcare. And the first guideline talks about how clinicians and their team can communicate effectively with the patient and the patient's support network. And those include things like preparing ahead of time; getting a list of the topics that are important to the patient support network so that we can consider them in the visit; making certain that we are hearing what the patients' and the patients' support networks are saying very, very closely; responding to those empathically; and being able to have conversations about care throughout the visit that demonstrate respect and deepen the trust; and then finally, to have some kind of bidirectional understanding, usually through teach-back, that allow both sides to know that communication has occurred as opposed to just been downloaded. The guidelines also talk about applying these same communication skills throughout telehealth communication - that is both in terms of synchronous communication, audio or video, as well as asynchronous communication, i.e., through secure messaging. We also talk about how we can use these same communication skills to communicate effectively with members of our own team. Interprofessional communication is an important part of all the work that we do, and how we can use these very, very same skills in communication with colleagues, with nursing staff, with social workers, and other allied health professionals. These are all very, very important, crucial members of our healthcare team in the delivery of care to our patients. And that is something that we really need to emphasize throughout to try to bring the best of communication in every conversation that we have. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: I totally agree with that. Those are really important points. When I was looking over it in preparation for this podcast, it struck me that we have a lot of recommendations and a lot of small things that we can do either well or not well. And it reminded me of a quotation from a famous chef, Marco Pierre White, who said that perfection is a lot of little things done well. This guideline has a lot of little things that if you do them well, you get better outcomes. And I think the chef's point was that if you want a really delicious dish, you have to pay attention to all those little details. And I think if people go through the guidelines carefully and apply the skills that are along the lines of what Dr. Chou was talking about, we get better results. And those results are really important results. It is not only patient satisfaction, which is really important, but it is also quality of care and outcomes for patients. It is better medical care. It is a better day for us, we have a better day if we have better conversations. Poor communication creates endless headaches for everybody. What I see in the guidelines is it is a lot of little best practices and it requires discipline to learn those. The good news is none of them I don't think are all that hard. The bad news is doing it consistently well every day requires discipline and practice. And what I would hope for these guidelines is that people will read them carefully and think about what they can do to apply what we know more consistently. And I think the interprofessional communication piece, that was something we added this year, is really critical. Medicine has a bad history of really disrespectful behavior. It was almost normalized that different specialties would make fun of each other, that different professions would talk disrespectfully of each other. And we know now that uncivil behavior results in more healthcare errors. And it is not only bad for our teams and our culture, but it is bad for our patients if we are not communicating well with each other. So I thought it was really critical that we added that piece to the update. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those fundamental principles that Dr. Chou outlined are really key across every healthcare interaction, including those interdisciplinary interactions. And as you alluded to, Dr. Gilligan, I think it will really serve clinicians well to review the details and go through every table to read the recommendations and each individual strategy to help them improve their communication in day-to-day interactions. Moving to some of those day-to-day clinical communication scenarios, Dr. Gilligan, I'd like to think through some of those key points. So what is recommended for discussion of prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection, including discussion of clinical trials, and end-of-life discussions? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So my perspective is that there is a broad theme of flattening the hierarchy that runs through these recommendations and this part of the guid

10 Mar

•

31 min
3 FEB

Therapy for Stage IV NSCLC Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline Update 2026.3.0 Part 1

