ASCO Daily News
The ASCO Daily News podcast features engaging discussions with leading oncologists on timely topics in oncology, hosted by Dr. Monty Pal.
info_outline
Managing Immune-Related Toxicities in Oncology
11/06/2025
Managing Immune-Related Toxicities in Oncology
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Pauline Funchain discuss the latest efforts to diagnose, prevent, and treat the series of immune-related adverse events that have emerged in the era of immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Monty Pal, a medical oncologist, professor and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, California. Now, it is probably no surprise to this audience that immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for multiple cancer types. It remains a pillar of modern oncology. Having said that, I think we have all been baffled by certain toxicities that we run into in the clinic. Today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr Pauline Funchain to discuss some of the checkpoint inhibitor toxicities that people struggle with most. And we will also touch on some side effects of immunotherapy beyond checkpoint inhibitors: CAR-T cells, bispecifics, so on and so forth. Dr Funchain is a dear friend, and she is an associate professor and associate director of cancer research training and education at the Stanford Cancer Institute. She is co-director of the Immunotherapy Toxicity Program and the Skin Cancer Genomics Program at Stanford, where she also serves as associate program director of hematology and oncology fellowship. Dr. Funchain is also the co-founder of ASPIRE, and we are going to talk about that a little bit today, the Alliance for the Support and Prevention of Immune-Related Events. FYI for listeners, if you are interested in our disclosures, they are available at the transcript of this episode. Pauline, thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Pauline Funchain: Monty, thank you for this invitation. It is always great to talk. Dr. Monty Pal: So, for the audience, Pauline and I know each other from my days as a fellow at City of Hope. She was a resident at Harbor UCLA and a stellar resident at that. It has just been amazing to sort of see your career grow and blossom and to witness all the cool things that you are doing. ASPIRE, in particular, sort of caught my eye. So again, for listeners, this is the Alliance for the Support and Prevention of Immune-Related Events. Can you tell us a little bit briefly about the genesis of that, how that came about? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, there was a bunch of us who were really struggling, I mean, all of us have struggled with these immune-related adverse events, these irAEs. You know, they are new disease states, and even though they look like autoimmune diseases, they tend to need a whole lot more steroid than autoimmune diseases do and they do not totally present in the same way. And in fact, you know, Triple-M, or Triple-M overlap syndrome, is a completely new irAE, a new immune state that we have never had before the advent of checkpoint inhibitor. And so a Triple-M, for those of you who are not as familiar, that is the constellation of myocarditis, myositis, and myasthenia gravis, something that never occurs as a natural autoimmune disease. So we were starting to realize that there were some major differences with these irAEs and autoimmune diseases. We could not treat them the right way. We really needed to learn more about them. And a bunch of us who had interest in this said, "Look, we really need to be all in one space to talk about what we are doing," because all of our treatments were our own little homegrown brews, and we needed to really get together and understand how to treat these things, how to diagnose them, and then learn more about them. So, Dr. Alexa Meara from Ohio State, Dr. Kerry Reynolds from Mass Gen, we put together this research consortium, brought together all of our irAE friends, got our best subspecialists together in a research consortium, which is now only about a year and a half old. And we made this research consortium, the Alliance for Support of Prevention of Immune-Related Events, and we reached out to ASCO, and ASCO was so kind to grant us a [Alliance for Support and Prevention of Immune-Related adverse Events (ASPIRE)] . So we met for the first time as a Community of Practice at the ASCO Annual Meeting just this past June and really got an ASCO community together to really think about how to again, diagnose, prevent, treat irAEs. Dr Monty Pal: This is interesting to me. The ASCO Community of Practice phenomenon is something that I was not super familiar with. Can you explain to our listenership what is the ASCO Community of Practice model? If you have particular interests, how do you sort of get one started? Dr Pauline Funchain: Yeah, so ASCO has an entire page on their . There are multiple Community of Practice groups or COPs. There are ones for Supportive Oncology and Survivorship. There is Women in Oncology. There is a group for International Medical Graduates. And there is about, I think 10 or 12 now that have a physical presence at ASCO but also a virtual presence on the ASCO Community of Practice site. So, if you were interested in any one of these, and you can see them on the ASCO Communities of Practice sites, you would ask to become a member. Once granted membership, then there is a whole webpage of postings and conversations that people can have. You can get email digests of conversations that happen on the website, and then you can anchor it with in-person participation at the Annual Meeting. Dr Monty Pal: That is awesome, and I can think of so many different foci within oncology that really sort of deserve a Community of Practice. This definitely being one of them. You know, it strikes me as being so interesting. I mean, the checkpoint inhibitors have been around for a while now. I think when you and I were in training, gosh, back then, these were just a little bit of a pipe dream, right? But having said that, I would probably say that more than half of my kidney cancer practice is either on checkpoint inhibitors, and the vast majority have been on one at some point in their past, right? With that in mind, you know, we have all treated a lot of patients with these drugs. Why is it that we still struggle to manage the toxicities? And just to take that one step further, what are some of the toxicities that, perhaps through ASPIRE or through your experience, people struggle with the most? Dr Pauline Funchain: So, I think we are still struggling with these because again, they are new disease states, right? This is what we all experienced with COVID, a brand-new virus and a brand-new syndrome. We now have 20-plus of these as irAEs. And what we have realized about them is the immune activation that happens with these is so much more than what we have seen with autoimmune diseases. So for instance, if you have a Crohn's or ulcerative colitis, you will top out at 40 to 60 milligrams of prednisone if a Crohn's flare or ulcerative colitis flare happens. But for our severe IR colitises, you know, it is at least 1 mg per kg, often goes up to 2 mg per kg. We, in some cases, have done 1 gram pulses if we are worried that somebody is going to perforate. So that was sort of like the first 5 years of treating irAE, and then now in the sort of second 5 years of treating irAE, we have realized that that is a lot of immunosuppression, and we might be able to get away with less with the newer biologics that are on board. So, we are struggling to try to get the data for some of these irAEs that we knew, we have known for a while, but to try to get newer treatments that may immunosuppress less so that you may still be able to retain that tumor response. And in fact, some of the preclinical studies suggest that some of these biologics may actually synergize with the immunotherapy and actually make the immunotherapy more effective from a tumor perspective and calm down the irAE as sort of the bystander effect. So we are still trying to optimize those. Getting up trials in the space has been very difficult. That is one of the reasons for the genesis of ASPIRE because we realized we needed to band together to have a bigger voice in that realm. Then there are other things that are brand new. So we talked about Triple-M. So Triple-M, again, with Triple-M or any myocarditis or myasthenia, I mean, there is about a 50% chance of death from irAE based on the literature. I think we are getting better at recognizing this, and so at Stanford we have some data to say that if you serially follow troponin, that maybe your outcomes are better. You can potentially lower the percentage of cases that are fatal because you can catch them early. I mean, this is all preliminary data, but again, these are all things that are evolving, and we do not all have the right answer. I mean, even the serial troponin thing, I think, is pretty controversial. And in fact, at one of our quarterly Zoom meetings that we are doing in ASPIRE in December is going to sort of flush out that controversy about serial troponin measuring and what is the best thing to use? Would you use something like abatacept or would you use ruxolitinib? Which one is better? I think there is a lot of controversy still about these things. Dr Monty Pal: You have really piqued my curiosity here because you think about the cons of treating irAEs, right? And I worry exactly about what you had mentioned, right, which is, "Gosh, what is going on with this tumor in terms of immunosuppression?" But you think about some of the newer agents, you mentioned ruxolitinib, I have heard of dasatinib, for instance, in this setting. Frankly speaking, a lot of these, as you point out, are really thought of as being also anticancer drugs. So you have really got me thinking about the potential synergy between perhaps suppressing an irAE and augmenting antitumor activity, which I think is very interesting. Am I on the right track with that? Dr Pauline Funchain: I think so, but you will find that a lot of people will not even go there because they are worried about how much immunosuppression you are going to cause. I am at heart a geneticist, but I think an immunologist will happily tell you that the immune system is very complex. There are multiple pathways, and these drugs do not all target the same immune pathways. So if we understand a little bit more about the pathways we are targeting and pick apart the pathways that are really, really tumor relevant and the other pathways that are not tumor relevant, you may be able to piece together a better marriage of tumor response and irAE control. Dr Monty Pal: Kind of on this topic, and again, leaning on your background in genetics, where are we in terms of predicting these irAEs? I mean, you would think the holy grail would be picking out a snip or something of this for it, right, that could potentially identify that patient who is going to get Triple-M or, you know, at the very least a significant high-grade irAE event. Are we anywhere closer to that in 2025? Dr Pauline Funchain: There have been data published. There have been some big GWAS studies. All of the effect sizes are pretty small. So there are some prediction algorithms, but none of them are clinically useful. And I think when you look at the odds ratios, they will increase risk by maybe 20%. I think one of the things that we found in a very small series and supported anecdotally is something as easy as family history of autoimmune disease is probably more predictive at this point than any of those types of markers. I think we will get there, but we are not anywhere near where we would like to be. Things like TMB also, actually, there is some good data about higher TMB, higher risk of irAE too. Dr Monty Pal: Interesting. I see all this data coming through, IL-8 polymorphisms, etc. And I just wondered if any of that was ready for prime time. But I mean, this is a good message for the practicing clinician. Sounds like we are not quite there yet. And I could probably keep you on for another entire podcast to talk about this topic, but let us see if we can at least skim the surface. I never thought I would see the day when BiTEs and CAR-Ts were entering into my kidney cancer practice, but in fact, it is really become central to a lot of our clinical trials in RCC these days. I would be lying if I did not say that I was not struggling with the toxicities and so forth associated with these drugs. Can you give us a quick primer, maybe just good resources that people can go to for managing toxicity with BiTEs and with CAR and with some of these novel therapeutic modalities that we are using in the oncology clinics? Dr Pauline Funchain: I know there is a recently published toxicity manual for BiTEs in hematologic malignancies, I think it was in Blood. CAR-T is covered in many irAE guidelines. So ASCO guidelines actually has a , and I would be remiss not to point out that actually ASCO has a, I am a little biased, but a wonderful that is actually being updated as we speak. We are hoping for publication next year. I find the format of that, there are many guidelines out there, actually. There is , , has a guideline for irAE, but I find the formatting of the ASCO guideline to be much easier to flip through during clinic, just because of the visual format of the tables. But that is going to be updated next year. And with CAR-T, there is now multiple publications also in terms of guidelines. But what I will say about bispecifics and CAR-T, so they have very similar toxicities in terms of the cytokine release and also with the ICANS, so the neurotoxicity. But what we have been finding that is really interesting with BiTEs and CAR-T, and actually even with TIL, cytokine release is very similar to some of the IL-2 toxicities but not identical that we see with TIL treatment. But now we are starting to see overlap. So patients who have been treated with immunotherapy and then go on to get a bispecific or then go on to get TIL, so I have seen some colitises that have occurred after the fact. Some of the newer CAR-Ts without checkpoint have been causing some really interesting, probably not in a good way, but interesting biologically, colitises that are really refractory. So we are starting to see some overlap, and again, I think this field is just evolving constantly. Dr Monty Pal: Yeah, no, I almost think I need to go back to that fellowship that you and I did together 20 years ago and, you know, and see if I could repeat some coursework on CAR-T management. You know, Pauline, I could probably keep you on the horn for hours, but this has just been terrific. Thank you so much for sharing all of your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr Pauline Funchain: Thank you for the invitation. It was wonderful to talk about this, and it was wonderful to catch up a little bit, Monty. Dr Monty Pal: Same here, same here. And thanks to our listeners too. If you value the insights you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Pauline Funchain: Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Replimune, Sanofi/Regeneron, Immunocore, Tempus Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IDEAYA Biosciences, Linnaeus Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/38398115
info_outline
Key Takeaways From the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
10/16/2025
Key Takeaways From the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Fumiko Chino discuss several of the top abstracts presented at the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including research on federally funded clinical trials and financial reimbursement for trial participation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today, we are highlighting key abstracts that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I am delighted to be joined today by the chair of this year's meeting, Dr. Fumiko Chino. Dr. Chino is an associate professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a research focus on access, affordability, and equity. She is also a consultant editor of JCO Oncology Practice and the host of the . I have got to listen to that. Dr. Chino, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I am overjoyed to be here, and absolutely, you should take a listen. Dr. Monty Pal: Definitely. And FYI for listeners, our full disclosures are all available in the transcript of this episode, so do have a look if you are inclined. Now, we have really seen some fantastic advances in health services and quality and supportive care, digital health, and beyond. There are some great abstracts that were presented at this year's meeting. I have actually picked a couple that I am particularly interested in and that I believe you share my interest in as well. So, the first is an abstract actually from my friends at SWOG (). So, this was a terrific abstract from Joe Unger and Michael LeBlanc and Dawn Hershman. And this, I think, really hits on a very, very key issue right now, which is the benefit of federally funded trials. Do you mind just kind of spelling out some of the observations from what I think is a really brilliant piece of work? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely, and I think Dr. Unger's work is really important for our current funding environment. I think that this research is really essential to do to show the role of federal sponsorship in the design and conduct of clinical trials. Because what they did was really look at a landscape analysis over the last 20 years looking at funding and were able to show quite clearly that federal funding really matters for advancing the science in cancer care. So what they showed was that the federal funding was more commonly essential for early-stage clinical trials, so those phase 1, phase 2 trials that really help advance the science. And that federal funding was really essential for multimodality drug combinations, combinations with drug and surgery, combinations with drug and radiation. Those trials were much more likely to be federal funded. And then the last thing is that they showed that the patients that are, I think, the largest at risk for gaps in care who really need the advancements in science that keep U.S. health care amazing and wonderful and world-leading, so the kids, the pediatric patients, the patients with rare cancers, and the patients actually that could benefit from de-escalation or right-sizing of treatment, they were also all more likely to have federal funding. So I think this research that was presented really shows that if, unfortunately, current status of restricted federal funding continues, that we are going to lose out in terms of the next generation of cancer cures, cancer de-escalations, and the type of combination treatments that make advancements in science. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed. You know, I always point to Joe Unger's paper, and I think it is in JAMA Oncology, right, that showed life-years gained from NCI trials. It is such an important piece of work. I think this is a really nice complement to that, isn’t it, to show the specific areas that otherwise would be, am I right in saying, kind of largely untouched? Dr. Fumiko Chino: I think you are right in that what we know from what industry will sponsor versus what the federal government will sponsor, that the federal government really helps make up the gap to really make those advancements that save lives, that lead to more birthdays, that advance our knowledge and our capacity for providing more cures and more successful futures for our patients. I always like pointing to the de-escalation research, which is, and this is not to dig pharma, but no pharmaceutical company is going to run a trial that says you can give less of their drug, right? It just does not make sense for the business end of the science. And so, thinking about how to right-size treatments, how to do more with less, that really is the purview of the federal government. Dr. Monty Pal: Absolutely. Absolutely. I am going to shift gears here and bring up another abstract that I found to be quite intriguing, and this relates to reimbursement of expenses, et cetera, for clinical trials. This is an abstract from Courtney Williams and team. It brings to mind the importance, I think, of recognizing the hardships that patients take on by clinical trials, but I also would love for you to comment on that sort of fine line between reimbursement for expenses and then, you know, sort of undue enticement. It is a challenging balance there. But give me your reflections on this abstract. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. You are speaking about Dr. Williams' from the Alabama group, and Alabama actually has this incredible group of health services researchers which is, are doing really important work in this space. What this trial shows is that, you know, it is a small pilot study, it is 30-something patients that received some support primarily for their travel and additional expenses related to their clinical trial participation for breast cancer. It showed that the money helps, and I think what we all know is that it is expensive to participate in clinical trials. It requires additional visits. It often requires some significant travel burden for our patients, and I do not feel that money reimbursement for clinical trial expenses is an inducement. Nobody participates in a clinical trial to get the money for their gas, right? We know that our patients are making some pretty significant sacrifices in order to participate in clinical trials, and what this type of program does is just actually reimburse them for their outlaying of funds. And I loved this trial because the patients were actually given $1,000 a month for the first 4 months of their trial participation, and what the study showed is that the patients were using it for things like travel-related food, for things like transportation, caregiver expenses, or even some of their out-of-pocket medical expenses like cost sharing or prescriptions. And that they said that overall, the reimbursement really made a difference in terms of their capacity for staying on the clinical trial. Because we know our clinical trials really are not able to enroll the full diversity of patients that often have a disease, and that the patients that are at biggest risk for a health care disparity or a gap in care are also the least likely to enroll in a clinical trial. Programs like this are an essential part of showing how financial toxicity can be overcome with pretty straightforward assistance to patients to help reimburse them for the things that they are already taking out of their pocket, for parking costs, for that $10 soup that they buy at the cancer center, for those additional expenses that we are, unfortunately, putting on them. Dr. Monty Pal: Very well said. And you know, I have started to dabble in clinical trials looking at CAR T-cell therapies for kidney cancer, and I have to tell you, it is just insane the amount of cost that a patient would have to take on to comply with the stipulations for some of these novel therapies. We require that they stay within 30 minutes of the facility for 28 days, and unless we are compensating for some of that, I mean, how can one afford a hotel stay that is that long? I mean, it is just, it is unprecedented, and it would certainly provide a huge barrier to many patients who would otherwise enroll. Really well said. I also wanted to bring up another financially driven topic, and treating renal cell, again, I would say the vast majority, 90% plus of my patients in clinic are on oral drug therapies. And I cannot tell you how often a patient will show up in my practice and say, "Doc, I have got 15 days out of this 30-day prescription left. What do I do with it?" You know, or some come with pill bottles from a deceased loved one. And it is so frustrating to say, "Take it to the pharmacy and they will just get rid of it for you." But sounds like there is an abstract from Dr. Mackler, , that seems to address this topic quite well. Am I right? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. This presentation, I was the most excited about seeing because this group, which helps run a cancer drug repository, theirs is called YesRx, presented their data from the last approximately two years of running this repository, and they were able to show incredible benefit for their patients in Michigan. And it is a really straightforward program. It is run by pharmacists. It has support from the legislation in Michigan. And what they were able to show is that they repurposed medications that would otherwise have been discarded. They delivered them directly to the oncologist, which then actually dispersed them to the patients. They helped 1,000 patients in less than two years. They saved them millions of dollars, over $15 million presented in the abstract. And it is just a win-win-win because I know that patients actually, and sometimes patient caregivers, they feel very sad to have spent a lot of money out of pocket for their medication, and then if they have a dose reduction or, obviously, you know, if the surviving spouse then has to get rid of their medication, just dispose of them, it is very disheartening. And this is a way of kind of reclaiming power for patients. So they were able to accept donations from all over the state of Michigan and then also help over 1,000 patients. And so, it is a phenomenal program. Dr. Monty Pal: Just wild when I came across the dollar amounts, right, that they were saving. It just, it seems like a place that, you know, we just have to look, as cancer centers, right, and really take this on. Just brilliant. On that same theme of cost savings and so forth, you know, I think there has been a lot of focus on what recent policies have done in the context of us having access to therapies and so forth. And one of the topics that has come up is the Inflation Reduction Act and how changes pertaining to the IRA have really played a role in one's ability to take on some of these expensive prescriptions. And I believe John Lin and colleagues tackled that issue in . Could you comment on that, Fumiko? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. Dr. Lin is one of my colleagues here at MD Anderson, so I know him very well, and he has been doing really phenomenal work over the last several years with looking at drug affordability and access. And what his analysis shows is that for patients, after the Inflation Reduction Act's cap on out-of-pocket expenses, is that it really did show that out-of-pocket expenses decreased. So what the Inflation Reduction Act did is that it eliminated the 5% co-insurance and placed this $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses. And what that led to for these patients that were not able to have the low-income subsidy is that there were lower costs, and that there was a lower rate of drug abandonment, meaning that the prescription was not refilled. There was also a lower rate of unfilled prescriptions as well. And I think that it shows that health policy really can improve access to care. I think the flip side of the fact that the IRA, this policy, really did seem to help people is that what his research showed is that actually, even with the benefits of this cap, is that actually it is still really high in terms of the rate of people who are not able to fill their prescriptions or that completely abandon them over time. And that unfortunately, even with this change, that over half of people without the low-income subsidy were potentially not getting the full benefit of their medications because they were not able to afford them. And so I think it really kind of highlights that we still need to do more work about making drugs affordable. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. And I mean, in a setting like this, I mean, I think it is important to recognize that $2,000 is a lot, it is a big chunk of change, right, for a lot of families in the U.S. What do you think of the prospect of, like, decreasing that cap? Is that something that from a policy standpoint you would be supportive of? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Well, so something that is a real option for patients on Medicare is there is something called the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, and what it allows you to do is actually prorate the $2,000 over the whole year. And so instead of having to pay $2,000 as soon as you fill your prescription, because you are going to have, if you have an expensive medication, it is essentially you have to pay the $2,000 in January, right? It allows you to prorate it, so essentially $170 a month, and that comes to you as like a regular bill. And I think that as rolled out as part of the IRA is a really lovely way of thinking about how do we make these payments more stable over time, so it is not a huge hit sort of at the beginning of the year. And I think that alone actually can make a difference in terms of trying to help make sure that people can actually get their medications. Dr. Monty Pal: That is an excellent tip. Excellent tip. We are going to shift gears entirely. We have been talking a lot about the dollars and cents of things and talk about an abstract from Sophia Smith and colleagues. So this is at your meeting. And this hinged on a program of sorts to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. We do not often think about PTSD in the vernacular for oncology patients, but indeed, I mean, it is something that they must face, especially in the context of long-term survivorship. Can you talk a little bit about Dr. Smith's abstract? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. I love this work from Dr. Smith, who is at Duke. She worked with Dr. Applebaum, who was my old colleague at Memorial Sloan Kettering. And this group of researchers really is trying to figure out how to best support people into survivorship so that they can actually thrive. And their patient population for this work was actually people who received stem cell transplant, and they focused on people who had PTSD symptoms. And what they were able to show through this SMART design, which is essentially this serial, multiple randomized trial, so everyone got randomized upfront to either usual care or this app, so this digital app that actually helped coach people through cancer distress. And then for the people who were non-responders, they were then additionally randomized to either the app plus coaching or a therapist versus the cognitive behavioral therapy or CBT. And what they were able to show is that, number one, anyone who had the app seemed like they did better than those who did not start the path with the app. But then the additional help of either the therapist or the coach or the CBT made additional benefit over time. And so, I think this shows a really nice stepped care, which is you can potentially have some right-sizing of treatments cost saving, if we sort of give everyone the app, which is, I think, overall pretty low cost. And that for the people who do not get the full benefit from the app, then you can think about these maybe more tailored approaches, the therapist, the coach, the CBT, but that some people actually just respond to the app. And I think it allows us to, again, right-size the care for our patients. And I think it is really innovative to think about how technology can help improve access to care in the setting of something like PTSD. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant summary. Brilliant summary. Gosh, it looks like such an exciting meeting this year. Congratulations on a terrific program for the ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I know you played a huge role in developing it, and thanks for sharing your insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Fumiko Chino: No, I really appreciate you having me. ASCO Quality is my favorite meeting of the year. You know, it is really a phenomenal meeting, and I am so excited for next year in Boston in 2026. Dr. Monty Pal: Awesome. And thanks to our listeners too. You are going to find links to all the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Fumiko Chino: Consulting or Advisory Role: Institute for Value Based Medicine Research Funding: Merck
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/38563580
info_outline
Identifying Young BRCA Carriers With Breast Cancer: Early Detection Can Lead to Better Prognosis
10/02/2025
Identifying Young BRCA Carriers With Breast Cancer: Early Detection Can Lead to Better Prognosis