Dr. Joshua Reuss is back on the podcast to discuss the full update to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. He discusses the new evidence and how this impacts the latest recommendations on first-line and subsequent therapeutic options. Dr. Reuss emphasizes the need for shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. He shares ongoing research that the panel will review in the future for further updates to this living guideline, and puts the updated recommendations into context for clinicians treating patients with stage IV NSCLC. Read the full living guideline update "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0" at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines" TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02825 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 am interviewing Dr. Joshua Reuss from Georgetown University, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0." It is great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Happy to be here, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Just before we discuss this guideline, I would 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. Reuss who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. Dr. Reuss, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is updated on an ongoing basis. So, what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Our committee is tasked with making routine updates to the living guidelines and really keeping them living, right? So, evaluating new data as it is coming in to see, is this practice changing? Is this data that should inform and potentially alter our guideline recommendations so that practitioners and other care providers could really make the best treatment decisions for their patients? So that is something that happens on a more routine basis, but periodically, we are tasked with performing a more comprehensive update of our guideline where we really evaluate every one of our point recommendations, the data associated with these recommendations, to be sure that these are up to date, these are comprehensive, and to see if we need to alter anything in the language of these updates. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing that background. And yes, this is truly a comprehensive update that goes through all the latest literature. Given that, I would like to review what has changed and what is new in the recommendations. So, what are the updated recommendations on first-line therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: So there are two main guidelines that we recommend from this panel. One is a driver mutation-positive guideline and the other is a driver mutation-negative guideline. And I think on first blush, one might look at kind of the recent flurry of approvals and new data and say, well, all the excitement, you know, is in the driver mutation-positive guideline. But I would say that the driver mutation-negative guideline is equally as important and really has several unique challenges associated with it. You know, first and foremost is that there are really a multitude of regimens that can be considered for any one patient. And how to choose between one can be quite difficult and a stressful challenge that clinicians can have, particularly since there are really no randomized studies comparing these regimens in a head-to-head fashion. In addition, you know, these guidelines are really broken down by two key factors. One is disease histology, so namely squamous versus non-squamous histology. And the other is PD-L1 status, broken down into one of three tertiles: PD-L1 high, which is greater than or equal to 50% expression; PD-L1 low, which is 1% to 49% expression; and then PD-L1 negative or unknown. So what you are really looking at, if you do that math, is really six unique patient subpopulations where we need to make a recommendation on one of the multitude of treatment regimens that is approved. And what that means is you are oftentimes really looking at subset and sub-subset level data to help inform clinicians in their treatment decision making, which can be quite challenging because as those small subsets of data is more and more parsed, there are many confounders that can be interjected there. And so I think the committee is tasked with really quite a challenge in terms of how to really communicate and broadcast that data in a way that informs clinicians in making a decision on what is the right treatment for their patient. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It can be challenging to interpret that subgroup data across several different studies that are reporting on different regimens and different outcomes. And I appreciate you mentioning the driver mutation-positive guideline as well. Listeners can check out the companion episode with Dr. Puri for more information on what is changed in the driver mutation-positive guideline. Based on that primer, what is new for first-line therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Even though I will say there is not a lot of new trial data that was incorporated into this guideline, there were some updates and just some meaningful long-term data that we incorporated. I think first and foremost, there is a new top-level recommendation in this guideline pertaining to molecular testing, which is absolutely critical in both the driver mutation-positive and driver mutation-negative space. I think we tend to think that, oh, well, molecular testing really only pertains to then finding a driver mutation. But the lack of a mutation is absolutely critical as well, right? Because that is what leads us down the mutation-negative pathway. We also need this molecular testing to assess PD-L1 status. We are seeing emerging data on molecular mutations that might confer resistance to certain immunotherapy-based strategies. So the committee felt strongly that a recommendation on molecular testing is critical to include in both the driver mutation-positive guideline and the driver mutation-negative guideline. I will also say that we are now seeing five and six-year updates from some of the landmark trials of immunotherapy in driver mutation-negative non-small cell lung cancer. It is really incredible to see that in some of these trials, we are seeing very impressive durability of the treatment in the patient subsets that we are commenting on. In others, perhaps that durability is less clear, and I think that leads to challenges in making a recommendation on any one particular regimen. And I think that is nowhere more clear than in the squamous subset. I think that was one perhaps subtle change that is in this guideline where, particularly in the PD-L1 negative squamous population, the committee felt that no one regimen really was worthy of standing above the others. Sometimes I think it is important to really champion one unique regimen if we feel that the data is there to support it. But I think it is equally important to list multiple regimens where the data is less clear. I think another point is that while perhaps there were no new regimens that we have added or that led to other clear changes in the prioritization of one regimen over another, there are other unique data subsets that I think come into play in making a decision and that really are important when looking at the discussion on any one recommendation from this guideline. For example, we know there is emerging data on perhaps the significance of molecular alterations in KEAP1 or STK11 and how that might influence frontline decision-making. You know, there is not a prospective phase III trial in this population, but I think we still need to use that data in certain scenarios to make recommendations for a particular patient. Another example of a trial that, again, did not change our recommendations, but I think one can incorporate in their decision making is the KEYNOTE-598 trial. Now, this is not a new study, but what it studied was pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab in a PD-L1 high subset, and found that the addition of ipilimumab to pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 high population did not significantly improve clinical efficacy. And so while pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab is not an approved regimen, it is hard to extrapolate that to our combination treatments that are approved. I think some clinicians might find that data valuable when making a frontline treatment decision on a patient who has PD-L1 high status. So a bit of a whirlwind tour, but I think there are still multiple factors that went into this guideline that are important to review when making treatment decisions for any one patient. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think what you just mentioned in having that upfront molecular testing is really key for individualiz

3 Feb

•

18 min
30 MAR

JCO Article Insights: ctDNA in DLBCL - Ready for Prime Time?

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ash Gurumurthi summarizes JCO articles, "Phased Variant–Supported Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker After First-Line Treatment in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Findings From the DIRECT Study" and " Prospective Validation of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurable Residual Disease After First-Line Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma" TRANSCRIPT Ash Gurumurthi: Hi and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host, Ash Gurumurthi, and today we will be discussing two articles, both published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on the real-world utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) MRD in newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma. The first study is the article "Phased-Variant-Supported Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker After First-Line Treatment in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Findings From the DIRECT Study" by Dr. Joanna Krupka and colleagues in the United Kingdom. For the sake of convenience, I'll refer to this as the DIRECT study. The second study is "The Prospective Validation of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurable Residual Disease After First-Line Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma" by Dr. Steven Wang and colleagues in the Netherlands, referred to as the HOVON 902 study. By way of background, I wanted to talk about MRD in hematolymphoid malignancies. Nodal diseases have lacked a robust biomarker for end-of-treatment response. They have relied historically on PET scans interpreted using the semiquantitative Deauville 5-point scale, which has a high negative predictive value but a limited positive predictive value. The poor positive predictive value for survival results in extended follow-up with serial imaging for risk stratification with unnecessary and invasive biopsies. There have been recent revolutionary advancements in ctDNA MRD in B-cell lymphoma. The use of ctDNA in lymphoma began with CAPP-seq, which tracked single nucleotide variants that were tumor specific but was limited by excessive background sequencing noise with false negatives. To overcome this, Dr. Kurtz and colleagues developed the proprietary PhasED-seq assay. This tracks well-recognized phased mutations on the same DNA strand in cis configuration within hypermutated regions that are unique to B-cell lymphoma. Using this method, they pushed their limit of detection at 95%, the so-called LOD95, to 0.7 parts per million under optimal circumstances with 120 nanograms of input cell-free DNA from plasma. Based on the use of the PhasED-seq assay in trials of newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma with the use of investigational agents, the NCCN currently recommends consideration of ctDNA MRD assay with a detection limit of less than 1 part per million if biopsy is not feasible for a positive end-of-treatment PET. However, I believe this threshold needs reconsideration given it is based on an ideal assay LOD95 under optimal circumstances rather than sample-specific LOD95. Real-world validation of the role of end-of-treatment ctDNA and appropriate thresholds for sample-specific LOD95 were lacking until the publication of these two studies. The DIRECT and the HOVON 902 studies were multicenter, prospective trials using real-world cohorts of newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma treated with standard anthracycline immunochemotherapy, ie, R-CHOP chemotherapy. They validated end-of-treatment ctDNA MRD response measured on a phased-variant platform and found them to be strongly prognostic for relapse and survival. This was independent of PET imaging or baseline clinical prognostication like the International Prognostication Index, the IPI. They also demonstrated a threshold with an LOD95 of approximately 1 in 100,000 is necessary for clinical utility. Both trials recruited over a similar period between 2020 to 2023, with the DIRECT study conducted within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and the HOVON 902 as a national study in the Netherlands. For survival analysis, only patients who reached the landmark event of end of treatment with an available ctDNA MRD sample without progressive disease or death at that time point were included. These studies evaluated similar-sized cohorts with 134 patients for HOVON 902 and 151 patients for the DIRECT study. As expected, their baseline demographics are reflective of a real-world population of newly diagnosed cases with large B-cell lymphoma. Although both used comparable statistical methodologies with time-to-event analysis, the primary outcomes vary, making headline comparisons quite challenging. The DIRECT study utilized the time to tumor progression, censoring death unrelated to disease. This was done to isolate the molecular impact of detectable ctDNA at the end of treatment. In contrast, the HOVON 902 study used progression-free survival, which counts all-cause mortality as an event. This