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Matteo Lambertini discuss a compelling global study on the clinical behavior of breast cancer in young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis, and the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Now, when we think about genetic testing, whether for patients diagnosed with breast cancer or for other family members of them, it seems to be widely underutilized. Today, we're going to be discussing a recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported on the clinical behavior of breast cancer and specifically young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis. I thought this was just a fascinating piece, and I honestly couldn't wait to have this conversation. It's a really compelling paper that highlights the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and really the need for genetic counseling and testing to inform people about early detection that could lead to a better prognosis. I'm really delighted to welcome the study's lead author, Dr. Matteo Lambertini. He really needs no introduction. He's very well known in the breast cancer world for his amazing contributions to fertility in the context of breast cancer, to pregnancy in the context of breast cancer, and genetic testing. He's an associate professor at the University of Genova, and a breast cancer medical oncologist at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genova, Italy. Dr. Lambertini, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a great pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks. And just FYI, if you're listening in and you want to hear our disclosures, they're all listed at the transcript of this podcast. So, I poured through this paper [] yesterday, Dr. Lambertini, and first of all, congratulations on this study. This was a huge international multicenter effort, 4,752 patients. How did you pool all these patients with young breast cancer? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thanks a lot for the question. Yes, this was an effort made by several centers all over the world. The main idea behind the creation of this network that we have named as BRCA BCY Collaboration, was to get as many data as possible in a sort of niche patient population in the breast cancer field, meaning women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger, and all of them being BRCA carriers. We know that around, in the Western world, around 5% of breast cancer cases are being diagnosed under the age of 40 years, and among them around 10-15% are BRCA carriers. So, I would say it's a relatively rare patient population where we did not have a lot of evidence to support our choices in terms of counseling on treatment, prevention, and oncofertility as well. That was the idea behind the creation of this network that includes many centers. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. You know, what's so interesting about this is that you sort of draw this line between patients who have BRCA testing at the time of diagnosis and then BRCA testing earlier in their course and then leading to a diagnosis perhaps. And I think that's where really sort of the dichotomy in outcome sits. Can you maybe elaborate on this and tell us about timing of genetic testing in this study and what that meant ultimately in terms of prognosis? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: In this specific analysis from this large network, including almost 5,000 women with breast cancer diagnosed at the age of 40 years or younger and being a BRCA carrier, we looked specifically into the timing of genetic testing because this is a retrospective study and the criteria for inclusion are those that I have just mentioned, so diagnosis at a young age plus carrying germline BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. In this analysis, we have looked into the time the patient has got the genetic testing and particular we focused on two populations: those that were diagnosed, knowing already to be a BRCA carrier, and those that got tested after being diagnosed with breast cancer. And the main findings from this analysis have been that knowing to be a BRCA carrier was associated with a lower stage at the time of diagnosis, meaning more T1 tumors, so a tumor less than 2 cm, more node-negative disease, and this translated into less aggressive treatment, so less often axillary dissection, less often use of chemotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And even more importantly, we have seen a better overall survival for those patients that were diagnosed already knowing to be BRCA carriers as compared to those tested after breast cancer diagnosis. These results after adjusting for all the confounding, stage, treatment and so on, there was not significant anymore, meaning that it's not the timing of test per se that is probably leading to a better survival, but it is the fact that knowing to be a BRCA carrier would likely translate into having access to all the preventive measures that we have in this setting and this will translate into an overall survival benefit, so in terms of saving more lives in young BRCA carriers. Dr. Monty Pal: I think it's such an important point, and it's one that I think might sound implicit, right, but it needs to be proven, I think, through a study like this. You know, the fact that finding this early, identifying the mutation, doing enhanced screening, and so forth, is really going to lead to superior clinical outcomes. One of the things that I think many people puzzle over, including myself, is what to do? I personally occasionally will see BRCA altered patients in the context of prostate cancer. But that's a very different population of individuals, right? Typically older men. In young females with BRCA mutation, I guess there's a specific set of considerations around reproductive health. You'd already highlighted preventive strategies, but what sorts of things should we be talking about in the clinics once a patient's diagnosed and once perhaps their breast cancer diagnosis is established? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, exactly. Knowing to be a BRCA carrier has a lot of implications from prevention to treatment to survivorship issues including reproductive counseling. And this is important not only for the patient that has been diagnosed with breast cancer but also for all the family members that will get tested and maybe identify with this sort of genetic alteration before diagnosis of cancer. Why this is important is because we have access to very effective preventive measures, a few examples: MRI screening, which starts at a very young age and normally young women don't have an effective screening strategy outside the BRCA field. Also, primary preventive measures, for example, risk-reducing surgery. These women are known to have a high risk of breast cancer and high risk of ovarian cancer. So the guidelines are suggesting to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at a young age, so 35 to 40 years in BRCA1 carrier, 40 to 45 years in BRCA2 carrier. And also risk-reducing mastectomy should be discussed because it is a very effective way to prevent the occurrence of breast cancer. And in some situations, including the setting that we are talking about, so young women with breast cancer, BRCA carrier, also risk-reducing mastectomy has shown to improve overall survival. On the other side, once diagnosed with breast cancer, nowadays knowing to be or not a BRCA carrier can make a difference in terms of treatment. We have PARP inhibitors in the early setting, in the adjuvant setting as well as in the metastatic setting. And in terms of survivorship implication, one of the critical aspects for young women is the oncofertility care which is even more complicated when we talk about BRCA carriers that are women candidates for gynecological surgery at a very young age. So this sort of counseling is even more complicated. Dr. Monty Pal: One of the other things, and this is subtle in your paper and I hope you don't mind me bringing it up, is the difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2. It really got me thinking about that because there are differences in phenotype and manifestation. Do you mind just expanding on that a little bit for the audience because I think that's a really important reminder that you brought up in the discussion? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: The difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been known that there are different phenotypes of breast cancer that are more often diagnosed in these two different populations. Normally BRCA1 carriers have a higher likelihood to develop a triple negative breast cancer as compared to BRCA2 carriers, more likely to develop a hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative disease. In this study, again, a specific population of young women with breast cancer, we have seen the same findings, mostly triple negative disease in BRCA1 carrier, mostly luminal-like disease in BRCA2 carrier. But what's novel or interesting from this study is to look also at the age at the time of diagnosis of this disease. And particularly in BRCA1 carriers, we should be sort of more careful about diagnosis of breast cancer and also other primary tumors including ovarian cancer because the risk of developing these malignancies is higher even at a younger age as compared to BRCA2 carriers. And this has implications also in the primary and secondary prevention that we were talking about earlier. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, interesting. I guess the fundamental question then from your paper becomes, how do we get at the right patients for screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2? And I realize our audience here is largely oncologists who are going to be listening to this podcast, oncology providers, MDs, nurses, etc. But maybe speak for a moment to the general practitioner. Are there things that, for instance, a general practitioner should be looking for to say, “Wait a minute, this patient's high risk, we should consider BRCA1, BRCA2 testing or germline screening”? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, it's a very important question for the breast cancer community. After the updated ASCO guideline, the counseling is way easier because right now the age cutoff goes up to 65 years, meaning that all the patients diagnosed with breast cancer below the age of 65 years should be tested these days. And then above the age of 65, there are different criteria like triple-negative disease or family history. From a general practitioner standpoint, it's of course a bit more difficult, but knowing particularly the family history of the person that they have in front will be crucial to know if there are cases of breast cancer diagnosed at a young age, maybe triple-negative cases, knowing cases of ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives or pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives, and of course cases of prostate cancer as well. So, I would say probably mostly the family side will be important from a general practitioner perspective. From an oncology one, the other point that I think is important to stress also based on the data that we have shown in this publication is that having a case of breast cancer known to carry a BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. It means that all the people around this case should get tested and if found to be BRCA carrier and healthy carrier, these people should also undergo the primary and secondary prevention strategies because this is very critical also to improve their outcomes and try to avoid the developing of breast or ovarian cancer, but also in the case of diagnosis of this disease, a diagnosis at an earlier stage, as we have seen in this paper. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. I'm going to diverge from our list of questions here and close by asking a question that I have at the top of my mind. You're very young. I know our podcast listeners can't see you, but you're very, very young. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you. Thank you for that. Not so young but yeah. Dr. Monty Pal: You have nearly 300 papers. Your H-index is 67. You've already made these seminal contributions, as I outlined it from the outset, regarding fertility, regarding use of GnRH analogs, regarding pregnancy and breast cancer. What are you studying now? What are you really excited about right now that you're doing that you think might potentially be practice changing? Give us a little teaser. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Dr. Pal. Receiving this compliment from you is fantastic. So, thanks a lot for that. From my side, in terms of my research, I've been interested in the field of breast cancer in young women since the start of my training. I've had very good mentors from Italy, from Europe, from the U.S. I'm still interested in this field, so I think we still have a lot to learn to try to improve the care of young women with breast cancer. For example, the oncofertility care, which is something I worked a lot over the past years. Now with all the new treatment options, there's a sort of new chapter of oncofertility counseling. So, what's the impact of immunotherapy? What's the impact of the new targeted agents? More on the genetic aspects, now we know that there's not only BRCA1 or BRCA2. There are a lot of other different genes that may increase the risk of breast cancer and other malignancies. And also for these genes, we really don't have a lot of evidence to counsel women on prognosis, treatment, prevention strategy. So we need to learn way more for this special patient population that are quite rare, and so we really need a multicenter academic effort to try to give some evidence in this field. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. It's tough because these are rare circumstances, but, you know, I think that you've done really well to sort of define some collective experiences that I think really define therapy. I mean, I just remember when I was in training 25 years ago, just reading through textbooks where all the experience around breast cancer and pregnancy was really just very sort of anecdotal almost, you know? And so it's great to see that the state of the science has moved forward. Well, gosh, I really enjoyed our conversation today. I think your study really reminds us how powerful genetic information is in terms of improving outcomes. And, you know, hopefully this will lead some individuals to perhaps test more broadly in appropriate settings. So, thank you so much, Matteo, for joining us today with your fantastic insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It’s a real pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: And thanks to our listeners too. You'll find a link to Dr. Lambertini's study in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks a ton. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Seagen, Menarini, Nordic Pharma Speakers’ Bureau: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Knight Therapeutics, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Menarini Research Funding (Inst.): Gilead Sciences Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Roche
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/38397905
info_outline
Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives
09/18/2025
Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Mina Sedrak discuss the science behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and the development of drug therapies and technologies aimed at helping older patients and cancer survivors. TRANSCRIPT Transcript: Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of medical oncology here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. I am also host of this podcast. Today, we are going to be talking to somebody that I consider to be my little brother, if you will, in oncology, Mina Sedrak. Mina is an expert in the area of cancer and aging, which really includes the development of drug therapies and technologies that help enable older adults and survivors to live longer, healthier, and more vibrant lives. I am really excited to chat with him. He is an expert not just in cancer and aging but also breast cancer. He was my former colleague here at City of Hope before he moved over to the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is an associate professor and director there of the Cancer and Aging Program. Dr. Sedrak’s research involves mechanisms behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and really aims to take this science into more of a therapeutic direction, which I am super, super excited about. Mina, thanks so much for joining us today, and just FYI for our listeners, we have all of our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you, Monty. Thank you, Dr. Pal, for having me. I am really excited to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: I feel like we have to go on a first-name basis here with how well we know each other. So Mina, you and I together have witnessed this evolution in cancer and aging. I mean, both of us worked together here with just a legendary figure in the field of geriatric oncology, I will call it, Dr. Arti Hurria, mentor to me, mentor to you, mentor to so many. Can you give us a sense of where cancer and aging has gone since the time that you and I started here together at City of Hope? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Dr. Hurria and her collaborators, Dr. [Willliam] Dale and Dr. [Supriya] Mohile, they were like huge pioneers in the field. They were one of the very first people to highlight the importance of looking at older adults beyond just their chronological age and their comorbidities and moving us beyond just seeing patients and making decisions using what we call the eyeball test. "Oh, this person looks fit or not fit, frail or robust," to really using objective measures to assess our patient's health status and incorporate that assessment into our evaluation of the treatment, prognostication, and discussions with our patients throughout the cancer continuum. And so that is what geriatric oncology has and continues to be, and it is a huge, important part. And their work has laid the foundation to show that when we look at our patients beyond just their chronological age and we look at their functional age, and we do these objective assessments, we can gain much more deeper information to tailor the treatment for our patient that is sitting in front of us, rather than do a prescriptive treatment or over- or undertreatment in that population. So that is sort of where the field is growing, and a lot of the work now is, how do we implement that? How do we put that into clinical practice? Dr. Monty Pal: Well, let me kind of spearhead that discussion, right? I have these moments when I go to the ASCO Annual Meeting – I remember this happened to me a while ago when Dr. Jennifer Temel presented that terrific work around early palliative care interventions, right? Or it even happened to me this year, right, when Dr. Christopher Booth presented the trial around exercise and colon cancer. You know, these amazing, I am going to say simple, they are not simple, but they are simple interventions relative to, you know, some of the complex drugs and mechanisms that we are using nowadays that really help outcomes for our cancer patients. The big question becomes, how do you implement, right? But my understanding is that there are easy ways for us to take tools in cancer and aging and sort of plug them into our daily practice. Am I right about that? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Yes, and that is something that they are – the , which was founded by Dr. Hurria and now is co-led by Dr. Dale, Dr. Mohile, and Dr. [Heidi] Klepin, they have been incredible at really trying to develop practical tools, like the , which is now endorsed by the ASCO and other NCCN guidelines. And so, there are tools that are becoming more and more practical to help incorporate that into clinic. Now, what might be practical in a resource-intensive setting may not be practical in some of the limited resources, whether it is rural and/or other countries where the resources may be more limited. So that is why Cristiane Bergerot, Enrique Soto, and others have been really working hard. There was actually a really beautiful paper that was just published in the Journal of Global Oncology, where they have shown that there are guidelines [] about how to implement these tests, these tools, these assessments in clinical practice, even in different resource settings. So I think we are going to get to the future where this is much more – it is definitely important, but it is much more easily ‘incorporatable’ into our practice. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, you know how close I am to Cris, and I was so proud when I saw that paper come out. That was really exciting. You know, I skimmed it. I have to tell you, I did not get into the weeds, but it was apparent to me that, you know, some of these geriatric oncology tools are things that, you know, I could probably plug and play into my practice where I am double- and triple-booked over, you know, most slots, right? I mean, I could still probably afford a little bit of time or maybe have, like, a nurse or an extender kind of help participate in the evaluation process. I thought that was, yeah, really, really interesting. Dr. Mina Sedrak: I will just say that at UCLA, we are working with Dr. Arash Naeim, who is a geriatric oncologist, and he has developed an AI platform where the assessments can be done by an AI computer. So it is like talking to your ChatGPT. They can talk to you, and for a few minutes, they will ask you the questions. So you do not even have to fill it out on a piece of paper. You could give the patient a little iPad, put them in a private room while they are waiting for their doctor, and get the results, and it is right there for you. And so, we have been trying to think about how can technology help with the completion of the assessment, at least doing that? And I think it is actually, it has been very cool. We did a pilot study. He is writing that up, and we are going to continue to do some of this exciting work. How do we think about AI in the context of this? And, you know, older adults, they are not like what they used to be. A lot of older adults are very familiar with and comfortable with phones and computers and iPads, much more so today than they were even at the time when Dr. Hurria was alive. Dr. Monty Pal: That is so interesting. You mentioned this, the AI approach is something I have been thinking about in this context because what if, for instance, you know, we have got video monitors all over our hospital, right? What if you are actually just taking a look at that patient as they make their way towards your clinic? Capture that video, use an AI algorithm to say, "Hey, you know, the timed get-up-and-go test in this patient is not particularly good based on what I am seeing here," right? There are so many ways that you could, you know, stir the pot and come up with creative ways to get these tests done. Dr. Mina Sedrak: That's right. And Arash is looking at also sensors. So he has some studies where he is putting sensors inside people's homes, where they would put them, like, on top of an Alexa app or the equivalent. A lot of people have these apps, and basically, they can sense how you are moving around and what you are doing, just movement-wise. And then they can collect that information to gain information about your life beyond just what we are seeing in the 20-minute visit in the clinic. Even when I do a walk test where I get gait speed or physical performance, short physical performance battery, the chair sit-up, those are oftentimes a single, cross-sectional, static measure. But what about the dynamic ability of capturing what has been happening for the last 7 days? What has been happening for the last 25 days between the visits, between the cycles of chemotherapy? And could that inform how I make decisions when I see patients and who do I need to target and identify? And so, we are very excited because really at UCLA, Arash is leading the technology efforts and thinking about implementation of these important measures and these important tools but leveraging new technology. And we do not want to be behind; we want to be ahead of the game. Dr. Monty Pal: I love that idea because there is a Hawthorne effect, isn't there, where you observe a process, and it naturally gets better. I mean, when you ask that patient to get up in the clinic and move, they are probably functioning to the best of their abilities, but we could probably learn a lot from just watching how fast that patient picks up a remote control at home. Some simple movement like that that is volitional would probably help out a ton. And I got to tell you, it is so funny when you mention Arash Naeim’s name. I distinctly remember him serving as an attending on the wards when he was brand new at UCLA on faculty when I was a resident there. And his dad is a legendary hematopathologist, right? Dr. Mina Sedrak: I did not know that. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, yeah. Faramarz Naeim wrote the book on a lot of heme-path malignancies. Incredible guy. Very, very storied hematopathologist at UCLA. I could probably go on this topic forever, but in the interest of time, I am going to shift to something that again, I could probably talk about forever, which is this area of senescence that you are involved in. You know, you had mentioned this to me, I am going to say during your outro from City of Hope and towards your transition to UCLA, it is such an exciting area. I mean, understanding the actual biologic process of aging and using those underpinnings to really sort of tailor therapy. So tell us where the state of the science is there with this body of work that you are doing. Dr. Mina Sedrak: As I said before, we have tools now to assess patients and to then do something about the deficits. So if a patient is falling, what we do is we refer them to physical therapy where they can do fall precautions and strength training to give them the information. But all of these supportive care interventions are very important. They are great. But they oftentimes are not targeting the root cause of why they are happening. And so that is really where I have been very interested in, how can we understand why is it that something like chemotherapy or immunotherapy is causing a decline in cognitive function or a decline in physical function? And so that has really led us to think about geriatric oncology rather than a discipline of older adults, but to think about aging as a physiologic process. We are all aging. As every day goes by, we are aging. And what that means is that our bodies are accumulating damage, the cells are being exposed to various stressors, and the repair mechanisms are declining. And as we get older, it is really more damage and less repair mechanism at the cellular molecular level. And it turns out that these processes of how our cells repair and respond to damage are fundamental processes of biological aging. And there has been a large amount of preclinical and now really exciting clinical work to show that there are hallmarks that could be used to assess the rate of which we age by looking at these processes. And that includes things like epigenetics, telomeres, inflammation, and something called ‘cellular senescence.’ And we have been interested in my lab in senescence because it is a unique process that has an important role in aging, but it also has a really important role in cancer. Senescence is a cell state. Cells, when they are stressed, they respond to entering this state of senescence. The stress could come from anything. It could come from an oncogene activation. It could come from a reactive oxygen species. It could come from a direct damage to the cell. But it is a cell state, just like apoptosis, necrosis. Senescence is a state in which the cell, in response to that stressor, undergoes an arrest from the G to the S phase. And that arrest is oftentimes associated with a resistance to apoptosis. So then the cell does not die, but it is alive, and it remains metabolically active. And in fact, downstream pathways of these cell cycle inhibition of this G-to-S phase lead to the increase of these transcription factors in the chromatin and lead to the development of these pro-inflammatory factors. So these cells, which can occur in various tissues in the body, can continue to live despite having developed these changes, and then they secrete these proinflammatory molecules like cytokines, chemokines, metalloproteinases, all of these, which are called the senescence-associated secretory phenotype, or SASP. And as we age, we accumulate more and more of these cells, and our bodies are no longer able – our immune system, like macrophages and T cells – are no longer able to remove them effectively. And as we accumulate them in various organs, these organs release a lot of inflammatory cytokines, and the chronic inflammation in that tissue leads to the tissue being damaged, and it does not work as well, and then it starts to decline in function. And that is believed to be how senescence plays a role in aging. It is the accumulation of senescent cells that occurs with increased damage and then the repair mechanism of clearing these cells effectively, which then leads to build up of inflammation and chronic inflammation leads up to damage in multiple tissues. Dr. Monty Pal: This concept to me is fascinating. And I guess the big question is – senescence is bad, right – is it not reasonable to think that this body of research, I mean, if you are able to sort of have a meaningful impact on senescence, it could have implications well beyond oncology. Is that fair? You really could extend lifespan all around. Is that reasonable to think, all-cause mortality? Dr. Mina Sedrak: One hundred percent. And that is what they have been shown in animal models. And the reason senescence is exciting is because it turns out that you can target these cells and you can induce apoptosis of these cells, but it requires active targeting of various pathways, but it can occur. And when it does, and it is done either genetically or pharmacologically in mice, we see that the mice can reverse damage. So if you take an old mouse and you genetically engineer it to remove senescent cells, that mouse will go from being frail to fit. And if you take a young mouse and you induce senescent cells at a high rate and you accumulate them in that mouse, that mouse, even though it is young, will become frail. So that has really led to this exciting opportunity of, can we translate this finding that we are seeing in animals and in in vivo cells, cell cultures, into humans? And could that have a benefit beyond just one disease? Could it have a benefit in multiple diseases? And not just really longevity, which I think it would be great, but what people are really looking for is, how do we live healthy as we get older? How do we move the curve so that people are not developing chronic diseases in their 60s, but they are developing them in their 80s towards shortening the period of their life with disability rather than what we have currently, which is people are living to 70s, the average life expectancy is in the mid-70s, but they are spending 10 or 11 years in disability of that life. And so, how could we reduce that time frame? Dr. Monty Pal: This is brilliant, Mina. And for our audience, this compelling dialogue that we have had here thankfully is translating to funding for Mina's work. He just scored in the second percentile for his NIH R01 based on this topic. We are so, so proud of you. I mean, it is just remarkable work. It is not easy in the current climate to get funding, and a second percentile score is just absolutely wonderful. You know, Mina, I could probably go on with you for a couple more hours here talking about your work in cancer and aging. I think I am going to have to have you back on the podcast here. But a million thanks for sharing your thoughts here today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. And thanks to our listeners too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please do not forget to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, Mina. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Mina Sedrak: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Up-to-Date
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/38239430
info_outline
Promising New Therapies in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer
09/04/2025
Promising New Therapies in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer
Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Petros Grivas discuss innovative new intravesical therapies and other recent advances in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Monty Pal here at the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. And I'm really delighted to be your new host here. Today's episode is going to really sort of focus on an area near and dear to my heart, something I actually see in the clinics, and that's bladder cancer. We're specifically going to be discussing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, which actually comprises about 75% of new cases. Now, in recent years, there's been a huge shift towards personalized bladder-preserving strategies, including innovative therapies and new agents that really are reducing reliance on more primitive techniques like radical cystectomy and radiation therapy. And I'm really excited about this new trend. And really at the forefront of this is one of my dear friends and colleagues, Dr. Petros Grivas. He's a professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Hematology Oncology at the University of Washington. It's going to take a while to get through all these titles. He's taken on a bunch of new roles. He is medical director of the International Program, medical director of the Local and Regional Outreach Program, and also professor in the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. Petros, welcome to the program. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you so much, Monty. It's exciting for me to be here. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Just FYI for our audience, our disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. We're going to get right into it, Petros. Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, this is a really, really challenging space. We see a lot of recurrence and progression of the disease over time, about 50% to 70% of patients do have some recurrence after initial treatment, and about 30% are ultimately going to progress on to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Now, I will say that when you and I were in training, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer was something that was almost relegated to the domain of the urologist, right? They would use treatments such as BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) in a serial fashion. It was rare, I think, for you and I to really enter into this clinical space, but that's all changing, isn't it? I mean, can you maybe tell us about some of the new therapies, two or three that you're really excited about in this space? Dr. Petros Grivas: Monty, you're correct. Traditionally and conventionally, our dear friends and colleagues in urology have been managing patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The previous term was superficial bladder cancer. Now, it has changed, to your point, to non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this has to do with the staging of this entity. These tumors in superficial layers of bladder cancer, not invading the muscularis propria, the muscle layer, which makes the bladder contract for urine to be expelled. As you said, these patients have been treated traditionally with intravesical BCG, one of the oldest forms of immunotherapy that was developed back in the 1970s, and this is a big milestone of immunotherapy development. However, over the years, in the last 50 years, there were not many options for patients in whom the cancers had progression or recurrence, came back after this intravesical BCG. Many of those patients were undergoing, and many of them still may be undergoing, what we call radical cystectomy, meaning removal of the bladder and the lymph nodes around the bladder. The development of newer agents over the last several years has given the patients the option of having other intravesical therapies, intravesical meaning the delivery of drugs, medications inside the bladder, aiming to preserve the bladder, keep the bladder in place. And there are many examples of those agents. Just to give you some examples, intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy drugs that you and me may be giving intravenously, some of them can be given inside the bladder, intravesical installation. One example of that is a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel. These drugs are given in sequence one after the other inside the bladder, and they have seen significant efficacy, good results, again, helping patients keeping the bladder when they can for patients with what we call BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And again, there's criteria that the International Bladder Cancer Group and the FDA developed, how to define when BCG fails, when we have BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And we're actually going to get into some of the FDA requirements and development pathways and so forth. What I'm really interested in hearing, and I'm sure our audience is too, are maybe some of the new intravesical treatments that are coming around. I do think it's exciting that the gemcitabine and docetaxel go into the bladder indeed, but what are some of the top new therapies? Pick two or three that you're excited about that people should be looking out for in this intravesical space. Dr. Petros Grivas: For sure, for sure. In terms of the new up-and-coming therapies, there are a couple that come to mind. One of them is called TAR-200, T-A-R 200. This agent is actually a very interesting system. It's an intravesical delivery of a chemotherapy called gemcitabine, the one that I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that is actually being delivered through what we call a pretzel, which is like a rounded [pretzel-shaped] structure working like an osmotic pump, and that is being delivered inside the bladder intravesically by urologists. And this drug is releasing, through the osmotic release mechanism, this chemotherapeutic drug, gemcitabine, inside the bladder. And this can be replaced once every 3 weeks in the beginning. And the data so far from early-phase trials are really, really promising, showing that this agent may be potentially regulatory approved down the road. So TAR-200 is something to keep in mind. And similarly, in the same context, there is a different drug that also uses the same mechanism, and this osmotic release, this pretzel, it’s just encoded with a different agent. The different agent is an FGFR inhibitor, a target therapy called erdafitinib, a drug that you and me may give in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma if they have an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And that drug is called TAR-210. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And can I ask you, in that setting, do you have to have an FGFR3 mutation to receive it? Or what is the context there? Dr. Petros Grivas: So for TAR-210, TAR-2-1-0, usually there is a checking to see if there is an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And the big question, Monty, is do we have adequate tissue, right? From a limited tissue on what we call the TURBT, right, that urologists do. And now there is a lot of development in technology, for example, urine circulating tumor DNA to try to detect these mutations in the urine to see whether the patient may be eligible for this TAR-210. Both of those agents are not FDA approved, but there are significant promising clinical trials. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So now let's go to a rapid-fire round. Give us two more agents that you're excited about in this intravesical space. What do you think? Dr. Petros Grivas: There is another one called cretostimogene. It's a long name. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: They really make these names very easy for us, don't they? Dr. Petros Grivas: They are not Greek names, Monty, I can tell you, you know. Even my Greek language is having trouble pronouncing them. The cretostimogene, it's actually almost what we call a growth factor, a GM-CSF. The actual name of this agent is CG0070. This is a replicating mechanism where GM-CSF is replicating in cells. And this agent has shown significant results again, like the TAR-200, in BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. I would say very quickly, two agents that actually were recently approved and they're already available in clinical practice, is nadofaragene firadenovec, another long name. That's a non-replicating vector that has the gene of interferon alfa-2b that stimulates the immune system in the bladder. It's given once every 3 months. And the last one that was, as I mentioned, already FDA approved, it's an interleukin-15 superagonist. It's another long name, which is hard to pronounce, but I will give it a try. It's a drug that was recently actually approved also in the UK. The previous name was N-803. It's given together with BCG as a combination for BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: This is a huge dilemma, I think, right? Because if you're a practicing, I'm going to say urologist for the moment, I guess the challenge is how do you decide between an IL-15 superagonist? How do you decide between a pretzel-eluting agent? How do you decide between that and maybe something that's ostensibly, I'm going to guess, cheaper, like gemcitabine and docetaxel? What's sort of the current thinking amongst urologists? Dr. Petros Grivas: Multiple factors play into our account when the decision is being made. I discuss with urologists all the time. It's not an easy decision because we do not have head-to-head comparisons between those agents. As you mentioned, intravesical chemotherapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel has been used over the years and this is the lowest cost, I would say, the cheapest option with good efficacy results. Obviously, the nadofaragene firadenovec every 3 months and the interleukin-15 superagonist, N-803, plus BCG have also been approved. The question is availability of those agents, are they available? Are they reimbursed? Cost of those agents can come into play. Frequency of administration, you know, once every 3 months versus more frequent. And of course, the individual efficacy and toxicity data, preference of the patients; sometimes the provider, the urologist, may have something that they may be more familiar with. But we lack this head-to-head comparison. Of course, I want to make sure I mention that radical cystectomy may still be the option for appropriate patients. So that complicates also the decision making and has to be individualized, customized, and personalized, taking into account all those factors. And there is not one size fitting all. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So I think we discussed five intravesical therapies. As you point out, and you know, I'm going to get some calls about this: I think I referred to radical cystectomy as being a more primitive procedure. Not true at all. I think it's something that still is, you know, a mainstay of management in this disease space. But I guess it gets even more complicated, am I right, Petros? Because now we have systemic therapies that we can actually apply in this non-muscle invasive setting for at this point, refractory disease. Can you maybe just give us a quick two-minute primer on that? Dr. Petros Grivas: Absolutely, and systemic therapies now come into play, as you said. And a classical example of that, Monty, came from the trial that we published about 6 years ago. This is intravenous pembrolizumab, given intravascularly, intravenously, as opposed to the previously discussed intravesical administration of agents. Pembrolizumab was tested in that KEYNOTE-057 trial and showed efficacy about, I would say, one out of five patients, about 20%, had a complete response of the tumor in the bladder in a year after starting the treatment. Again, it's hard to compare across different agents, but obviously when we give something intravenously, there is a risk of toxicity, side effects systemically, what we call immune-related adverse events. And this can also play in the decision making, right? When you have intravesical agents versus intravascular agents, there is different toxicity profiles in terms of systemic toxicity. But intravenous pembrolizumab has been an option, FDA approved, since, if I remember, it was early 2020 when this became FDA approved. There are other agents being tested in this disease, but like atezolizumab through the that Dr. Black and Dr. Singh led, but atezolizumab is not FDA approved for this indication. Again, this is for BCG unresponsive, high-risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So maybe teach us how it works, for instance, at an expert center like the Fred Hutch. When you see a patient with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, there's obviously the option of surgery, there's the intravesical therapies, which I imagine the urology team is still really at the helm of. But then, I guess there has to be consideration of all options. So you've got to bring up systemic therapy with agents like pembrolizumab. In that context, are you involved that early on in the conversation? Dr. Petros Grivas: That's a great discussion, Monty. . We have the concept of multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic here at Fred Hutch and University of Washington. This happens every Tuesday morning, and we're very excited because it's a one-stop shop for the patients. We have the urologist, a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and experts from radiology and pathology, and we all review cases specifically with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. But every now and then, we see patients with BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this is where we discuss and we talk to the patient about pros and cons of all those options. And that's a classic example where medical oncologists may start to see those patients and offer their input and expertise. In addition to that, sometimes we have clinical trials, we may see these patients because there are systemic agents that may be administered in this setting. We have the program that includes also a systemically administered checkpoint inhibitor. So that's another example where we see patients either in the context of multi-clinic or in individual solo clinics to counsel the patients about the pros and cons of the systemically administered agents in the context of clinical trials. Usually checkpoint inhibitors are the class of agents that are being tested in this particular scenario. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I can see a scenario where it's really going to require this sort of deep dive, much in the way that we do for prostate cancer, for instance, where the medical oncologist is involved very early on and planning out any sort of systemic therapy component of treatment or at the very least, at least spelling out those options. I think it's going to be really interesting to see what this space looks like 5 or 10 years down the road. In closing, I wanted to go through something that I think is so different in this space, at least for the time being, and that is the paradigm for FDA approval. When you and I have our fellows in the clinics, we always say, “Look, you know, the paradigm in this disease and that disease and the other disease needs to be phase 3 randomized trials, right? Big thousand patient experiences where you're testing clinical endpoints.” That's tough in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, right? Because thankfully, outcomes can actually be quite good, you know, in this setting, right? It's tough to actually estimate overall survival in some of these early-stage populations. Tell me what the current regulatory bar is, and this is a tough thing to do in 2 minutes or less but tell me where you see it headed. Dr. Petros Grivas: You alluded to that before, Monty, when I was giving the background and we talked about the regulatory approval. And I have to very quickly go back in time about 10 years ago because it's important for context that can help us in other disease types too. We had workshops with the FDA and the NCI with the help of the International Bladder Cancer Group and other colleagues. And we try to define a framework, what endpoints are meaningful for those patients in this disease. It was a multidisciplinary, multiple stakeholders meeting, where we tried to define what is important for patients. What are the available agents? What are the trial designs we can accept? And what are the meaningful endpoints that the regulatory agencies can accept for regulatory approval? And that was critical in that mission because it allowed us to design clinical trials, for example, single-arm trials in a disease where there was no standard of care. There was intravesical valrubicin and chemotherapy anthracycline that was approved for many years, but was not practically used in clinical practice, despite being approved, the valrubicin. And because of that, the FDA allowed these single-arm trials to happen. And obviously the endpoint was also discussed in that meeting. For example, for carcinoma in situ, complete response, clinical complete response, because the bladder remains intact in many patients, clinical complete response was a meaningful primary endpoint, also duration of response is also very important. So what is the durable clinical complete response in 1 year or 18 months is relevant. And when you have papillary tumors like Ta or T1 with CIS, for papillary tumors, event-free survival becomes one of the key endpoints and you look at it over time, for example, at 12 or 18 months, what is the event-free survival? So clinical complete response, duration of response, event-free survival, depending on the CIS presence or papillary tumors, I think these are endpoints that have allowed us to design those trials, get those agents approved. Now, Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, it's awesome to have you here on the program so we can get some early looks into some of these conversations. I mean, clearly, you're at the table at a lot of these discussions, Petros. So I want to thank you for sharing your insights with us today. This was just tremendous. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you, Monty. You know, patients in the center, I just came back from the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network meeting in Washington, D.C., and we discussed all those questions, the topics you very eloquently mentioned and asked me today, and patients gave us great feedback and patients guide us in that effort. Thank you so, so much for having me and congratulations for the amazing podcast you're doing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Oh, cheers, Petros, thanks so much. And thank you to the listeners who joined us today. If you really like the insights that you heard on this ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Petros Grivas: Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Pfizer,...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/38006530
info_outline
The Gut Microbiome and Immunotherapy: Researching the Connection
08/21/2025
The Gut Microbiome and Immunotherapy: Researching the Connection
Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Arielle Elkrief discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome in cancer immunotherapy and the importance of antibiotic stewardship, as well as interventions currently being explored to treat gut dysbiosis and optimize immunotherapy response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hi everyone, I'm Dr. Monty Pal, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist. I'm a professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today we're here to discuss one of my favorite topics, which is the gut microbiome. It's almost hard to avoid the gut microbiome nowadays if you look at medical literature within oncology. It's an emerging phenomenon, but there are a couple of individuals that I would really define as pioneers in the field. And one of them is actually with me today, Dr. Arielle Elkrief, to discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome, particularly amongst patients receiving immunotherapy, although I imagine our conversation today will take many twists and turns. Arielle is an assistant professor and clinician scientist in the Department of Oncology at the University of Montreal, and she is co-director of the CHUM Microbiome Center there. FYI for the listeners, we have our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Arielle, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thanks so much, Monty. This is going to be amazing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, I have to tell you what sort of inspired me to bring you on as a guest. It was one of many things, but it was this really terrific that you wrote. Now, I have to tell you, I've read all the articles sort of cover to cover in the book, and they're always a wonderful primer, so if our audience is studying for board research or something of that sort, it's a terrific resource to go through. I have to tell you, this piece on the gut microbiome that you wrote is nothing short of a masterpiece. If you read this cover to cover, it's actually going to give you, I think, a sense of the current state and future state of the field. I wanted to start by just sort of beginning with sort of the origin story for a lot of this, which is this association between the gut microbiome and immunotherapy response. This takes us back several years to this pivotal series of papers in Science. Maybe you could walk our audience through that. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for your kind words about the ASCO [Educational] Book. It was a team effort with a lot of key opinion leaders in the field, so I'm really glad to learn that you've liked it. Moving backwards in terms of how we came to understand that the gut microbiome is essential to priming a response to cancer immunotherapy actually goes back to 2015 and seminal papers that looked at what happens when we take mice that are germ-free mice that have never been exposed to a microbiome. These are mice that are born by cesarean section and essentially live in a bubble. And when we give those mice tumors and treat them, in the first papers with anti-CTLA-4 treatment, we realized that these antibodies don't work at all. And that was the first observation that the presence of a gut microbiome was essential to mounting an anti-cancer immune response. When we supplemented those same mice with beneficial bacteria or feces from responder patients, we were able to restore the response to immunotherapy. And so those were really the first preclinical observations that made us understand the critical role of the microbiome in immunotherapy response. Moving a little bit in the future, we examined the fecal microbiome composition using shotgun metagenomic sequencing in different cohorts of patients with solid tumors, namely lung cancers, kidney cancers, and also skin tumors like melanoma, and found that patients who responded to immunotherapy had a distinct microbiome that was characterized by beneficial bacteria compared to patients who experienced resistance to immunotherapy that had a dysbiotic or diseased microbiome. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So, you know, it's interesting, these techniques that we're using to sequence the gut, they're a little bit different. So I wonder if you can give the audience a quick primer on these techniques that you're so well versed in, shotgun metagenomic sequencing, 16S rRNA sequencing. If you had to describe this in 30 seconds, which is a tall task, how would you do that? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: That's a tall task. Much of what we know about the microbiome initially came from a technique called 16S rRNA sequencing. This is a technique that amplifies the 16S region and basically tells you at the genus level what's going on at the level of bacterial composition. This technique is fast, relatively cheap, and can be performed on a laptop computer, which is excellent. The problem is that it's prone to a lot of technical variations. Different primers might give you different results, and you're really limited at the genus resolution. You can't get a good resolution in terms of species, and we're learning that different species from the same genus might have different physiological properties, and the same thing goes at the strain level. So when we really zone in and look at inter-species changes, we're seeing that these actually have specific functions in the host. So that brings us to metagenomic sequencing, which is a whole genome sequencing, next-generation sequencing based method that looks at the whole composition and gives you information not only on bacteria, but you might also get fungal and viral properties. You can zoom in on the strain level. You can also get functional output, so we can examine what the metabolic properties of specific species or strains might look like. The negative aspects of shotgun metagenomic sequencing is that it takes a lot of computational power in order to analyze the results and it might take a little bit longer. And certainly, within the clinical setting, not something that's feasible yet. And that brings us to more novel point-of-care biomarker tools that we've collaborated in developing along with Dr. Laurence Zitvogel and Dr. Lisa Derosa at Gustave Roussy, that learning from the shotgun metagenomics results designed a probe using quantitative PCR which looks for this specific bacteria we know to be important and developed a ratio of harmful bacteria to beneficial bacteria. This is called the , and it actually is able to predict quite nicely the response to immunotherapy using a stool sample and a really good turnaround time of almost 72 hours. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That was a perfect overview and a lot of information in a short amount of time. It also makes you take out your high school biology textbooks, doesn't it, to understand that the bacterial ribosome, right, is a different size and shape, and that's what we're sequencing here. But these techniques I think are incredibly important, and I'm glad you actually discussed this, this RT-PCR based strategy of calculating the TOPOSCORE. It lends itself to this phenomenon of dysbiosis, and I think for our audience, that's going to be an important term to understand as time goes on. There's the normal healthy gut and then there's this phenomenon of dysbiosis, which is, I guess, simply put, an unhealthy gut. But tell us about, you know, how often you see dysbiosis in a cancer patient, maybe versus a normal healthy adult. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: So, I think we can split up your question into two parts. One is we know from cohort studies and population level-based studies that the microbiome of patients with cancer is distinct from healthy patients or healthy people. And we know that because of the global composition. We also think that there are diversity metrics that lend themselves to being described as dysbiotic. But we do know that the microbiome of people with cancer is distinct from healthy volunteers. That's the first point. In terms of how frequently dysbiosis occurs in patients with cancer, it's not very well defined. We know that even among healthy people, there is a certain level of dysbiosis. Laurence in her talk mentioned that to be about 10% to 20%. And the other fascinating component is that when we're thinking about dysbiosis and the cancer associated microbiome, in terms of the species that are enriched, it's quite striking that a lot of these dysbiotic or negative bacteria are also found to be enriched in patients with metabolic disease, like cardiovascular disease, for example. And so it's unclear if dysbiosis is the cause or consequence, but there definitely seems to be a general pattern of disease when looking at the microbiome compared to healthy people. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's interesting. So, I'll tell you, my second favorite portion of your article, and I'll tell you my favorite portion as well in the context of this podcast, but my second favorite part was the section around antibiotic stewardship. You know, the utilization of antibiotics in a very pragmatic fashion amongst our patients. Can you describe why that's so critical in the context of the microbiome? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Antibiotics can disrupt the gut microbiome composition. We know this from mouse studies, but also cohort studies of patients that are exposed to antibiotics. And most importantly, we know that patients who are exposed to antibiotics, either before or during the immunotherapy period, have significantly worse progression-free survival and overall survival to immunotherapy. And this is true for immunotherapy in the monotherapy setting, but also when combined with chemotherapy. What's striking is that when we look at patients who are just treated with chemotherapy, we don't see the negative outcome of antibiotics on outcome and progression-free survival and overall survival, suggesting that the negative impact of antibiotics on outcomes is really specific to immunotherapy backbones. The other important point is that this negative signal is maintained even after adjusting for standard prognostic variables in the specific malignancies that we're looking at. And then most importantly, at the mechanistic level, we were able to actually pinpoint the mechanism behind this antibiotic related dysbiosis. And we see this with a bloom of negative bacteria which induces a loss of MAd-CAM, which is an endothelial gut checkpoint immune marker, and that causes an efflux of immunosuppressive T cells, which are usually in the gut, to go straight into the tumor where they make the tumor unamenable to an immunotherapy response. And so now we finally have the mechanism as to why antibiotics are harmful and why we need to practice antibiotic stewardship. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And just to be clear for the audience, I mean, if a patient needs antibiotics, they need antibiotics. But perhaps it just suggests that, and we have, I suppose, this predilection as oncologists, just for the minor cold or cough or what have you, we maybe should be a little bit more cognizant of whether or not antibiotics are truly necessary. Is that fair? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. So what we're advocating for is antibiotic stewardship, and this is the clear recommendation that we can make. So that means confirming a bacterial infection. If it's there and antibiotics are indicated, to choose the most narrow spectrum for the shortest course and constantly re-evaluate the indication of antibiotics. And of course, we need to work with our colleagues in infectious diseases who've done incredible work in antibiotic stewardship. And all along this process we also need to be mindful of other medications and polypharmacy, such as proton pump inhibitors or narcotics, for example, we think that these other medications which are frequently prescribed in our cancer population can also potentially have negative impacts on the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I think that's a terrific summary and big guidance for the audience. I promised you I'd tell you my favorite part of your article, and this is this huge table. I think the table is two and a half pages long, if I remember correctly, but it's an awesome table, and I highly recommend our audience to check this out. It lists literally every therapeutic trial for the microbiome under the sun. And so it begins with the approach of fecal microbiota transplant, which I'm going to ask you to tell us about in a second, but it also hinges on a lot of really cool sort of novel therapies, live bacterial products, mixes of different microbial products. Maybe take us through this whole approach of FMT (fecal microbiota transplantation). I actually wasn’t aware of the dozens of trials that you listed there in this space. It seems like it’s a very active area of research. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Definitely. So, as you alluded to, FMT or fecal microbiota transplantation is the most well studied and direct way to modify the patient's microbiome. This technique aims to replace the patient's dysbiotic microbiome with that of a healthy microbiome, either from a healthy donor volunteer that's been heavily screened, or from a patient who experienced response to immunotherapy. And, as three landmark studies so far that have been published demonstrated the potential of FMT to reduce primary resistance or secondary resistance to immunotherapy, and this has been in melanoma. We also recently reported on the results of our , which looked at patients with lung cancer and melanoma. Once again, FMT, when combined with immunotherapy was safe and led to a higher proportion of responses than we would normally expect. We're now also looking at randomized trials that have come out. So the first being the in kidney cancer, which compared FMT plus pembrolizumab and axitinib to placebo in patients with RCC, and again, FMT was safe and feasible and also led to an increased progression-free survival at one year, meeting the study's primary endpoint. And so, so far, there's a wealth of data really showing the promise of FMT when combined with immunotherapy, and we're now in the process of conducting larger randomized trials, including in melanoma with the CCTG (Canada Cancer Trials Group) in our ME17 or , where we're going to be enrolling 128 patients with metastatic melanoma to receive FMT and standard of care immunotherapy compared to standard of care immunotherapy alone. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: You're very humble, so I’ve got to highlight for our audience. This was a mega grant that Arielle received to fund really the largest prospective exploration of FMT that will exist to date. So I'm really excited about that. I wish this was something we could participate in stateside. Before we jump into the other approach, which is live bacterial products and mixes thereof, where do you see FMT going? I think that one of the perceived challenges with FMT is that it's hard to implement, right? You need to have a really robust framework when it comes to gastroenterology, the preparation's challenging. Is there a way to envision FMT use being more generalized? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Those are great questions. So we're lucky in Canada to work with pioneers in FMT, Michael Silverman, Saman Maleki, and John Lenehan in London, Ontario, who had this really robust FMT healthy donor screening program, which literally screens for every pathogen under the sun, and we haven't had any problems with feasibility or implementing FMT in Canada. But I think that once we're going to hopefully start doing larger scale, randomized phase three studies, that we might run into problems with scalability. And I think also with regards to reproducibility, and that's the feedback that we're getting from some regulatory authorities, especially at the level of the FDA, where there are some concerns around inter- and intra-donor variability because, of course, we can't guarantee that every fecal sample is going to be the same. So that has really pushed the field to think about other strategies, such as live biotherapeutic products which take modified FMT or bacteria from stools from either healthy donors or from responder patients and basically turn them into drugs that are regulated as drugs and can then be studied in the context of investigational new drugs or products. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I like this and, you know, I do think that there's a future for it. We just have to kind of put our heads together and figure out how to get over all of these logistical hurdles, but, you know, I agree, I think your group and others have demonstrated, especially with this trial that you're fanning out all throughout Canada, that it can potentially be done. This is a topic that could probably go on for another couple of hours, right, especially based on the size of the table that you put together in this brilliant article, but tell us about live bacterial products or LBPs, as we call them these days. What's the current status, what's the future there? And maybe I'll give you less than two minutes here, although again, I realize it's a two-hour topic. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: You're probably better suited to speak about that because you've been one of the pioneers in terms of this. So we can think about LBPs in terms of single strain organisms, like CBM588 for an example, which your group did some amazing work in showing that, in a randomized setting, that this led to better responses than we would expect compared to just work with controls. We also know that LBPs can have multiple strains, up to 30. We're collaborating with a company called Cannabis Bioscience that is actually working on much larger communities of consortia. And so we're really excited about the direction that that's taking in terms of taking these LBPs and developing them from the drug perspective. In addition to LBPs, we know that there are other ways that we can change the microbiome, notably prebiotics, which are compounds which can have a beneficial impact on the microbiome. And one of these is camu camu, which I know your group is leading a looking at camu camu and kidney cancer, and we're excited to see how that compares to FMT or LBPs, because that might be a potentially scalable alternative. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's awesome. What a terrific overview, and that was less than two minutes. I don't know how you did it. That's terrific. Arielle, this has been such an insightful conversation. I just want to thank you for, again, a terrific in the ASCO Educational Book. I highly recommend all of our listeners to go there and check it out, and also for sharing all these terrific insights on the podcast today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thank you so much, Monty. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And thanks to our listeners, too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel,...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37881920
info_outline
Why Are Early-Onset GI Cancers on the Rise?