naturally results in lower event-free rates for PFS compared to TTP in the DIRECT study. The trials differed in their choice of phased-variant platforms, with the DIRECT study developing an independent, fully open-source phased-variant ctDNA assay. This has been released on GitHub. In contrast, the HOVON 902 study utilized PhasED-seq by Foresight Diagnostics, which is currently the only proprietary and commercially available phased-variant assay for lymphoid malignancies. Interestingly, despite the differences in platforms and the primary end points, the results were remarkably consistent. The DIRECT study found a highly significant difference in the 2-year TTP rate of 96% in those with undetectable ctDNA MRD at the end of treatment compared to 45% in those with detectable ctDNA, with a hazard ratio of 15. Similarly, the HOVON 902 study found a significantly superior 3-year PFS of 85% in those with undetectable ctDNA compared to 17% with detectable ctDNA, with a hazard ratio of 10. Crucially, both studies found end-of-treatment ctDNA MRD significantly outperformed PET response assessment for long-term PFS. In fact, for the end point of PFS in both trials, the baseline IPI lost all statistical significance in both univariate and multivariable analysis when accounting for ctDNA MRD and PET status at the end of treatment. While both studies demonstrate the superiority of ctDNA MRD compared to PET in predicting survival, interestingly, the combination of both tests appeared to be complementary in identifying the highest-risk group. The HOVON 902 study identified 13 patients who were double positive, ie, they were positive with end-of-treatment PET and detectable ctDNA MRD. Every single one of these patients progressed over a 3-year period with a dismal overall survival of 17%. The DIRECT study mirrored these findings with the same double-positive group having a 2-year time to progression rate of 23%. Given consistency in identifying the poor outcome of this double-positive population in both studies, this is clearly a group that would benefit from trial-based approaches like consolidation or, alternatively, frequent surveillance for clinical relapse. On the other hand, the best-performing group was the double negative, ie, those who had achieved PET negative and ctDNA undetectable at the end of treatment. The double-negative group had a 2-year time to progression of 97% in the DIRECT study and a 3-year PFS of 88% in the HOVON 902 trial. This is quite impressive. Based on these findings, we can anticipate that ctDNA may complement rather than wholly replace PET at the end of treatment for response assessment. Perhaps the most critical finding from both studies challenged current NCCN-recommended ctDNA MRD sensitivity threshold of achieving less than one part per million. While phased-variant assays can theoretically detect this, this is under optimal conditions, specifically 120 nanograms of input cell-free DNA. In both trials, only 3% of samples could achieve this sensitivity, with the vast majority limited to a sample-specific LOD95 of approximately 1 in 100,000 informative reads. The primary constraint was simply limited plasma volume collected, a denominator problem of input cell-free DNA. For example, the HOVON 902 study had a median plasma volume of 5 mL, yielding 20 nanograms of input DNA. The DIRECT study elegantly demonstrated bridging the gap to attain the NCCN standard of LOD95 of less than 1 part per million is practically impossible. This would require greater input DNA, attained through a 20- to 30-milliliter collection of plasma rather than the standard 10 milliliters, and a massive 20- to 40-fold increase in sequencing depth. With the current real-world sensitivity of roughly 1 in 100,000 in both these studies, the negative predictive value is already nearly at 90%. There is going to be diminishing returns for further analytical sensitivity. This strongly suggests that the NCCN guidelines should be updated to prioritize achievable sample-specific LOD95 rather than assay-specific theoretical limits. Collectively, these studies validate the real-world utility of ctDNA MRD as an independent predictor of long-term outcomes following first-line therapy of large B-cell lymphoma. Finally, after two decades of the default R-CHOP for all, the field of aggressive large B-cell lymphoma is taking leaps and bounds by integrating ctDNA MRD with the current wave of bispecific and cellular therapies. I want to now leave you with my five key clinical takeaways from both these studies. ● Firstly, ctDNA MRD is a more potent independent predictor of outcome than end-of-treatment PET/CT and baseline IPI. ● Second, ctDNA MRD in first-line large B-cell lymphoma is already reshaping clinical trial space with therapeutic escalation and de-escalation strategies based on ctDNA kinetics during treatment, as well as identifying candidates with persistent ctDNA at the end of treatment for consolidation approaches. ● Thirdly, this technology is ready for prime time. Whether th

30 Mar

•

14 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