08/07/2025
Why Are Early-Onset GI Cancers on the Rise?
Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Kimmie Ng discuss the disturbing rise of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers, the unique challenges faced by younger patients, and key research that is shedding light on potential drivers of early diagnoses in colorectal cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hello, everyone. I'm Dr. Monty Pal, and I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. I'm really delighted to welcome you all to the ASCO Daily News Podcast as the show's new host. I'll be bringing you discussions with leaders in the oncology space on a variety of topics. I've been working hard with the ASCO team on picking the ideal topics to bring to you, and I'm really delighted to introduce my first guest, a dear friend, Dr. Kimmie Ng, to discuss this huge problem that we're seeing nowadays of early-onset GI cancers. Dr. Ng is the associate chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and she's an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. She serves as co-director of the Colon and Rectal Cancer Program. She's also the founding director of the Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber. I'm sure we'll talk a little bit about that today. Just to note, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr Ng, it's so great to have you on the podcast. Thanks so much for joining us. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I'm going to refer to you as Kimmie, if you don't mind, for the rest of the podcast here. Please, we'll go by first names, if you don't mind. Your research has really done so much to help improve our understanding of early-onset GI cancers. You've done a lot of work to increase awareness in this space. I don't think there's a couple of months that passes by when I don't see you on television on Good Morning America or other shows really broadcasting this really critical message. I think there's a certain sensitivity that we all have to this issue, right? I mean, because receiving a cancer diagnosis at any age is very challenging, but I'm sure that young patients who face a colorectal cancer diagnosis have some very unique challenges. Could you give us a sense of some of those? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I think the other reason why so many people are interested in this and feel touched by this is that it's not just gastrointestinal cancers that are increasing in young people, but actually a multitude of different cancers have been rising in young individuals. And while it is difficult at any age to receive a cancer diagnosis, we do all know that young people getting a diagnosis like this do face unique challenges. Studies have shown that over 80% have children under the age of 18 when they are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, for example, under the age of 50. And many experience career and education disruptions. They are in what we call the ‘sandwich generation,’ where they're not only taking care of young families or starting to think about starting a young family, but they're also taking care of elderly parents. So it's just a very busy stage of life, and to then be facing a usually terminal cancer diagnosis, it is extremely challenging. The other factors that we've seen that seem to be unique or more prevalent in young patients is that there are higher levels of psychosocial distress, depression, and anxiety, and a majority of patients do need medical attention and treatment for those things, whether it's medication treatment or whether it's counseling or support from psychosocial oncologists. And so the other big issue is fertility. We know that so many of the treatments that these young patients receive do permanently and negatively impact fertility. And for a person who is young, who may still be trying to expand their family or again start a family, it is very important that these young patients do receive counseling about fertility preservation prior to starting treatment. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: You know, it's so interesting you bring this up, and I think about a patient who's in their 40s diagnosed with this disease. They're in the same demographic as I am, as you are. You know, I'm 44 years old, and you know, I'm thinking about my 11- and 12-year-old and my aging parents, right? I mean, the dilemmas that you highlighted are precisely what I'm facing in life, and it's so true, right? If I had to take my day-to-day and superimpose on that a colorectal cancer diagnosis, it would just be problematic in so many spheres, so many spheres. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Absolutely. And because we did think going into this, starting our Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, that these patients will need unique supports, we did conduct a qualitative and held some focus groups of young-onset colorectal cancer patients as well as their caregivers. And we really identified four primary themes that I think reflect a lot of the experience of patients with cancer, no matter what type of cancer when they're diagnosed young. And the first is the need, feeling overwhelmed by the healthcare system, and the need for patient navigation. As we know, a lot of these patients are previously healthy before they're facing this very serious diagnosis. The second is the need for peer-to-peer support, where they really value connecting with other young patients going through a similar experience. The third, we talked about already, the need for kind of formal psychosocial support in the form of psychosocial oncologists or psychiatrists or social workers. And the last is an interest in research. They are really very invested in getting germline genetic testing as well as somatic genomic profiling to help guide their therapy. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's really encouraging to hear that they themselves are interested in participating in research. I mean, obviously, that's a great way to move the field forward. I view your area of work here as being such a vexing problem because no matter what way you slice it, young-onset colorectal cancer still remains a relatively small proportion of all diagnoses. So how do you go about studying this phenomenon? I mean, it must be challenging to really sort of investigate underlying causes when ostensibly this is still a small piece of the pie. Dr. Kimmie Ng: That is such a great question and is one of the challenges me and my research team think about every single day. As you mentioned, one of the major barriers is that although these cancers are rising in young people, the absolute number of patients being diagnosed is still relatively small, and if it's going to take large scale epidemiologic studies to really understand, for example, what the dietary and lifestyle risk factors are, you need a considerable number of patients in order to have enough power to reach definitive conclusions. And so this is where it is so important to collaborate. Any single institution is not going to see enough young-onset patients with colorectal cancer to be able to do this work on their own. And so I have really been intent on establishing an international prospective cohort study of patients with young-onset colorectal cancer so that we can increase the numbers of patients we partner with to try to answer these questions, but also so that we can study this on a global scale, because unfortunately this is not something that's just plaguing the United States. It is actually happening in multiple countries around the world. So that is one barrier. The second, I would say, is that we think it's early life exposures to whatever environmental factor it is that's causing the rise that is likely contributing the most. And so if you imagine how difficult it would be to start studying individuals from when they're children through adolescence, through adulthood, and then all the way until a cancer diagnosis is obtained, a study like that would take too long, would cost too much, and really wouldn't be feasible. So we need to think of alternative ways to really try and answer this question of what is driving this rise in young-onset colorectal cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Honestly, Kimmie, this seems like almost an unfair question in the context of what you just mentioned, the challenges in terms of ascertaining causality, right? I'll tell you, I cheated a little bit ahead of this podcast. Kimmie and I had dinner together in Los Angeles a couple months ago. She came out to deliver a Presidential Lectureship at City of Hope. We were delighted to have her. And we did have a couple of thoughts exchanged over potential drivers of these early diagnoses, leaning on perhaps one of the things that you and I are both interested in, the microbiome. But amongst all these things, vitamin D, microbiome, etc., and I won't hold you to this, do you have at least a general sense of what might be contributing to this early-onset phenomenon? Dr. Kimmie Ng: Yeah, as we talked about during my visit there to City of Hope, we do hypothesize that it is a complex interaction between our exposome, which is everything we are exposed to in our environment, which does include diet and lifestyle factors, interacting with host immunity and antitumor immunity, and as well as the microbiome and shaping the composition and diversity of the gut microbiome that are likely interacting to increase susceptibility to colorectal cancer at a younger age. And I will say one of the biggest discoveries, if you will, about what might be driving young-onset colorectal cancer was published a few months ago in Nature. And that identified a specific mutational signature caused by the genotoxin colibactin, which is often produced by an organism called pks+ E. coli, as being much more prevalent in younger patients with colorectal cancer than older patients. And so while it doesn't explain necessarily all of young-onset colorectal cancer and why it's rising, it does give us a clue that the microbiome is likely very important in perhaps why this is rising in young people. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: After you mentioned it, I went back and dove deep into that paper. I was fascinated, fascinated by the content there. And this is just a massive exploration across thousands of patients worldwide. So, I mean, if there is a way to get at least some hint of what's driving this phenomenon, I suppose that's it. So thank you for pointing me in the direction of that manuscript. Now that we've addressed the issue of diagnosis, if we could just, you know, verge on the topic of treatment, right? And this is something that I struggle with. When I have my young patients with kidney cancer, I don't know necessarily that my treatment paradigm changes a whole heck of a lot. I guess what I will say is I might be a little bit more aggressive about concepts like definitive management with surgery. I suppose perhaps their treatment tolerance is a little bit higher. But tell us about the setting of young-onset colorectal cancer. Is the philosophy any different in terms of the actual sort of management of these patients? Dr. Kimmie Ng: That's a great question, and actually I was honored to participate in the first international consensus guidelines group to try to come up with uniform recommendations for how to treat young patients with colorectal cancer. And you know, the overall consensus is just as you said, the medical care of these young patients right now is really not that much different than that of an older patient with colorectal cancer. There are a couple of distinctions. One is that all young patients should get germline genetic testing, given that there is a higher prevalence of pathogenic germline variants when you are diagnosed at a young age. And the second is what we've already talked about, which is that all young patients should be referred for counseling about fertility preservation prior to starting treatment. But otherwise, the chemotherapy regimens recommended, you know, surgery, radiation, all of that seems very similar to older patients. I will say that because most of our young patients with colorectal cancer are diagnosed with left-sided cancers, including rectal cancers, where some of the treatment may be morbid and result in lifelong complications, we do consider de-escalation of therapy and try to consider the long-term implications when it's safe to do so and won't compromise outcomes. The other concerning thing is that younger patients don't necessarily have a better prognosis than older patients. And multiple studies have shown this, that even though we both often treat younger patients more aggressively – they more often receive multi-agent chemotherapy, and more often undergo surgery and radiation – their survival is not necessarily correspondingly better than an older patient with colorectal cancer. So that suggests to us that maybe these cancers are indeed biologically different and perhaps more aggressive or perhaps less responsive to treatment. And so that is some of the focus of our research too, to understand what is actually different about these cancers and how they respond to treatment. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: It's such a paradox, isn't it, right? Because you just brought this to my mind. I guess on the one hand, our younger patients may be able to tolerate perhaps a greater amount of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, etc. But you're absolutely right. I mean, they do sort of have these lingering issues with side effects that may persist for much longer than the 80- or 90-year-old that we're treating in the clinic. I mean, these tend to be sort of lifelong consequences and sequelae that they're dealing with. So that really does evolve to be a challenge. You've kind of changed my mindset there a little bit. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Yeah, I do think survivorship issues and long-term complications of therapy do need to be considered, especially for a young person who we hope will live a very, very long time. And so part of the work that our Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center is doing, we are participating in a pilot navigation study where we navigate patients to survivorship earlier than we typically would, perhaps, for an older patient. And that's so we can get a head start on addressing some of those potential complications of therapy and hopefully mitigate them so that they don't become an issue long term. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Do you think there's a role for de-escalation studies formally in these young populations of patients? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I think de-escalation studies are important overall, and specifically for locally advanced rectal cancer, which again is one of the most common types of colorectal cancer diagnosed in our young patients, there are certain populations that may be able to forgo the radiation treatment to the pelvis, for example, and there's more and more patients who now may become candidates for non-operative management where they may not necessarily need to have their rectal cancer surgically removed. And elimination potentially of both of those modalities of treatment can really avoid some of the most serious and morbid complications that often occur with these treatments. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Really interesting. Now, this is not and will never be a political podcast, but you know, obviously we're dealing with the consequences of changes on funding and so forth that have evolved over time. And I think it's worth sort of speculating how the landscape of research may change on account of that. Could you comment perhaps a little bit on how some of the funding cuts that we've seen recently at the NIH might affect the body of work that you're so integrally involved in? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I am honestly very worried about the current funding environment. Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and women in the United States and globally, and when you combine men and women together, the second leading cause of cancer death. But proportionally, we receive much less funding for colorectal cancer compared to other cancer types. And my thoughts have always been that perhaps this is because there is this stigma around colorectal cancer and maybe some of the symptoms associated with colorectal cancer. And so on top of that, to have additional challenges in obtaining funding, I worry what it will do to the pace of progress for especially young patients with this disease. Also, because of some new stipulations that perhaps international collaborations are being discouraged, I also worry about that aspect of it because young-onset colorectal cancer and gastrointestinal cancers in general is a global phenomenon happening in multiple countries around the world. And if we are to understand what the environmental factors are affecting the different rates of rise in these different countries, we do so much need that international collaboration. So yes, I am worried, and I do hope that conversations like this will spark an awareness of the need for more funding and continued funding into this disease. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I will say that, and the audience can't see this because this is an audio program, but I'm wearing my Southwest Oncology shirt here, a SWOG, and it's one of the National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative groups. And you know, I was recently dismayed to find that, you know, funding got cut for international collaborations and enrollment in South America and Latin America. And this was traditionally actually a mainstay of our enrollment for many trials, including trials in rare cancers that present themselves in younger patients in the GU space. So, I completely agree with you. We've got to do something to address this funding issue to make sure that this body of work, both yours and mine, continues, without a doubt. Kimmie, this has been a delightful conversation. I really want to thank you for, you know, leading the charge in the young-onset colorectal cancer space, and you've done so much tremendous work here. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Thank you for having me. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And again, thank you for joining us today. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Speakers’ Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Kimmie Ng: Honoraria: Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline Consulting or Advisory Role: CytomX Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Abbvie, Bayer, Pfizer, Agenus, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Etiome, AstraZeneca Research Funding (Inst.): Pharmavite, Janssen Other Relationship: JAMA
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37705950
info_outline
What Is Precision Palliative Care? Rethinking a Care Delivery Problem
07/31/2025
What Is Precision Palliative Care? Rethinking a Care Delivery Problem
Dr. Joseph McCollom and Dr. Ramy Sedhom discuss precision palliative care, a new strategy that aims to align palliative care delivery with patient and caregiver needs instead of diagnosis alone. TRANSCRIPT ADN Podcast Episode 8-22 Transcript: What Is Precision Palliative Care? Rethinking a Care Delivery Problem Dr. Joseph McCollom: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Joseph McCollom. I'm a GI medical oncologist and palliative oncologist at the Parkview Packnett Family Cancer Institute here in Fort Wayne, Indiana. So, the early benefits of palliative care for patients with cancer have been well documented, but there are challenges in terms of bandwidth to how do we provide this care, given the workforce shortages in the oncology field. So today, we'll be exploring a new opportunity known as precision palliative care, a strategy that aims to align care delivery with patient and caregiver needs and not just diagnosis alone. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Ramy Sedhom. He is the medical director of oncology and palliative care at Penn Medicine Princeton Health and a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Sedhom, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you so much for being here. Dr. Ramy Sedhom: Thank you, Joe. It's a pleasure to be here and lucky me to be in conversation with a colleague and friend. Yes, many of us have heard about the benefits of early palliative care. Trials have shown better quality of life, reduced symptoms, and potentially even improved survival. But as we know, the reality is translating that evidence into practice, which is really, really challenging. So Joe, both you and I know that not every patient can see palliative care, or I'd even argue should see palliative care, but that also means there are still many people with real needs who still fall through the cracks. That's why I'm really excited about today's topic, which we'll be discussing, which is precision palliative care. It's a growing shift in mindset from what's this patient's diagnosis or what's this patient's prognosis, to what matters most for this person in front of me right now and what are their individual care needs. I think, Joe, it's very exciting because the field is moving from a blanket approach to one tailored to meet people where they actually are. Dr. Joseph McCollom: Absolutely, Ramy. And I think from the early days when palliative care was kind of being introduced and trying to distinguish itself, I think one of the first models that came to clinicians' eyes was Jennifer Temel's in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2010. And her colleagues had really looked at early palliative care integration for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. And in that era – this is a pre-immunotherapy era, very early targeted therapy era – the overall prognosis for those patients are similar to the population I serve as a GI medical oncologist, pancreatic cancer today. Typically, median overall survival of a year or less. And so, a lot of her colleagues really wanted her to track overall survival alongside quality of life and depression scores as a result of that. And it really was a landmark publication because not only did it show an improvement of quality of life, but it actually showed an improvement of overall survival. And that was really, I think, revolutionary at the time. You know, a lot of folks had talked about if this was a drug, the FDA would approve it. We all in GI oncology laugh about erlotinib, which got an FDA approval for a 2-week overall survival advantage. And so, it really kind of set the stage for a lot of us in early career who had a passion in the integration of palliative care and oncology. And I think a lot of the subsequent ASCO, NCCN, COC, Commission on Cancer, guidelines followed through with that. But I think what we realized is now we're kind of sitting center stage, there's still a lot of resource issues that if we sent a referral to palliative care for every single patient diagnosed with even an advanced cancer, we would have a significant workforce shortage issue. And so, Ramy, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how do we help center in on who are the right patients that are going to have the greatest benefit from a palliative care specialist intervention? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: Thanks, Joe. Great question. So you mentioned Dr. Temel's landmark 2010 published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And it is still a game changer in our field. The results of her work showed not only improved quality of life and mood, but I think very surprisingly at the time, a survival benefit for patients with lung cancer who had received early palliative care. That work, of course, has helped shape national guidelines, as you've shared, and it also helped define early, as within 8 weeks of diagnosis. But unfortunately, there remains a disconnect. So in clinical practice, using diagnosis or stage as the only referral trigger doesn't really match the needs that we see show up. And I think unfortunately, the other part is that approach creates a supply demand mismatch. We end up either referring more patients than palliative care teams can handle, or at the opposite extreme, we end up referring no one at all. So, I actually just wanted to quickly give, for example, two real world contrasts. So one center that I actually have friends who work in, tried as a very good quality improvement incentive, auto-refer all patients with stage IV pancreas cancer to palliative care teams. And while very well intentioned, they saw very quickly that in a two-month period, they had 30 new referrals. And on the palliative care side, there were only 15 available new patient slots. On the other hand, something that I often see in practice, is a situation where, for example, consider the case of a 90-year-old with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma. On paper, low-risk disease, but unfortunately, when you look under the microscope, this gentleman is isolated, has symptoms from his bulky adenopathy, and feels very overwhelmed by many competing illnesses. This is someone who, of course, may benefit from palliative care, but probably doesn't check the box. And I think this is where the model of precision palliative care steps in. It's not really about when was someone diagnosed or what is the prognosis or time-based criteria of their cancer, but it's really fundamentally asking the question of who needs help, what kind of help do they need, and how urgently do we need to provide this help? And I think precision palliative care really mirrors the logic and the philosophy of precision oncology. So just like we've made strides trying to match therapies to tumor biology, we also need to have the same attention and the same precision to match support to symptoms, to context of a patient situation and their caregiver, and also to their personal goals. So I think instead of a blanket referral, we really need to tailor care, the right support at the right moment for the right person to the right care teams. And I think to be more precise, there's really four core elements to allow us to do this well. So first, we really need to implement systematic screening. Let's use what we already have. Many of our centers have patient reported outcomes. The Commission on Cancer motivates us to use distress screening tools. And the EHR is there, but we do very little to flag and to surface unmet care needs. We have seen amazing work from people like Dr. Ethan Bash, who is the pioneer on patient-reported outcomes, and Dr. Ravi Parikh, who used to be my colleague at Penn, now at Emory, who show that you could use structured data and machine learning to identify some of these patient needs in real time. The second piece is after a systematic screening, we really need to build very clear referral pathways. One very good example is what the supportive care team at MD Anderson has done, of course, led by Dr. Eduardo Brera and Dr. David Huey, where they have, for example, designed condition-specific triggers. Urgent referrals, for example, to palliative care for severe symptoms, where they talk about it like a rapid response team. They will see them within 72 hours of the flag. But at the same time, if the unmet need is a caregiver distress, perhaps the social work referral is the first part of the palliative care intervention that needs to be placed. And I think this helps create both clarity and consistency but also it pays attention to that provider and availability demand mismatch. Third, I really think we need to triage smartly. As mentioned in the prior example, not every patient needs every team member of the palliative care team. Some benefit most from the behavioral health intervention. Others might benefit from chaplaincy or the clinician for symptom management. And I think aligning intensity with complexity helps us use our teams wisely. Unfortunately, the greatest barrier in all of our health care systems is time and time availability. And I think this is one strategic approach that I have not yet seen used very wisely. And fourth, I really think we need to embrace interdisciplinary care and change our healthcare systems to focus more on value. So this isn't about more consults or RVUs. I think it's really about leveraging our team strengths. Palliative care teams or supportive care teams usually are multidisciplinary in their core. They often have psychologists, social workers, sometimes they have nurse navigators. And I think all of these are really part of that engine of whole person care. But unfortunately, we still are not set up in care delivery systems that unfortunately to this day still model fee for service where the clinician or the physician visit is the only quote unquote real value add. Hopefully as our healthcare systems focus more on delivery and on value, this might help really embrace the structure to bring through the precision palliative care approach. Dr. Joseph McCollom: No, I love those points. You know, we talk frequently in the interdisciplinary team about how a social worker can spend 5 minutes doing something that I could not as a physician spend an hour doing. But does every patient need every member every time? And how do we work as a unified body to deliver that dose of palliative care, specialized palliative care to those right patients and match them? And I think that perfect analogy is in oncology as a medical oncologist, frequently I'm running complex next-generation sequencing paneling on patients' tumors, trying to find out is there a genetic weakness? Is there a susceptibility to a targeted therapy or an immunotherapy so that I can match and do that precision oncology, right patient to the right drug? Similarly, we need to continue to analyze and find these innovative ways like you've talked about, PROs, EHR flags, machine learning tools, to find those right patients and match them to the right palliative care interdisciplinary team members for them. I know we both get to work in oncology spaces and palliative and supportive spaces in our clinical practice. Share a little bit, if you could, Ramy, about what that looks like for your practice. How do you find those right patients? And how do you then intervene with that right palliative oncology dose? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: So Joe, when I first started in this space as a junior faculty, one thing became immediately clear. I think if we rely solely on physicians to identify the patients for palliative care, we're unfortunately going to be very limited by what we individually, personally observe. And I think that's what reflects the reality that many patients have real needs that go unseen. So over the past few years, I've really worked with a lot of my colleagues to really work the health system to change that. The greatest partnership I've personally had has been working with our informatics team to build a real time EHR integrated dashboard that I think helps us give us a broader view of patient needs. What we really think of as the population health perspective. Our dashboard at Penn, for example, pulls in structured data like geriatric assessment results, PHQ-4 screens, patient reported outcomes, whether or not they've been hospitalized, whether or not these hospitalizations are frequent and recurrent. And I think it's allowed us to really move from a reactive approach to one that's more proactive. So let me give you a practical example. So we have embedded in our cancer care team, psycho-oncologists. They share the same clinic space, they're right down the hall. And we actually use this shared dashboard to review weekly trends in distress scores and patient reported outcomes. And oftentimes, if they see a spike in anxiety or worsening symptoms like depression, they'll reach out to me and say, “Hey, I noticed Mrs. Smith reported feeling very anxious today. Do you think it'd be helpful if I joined you for her visit?” And I think that's how we could really use data and teamwork to offer and maximize the right support at the right time. Like many of our other healthcare systems, we also have real-time alerts for hospitalizations. And I think like Dr. Temel’s most recent , which we'll discuss at some point, I'm sure, it's another key trigger for vulnerability. I think whenever someone's admitted or discharged, we try to coordinate with our palliative care colleagues to assess do they need follow-up and in what timeline. And we know that these are common triggers, progression of disease, hospitalizations, drops in quality-of-life. And it's actually surprisingly simple to implement once you set up the right care structures. And I think these systems don't just help patients, which is what I quickly learned. They also help us as clinicians too. Before we expanded our team, I often felt this weight, especially as someone dual trained in oncology and palliative medicine, as trying to be everything to everyone. I remember one patient in particular, a young woman with metastatic breast cancer who was scheduled for a routine pre-chemo visit with me. Unfortunately, on that day, she had a very dramatic change in function. We whisked her down to x-ray and it revealed a pretty large pathologic fracture in her femur. And suddenly what was scheduled as a 30-minute visit became a very complex conversation around prognosis, urgent need for surgery and many, many life changes. And when I looked at my Epic list, I had a full waiting room. And thankfully, because we have embedded palliative care in our team, I was able to bring in Dr. Collins, the physician who I work with closely, immediately. She spent the full hour with the patient while I was able to continue seeing other patients that morning. And I think that's what team-based care makes possible. It's not just more hands on deck but really optimizing the support the patient needs on each individual day. And I think last, we're also learning a lot from behavioral science. So many institutions like Penn, Stanford, Massachusetts General, they've experimented with a lot of really interesting prompts in the EHR. One of them, for example, is the concept of nodes or the concept of prompt questions. Like, do you think this patient would benefit from a supportive care referral? And I think these low-level nudges, in a sense, can actually really dramatically increase the uptake of palliative care because it makes what's relevant immediately salient and visible to the practicing physician. So I think the key, if I had to maybe finish off with a simple message: It's not flashy tech, it's not massive change against staffing, but it's having a local champion and it's working smarter. It's asking the questions of how can we do this better and setting up the systems to make them more sustainable. Dr. Joseph McCollom: I appreciate you talking about this because I think a lot of folks want to put the wheels on in some way and they don't know where to get started. And so I think some of the models that you've been able to create, being able to track patients, screen your population, find the right individuals, and then work within that team to be able to extend, I think when you have an embedded palliative care specialist in your clinic, they expand your practice as a medical oncologist. And so you can make that warm handoff. And that patient and that caregiver, when they view the experience, they don't view you as a medical oncologist, someone else as a palliative care specialist, they view that team approach. And they said, "The team, my cancer team took care of me." And I think we can really harness a lot of the innovative technological advancements in our EHR to be able to prompt us in this work. I know that Dr. Temel had kind of set the stage for early palliative care intervention, and you did mention her stepped palliative care trial. Where do you see some of the future opportunities as we continue to push the needle forward as oncologists and palliative care specialists? What do you see as being the next step? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: So for those who are not familiar with the , again, work by Dr. Temel, I think it's really important to explain not just the study itself, but I think more importantly, what it's representing for the future of our field. First, I really want to acknowledge Dr. Temel, who is a trailblazer in palliative oncology. Her work has not only shaped how we think about timing and delivery, but really about the value of supportive care. And more importantly, I think for all the young trainees listening, she had shown that rigorous randomized trials in palliative care are possible and meaningful. And I think for me, one quick learning point is that you could be an oncologist and lead this impactful research. And she's inspired many and many of us. Now let's quickly transition to her study. So in this trial, the stepped palliative care trial, patients with advanced lung cancer were randomized into two groups. One group followed the model from her landmark 2010 New England Journal of Medicine paper, which was structured monthly palliative care visits, again, within eight weeks of diagnosis. The second group, which is in this study, the intervention or the stepped palliative care group, received a single early palliative care visit. Think of this as a meet and greet. And then care was actually stepped up. If one of three clinical triggers happened. One, a decline in patient reported quality of life as measured by PROs. Two, disease progression, or three, hospitalization. And the findings which were presented at ASCO 2024 were striking. Clinical outcomes, very similar between the two groups. And this included quality-of-life, end-of-life communication, and resource use. But I think the take-home point is that the number of palliative care visits in the stepped group was significantly lower. So in other words, same impact and fewer visits. This was a very elegant example of how we can model precision palliative care, right sizing patient care based on patient need. So where do we go from here? I think if we want this model to take root nationally, we really need to pull on three key levers: healthcare systems, healthcare payment, and healthcare culture. So from a system alignment, unfortunately, as mentioned too often, the solution to gaps in palliative care is we need more clinicians. And while yes, that's partly true, it's actually not the full picture. I think what we first need to do and what's more likely to be achieved is to develop systems that focus on building the infrastructure that maximizes the reach of our existing care teams. So this means investing in nurse navigation, real-time dashboards with patient-reported outcomes and EHR flags, and again, matching triage protocols where intensity matches...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37607040
info_outline
From Clinic to Clinical Trials: Responsible AI Integration in Oncology
07/10/2025
From Clinic to Clinical Trials: Responsible AI Integration in Oncology
Dr. Paul Hanona and Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla discuss how to safely and smartly integrate AI into the clinical workflow and tap its potential to improve patient-centered care, drug development, and access to clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Paul Hanona: Hello, I'm Dr. Paul Hanona, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a medical oncologist as well as a content creator , and I’m delighted to be joined today by Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, the chief of hematology and oncology at St. Luke’s University Health Network. Dr. Bonilla is also the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, an AI-driven platform that matches patients with clinical trials and novel therapies. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla will share his unique perspective on the potential of artificial intelligence to advance precision oncology, especially through clinical trials and research, and other key advancements in AI that are transforming the oncology field. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of the episode. Dr. Bonilla, it's great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Hanona. Paul, it’s always great to have a conversation. Looking forward to a great one today. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. Let’s just jump right into it. Let’s talk about the way that we see AI being embedded in our clinical workflow as oncologists. What are some practical ways to use AI? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: To me, responsible AI integration in oncology is one of those that's focused on one principle to me, which is clinical purpose is first, instead of the algorithm or whatever technology we’re going to be using. If we look at the best models in the world, they’re really irrelevant unless we really solve a real day-to-day challenge, either when we’re talking to patients in the clinic or in the infusion chair or making decision support. Currently, what I’m doing the most is focusing on solutions that are saving us time to be more productive and spend more time with our patients. So, for example, we’re using ambient AI for appropriate documentation in real time with our patients. We’re leveraging certain tools to assess for potential admission or readmission of patients who have certain conditions as well. And it’s all about combining the listening of physicians like ourselves who are end users, those who create those algorithms, data scientists, and patient advocates, and even regulators, before they even write any single line of code. I felt that on my own, you know, entrepreneurial aspects, but I think it's an ethos that we should all follow. And I think that AI shouldn't be just bolted on later. We always have to look at workflows and try to look, for example, at clinical trial matching, which is something I'm very passionate about. We need to make sure that first, it's easier to access for patients, that oncologists like myself can go into the interface and be able to pull the data in real time when you really need it, and you don't get all this fatigue alerts. To me, that's the responsible way of doing so. Those are like the opportunities, right? So, the challenge is how we can make this happen in a meaningful way – we're just not reacting to like a black box suggestion or something that we have no idea why it came up to be. So, in terms of success – and I can tell you probably two stories of things that we know we're seeing successful – we all work closely with radiation oncologists, right? So, there are now these tools, for example, of automated contouring in radiation oncology, and some of these solutions were brought up in different meetings, including the last ASCO meeting. But overall, we know that transformer-based segmentation tools; transformer is just the specific architecture of the machine learning algorithm that has been able to dramatically reduce the time for colleagues to spend allotting targets for radiation oncology. So, comparing the target versus the normal tissue, which sometimes it takes many hours, now we can optimize things over 60%, sometimes even in minutes. So, this is not just responsible, but it's also an efficiency win, it's a precision win, and we're using it to adapt even mid-course in response to tumor shrinkage. Another success that I think is relevant is, for example, on the clinical trial matching side. We've been working on that and, you know, I don't want to preach to the choir here, but having the ability for us to structure data in real time using these tools, being able to extract information on biomarkers, and then show that multi-agentic AI is superior to what we call zero-shot or just throwing it into ChatGPT or any other algorithm, but using the same tools but just fine-tuned to the point that we can be very efficient and actually reliable to the level of almost like a research coordinator, is not just theory. Now, it can change lives because we can get patients enrolled in clinical trials and be activated in different places wherever the patient may be. I know it's like a long answer on that, but, you know, as we talk about responsible AI, that's important. And in terms of what keeps me up at night on this: data drift and biases, right? So, imaging protocols, all these things change, the lab switch between different vendors, or a patient has issues with new emerging data points. And health systems serve vastly different populations. So, if our models are trained in one context and deployed in another, then the output can be really inaccurate. So, the idea is to become a collaborative approach where we can use federated learning and patient-centricity so we can be much more efficient in developing those models that account for all the populations, and any retraining that is used based on data can be diverse enough that it represents all of us and we can be treated in a very good, appropriate way. So, if a clinician doesn't understand why a recommendation is made, as you probably know, you probably don't trust it, and we shouldn't expect them to. So, I think this is the next wave of the future. We need to make sure that we account for all those things. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. And even the part about the clinical trials, I want to dive a little bit more into in a few questions. I just kind of wanted to make a quick comment. Like you said, some of the prevalent things that I see are the ambient scribes. It seems like that's really taken off in the last year, and it seems like it's improving at a pretty dramatic speed as well. I wonder how quickly that'll get adopted by the majority of physicians or practitioners in general throughout the country. And you also mentioned things with AI tools regarding helping regulators move things quicker, even the radiation oncologist, helping them in their workflow with contouring and what else they might have to do. And again, the clinical trials thing will be quite interesting to get into. The first question I had subsequent to that is just more so when you have large datasets. And this pertains to two things: the that you published recently regarding different ways to use AI in the space of oncology referred to drug development, the way that we look at how we design drugs, specifically anticancer drugs, is pretty cumbersome. The steps that you have to take to design something, to make sure that one chemical will fit into the right chemical or the structure of the molecule, that takes a lot of time to tinker with. What are your thoughts on AI tools to help accelerate drug development? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes, that's the Holy Grail and something that I feel we should dedicate as much time and effort as possible because it relies on multimodality. It cannot be solved by just looking at patient histories. It cannot be solved by just looking at the tissue alone. It's combining all these different datasets and being able to understand the microenvironment, the patient condition and prior treatments, and how dynamic changes that we do through interventions and also exposome – the things that happen outside of the patient's own control – can be leveraged to determine like what's the best next step in terms of drugs. So, the ones that we heard the news the most is, for example, the Nobel Prize-winning [for Chemistry awarded to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for] AlphaFold, an AI system that predicts protein structures right? So, we solved this very interesting concept of protein folding where, in the past, it would take the history of the known universe, basically – what's called the Levinthal's paradox – to be able to just predict on amino acid structure alone or the sequence alone, the way that three-dimensionally the proteins will fold. So, with that problem being solved and the Nobel Prize being won, the next step is, “Okay, now we know how this protein is there and just by sequence, how can we really understand any new drug that can be used as a candidate and leverage all the data that has been done for many years of testing against a specific protein or a specific gene or knockouts and what not?” So, this is the future of oncology and where we're probably seeing a lot of investments on that. The key challenge here is mostly working on the side of not just looking at pathology, but leveraging this digital pathology with whole slide imaging and identifying the microenvironment of that specific tissue. There's a number of efforts currently being done. One isn't just H&E, like hematoxylin and eosin, slides alone, but with whole imaging, now we can use expression profiles, spatial transcriptomics, and gene whole exome sequencing in the same space and use this transformer technology in a multimodality approach that we know already the slide or the pathology, but can we use that to understand, like, if I knock out this gene, how is the microenvironment going to change to see if an immunotherapy may work better, right? If we can make a microenvironment more reactive towards a cytotoxic T cell profile, for example. So, that is the way where we're really seeing the field moving forward, using multimodality for drug discovery. So, the FDA now seems to be very eager to support those initiatives, so that's of course welcome. And now the key thing is the investment to do this in a meaningful way so we can see those candidates that we're seeing from different companies now being leveraged for rare disease, for things that are going to be almost impossible to collect enough data, and make it efficient by using these algorithms that sometimes, just with multiple masking – basically, what they do is they mask all the features and force the algorithm to find solutions based on the specific inputs or prompts we're doing. So, I'm very excited about that, and I think we're going to be seeing that in the future. Dr. Paul Hanona: So, essentially, in a nutshell, we're saying we have the cancer, which is maybe a dandelion in a field of grass, and we want to see the grass that's surrounding the dandelion, which is the pathology slides. The problem is, to the human eye, it's almost impossible to look at every single piece of grass that's surrounding the dandelion. And so, with tools like AI, we can greatly accelerate our study of the microenvironment or the grass that's surrounding the dandelion and better tailor therapy, come up with therapy. Otherwise, like you said, to truly generate a drug, this would take years and years. We just don't have the throughput to get to answers like that unless we have something like AI to help us. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. Dr. Paul Hanona: And then, clinical trials. Now, this is an interesting conversation because if you ever look up our national guidelines as oncologists, there's always a mention of, if treatment fails, consider clinical trials. Or in the really aggressive cancers, sometimes you might just start out with clinical trials. You don't even give the standard first-line therapy because of how ineffective it is. There are a few issues with clinical trials that people might not be aware of, but the fact that the majority of patients who should be on clinical trials are never given the chance to be on clinical trials, whether that's because of proximity, right, they might live somewhere that's far from the institution, or for whatever reason, they don't qualify for the clinical trial, they don't meet the strict inclusion criteria. But a reason you mentioned early on is that it's simply impossible for someone to be aware of every single clinical trial that's out there. And then even if you are aware of those clinical trials, to actually find the sites and put in the time could take hours. And so, how is AI going to revolutionize that? Because in my mind, it's not that we're inventing a new tool. Clinical trials have always been available. We just can't access them. So, if we have a tool that helps with access, wouldn't that be huge? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. And that has been one of my passions. And for those who know me and follow me and we've spoke about it in different settings, that's something that I think we can solve. This other paradox, which is the clinical trial enrollment paradox, right? We have tens of thousands of clinical trials available with millions of patients eager to learn about trials, but we don't enroll enough and many trials close to accrual because of lack of enrollment. It is completely paradoxical and it's because of that misalignment because patients don't know where to go for trials and sites don't know what patients they can help because they haven't reached their doors yet. So, the solution has to be patient-centric, right? We have to put the patient at the center of the equation. And that was precisely what we had been discussing during the ASCO meeting. There was an ASCO where we talked about digital prescreening hubs, where we, in a patient-centric manner, the same way we look for Uber, Instacart, any solution that you may think of that you want something that can be leveraged in real time, we can use these real-world data streams from the patient directly, from hospitals, from pathology labs, from genomics companies, to continuously screen patients who can match to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of unique trials. So, when the patient walks into the clinic, the system already knows if there's a trial and alerts the site proactively. The patient can actually also do decentralization. So, there's a number of decentralized clinical trial solutions that are using what I call the “click and mortar” approach, which is basically the patient is checking digitally and then goes to the site to activate. We can also have the click and mortar in the bidirectional way where the patient is engaged in person and then you give the solution like the ones that are being offered on things that we're doing at Massive Bio and beyond, which is having the patient to access all that information and then they make decisions and enroll when the time is right. As I mentioned earlier, there is this concept drift where clinical trials open and close, the patient line of therapy changes, new approvals come in and out, and sites may not be available at a given time but may be later. So, having that real-time alerts using tools that are able already to extract data from summarization that we already have in different settings and doing this natural language ingestion, we can not only solve this issue with manual chart review, which is extremely cumbersome and takes forever and takes to a lot of one-time assessments with very high screen failures, to a real-time dynamic approach where the patient, as they get closer to that eligibility criteria, they get engaged. And those tools can be built to activate trials, audit trials, and make them better and accessible to patients. And something that we know is, for example, 91%-plus of Americans live close to either a pharmacy or an imaging center. So, imagine that we can potentially activate certain of those trials in those locations. So, there's a number of pharmacies, special pharmacies, Walgreens, and sometimes CVS trying to do some of those efforts. So, I think the sky's the limit in terms of us working together. And we've been talking with corporate groups, they're all interested in those efforts as well, to getting patients digitally enabled and then activate the same way we activate the NCTN network of the corporate groups, that are almost just-in-time. You can activate a trial the patient is eligible for and we get all these breakthroughs from the NIH and NCI, just activate it in my site within a week or so, as long as we have the understanding of the protocol. So, using clinical trial matching in a digitally enabled way and then activate in that same fashion, but not only for NCTN studies, but all the studies that we have available will be the key of the future through those prescreening hubs. So, I think now we're at this very important time where collaboration is the important part and having this silo-breaking approach with interoperability where we can leverage data from any data source and from any electronic medical records and whatnot is going to be essential for us to move forward because now we have the tools to do so with our phones, with our interests, and with the multiple clinical trials that are coming into the pipelines. Dr. Paul Hanona: I just want to point out that the way you described the process involves several variables that practitioners often don't think about. We don't realize the 15 steps that are happening in the background. But just as a clarifier, how much time is it taking now to get one patient enrolled on a clinical trial? Is it on the order of maybe 5 to 10 hours for one patient by the time the manual chart review happens, by the time the matching happens, the calls go out, the sign-up, all this? And how much time do you think a tool that could match those trials quicker and get you enrolled quicker could save? Would it be maybe an hour instead of 15 hours? What's your thought process on that? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yeah, exactly. So one is the matching, the other one is the enrollment, which, as you mentioned, is very important. So, it can take, from, as you said, probably between 4 days to sometimes 30 days. Sometimes that's how long it takes for all the things to be parsed out in terms of logistics and things that could be done now agentically. So, we can use agents to solve those different steps that may take multiple individuals. We can just do it as a supply chain approach where all those different steps can be done by a single agent in a simultaneous fashion and then we can get things much faster. With an AI-based solution using these frontier models and multi-agentic AI – and we presented some of this data in ASCO as well – you can do 5,000 patients in an hour, right? So, just enrolling is going to be between an hour and maximum enrollment, it could be 7 days for those 5,000 patients if it was done at scale in a multi-level approach where we have all the trials available. Dr. Paul Hanona: No, definitely a very exciting aspect of our future as oncologists. It's one thing to have really neat, novel mechanisms of treatment, but what good is it if we can't actually get it to people who need it? I'm very much looking for the future of that. One of the last questions I want to ask you is another prevalent way that people use AI is just simply looking up questions, right? So, traditionally, the workflow for oncologists is maybe going on national guidelines and looking up the stage of the cancer and seeing what treatments are available and then referencing the papers and looking at who was included, who wasn't included, the side effects to be aware of, and sort of coming up with a decision as to how to treat a cancer patient. But now, just in the last few years, we've...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37259290
info_outline
Immunotherapy at ASCO25: Drug Development, Melanoma Treatment, and More
06/27/2025
Immunotherapy at ASCO25: Drug Development, Melanoma Treatment, and More
Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss novel agents in melanoma and other promising new data in the field of immunotherapy that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello. My name is Diwakar Davar, and I am welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh’s Hillman Cancer Center. Today, I'm joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is a professor of medicine. He is also the associate director of clinical research and the director of the Phase 1 IDDC Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He and I are going to be discussing some key advancements in melanoma and skin cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Jason, it is great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks again so much for the opportunity, and I'm really looking forward to it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. So we will go ahead and start talking a little bit about a couple of key abstracts in both the drug development immunotherapy space and the melanoma space. The first couple of abstracts, the first two, will cover melanoma. So, the first is , which was essentially the primary results of . RELATIVITY-098 was a phase 3 trial that compared nivolumab plus relatlimab in a fixed-dose combination against nivolumab alone for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk disease. Jason, do you want to maybe give us a brief context of what this is? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, it's great, thanks. So as almost all listeners, of course, will be aware, the use of anti–PD-1 immunotherapies really revolutionized melanoma oncology over the last 10 to 15 years. And it has become a standard of care in the adjuvant setting as well. But to review, in patients with stage III melanoma, treatment can be targeted towards BRAF with BRAF and MEK combination therapy, where that's relevant, or anti–PD-1 with nivolumab or pembrolizumab are a standard of care. And more recently, we've had the development of neoadjuvant approaches for palpable stage III disease. And in that space, if patients present, based on two different studies, either pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab can be given prior to surgery for somewhere in the 6- to 9-week range. And so all of these therapies have improved time-to-event endpoints, such as relapse-free or event-free survival. It's worth noting, however, that despite those advances, we've had a couple different trials now that have actually failed in this adjuvant setting, most high profile being the study, which looked at nivolumab plus ipilimumab and unfortunately was a negative study. So, with RELATIVITY-047, which was the trial of nivolumab plus relatlimab that showed an improvement in progression-free survival for metastatic disease, there's a lot of interest, and we've been awaiting these data for a long time for RELATIVITY-098, which, of course, is this adjuvant trial of LAG-3 blockade with relatlimab plus nivolumab. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So with that, let's briefly discuss the trial design and the results. So this was a randomized, phase 3, blinded study, so double-blinded, so neither the investigators knew what the patients were getting, nor did the patients know what they were getting. The treatment investigational arm was nivolumab plus relatlimab in the fixed-dose combination. So that's the nivolumab standard fixed dose with relatlimab that was FDA approved in . And the control arm was nivolumab by itself. The duration of treatment was 1 year. The patient population consisted of resected high-risk stage III or IV patients. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed RFS. Stage and geography were the standard stratifying factors, and they were included, and most of the criteria were balanced across both arms. What we know at this point is that the 2-year RFS rate was 64% and 62% in the nivolumab and nivolumab-combination arms, respectively. The 2-year DMFS rate was similarly equivalent: 76% with nivolumab monotherapy, 73% with the combination. And similar to what you had talked about with CheckMate 915, unfortunately, the addition of LAG-3 did not appear to improve the RFS or DMFS compared to control in this patient population. So, tell us a little bit about your take on this and what do you think might be the reasons why this trial was negative? Dr. Jason Luke: It's really unfortunate that we have this negative phase 3 trial. There had been a lot of hope that the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab would be a better tolerated combination that increased the efficacy. So in the metastatic setting, we do have 047, the study that demonstrated nivolumab plus relatlimab, but now we have this negative trial in the adjuvant setting. And so as to why exactly, I think is a complicated scenario. You know, when we look at the hazard ratios for relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint, as well as the secondary endpoints for distant metastasis-free survival, we see that the hazard ratio is approximately 1. So there's basically no difference. And that really suggests that relatlimab in this setting had no impact whatsoever on therapeutic outcomes in terms of efficacy. Now, it's worth noting that there was a biomarker subanalysis that was presented in conjunction with these data that looked at some immunophenotyping, both from circulating T cells, CD8 T cells, as well as from the tumor microenvironment from patients who were treated, both in the previous metastatic trial, the RELATIVITY-047 study, and now in this adjuvant study in the RELATIVITY-098 study. And to briefly summarize those, what was identified was that T cells in advanced melanoma seemed to have higher expression levels of LAG-3 relative to T cells that are circulating in patients that are in the adjuvant setting. In addition to that, there was a suggestion that the magnitude of increase is greater in the advanced setting versus adjuvant. And the overall summary of this is that the suggested rationale for why this was a negative trial may have been that the target of LAG-3 is not expressed as highly in the adjuvant setting as it is in the metastatic setting. And so while the data that were presented, I think, support this kind of an idea, I am a little bit cautious that this is actually the reason for why the trial was negative, however. I would say we're not really sure yet as to why the trial was negative, but the fact that the hazard ratios for the major endpoints were essentially 1 suggests that there was no impact whatsoever from relatlimab. And this really makes one wonder whether or not building on anti–PD-1 in the adjuvant setting is feasible because anti–PD-1 works so well. You would think that even if the levels of LAG-3 expression were slightly different, you would have seen a trend in one direction or another by adding a second drug, relatlimab, in this scenario. So overall, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that the trial is negative. Clearly there's going to be no role for relatlimab in the adjuvant setting. I think this really makes one wonder about the utility of LAG-3 blockade and how powerful it really can be. I think it's probably worth pointing out there's another adjuvant trial ongoing now of a different PD-1 and LAG-3 combination, and that's cemiplimab plus fianlimab, a LAG-3 antibody that's being dosed from another trial sponsor at a much higher dose, and perhaps that may make some level of difference. But certainly, these are unfortunate results that will not advance the field beyond where we were at already. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And to your point about third-generation checkpoint factors that were negative, I guess it's probably worth noting that a trial that you were involved with, , that evaluated the PD-1 TIGIT co-formulation of vibostolimab, MK-4280A, was also, unfortunately, similarly negative. So, to your point, it's not clear that all these third-generation receptors are necessarily going to have the same impact in the adjuvant setting, even if they, you know, for example, like TIGIT, and they sometimes may not even have an effect at all in the advanced cancer setting. So, we'll see what the phase 3 trial, that's the Regeneron cemiplimab/fianlimab versus pembrolizumab control with cemiplimab with fianlimab at two different doses, we'll see how that reads out. But certainly, as you've said, LAG-3 does not, unfortunately, appear to have an impact in the adjuvant setting. So let's move on to . This is the primary analysis of EORTC-2139-MG or the trial. This was a randomized trial of encorafenib and binimetinib, which we will abbreviate as enco-bini going forward, compared to placebo in high-risk stage II setting in melanoma in patients with BRAF V600E or K mutant disease. So Jason, you know, you happen to know one or two things about the resected stage II setting, so maybe contextualize the stage II setting for us based on the trials that you've led, , as well as , set us up to talk about Columbus-AD. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for that introduction, and certainly stage II disease has been something I've worked a lot on. The rationale for that has been that building off of the activity of anti–PD-1 in metastatic melanoma and then seeing the activity in stage III, like we just talked about, it was a curious circumstance that dating back about 7 to 8 years ago, there was no availability to use anti–PD-1 for high-risk stage II patients, even though the risk of recurrence and death from melanoma in the context of stage IIB and IIC melanoma is in fact similar or actually higher than in stage IIIA or IIIB, where anti–PD-1 was approved. And in that context, a couple of different trials that you alluded to, the Keynote-716 study that I led, as well as the CheckMate 76K trial, evaluated pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, showing an improvement in relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival, and both of those agents have subsequently been approved for use in the adjuvant setting by the US FDA as well as the European Medicines Agency. So bringing then to this abstract, throughout melanoma oncology, we've seen that the impact of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy versus BRAF and MEK-targeted therapy have had very similar outcomes on a sort of comparison basis, both in frontline metastatic and then in adjuvant setting. So it was a totally reasonable question to ask: Could we use adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy? And I think all of us expected the answer would be yes. As we get into the discussion of the trial, I think the unfortunate circumstance was that the timing of this clinical trial being delayed somewhat, unfortunately, made it very difficult to accrue the trial, and so we're going to have to try to read through the tea leaves sort of, based on only a partially complete data set. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, in terms of the results, they wanted to enroll 815 patients, they only enrolled 110. The RFS and DMFS were marginally improved in the treatment arm but certainly not significantly, which is not surprising because the trial had only accrued 16% to 18% of its complete accrual. As such, we really can't abstract from the stage III data to stage II patients. And certainly in this setting, one would argue that the primary treatment options certainly remain either anti–PD-1 monotherapy, either with pembrolizumab or nivolumab, based on 716 or 76K, or potentially active surveillance for the patients who are not inclined to get treated. Can you tell us a little bit about how you foresee drug development going forward in this space because, you know, for example, with HARMONY, certainly IIC disease is a part of HARMONY. We will know at least a little bit about that in this space. So what do you think about the stage IIB/C patient population? Is this a patient population in which future combinations are going to be helpful, and how would you think about where we can go forward from here? Dr. Jason Luke: It is an unfortunate circumstance that this trial could not be accrued at the pace that was necessary. I think all of us believe that the results would have been positive if they'd been able to accrue the trial. In the preliminary data set that they did disclose of that 110 patients, you know, it's clear there is a difference at a, you know, a landmark at a year. They showed a 16% difference, and that would be in line with what has been seen in stage III. And so, you know, I think it's really kind of too bad. There's really going to be no regulatory approach for this consideration. So using BRAF and MEK inhibition in stage II is not going to be part of standard practice moving into the future. To your point, though, about where will the field go? I think what we're already realizing is that in the adjuvant setting, we're really overtreating the total population. And so beyond merely staging by AJCC criteria, we need to move to biomarker selection to help inform which patients truly need the treatment. And in that regard, I don't think we've crystallized together as a field as yet, but the kinds of things that people are thinking about are the integration of molecular biomarkers like ctDNA. When it's positive, it can be very helpful, but in melanoma, we found that, unfortunately, the rates are quite low, you know, in the 10% to 15% range in the adjuvant setting. So then another consideration would be factors in the primary tumor, such as gene expression profiling or other considerations. And so I think the future of adjuvant clinical trials will be an integration of both the standard AJCC staging system as well as some kind of overlaid molecular biomarker that helps to enrich for a higher-risk population of patients because on a high level, when you abstract out, it's just clearly the case that we're rather substantially overtreating the totality of the population, especially given that in all of our adjuvant studies to date for anti–PD-1, we have not yet shown that there's an overall survival advantage. And so some are even arguing perhaps we should even reserve treatment until patients progress. I think that's a complicated subject, and standard of care at this point is to offer adjuvant therapy, but certainly a lot more to do because many patients, you know, unfortunately, still do progress and move on to metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's transition to Abstract . So we're moving on from the melanoma to the novel immunotherapy abstracts. And this is a very, very, very fascinating drug. It's . So Abstract 2508 is a phase 1 clinical update of IMA203. IMA203 is an autologous TCR-T construct targeting PRAME in patients with heavily pretreated PD-1-refractory metastatic melanoma. So Jason, in the PD-1 and CTLA-4-refractory settings, treatment options are either autologous TIL, response rate, you know, ballpark 29% to 31%, oncolytic viral therapy, RP1 with nivolumab, ORR about 30-ish percent. So new options are needed. Can you tell us a little bit about IMA203? Perhaps tell us for the audience, what is the difference between a TCR-T and traditional autologous TIL? And a little bit about this drug, IMA203, and how it distinguishes itself from the competing TIL products in the landscape. Dr. Jason Luke: I'm extremely enthusiastic about IMA203. I think that it really has transformative potential based on these results and hopefully from the phase 3 trial that's open to accrual now. So, what is IMA203? We said it's a TCR-T cell product. So what that means is that T cells are removed from a patient, and then they can be transduced through various technologies, but inserted into those T cells, we can then add a T-cell receptor that's very specific to a single antigen, and in this case, it's PRAME. So that then is contrasted quite a bit from the TIL process, which includes a surgical resection of a tumor where T cells are removed, but they're not specific necessarily to the cancer, and they're grown up in the lab and then given to the patient. They're both adoptive cell transfer products, but they're very different. One is genetically modified, and the other one is not. And so the process for generating a TCR-T cell is that patients are required to have a new biomarker that some may not be familiar with, which is HLA profiling. So the T-cell receptor requires matching to the concomitant HLA for which the peptide is bound in. And so the classic one that is used in most oncology practices is A*02:01 because approximately 48% of Caucasians have A*02:01, and the frequency of HLA in other ethnicities starts to become highly variable. But in patients who are identified to have A*02:01 genotype, we can then remove blood via leukapheresis or an apheresis product, and then insert via lentiviral transduction this T-cell receptor targeting PRAME. Patients are then brought back to the hospital where they can receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy and then receive the reinfusion of the TCR-T cells. Again, in contrast with the TIL process, however, these T cells are extremely potent, and we do not need to give high-dose interleukin-2, which is administered in the context of TIL. Given that process, we have this clinical trial in front of us now, and at ASCO, the update was from the phase 1 study, which was looking at IMA203 in an efficacy population of melanoma patients who were refractory at checkpoint blockade and actually multiple lines of therapy. So here, there were 33 patients and a response rate of approximately 50% was observed in this population of patients, notably with a duration of response approximately a year in that treatment group. And I realize that these were heavily pretreated patients who had a range of very high-risk features. And approximately half the population had uveal melanoma, which people may be aware is a generally speaking more difficult-to-treat subtype of melanoma that metastasizes to the liver, which again has been a site of resistance to cancer immunotherapy. So these results are extremely promising. To summarize them from what I said, it's easier to make TCR-T cells because we can remove blood from the patient to transduce the T cells, and we don't have to put them through surgery. We can then infuse them, and based on these results, it looks like the response rate to IMA203 is a little bit more than double what we expect from lifileucel. And then, whereas with lifileucel or TILs, we have to give high-dose IL-2, here we do not have to give high-dose IL-2. And so that's pretty promising. And a clinical trial is ongoing now called the phase 3 clinical trial, which is hoping to validate these results in a randomized global study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Now, one thing that I wanted to go over with you, because you know this trial particularly well, is what you think of the likelihood of success, and then we'll talk a little bit about the trial design. But in your mind, do you think that this is a trial that has got a reasonable likelihood of success, maybe even a high likelihood of success? And maybe let's contextualize that to say an alternative trial, such as, for example, the TebeAM trial, which is essentially a T-cell bispecific targeting GP100. It's being compared against SOC, investigator's choice control, also in a similarly heavily pretreated patient population. Dr. Jason Luke: So both trials, I think, have a strong chance of success. They are very different kinds of agents. And so the CD3 bispecific that you referred to, tebentafusp, likely has an effect of delaying progression, which in patients with advanced disease could have a value that might manifest as overall survival. With TCR-T cells, by contrast, we see a very high response rate with some of the patients going into very durable long-term benefit. And so I do think that the SUPREME clinical trial has a...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37149945
info_outline
Innovations in GU Cancer Treatment at ASCO25
06/26/2025
Innovations in GU Cancer Treatment at ASCO25
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss important advances in the treatment of prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News. I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of the GU Center at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Jeanny, it is great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Oh, thank you so much, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, let's begin with some prostate cancer abstracts. Let's begin with Abstract titled, “Phase 1 study results of JNJ-78278343 (pasritamig) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.” Can you walk us through the design and the key findings of this first-in-human trial? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So this study, presented by Dr. Capucine Baldini, introduces pasritamig, a first-in-class T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds KLK2 on prostate cancer cells and CD3 receptor complexes on T cells. KLK2 is also known as human kallikrein 2, which is selectively expressed in prostate tissue. And for reference, KLK3 is what we now know as the PSA, prostate-specific antigen, therefore making it an attractive and specific target for therapeutic engagement. Now, while this was an early, first-in-human, phase 1 study, it enrolled 174 heavily pretreated metastatic CRPC patients. So many were previously treated with ARPIs, taxanes, and radioligand therapy. So given the phase 1 nature of this study, the primary objective was to determine the safety and the RP2D, which is the recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of antitumor activity. So, pasritamig was generally well tolerated. There were no treatment-related deaths. Serious adverse events were rare. And in the RP2D safety cohort, where patients received the step-up dosing up to 300 mg of IV every 6 weeks, the most common treatment-related adverse events were low-grade infusion reactions. There was fatigue and grade 1 cytokine release syndrome, what we call CRS. And no cases of neurotoxicity, or what we call ICANS, the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, reported. Importantly, the CRS occurred in just about 8.9% of patients. All were grade 1. No patients required tocilizumab or discontinued treatment due to adverse events. So, this suggests a favorable safety profile, allowing hopefully for outpatient administration without hospitalization, which will be very important when we're thinking about bispecifics moving forward. In terms of efficacy, pasritamig showed promising activity. About 42.4% of evaluable patients achieved a PSA50 response. Radiographic PFS was about 6.8 months. And among patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was about 16.1% in those with lymph node or bone metastases, and about 3.7% in those with visceral disease, with a median duration of response of about 11.3 months. So, altogether, this data suggests that pasritamig may offer a well-tolerated and active new potential option for patients with metastatic CRPC. Again, as a reminder, with the caveat that this is still an early phase 1 study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. These are promising results for a bispecific T-cell engager, pasritamig, in prostate cancer. I agree, the safety and durability observed here stand out, and this opens the door for further development, possibly even in earlier disease settings. So, shifting now from immunotherapy to the evolving role of genomics in prostate cancer. So let's discuss Abstract , a real-world, retrospective analysis exploring the prognostic impact of homologous recombination repair gene mutations, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So this study was presented by Dr. David Olmos, represents one of the largest real-world analyses we have evaluating the impact of homologous recombination repair, or what we would call HRR, alterations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. So, this cohort included 556 men who underwent paired germline and somatic testing. Now, about 30% of patients had HRR alterations, with about 12% harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 16% having alterations in other HRR genes. Importantly, patients were stratified via CHAARTED disease volume, and outcomes were examined across treatment approaches, including ADT alone, doublet therapy, and triplet therapy. The prevalence of BRCA and HRR alterations were about similar between the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, with no differences observed, actually, between the patients with high volume versus low volume disease. So, the key finding was that BRCA and HRR alterations were associated with poor clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. And notably, the impact of these alterations may actually be even greater in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer than previously reported in metastatic CRPC. So, the data showed that when BRCA mutations are present, the impact of the volume of disease is actually limited. So, poor outcomes were observed across the board for both high-volume and low-volume groups. So, the analysis showed that patients with HRR alterations had significantly worse outcomes compared to patients without HRR alterations. Median radiographic progression-free survival was about 20.5 months for the HRR-altered patients versus 30.6 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.6. Median overall survival was 39 months for HRR-altered patients compared to 55.7 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Similar significant differences were observed when BRCA-mutant patients were compared with patients harboring non-BRCA HRR mutations. Overall, poor outcomes were independent of treatment of ARPI or taxanes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data reinforce homologous recombination repair mutations as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker, not only in the mCRPC, but also in the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting as well. It also makes a strong case for incorporating genomic testing early in the disease course and not waiting until our patients have castration-resistant disease. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. And I think this really brings home the point and the lead up to the trial, which is , a phase 3 trial that builds on this very concept of testing with a PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in the hormone-sensitive space. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the AMPLITUDE trial, a phase 3 trial presented by Dr. Gerhardt Attard, enrolled 696 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alterations. 56% of these patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Patients were randomized to receive abiraterone with or without niraparib, a PARP inhibitor. The majority of patients, 78% of these patients, had high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and 87% of these patients had de novo metastatic HSPC. And 16% of these patients received prior docetaxel, which was allowed in the clinical trial. So, with a median follow-up of nearly 31 months, radiographic progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with the niraparib plus abiraterone combination, and median was not reached in this arm, compared to abiraterone alone, which was 29.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.63, translating to a 37% reduction in risk of progression or death. This benefit was even more pronounced in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroup, with a 48% reduction in risk of progression, with a hazard ratio of 0.52. Time to symptomatic progression also improved significantly across all patients, including patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, and HRR mutations. Although overall survival data remain immature, early trends favored the niraparib plus abiraterone combination. The safety profile was consistent with prior PARP inhibitor studies, with grade 3 or higher anemia and hypertension were more common but manageable. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events remained low at 11%, suggesting that timely dose modifications when our patients experience grade 3 side effects may allow our patients to continue treatment without discontinuation. These findings support niraparib plus abiraterone as a potential new standard of care in our patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR alterations, and especially in those who had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. This trial is especially exciting because it brings PARP inhibitors earlier into the treatment paradigm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly. And it is exciting to see the effect of PARP inhibitors in the earlier setting. So Jeanny, now let's switch gears a bit to bladder cancer, which also saw several impactful studies. Could you tell us about Abstract , an exploratory analysis from the trial, which led to approval of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for our patients with newly diagnosed metastatic bladder cancer? So here, the authors looked at the outcomes in patients who achieved a confirmed complete response with EV plus pembrolizumab. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, EV-302 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival for patients previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, I'll just call it metastatic UC, as a frontline strategy, establishing EV, which is enfortumab vedotin, plus pembro, with pembrolizumab as standard of care in this setting. So, this year at ASCO, Dr Shilpa Gupta presented this exploratory responder analysis from the phase 3 EV-302 trial. Among 886 randomized patients, about 30.4% of patients, this is about 133, in the EV+P arm, and 14.5% of the patients in the chemotherapy arm, achieved a confirmed complete response. They call it the CCR rates. So for patients who achieved this, median PFS was not reached with EV+P compared to 26.9 months with chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.36, translating to a 64% reduction in the risk of progression. Overall survival was also improved. So the median OS was not reached in either arm, but the hazard ratio favored the EV+P at 0.37, translating to a 63% reduction in the risk of death. The median duration of complete response was not reached with EV+P compared to 15.2 months with chemotherapy. And among those patients who had confirmed CRs at 24 months, 78% of patients with the EV+P arm remained progression-free, and around 95% of the patients were alive, compared to 54% of patients who were progression-free and 86% alive of the patients in the chemotherapy arm. Safety among responders were also consistent with prior reports. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 62% of EV+P responders and 72% of chemotherapy responders. Most adverse events were managed with dose modifications, and importantly, no treatment-related deaths were reported among those who were able to achieve complete response. So these findings further reinforce EV and pembro as the preferred first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, offering a higher likelihood of deep, durable responses with a fairly manageable safety profile. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for the great summary, Jeanny. These findings underscore the depth and durability of responses achievable with this combination and also suggest that achieving a response may be a surrogate for long-term benefit in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. So now, let's move to Abstract , an exploratory ctDNA analysis from the trial, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So what can you tell us about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. So, in NIAGARA, presented by Dr. Tom Powles, the addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gem/cis, significantly improved event-free survival, overall survival, and pathologic complete response in patients with cisplatin-eligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Recall that this led to the U.S. FDA approval of this treatment regimen on March 28, 2025. So, a planned exploratory analysis evaluated the ctDNA dynamics and their association with clinical outcomes, which was the one presented recently at ASCO. So, the study found that the incidence of finding ctDNA positivity in these patients was about 57%. Following neoadjuvant treatment, this dropped to about 22%, with ctDNA clearance being more common in the durvalumab arm, about 41%, compared to the chemotherapy control arm of 31%. Notably, 97% of patients who remained ctDNA positive prior to surgery failed to achieve a pathologic CR. So, this indicates a strong association between ctDNA persistence and lack of tumor eradication. So, postoperatively, only about 9% of patients were ctDNA positive. So, importantly, durvalumab conferred an event-free survival benefit regardless of ctDNA status at both baseline and post-surgery. Among patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline, durvalumab led to a hazard ratio of 0.73 for EFS. So, this translates to a 27% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence, progression, or death compared to the control arm. In the post-surgical ctDNA-positive group, the disease-free survival was also improved with a hazard ratio of 0.49, translating to a 51% reduction in the risk of recurrence. So, these findings underscore the prognostic value of ctDNA and suggest that durvalumab provides clinical benefit irrespective of molecular residual disease status. So, the data also supports that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for future personalized strategies in the perioperative treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. It is great to see that durvalumab is improving outcomes in these patients regardless of ctDNA status. However, based on these data, presence of ctDNA in our patients warrants a closer follow-up with imaging studies, because these patients with positive ctDNA seem to have a higher risk of recurrence. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj. Let's round out the bladder cancer discussion with Abstract , which reported the interim results of , which is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, Dr Andrea Necchi presented interim results from the SURE-02 trial. This is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, followed by a response-adapted bladder-sparing treatment and adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So, in this interim analysis, 40 patients were treated and 31 patients were evaluable for efficacy. So, the clinical complete response rate was 38.7%. All patients achieving clinical complete response underwent bladder-sparing approach with a repeat TURBT instead of radical cystectomy. Additionally, 51.6% of patients achieved excellent pathologic response with a T stage of 1 or less after neoadjuvant therapy. The treatment was well tolerated, with only 12.9% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher adverse events without needing dose reduction of sacituzumab. Molecular profiling, interestingly, showed that clinical complete response correlated with luminal and genomically unstable subtypes, while high stromal gene expression was associated with lack of response. These results suggest that sacituzumab plus pembrolizumab combination has promising activity in this setting, and tolerability, and along with other factors may potentially allow a bladder preservation approach in a substantial number of patients down the line. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, agree with you, Neeraj. And the findings are very provocative and support completing the full trial enrollment and further exploration of this strategy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer in order to improve and provide further bladder-sparing strategies. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Agree. So, let's now turn to the kidney cancer, starting with Abstract , the final overall analysis from trial, which evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab, so dual checkpoint inhibition strategy, versus sunitinib in our patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So, the final 9-year analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate-214 trial confirms the long-term superiority of nivolumab and ipilimumab over sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. So, this has a median follow-up of 9 years. Overall survival remains significantly improved with the combination. So, in the ITT patient population, the intention-to-treat, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.71. So, this translates to a 29% reduction in the risk of death. 31% of patients were alive at this 108-month follow-up compared to 20% only in those who got sunitinib. So, similar benefits were observed in the intermediate- and poor-risk groups with a hazard ratio of 0.69, and 30% versus 19% survival at 108 months. Importantly, a delayed benefit was also seen in those favorable-risk patients. So, the hazard ratio for overall survival improved from 1.45 in the initial report and now at 0.8 at 9 years follow-up, with 35% of patients alive at 108 months compared to 22% in those who got sunitinib. Progression-free survival also favored the nivo-ipi arm across all risk groups. At 96 months, the probability of remaining progression-free was about 23% compared to 9% in the sunitinib arm in the ITT patient population, 25% versus 9% in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and 13% compared to 11% in the favorable-risk patients. Importantly, at 96 months, 48% of patients in the nivo-ipi responders remained in response compared to just 19% in those who got sunitinib. And in the favorable-risk group, 36% of patients who responded remained in response, although data were not available for sunitinib in this subgroup. So, this data reinforces the use of nivolumab and ipilimumab as a durable and effective first-line effective strategy for standard of care across all risk groups for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. And of course, since ipi-nivo data were presented, several other novel ICI-TKI combinations have emerged. And I'm really hoping to see very similar data with TKI-ICI combinations down the line. It is really important to note that we are not seeing any new safety signals with the ICI combinations or ICI-based therapies, which is very reassuring given the extended exposure. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely agree with you there, Neeraj. Now, going on and moving on to Abstract , which is the trial, and they reported on the 5-year outcomes of adjuvant pembrolizumab in clear cell RCC in patients who are at high risk for recurrence. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-564 trial established pembrolizumab...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37136235
info_outline
What Lung Cancer Abstracts Stood Out at ASCO25?
06/25/2025
What Lung Cancer Abstracts Stood Out at ASCO25?
Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Nate Pennell discuss novel treatment approaches in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer that were featured at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and chief of hematology and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting featured some exciting advancements in small cell lung cancer, targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer, and other novel [treatment] approaches. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Nate Pennell to discuss some of the key abstracts that are advancing the lung cancer field. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and also the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Institute. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Nate, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. Always a pleasure. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's get started, and I think the first abstract that really caught my attention was Abstract , “The Randomized Trial of Relevance of Time of Day of Immunotherapy for Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” What are your thoughts about this, Nate? Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I thought this was one of the most discussed abstracts, certainly in the lung cancer session, but I think even outside of lung cancer, it got some discussion. So, just to put this in perspective, there have been a number of publications that have all been remarkably consistent, and not just in lung cancer but across multiple cancer types, that immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are commonly used. And all of them have suggested, when looking at retrospective cohorts, that patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the day – so in the morning or before the early afternoon – for whatever reason, appear to have better outcomes than those who get it later in the day, and this has been repeated. And I think many people just sort of assumed that this was some sort of strange association and that there was something fundamentally different from a prognostic standpoint in people who came in in the morning to get their treatment versus those who came later in the afternoon, and that was probably the explanation. The authors of this randomized trial actually decided to test this concept. And so, about 210 patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to get chemo and immune checkpoint inhibitor – either pembrolizumab or sintilimab – and half of them were randomly assigned to get the treatment before 3 PM in the afternoon, and half of them were assigned to get it after 3 PM in the afternoon. And it almost completely recapitulated what was seen in the retrospective cohorts. So, the median progression-free survival in those who got earlier treatment was 13.2 months versus only 6.5 months in those who got it later in the day. So, really enormous difference with a hazard ratio of 0.43, which was statistically significant. And perhaps even more striking, the median overall survival was not reached in the early group versus 17.8 months in the late group with a hazard ratio of 0.43, also highly statistically significant. Even the response rate was 20% higher in the early patients; 75% response rate compared to 56% in the late-time-of-day patients. So very consistent across all measures of efficacy with pretty good matched characteristics across the different groups. And so, I have to tell you, I don't know what to make of this. I certainly was a skeptic about the retrospective series, but now we have a prospective randomized trial that shows essentially the same thing. So, maybe there is a difference between getting treated in the morning, although I have yet to hear someone give a very good mechanistic explanation as to why this would be. What were your thoughts on this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: It's indeed fascinating, Nate, and I actually think this was a very interesting abstract. Really, I was caught off guard looking at the data. I mean, if it were a drug, we would be so excited, right? I mean, with those kind of survival benefits. I don't know. I think circadian rhythm probably has something to do with it, like different cytokine profiles at the time of administration. I mean, who knows? But I think it's a randomized trial, and I think I would expect to see a mad rush for treatment appointments early in the morning given this, and at least I want my patients to come in first thing in the morning. It'll be interesting to see. Dr. Nate Pennell: It’s important to point out that in this study, everyone got chemo and immunotherapy. And, at least in our cancer center, most patients who are getting platinum-doublet chemotherapy and immunotherapy actually do get treated earlier in the day already, just because of the length of the infusion appointment that's needed. So it really is oftentimes people getting single-agent immunotherapy who are often getting the later, shorter visits. But if you have a choice, I think it would be very reasonable to have people treated earlier in the day. And I do think most of the impressions that I got from people about this is that they would like to see it reproduced but certainly well worth further investigation. And I personally would like to see more investigation into what the rationale would be for this because I still can't quite figure out, yes, if you got it at, say, you know, 5 PM, that's later in the day and I can understand that maybe your immune system is somewhat less receptive at that point than it would be in the morning. But because these checkpoint inhibitors have such long half-lives, it's still in your system the next morning when your immune system is supposedly more receptive. So I don't quite understand why that would be the case. Well, let's move on to the next study. I would like to hear your thoughts on Abstract , “Plasma-Guided, Adaptive First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this was another abstract that seems to be really interesting in my opinion. I think there's kind of a lot of emphasis lately on ctDNA and MRD-based assays to monitor disease. In the lung cancer space, we haven't had a lot of clinical trials looking at this prospectively, and this was one of those pilot studies where they looked at circulating free DNA (cfDNA)-based response-adaptive strategy for frontline patients who are PD-L1 positive. So, patients started with pembrolizumab monotherapy, and based on plasma molecular response after 2 cycles, those patients without response received early treatment intensification with a platinum doublet. So the approach essentially was to reduce the chemotherapy exposure in patients who respond to immunotherapy. And only about 17.5% of the patients on the trial received chemotherapy based on lack of molecular response. So, in this trial, what they found was patients with the cfDNA response had a markedly improved PFS of 16.4 months versus 4.8 months. So essentially, like, this is a really nice study to set a foundation on which we have to do larger studies to incorporate molecular markers trying to look at cfDNA response to inform treatment strategy, either escalation or de-escalation strategies. So, I thought it was a very interesting study. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I mean, we always have this question for patients, “Should they get immunotherapy alone or combined with chemo?” and I think this certainly is intriguing, suggesting that there may be ways you can monitor people and perhaps rescue those that aren't going to respond to single agent. I'd like to see a randomized trial against, you know, this strategy, perhaps against everyone getting, say, chemoimmunotherapy or make sure that you're not potentially harming people by doing this strategy. But I agree, it's time to move beyond just observing that cell-free DNA is prognostic and important and start using it to actually guide treatment. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and I would just caution though, like, you know, I think we need more data, but, however, it's certainly a very interesting piece of data to kind of help inform future trials. So, there was another abstract that caught my attention, and I think this would be a very interesting abstract in the EGFR space. Abstract , "Patritumab Deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in Resistant EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Third-Generation EGFR TKI," it’s the study. What do you think about the results of this study? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this was, I would say, very widely anticipated and ultimately a little disappointing, despite being a positive trial. So, these are patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed after a third-generation EGFR TKI like osimertinib. This is really an area of major unmet need. We do have drugs like amivantamab in this space, but still definitely an area where essentially patients move from having a highly effective oral therapy to being in the realm of chemotherapy as their best option. So, this HER3 antibody-drug conjugate, patritumab deruxtecan, had some good single-arm data for this. And we're sort of hoping this would become an available option for patients. This was designed against platinum-doublet chemotherapy in this setting and with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival. And it actually was positive for improved progression-free survival compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.77. But when you look at the medians, you can see that the median PFS was only 5.8 versus 5.4 months. It was really a modest difference between the two arms. And on the interim analysis, it appeared that there will not be a difference in overall survival between the two arms. In fact, the hazard ratio at the interim analysis was 0.98 for the two arms. So based on this, unfortunately, the company that developed the HER3-DXd has withdrawn their application to the FDA for approval of the drug, anticipating that they probably wouldn't get past approval without that overall survival endpoint. So, unfortunately, probably not, at least for the near future, going to be a new option for these patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is a space that's clearly an unmet need, and this was a big disappointment, I should say. I think all of us were going into the meeting anticipating some change in the standard of care here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I agree. It was something that I was telling patients, honestly, that I was expecting this to be coming, and so now, definitely a bit of a disappointment. But it happens and, hopefully, it will still find perhaps a role or other drugs with a similar target. Certainly an active area. Well, let's leave the EGFR-mutant space and move into small cell. There were a couple of very impactful studies. And one of them was Abstract , “Lurbinectedin Plus Atezolizumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, Primary Results from the Phase III IMforte Trial.” So, what was your impression of this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is definitely an interesting study, and small cell, I remember those days when we had barely any studies of small cell at ASCO, and now we have a lot of exciting developments in the small cell space. It's really good to see. The IMforte trial is essentially like a maintenance lurbinectedin trial with atezolizumab maintenance. And the study was a positive trial. The primary endpoint was a PFS, and the study showed improvement in both PFS and OS with the addition of lurbinectedin to atezolizumab maintenance. And definitely, it's a positive trial, met its primary endpoint, but I always am a little skeptical of adding maintenance cytotoxic therapies here in this setting. In my practice, and I'd like to hear your opinion, Nate, most patients with small cell after 4 cycles of a platinum doublet, they're kind of really beaten up. Adding more cytotoxic therapy in the maintenance space is going to be tough, I think, for a lot of patients. But also, most importantly, I think this rapidly evolving landscape for patients with small cell lung cancer with multiple new, exciting agents, actually like some FDA-approved like tarlatamab, also like a lot of these emerging therapeutics like I-DXd and other ADCs in this space. You kind of wonder, is it really optimal strategy to bring on like another cytotoxic agent right after induction chemotherapy, or do you kind of delay that? Or maybe have like a different strategy in terms of maintenance. I know that the tarlatamab maintenance trial is probably going to read out at some point too. I think it's a little challenging. The hazard ratio is also 0.73. As I said, it's a positive trial, but it's just incremental benefit of adding lurbi. And also on the trial, we need to also pay attention to the post-progression second-line treatments, number of patients who received tarlatamab or any other investigational agents. So I think it's a lot of questions still. I'm not quite sure I'd be able to embrace this completely. I think a vast majority of my patients might not be eligible anyway for cytotoxic chemotherapy maintenance right away, but yeah, it's tough. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I would call this a single and not a home run. It definitely is real. It was a real overall survival benefit. Certainly not surprising that a maintenance therapy would improve progression-free survival. We've known that for a long time in small cell, but first to really show an overall survival benefit. But I completely agree with you. I mean, many people are not going to want to continue further cytotoxics after 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo. So I would say, for those that are young and healthy and fly through chemo without a lot of toxicity, I think certainly something worth mentioning. The problem with small cell, of course, is that so many people get sick so quickly while on that observation period after first-line chemo that they don't make it to second-line treatment. And so, giving everyone maintenance therapy essentially ensures everyone gets that second-line treatment. But they also lose that potentially precious few months where they feel good and normal and are able to be off of treatment. So, I would say this is something where we're really going to have to kind of sit and have that shared decision-making visit with patients and decide what's meaningful to them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. The next abstract that was a Late-Breaking Abstract, , “Overall Survival of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate-816.” This was a highly anticipated read-out of the OS data from 816. What did you make of this abstract? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was great. Of course, CheckMate-816 changed practice a number of years ago when it first reported out. So, this was the first of the neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. So, just to review, this was a phase 3 study for patients with what we would now consider stage II or stage IIIA resectable non-small cell lung cancer. And they received three cycles of either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab, and that was it. That was the whole treatment. No adjuvant treatment was given afterwards. They went to resection. And patients who received the chemoimmunotherapy had a much higher pathologic complete response rate and a much better event-free survival. And based on this, this regimen was approved and, I think, at least in the United States, widely adopted. Now, since the first presentation of CheckMate 816, there have been a number of perioperative studies that have included an adjuvant component of immunotherapy – , the study – and these also have shown improved outcomes. The KEYNOTE study with pembrolizumab also with an overall survival benefit. And I think people forgot a little bit about CheckMate-816. So, this was the 5-year overall survival final analysis. And it did show a statistically and, I think, clinically meaningful difference in overall survival with the 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemo-nivo compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.72. The 5-year overall survival of 65% in the chemo-IO group versus 55% with the chemo alone. So a meaningful improvement. And interestingly, that hazard ratio of 0.72 is very similar to what was seen in the peri-operative pembro study that included the adjuvant component. So, very much still relevant for people who think that perhaps the value of those neoadjuvant treatments might be really where most of the impact comes from this type of approach. They also gave us an update on those with pathologic complete response, showing really astronomically good outcomes. If you have a pathologic complete response, which was more than a quarter of patients, the long-term survival was just phenomenal. I mean, 95% alive at 5 years if they were in that group and suggesting that in those patients at least, the adjuvant treatment may not be all that important. So, I think this was an exciting update and still leaves very much the open question about the importance of continuing immunotherapy after surgery after the neoadjuvant component. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think the million-dollar question is: “Is there like a population of patients who don't have complete response but like maybe close to complete response?” So, would you like still consider stopping adjuvant IO? I probably would not be comfortable, but I think sometimes, you know, we all have patients who are like very apprehensive of continuing treatments. So, I think that we really need more studies, especially for those patients who don't achieve a complete CR. I think trying to find strategies for like de-escalation based on MRD or other risk factors. But we need more trials in that space to inform not just de-escalation, but there are some patients who don't respond at all to a neoadjuvant IO. So, there may be an opportunity for escalating adjuvant therapies. So, it is an interesting space to watch out for. Dr. Nate Pennell: No, absolutely. Moving to KRAS-mutant space, so our very common situation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, we had the results of Abstract , “First-Line Adagrasib With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic KRASG12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer” from the phase 2 portion of the study. Why was this an interesting and important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: First of all, there were attempts to kind of combine KRASG12C inhibitors in the past with immune checkpoint inhibitors, notably sotorasib with pembrolizumab. Unfortunately, those trials have led to like a lot of toxicity, with increased especially liver toxicity, which was a major issue. This is a phase 2 study of adagrasib in combination with pembrolizumab, and this is a study in the frontline setting in patients with the G12C-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And across all the PD-L1 groups, the ORR was 44%, and the median PFS was 11 months, comparable to the previous data that we have seen with adagrasib in this setting. So it's not like a major improvement in clinical efficacy. However, I think the toxicity profile that we were seeing was slightly better than the previous trials in combination with sotorasib, but you still have a fair amount of transaminitis even in the study. At this point, this is not ready for clinical primetime. I don't think we should be using sotorasib or adagrasib in the frontline or even in the second line in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Combining these drugs with...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37134250
info_outline
GI Cancer Research at ASCO25: Plenary Highlights and More
06/24/2025
GI Cancer Research at ASCO25: Plenary Highlights and More
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Kristen Ciombor discuss practice-changing studies in GI cancers and other novel treatment approaches that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Transcript Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. There were some remarkable advances in gastrointestinal cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Kristen Ciombor to discuss some exciting GI data. Dr. Ciombor is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research and a co-leader of Translational Research and the Interventional Oncology Research Program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Ciombor, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks, Dr Beg. It's great to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Alright, let's kick it off. Big year for GI cancers. We'll start off with . This was the study sponsored by NCI and the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and the Alliance group. This is a randomized study of standard chemotherapy alone or combined with atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for stage III mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: I think this study was really definitely practice-changing, as you can tell because it was a Plenary. But I do have some concerns in terms of how we're actually going to implement this and whether this is the final answer in this disease subtype. So, as you said, the patients were enrolled with stage III resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, and then they were randomized to either modified FOLFOX6 with or without atezolizumab. And that's where it starts to become interesting because not many of us give FOLFOX for 6 months like was done in this study. Obviously, the study was done over many years, so that was part of that answer, but also the patients received atezolizumab for a total of 12 months. So the question, I think, that comes from this abstract is, is this practical and is this the final answer? I do think that this is practice-changing, and I will be talking to my patients with resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer about FOLFOX plus atezolizumab. I think the big question is, do these patients need chemotherapy? And can we do a neoadjuvant approach instead? And that's where we don't have all the answers yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, but it has been great to see immunotherapy make its way into the adjuvant space after having made such a big impact in the metastatic space, but still some unanswered questions in terms of the need for chemotherapy and then the duration of therapy, which I guess we'll have to stay tuned in for the next couple of years to to get a lot of those questions answered. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, but a big congratulations to the study team, to the NCTN, the NCI. I mean, this is really a great example of federally funded research that needs to continue. So, great job by the study team. The DFS 10% difference is really very large and certainly a practice-changing study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and and sticking with colon cancer, and and this another federally funded study, but this time funded by a Canadian cancer clinical trials group was . This is the study. It's a randomized phase 3 trial of the impact of a structured exercise program on disease-free survival for stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer. This study got a lot of buzz, a lot of mainstream press coverage, and a lot of discussions on what that means for us for the patients who we're going to be seeing next week in our clinic. What was your takeaway? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, this is a really interesting study, and I was so glad to see it presented because this partially answers one of the questions that patients always have for us in clinic, right? You know, once they've completed their standard chemotherapy and surgery, what else can they do to help prevent recurrence? And so we've always known and sort of extrapolated that healthy lifestyle habits are good, but now we have data, particularly in these patients. Most of them were stage III colon cancer patients, those had high-risk stage II cancer. And basically, the goal was to increase their physical activity by at least 10 MET hours per week. So, my big question, of course, as I came into this presentation was, “Okay, what does that mean exactly? How does that translate to real life?” And really what the author presented and explained was that basically most patients could hit their target by adding a 45- to 60-minute brisk walk 3 to 4 times a week. So I think this is very approachable. Now, in the confines of the study, this was a structured exercise program, so it wasn't just patients doing this on their own. But I do think kind of extrapolating from that, that this is very achievable for most patients. And not only did this prevent recurrence of their prior cancer, but actually the rate of new primary cancer diagnoses, was less, which is really interesting, especially in the breast and prostate cancer. So this was a really interesting, and I think practice-changing study as well, especially given that this is something that most patients can do. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and there was a lot of discussion in the hallways after the presentation in terms of how this really changes our existing practice because most folks already recommend exercise as a way for improving outcomes in cancer patients. So we've already been doing that. Now we have some data on how much it can impact the benefit. But there was some discussion about what the actual degree of impact was. There was a drop-off rate in terms of how long folks were able to stick with this exercise regimen. But you've seen this in clinic when someone have their surgery, they have their chemotherapy, they've been so intimately involved with the oncology world, with the oncology practice, and they somehow feel that they're being let loose into this mean, angry world without any guidance and they're looking for something to do. “What more can I do in terms of my lifestyle?” And then here we have very solid data, as solid as can be for an intervention like exercise, showing that there is an impact and you can give a prescription for exercise when someone wraps up their chemotherapy for colon cancer, thanks to the study. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. It was a great study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving to gastroesophageal cancer, another late-breaking abstract. This is . The trial was a phase 3 trial of durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable GE junction and gastric cancer. And again, another area where immunotherapy has made an impact, and here we're seeing it move closer for earlier-stage disease. What was your take-home for the MATTERHORN trial? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this looked at neoadjuvant perioperative durvalumab plus our current standard chemotherapy of FLOT versus placebo plus FLOT. And this was a large study, almost 1,000 patients were randomized. And the primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it was definitely met in favor of the D + FLOT arm, as Dr. Klempner discussed after Dr Janjigian's presentation. I do think there are still some unanswered questions here. Overall survival is not yet mature, so we do have to wait and see how that shakes out. But it's very interesting and kind of is reflective of what, as you said, we're looking at earlier and earlier lines of therapy, particularly with immunotherapy, in these GI cancer spaces. So it makes a lot of sense to test this and and to look at this. So the toxicity was pretty similar to what we would expect. Primary endpoint was met, but again, we'll have to wait and see what the survival data looks like. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and in oncology, we know, especially for treatment that does add additional cost, it does add additional potential toxicity that we want to see that overall survival nudged. I did see some polls on social media asking folks whether their practices changed from this, and I think the results were favoring adding durvalumab for this group of patients but understanding that there are caveats to the addition of treatments and the eventual FDA approval in that indication as well. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Exactly. I completely agree with that. Dr. Shaalan Beg: All right. How about we stick with gastroesophageal cancer? was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction cancer. This was the study. And again, antibody-drug conjugates making a big impact across different diseases. And here we have more data in the HER2-positive gastric cancer space. Your thoughts on this study? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this is a really important space in gastroesophageal cancer because the HER2 positivity rate is fairly high as compared to some of our other tumor types. So, I do think one of the important things was that patients did have biopsy confirmation of HER2 status, which was very important, and then they were randomized to either T-DXd versus the kind of second-line standard of ramucirumab-paclitaxel. So this was a great practical study and really answers a question that we had for a while in terms of does anti-HER2 therapy in the second-line really impact and improve survival. So we did see a statistically significant improvement favoring T-DXd. I do think it's always important to look at toxicity, though, too. And there was about almost 14% rate of interstitial lung disease, which of course is the most feared toxicity from some of these antibody-drug conjugates, especially T-DXd. So I do think it's important to keep that in mind, but this is definitely a great addition to the armamentarium for these HER2-positive patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And pancreas cancer was on the stage after a very long time with a positive clinical trial. This is . These were preliminary results from a phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone for previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. This is a frontline clinical trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus/minus the study drug. There were other cohorts in this study as well, but they reported the results of their part 3B arm. And great to see some activity in the pancreas space. And your thoughts? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, we definitely need better treatments in pancreas cancer. This was a very welcome presentation to see. The elraglusib is an inhibitor of GSK-3beta, and it's thought that that mediates drug resistance and EMT. And so this is, I think, a perfect setting to test this drug. So patients basically were randomized. Patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were randomized 2: 1 to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus or minus this elraglusib. So, what we saw was that overall survival was better with the addition of this new drug. And overall, not only the 1-year overall survival, but also median overall survival. The thing that was interesting, though, was that we saw that the overall survival rates were 9.3 months with the combination versus 7.2 months with just gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. And that's a little bit lower than we've seen in other studies. So, not sure what was going on there. Was it the patients that were a bit sicker? Was it a patient selection, you know, thing? I'm not really sure how to explain that so much. Also, the toxicity profile was much higher in terms of visual impairment, with over 60% of patients being treated with the combination versus 9% with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. So these were mild, grade 1 and 2, but still something to be cautious about. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And especially with this being a phase 2 trial, making sure that in a larger study we're able to better evaluate the toxicity and see if the control arm in the larger confirmatory study performs differently will be really important before this compound makes it to the clinic in our space. But very exciting to see these kinds of results for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We've talked, it seems, a couple of times on this podcast about the clinical trial. We did hear PFS and updated OS data, updated overall survival data on first-line encorafenib plus cetuximab plus modified FOLFOX6 for BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. This was . And eagerly anticipated results – we have all previously heard the progression-free survival results – but here we heard updated overall survival results, and very well-received study it seemed from the audience that time. So what are your takeaways on the updated results for ? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: In my opinion, this was one of the most practice-confirming studies. As you mentioned, we've already seen some of the preliminary data of BREAKWATER at prior meetings. But really what was particularly impactful for me was the median overall survival with the BREAKWATER regimen. So, again, patients received FOLFOX, encorafenib cetuximab in the first line if they had BRAF-mutated V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. And the median PFS was 12.8 months, which was actually really remarkable in this traditionally very aggressive, poor prognosis subtype of tumors. So, by seeing a median overall survival of 30.3 months was just incredible, in my opinion. Just a few years ago, that was considered the median overall survival for all comers for metastatic colorectal cancer. And we know the median overall survival was more in the less than 12 months range for BRAF. So this was incredibly impactful, and I think should be absolutely practice-changing for anyone who is eligible for this regimen. I think again, where the practice meets the study is what's kind of important to think about too, how long did patients get FOLFOX, and certainly it adds toxicity to add a BRAF-targeted regimen on top of FOLFOX already. So, one of the other interesting things about the study, though, was that even though it didn't complete treatment, they actually did look at encorafenib/cetuximab alone and in the first line without chemotherapy. And those preliminary results actually looked okay, especially for patients who might not be able to tolerate chemotherapy, which we certainly see in practice. So, overall, definitely more data. And I agree that it's certainly practice-changing. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And it completely, as you mentioned, changes the outlook for a person who's diagnosed with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer today versus even 7 or 8 years ago. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: And we're seeing this over and over in other subtypes too, but how you choose to treat the patient up front really matters. So really giving the right regimen up front is the key here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And along the same lines, wanted to answer the question on whether people with MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer need double checkpoint inhibitor therapy or is single therapy enough. So this [] study compared nivo plus ipi with nivo alone, nivo monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. And we've known that both of these are fairly active regimens, but we also know the chance of immune-related adverse events is significantly higher with combination therapy. So this was a much-needed study for this group of patients. And what were your takeaways here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This, of course, has been really nivo-ipi in the first-line MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer is now a standard of care. And not everybody is eligible for it, and there could be reasons, toxicity reasons, and other things too. But as we've been seeing for the last couple of years, immunotherapy clearly beats chemo in this space. And now looking at doublet versus single immunotherapy treatment in the first line, I think really nivo-ipi does beat out monotherapy. I will say, however, there is a caveat in that we still haven't seen the nivo-ipi versus nivo in the first line. So what has been presented thus far has been across all lines of therapy, and that does muddy the waters a little bit. So definitely looking forward and and we've asked this many times and based on the statistical plan and and what not, you know, we just haven't seen that data yet. But I do think it's becoming increasingly important to consider doublet immunotherapy for these patients as long as there are no contraindications. With the again, with the caveat that we have to have these toxicity discussions in the clinic with patients because many patients can tolerate it, you know, this regimen fairly well, but there can be very severe toxicities. So, I think an informed discussion should really be had with each patient before moving forward. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, informed decision, making them aware of the potential of real significant toxicities, immune-related toxicities with double therapy. But I am curious in your practice, how often do you see people choosing doublet therapy as frontline? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: So patients are really savvy, and a lot of times they've heard this data before or have come across it in patient advocacy groups and other things, and it's really nice to be able to have that conversation of the risk versus benefit. So I will say not all of my patients choose doublet, and many of them are still cured with immunotherapy monotherapy. So the big question there is, will we ever understand who actually needs the doublet versus who can still be cured or have very good long-term outcomes with just the single agent? And that has not been answered yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a great point. So the last abstract I was hoping we could talk about is or the INTERAACT2 subgroup analysis and impact of delayed retifanlimab treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. What were your thoughts here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This was a study, actually we saw at ESMO, we saw the primary data at ESMO last year, and this was an update with some exploratory analyses. But this was really an important study because once again, we're looking at immunotherapy in later lines of therapy. That's how we started looking at and investigating immunotherapy, and now we're moving it up and up in the treatment course. So this was a study of carboplatin/paclitaxel plus or minus retifanlimab. Actually it was retifanlimab versus placebo. And it was a positive study, as we heard last year. This actually led to FDA approval of this regimen last month, just before ASCO, and it has now been incorporated in the NCCN guidelines as the preferred first-line option. So what I thought was important from the additional data presented at ASCO was looking at the different subgroups, it did not appear that patients with liver mets or not had different outcomes. So that was really good to see because sometimes in colon cancer we see that immunotherapy doesn't work as well when patients have liver mets. And interestingly, because we use immunotherapy in anal cancer without any biomarkers, unlike with colon cancer or some of the other tumor types, also the authors looked at PD-L1 status, and it did look like maybe patients did a little bit better if they had higher PD-L1 expression, but patients still could benefit even if they were PD-L1 negative. So that was important, I think, and we will continue to see further data come out from this study. I want to mention also that just completed accrual, so that was carbo-taxol plus or minus nivolumab. And so we should be seeing that data sometime soon, which will hopefully also confirm the ongoing role for immunotherapy in the first-line setting for anal cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: That was a fantastic review. Thank you, Dr Ciombor. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks for having...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37113430
info_outline
Breast Cancer Research Poised to Change Practice From ASCO25
06/23/2025
Breast Cancer Research Poised to Change Practice From ASCO25
Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. Transcript Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we’re starting with , which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large , and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time. So, let's move on to , which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months’ time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to , which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest,...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37046035
info_outline
Precision Oncology Advances in Hematologic Cancers at ASCO25
06/20/2025
Precision Oncology Advances in Hematologic Cancers at ASCO25
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Marc Braunstein highlight top research on hematologic malignancies from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including abstracts on newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. On today's episode, we'll be discussing promising advances in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Marc, there were some great studies in the heme space at this year's Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on the podcast to highlight some of these advances. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yes, I agree, John, and thank you so much for inviting me again. It's great to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's start out with . This was a study that reported on the primary endpoint results of the phase 3B trial, which assessed asciminib versus nilotinib in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML. And the primary endpoint of this, as you know, was time to treatment discontinuation because of adverse events. Can you give us your insights into this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So, like you mentioned, you know, asciminib is an allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL kinase that has activity in CML, and that includes patients with the T315I mutation that confers resistance to first- and second-generation TKIs. So, the study, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed superior efficacy of asciminib compared to investigator-selected first- or second-generation TKIs, actually leading to the FDA approval of asciminib in first-line CML. So, the authors of that study presented data at this year's ASCO meeting from the phase 3 ASC4START comparing safety and time to discontinuation due to adverse events of asciminib versus nilotinib, a second-generation TKI. So, 568 patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomized one-to-one to once-daily asciminib or twice-daily nilotinib. So, at a median follow-up of 9.7 months, about 11% in the asciminib group and 17% in the nilotinib group discontinued treatment, with significantly fewer discontinuations with asciminib due to adverse events. There was also a secondary endpoint of major molecular response, which was also better with asciminib. For example, the MR 4.5, which is a deep response, was 2.5% versus 0.4% favoring asciminib by week 12. So, I think in conclusion, these results build on the ASC4FIRST study, making the case for the superior safety and efficacy of asciminib versus other first- or second-generation TKIs in newly diagnosed CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. Do you think this is going to change practice? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I think so. I think there are still some questions to be answered, such as what resistance mutations occur after first-line treatment with asciminib. But I think the sum of these studies really make the case for using asciminib upfront in CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thank you. And let's move on to our second abstract. This was and was reported from Mass General Hospital. And this was a study in patients with relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and reported the 2-year results of the so-called study. This is a comparison of glofitamab, a T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in this group of patients. Can you tell us a little bit about your impressions of this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So just for background, the treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma is expanding, now with two bispecific antibodies targeting CD20 that are approved after two or more lines of therapy. Among these, glofitamab was approved in 2023 based on phase 2 data showing an objective response rate of 52%, with 39% complete responses in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients after a median of three prior lines of therapy. Distinguishing glofitamab from epcoritamab, the other approved bispecific, glofitamab was given for 12 cycles and then stopped. Additionally, when combined with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the phase 3 STARGLO study, there was significantly improved overall survival compared to rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients at a median follow-up of 11 months. The authors of that study published last year in Lancet now present at ASCO this year the 2-year follow-up of the study. Two hundred and seventy-four patients with a median of one prior line of therapy were randomized two-to-one to glofitamab plus GemOx versus rituximab plus GemOx, with the primary endpoint of overall survival. Here, the median overall survival was not reached versus 13.5 months, with a median PFS also significantly improved at about 14 months versus 4 months in the control. CRS of note in the glofitamab arm was mostly grade 1 or 2, with only about 2.3% grade 3 events. And three of the four patients had grade 1 or 2 neurotoxicity. So, John, putting this into context, I think it's encouraging that we now have randomized data showing the superiority of a bispecific plus chemotherapy over rituximab plus chemotherapy in transplant-ineligible patients. And while only 8% of the patients in the STARGLO study had prior anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, I think this regimen could be considered in those patients who are ineligible for transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think a couple of other compelling numbers to me were the fact that around 55% of these patients were alive at 2 years in the group who'd received glofitamab, and that almost 90% of those having that arm of the study who had a CR at the end of treatment were alive at 12 months. So, clearly, it's an active agent and also a kind of great off-the-shelf fixed-duration alternative in these relapsed and refractory patients. Dr. Marc Braunstein: I agree, and I would also note that the phase 3 SKYGLO study is looking at glofitamab plus Pola-R-CHP versus Pola-R-CHP alone. So, we may even be using these eventually in the first-line setting. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Let's stay on the theme of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and look at one other abstract in that space, which was . This was a study from the HOVON group in the Netherlands, which looked at the prospective validation of end-of-treatment circulating tumor DNA in the context of a national randomized trial. What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, non-invasive liquid biopsies to detect and monitor cancers via circulating tumor-derived DNA or ctDNA, you know, is really emerging as a valuable tool in both solid and liquid tumors to understand disease biology, and also for drug development. So, to date, the most established application of ctDNA in lymphoma, I would say, is really for monitoring of minimal residual disease. So, in this correlative by Steven Wang and colleagues in the HOVON group, they evaluated the prognostic significance of MRD status as assessed by ctDNA following first-line treatment with curative intent with either R-CHOP or dose-adjusted R-EPOCH. At the end of treatment, encouragingly, 76% of patients were MRD-negative, and 24% were MRD-positive. Now, of note, MRD-positive status at the end of treatment predicted inferior progression-free survival at 2 years, with only 28% of patients who are MRD-positive being progression-free versus 88% who are MRD-negative. And in fact, all the patients who failed to achieve a complete response after first-line treatment and were MRD-positive ultimately relapsed. So, circulating tumor cells are rarely found in large B-cell lymphomas, and so this study really builds on accumulating data that ctDNA has clinical value to detect residual disease with a non-invasive approach. So, there are many implications of how we could potentially use this to detect early signs of relapse, to potentially escalate treatment for consolidation if patients remain MRD-positive. So, I think this will eventually become utilized in clinical practice. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think it's interesting that it provided an independent assessment of response, which was independent, in fact, of the results of PET-CT scanning and so on, which I think was very interesting to me. And the authors of the abstract actually commented in their presentation that they think this should be integrated as part of the standard response assessment now for patients with large B-cell lymphoma. Would you agree with that? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I would. For one thing, it allows repeated sampling. It's a non-invasive approach; it doesn't necessarily require a bone marrow biopsy, and it may have more sensitivity than conventional response measures. So, I think having a standardized system to assess ctDNA will be helpful, and definitely, I think this will be a valuable biomarker of disease response. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thanks. We're going to change gear again now, and we're going to highlight two abstracts in the multiple myeloma space. The first one of these is . And this abstract reported on the long-term results of the study for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. What are your comments on this presentation? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, this study actually got a lot of press, and I've already had multiple patients asking me about CAR T-cells as a result. Just as some background, CAR T-cells targeting BCMA, which is pretty much universally expressed on malignant plasma cells in myeloma, have really shown remarkable responses, especially in heavily pretreated patients, showing superior progression-free survival in both later and earlier phases of the disease, including in randomized studies in patients with second-line or beyond. So, the was really the original Phase 1/2 study of ciltacabtagene autoleucel, one of the two approved anti-BCMA CAR T-cell products, which was investigated in patients with a median of six to seven prior lines of therapy. So, these were patients who were pretty heavily pretreated. So, in the study presented by Voorhees at this year's ASCO meeting, this was the long-term follow-up at a median of 5 years from the one-time CAR infusion in these patients with a median of five prior lines of therapy. And remarkably, of the 97 patients, 33% remained progression-free at 5 years plus, without needing any further myeloma treatment during that time. And among those 33% of patients, 23% had high-risk cytogenetics, which we know are notoriously difficult to achieve responses in. What was interesting that they presented as correlative studies was there were some biomarkers that were distinguishing the patients who had the long PFS, including enrichment of more naive T-cells in the product, lower neutrophil-to-T-cell ratio, higher hemoglobin and platelets at baseline, and higher CAR T-cell levels relative to soluble BCMA levels. And the fact that they reported a median overall survival of 61 months in these really heavily pretreated patients, I think these data are impressive. I think we're going to continue to be using CAR T even earlier in the disease status than fifth or sixth line, as it was studied in CARTITUDE-1. There are even ongoing studies looking at first-line treatment with CAR T-cells. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, do you think that those 33% of patients who are disease-free at 5 years, do you think any of those are cured? Dr. Marc Braunstein: That was one of the headlines in the press. I think if we're going to discuss things like "operational cures," where we're transforming myeloma into really a chronic disease, where patients can live practically a normal life expectancy, I think the measure of 5 years, especially in this population that was explored in CARTITUDE-1, I think we can call that close to a cure. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay. Well, thank you. Exciting data, for sure. We're going to conclude today with another abstract in the multiple myeloma space. And this was , which looked at an MRD, minimal residual disease-driven strategy following induction and transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and reported on the primary endpoints of the phase 3 trial. Can you walk us through this one, Marc? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. It is a bit more complicated than the prior one we discussed because this is a randomized study with four arms. So, I'll start by saying that anti-CD38-based quadruplet regimens continue to show superior outcomes in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The MIDAS study mentioned is an open-label phase 3 trial with four arms in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients. And initially, these patients were all treated with quadruplet therapy with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab combined with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in 718 newly diagnosed myeloma patients. So, they received the quadruplet regimen for six cycles and then were randomized based on their MRD status at 10 to the negative fifth following six cycles of induction. And that first randomization, if they were MRD-negative, was to either consolidation with six more cycles of the quadruplet regimen or transplant, autologous transplant, plus two cycles additionally of the quadruplet regimen. And both arms were followed by lenalidomide maintenance. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity at 10 to the negative sixth prior to entering the lenalidomide maintenance component. And in addition, the patients who were MRD-positive after induction were randomized to transplant plus two cycles of consolidation or a tandem autologous transplant. So, the median follow-up of the study was about 16 months, and the pre-maintenance rate of MRD negativity was high, between 84 to 86% between the two arms who were MRD-negative, which was not significantly different. And as far as the 233 patients who were MRD-positive, the pre-maintenance MRD negativity was also not significantly different at 40% for those who received autologous transplant, and 32% who received a tandem transplant. So, there's a lot of debate in the myeloma field about the evolving role of autologous transplant and whether transplant still plays a significant role in patients who are either MRD-negative after induction or who have deep remissions and are of standard risk. So, I think these data suggest that patients who are MRD-negative after induction with a quadruplet regimen studied here, which was Isa-KRd, plus consolidation, may possibly be able to forego consolidation with autologous transplant. And likewise, for those patients who are MRD-positive after induction, tandem transplant didn't seem to provide much of a benefit compared to single transplant, which is consistent with prior studies such as the study. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, where do you think this leaves us, Marc? Are we going to need more studies before we have any definitive guidance on whether an autologous transplant is still appropriate for those patients who are MRD-negative? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, as clinicians, we want to do what's best for our patient. And in myeloma, the best we can do is to get as deep remissions as possible, meaning MRD negativity. And so, I think it's clear from the study and others that quadruplet regimens provide the deepest remissions when given upfront. We can debate the role of autologous transplant. I think certainly the role of tandem autologous transplant is fading. But as far as a single autologous transplant as consolidation, I think it's reasonable as a goal to try to achieve MRD negativity after the transplant, especially for patients who remain MRD-positive after induction. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Marc, thanks as always for sharing your insights on the heme malignancies studies from the ASCO meeting this year and for joining us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Always appreciate hearing your thoughtful and balanced input on these. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Thank you, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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. Find out more about today’s guest: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Marc Braunstein: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers’ Bureau: Janssen Oncology Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37029915
info_outline
ASCO25 Recap: CHALLENGE, DESTINY-Breast09, and More
06/19/2025
ASCO25 Recap: CHALLENGE, DESTINY-Breast09, and More
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I’m your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we’ll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I’m delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting’s Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year’s Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we’re seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that’s probably a good place to start. So I’d like to dive into abstract number . This was the trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It’s a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,’ or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.’ And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely. So let’s move on to . This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn’t get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there’s an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there’s some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that’s really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we’ve been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we’re still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I’d like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I’d like to ask you about , the clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that’s an area where we haven’t seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we’re now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we’re now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren’t able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we’ve seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we’re going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don’t have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we’re probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that’s what you’re saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely. So let’s move on to GI cancer. reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that’s not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular , as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I’ll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there’s around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I’m completely honest, I don’t totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it’s probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we’ve been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don’t realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let’s shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let’s start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this . It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I’m telling you that because it’s going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that’s not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you’re in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there’s definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we’ve seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that’s a fantastic point. So let’s talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It’s time-consuming, it’s prone to errors, and reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting . And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they’re going...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/37029785
info_outline
Day 5: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
06/03/2025
Day 5: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Transcript Hello, I’m Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Starting with , this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in , were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today’s presentations is Abstract , presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called . Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level ‘G’, comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36805170
info_outline
Day 4: Top Takeaways from ASCO25
06/02/2025
Day 4: Top Takeaways from ASCO25
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research on maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transcript Hello, I’m Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today’s selection features reports of 3 randomized trials in very different clinical settings: maintenance therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, and a supportive care intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The first of these studies, , was presented by Dr. Luis Paz-Ares from the University Hospital [October 12] in Madrid, Spain, and reports the primary results of the trial. This was a phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Despite some improvements in the first-line treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, most of the patients experience early disease progression and long-term survival remains very limited. This provides a rationale for considering a maintenance intervention. Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent and transcription inhibitor [that is] already approved in the United States for patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic SCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been shown to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors in pre-clinical studies and has also been evaluated in early-phase clinical trials. The trial is a global, randomized trial in which patients are initially treated with atezolizumab, and those patients who do not progress on induction therapy are then randomized to maintenance therapy with atezolizumab alone or atezolizumab with lurbinectedin. The primary endpoints of the study were progression-free and overall survival. Four hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized and at a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival for patients who received the combination was 5.4 months and the median overall survival was 13.2 months. This compares with 2.1 and 10.6 months, respectively, in patients who received atezolizumab only. The lurbinectedin and atezolizumab combination was generally well-tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety signals. The benefit was consistent in magnitude across all the relevant patient subgroups. This is the first phase 3 study to show a progression-free and overall survivial improvement with first-line maintenance in extensive stage SCLC and the result is likely to be practice-changing, establishing a new standard of care in this tough-to-treat disease. Next up is , presented by Dr. Sven Mahner from LMU University in Munich, Germany. This describes the results of the study, a randomized trial of upfront surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. As background, total macroscopic tumor resection with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The optimal timing of such surgery remains controversial, whether it’s more beneficial as a primary cytoreductive surgery before chemotherapy or in the form of interval cytoreductive surgery after 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Previous studies have addressed this issue, but results have been confounded by issues of patient and center selection. The study is a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 trial that compares the outcomes of the timing of surgery in surgically fit patients with seemingly resectable FIGO stage IIIB/IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To ensure consistent and adequate surgical quality, participating centers in the trial were required to obtain accreditation and undergo an onsite quality assurance review. This included assessment of infrastructure, surgical proficiency, complete resection rates, and surgical volume. Seven hundred and ninety-seven patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomized to undergo surgery prior to therapy with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab and a PARP inhibitor, or to have the surgery between the third and fourth cycle of the same systemic therapy. Of the initial 797 patients, 688 comprised the intent-to-treat population, of whom 345 received primary cytoreductive surgery and 343 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. The results show that patients undergoing primary surgery had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who had interval cytoreductive surgery (median progression-free survival was 22.1 months versus 19.7 months). No difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 arms of the study. This is the first study to show a benefit for primary cytoreductive surgery, although the progression-free survival improvement was not reflected in an overall survival difference. A subgroup analysis for patients who underwent complete cytoreduction suggests a progression-free survival and survival benefit, although it isn’t clear to me that the study was powered for this endpoint. Nevertheless, these are very difficult studies to perform, and the investigators should be congratulated for this robustly conducted clinical trial. Today’s final abstract is , presented by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo from Harvard Medical School. The trial evaluated BMT-VR, a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This randomized trial included adult patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation. The BMT-VR platform included, among others, modules addressing psychoeducation, coping, acceptance, and gratitude. BMT-VR patients were provided with VR headsets and completed all modules during their hospitalization. Patient-reported outcomes were then assessed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-BMT. Use of the VR tool was tracked during hospitalization. Control patients received usual care during their hospital stay and were then assessed at the same intervals post-BMT. Eighty evaluable patients were randomized, 39 to BMT-VR and 41 to usual care. Completion rates for the BMT-VR modules were high [at] around 70-75%. Patients who received the BMT-VR intervention experienced significantly improved anxiety, quality of life, and coping at 4 weeks post-BMT. In the longer term, sustained benefits were seen at 24 weeks for some endpoints including quality of life, with some benefits, including for depression and PTSD symptoms, improving longitudinally over the study period. These data are preliminary and will need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies, but this trial demonstrates the feasibility of using virtual interventions in our patients and also provides intriguing preliminary data that they may be effective. Thanks for listening to today’s report and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from the final day of ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36771895
info_outline
Day 3: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
06/01/2025
Day 3: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies on novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I’m Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today’s selection features studies addressing the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies exploring novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first abstract is number . This study, led by Dr. Toni Choueiri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describes the final analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which compared the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab with sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The ipi-nivo combination is approved for the frontline treatment of intermediate and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the primary analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which demonstrated a higher response rate and longer overall survival compared with sunitinib. Today’s presentation provided the final safety and efficacy results for the trial with long-term follow-up of more than 9 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in this trial comprised 550 patients randomized to nivo and ipi versus 546 who received sunitinib. The final analysis showed sustained long-term benefit for the combination therapy. Patients given nivolumab plus ipi had a 29% reduction in the risk for death compared with sunitinib. For patients with intermediate or poor-risk disease, there was a 31% reduction in the risk of death. The probability of remaining in response through 8 years was more than doubled with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in the ITT population at 48% versus 19%, and in the intermediate and poor-risk population at 50% versus 23%. The other important observation is that patients with favorable-risk disease appeared to have a 20% reduction in the risk for death at 9 years and more durable responses. This suggests a possible delayed benefit for ipi and nivo in this group since these differences were not seen in the earlier analysis. No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up, and the results confirm the use of ipi and nivo as a standard front-line combination therapy in this disease. Since this combination has been in widespread use for some years, the results are not surprising although the subgroup analysis suggesting benefit in favorable-risk patients is likely to inform practice in the future. Today’s second abstract is number is , which was presented by Dr. Tony Mok from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, describing results from the phase 3 trial. This trial compared the antibody-drug conjugate patritumab deruxtecan with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer following a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Patritumab deruxtecan, also known as HER3-DXd, comprises a fully human anti-HER3 IgG3 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor payload, and showed activity in a previous phase 2 trial in patients relapsing after EGFR TKI and chemotherapy. In this phase 3 study, this agent was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in eligible patients with an EGFR-activating mutation who had previously received 1 or 2 EGFR TKIs, at least one of which was a third-generation drug, with relapse or progression after this therapy. Five hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. The primary analysis showed a 9-month progression-free survival of 29% for the experimental arm compared with 19% for platinum-based chemotherapy, for a hazard ratio of 0.77 and a P value of 0.011. With higher progression-free survival rates at 6 months and 12 months, HER3-DXd also had a better objective response rate (35.2% versus 25.3%) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), and HER3-DXd also extended intracranial progression-free survival compared with PBC in patients with brain metastases, with a hazard ratio of 0.75. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 73% of patients treated with HER3-DXd and 57% of patients who received PBC. HER3-DXd had a higher rate of grade or more 3 thrombocytopenia, and drug-related interstitial lung disease occurred in 5% of patients in the HER3-DXd arm. The follow-up will need more time to mature since no overall survival data are currently available, but definitely an agent to watch with interest. Moving on to today’s final abstract, , was presented by Dr. Pasi Jänne from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describing results from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. This study is exploring the use of a potent KRAS inhibitor, adagrasib, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic KRASG12C- mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Adagrasib has already received accelerated approval in the U.S. for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a KRASG12C mutation. A previous report from the study demonstrated encouraging activity in combination with pembrolizumab in the frontline setting for this patient group who also had more than 50% expression of PD-L1. The presentation today described efficacy and safety data for this drug combination across all PD-L1 expression levels. One hundred and forty-nine patients with a median age of 67 years were treated with the combination, 104 of whom had PD-L1 expression level results available, representing the so-called biomarker population in this trial. The overall response rate for the entire study population was 44%. In the biomarker population, the overall response rate ranged from 36% in those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression to 61% for those with more than 50% expression. For all patients, the median response duration was just over 26 months, and the median progression-free and overall survival rates were 11 and 18.3 months respectively. For the biomarker population, the median progression-free and overall survival were highest in those patients with more than 50% PD-L1. No new safety issues emerged from this analysis; the most frequent toxicities were nausea, diarrhea, and increases in transaminases. Immune-related toxicities included pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis. These are important results and the results of the phase 3 portion of KRYSTAL-7, which compares first-line therapy with adagrasib plus pembro versus pembro alone in the KRASG12C mutated/PD-L1 more than 50% group, will be informative. For those patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression, the authors suggest that the treatment escalation may be beneficial, possibly including the addition of chemotherapy. That concludes today’s report. Thanks for listening and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36771810
info_outline
Day 2: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
05/31/2025
Day 2: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I’m Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I’ll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today’s selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence. Our first selected abstract is . This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group. For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group. The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases. The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them. The next study on today’s episode, , reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, , confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today’s presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks. Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination. These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report. The final selection today is , which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis. Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%. The study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context. Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36756245
info_outline
Day 1: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
05/30/2025
Day 1: Top Takeaways From ASCO25
In the first episode of a special daily series during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. John Sweetenham discusses the results of 2 studies on the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer plus an additional study exploring the association of Medicaid expansion with cancer survival outcomes. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I’m your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I’ll be bringing you brief analysis on selected abstracts from each day of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today, I’ll be reviewing three abstracts, the first two of which address the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Today’s first study is . These data were presented by Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and report on the expanded analysis of the trial. This was a phase 3, international, multicenter trial in patients with MSI-high/MMR-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, who were randomized between nivolumab (nivo) alone, nivolumab plus ipilumomab (ipi) or investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. The study showed that nivo plus ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in the first-line setting and superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone across all lines of therapy. These results led to the approval of nivo + ipi in the first-line setting in patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the U.S., the EU, and many other countries. In today’s presentation, Dr. Lenz reported on the expanded analyses of nivo plus ipi versus nivo across all lines of therapy and longer follow-up results for nivo and ipi versus chemo in the first-line setting. With longer follow up (the median is now at 47 months) nivo and ipi continued to show progression-free survival benefit compared with chemotherapy with a median PFS of 54.1 months versus 5.9 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.21. Additionally, the analysis of the effects on PFS2, defined as the time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, start of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death, showed that compared with chemotherapy, first-line nivo and ipi was associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of death or disease progression, despite the fact that 71% of those who progressed following chemotherapy crossed over to receive subsequent immunotherapy. The study also showed that across all lines, nivo and ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone, the median not reached versus 39.3 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.62. No new toxicity signals emerged after further analysis. Most treatment-related adverse events with possible immune etiology were observed within the first six months of therapy. The results for PFS2 are particularly significant. Up to now, there has been some reluctance to use nivo and ipi as first-line therapy, partly because of its toxicity profile and based on the rationale that it would be active after other frontline therapies. The observation in this study that the beneficial effects of nivo and ipi are maintained downstream is compelling. The results suggest that delaying the use of this combination to the second line or later may compromise subsequent PFS and supports the use of nivo and ipi as a standard-of-care frontline option for MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. Moving on, the next study I’m featuring today is , presented by Dr. Jeanne Tie from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Institute of Medical Research from Melbourne, Australia. This study reported the impact of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant chemotherapy escalation in stage III colon cancer, focused on the primary analysis of the ctDNA-positive cohort from the randomized trial. As background, about 30% of patients with stage III colon cancer will recur following standard-of-care adjuvant therapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens. And current data show that for those patients with high-risk disease, 6 months of chemotherapy is associated with a lower recurrence rate than 3 months. Circulating tumor DNA following initial surgery has been shown to be a strong independent prognostic factor for these patients, but questions remain about how ctDNA can be used for adaptation of treatment. Questions regarding treatment adaptation were addressed in the DYNAMIC-III trials – specifically, does treatment escalation benefit those who are ctDNA positive following surgery, and can therapy be de-escalated for those who are ctDNA negative. The first of these 2 questions – treatment escalation in the positive group – is the subject of this report. One thousand and two patients were randomized in this study, between ctDNA-informed therapy (502) or standard management (500). Of those patients included in the intent to treat cohorts, 129 were ctDNA positive in the ctDNA-informed arm compared with 130 in the standard management arm. Various pre-planned treatment escalation protocols were used, depending on the choice of first-line therapy. With a median follow up of 42.2 months, there was no difference in 3-year relapse free survival between the ctDNA informed group (48%) and the standard management group (52%). There was, however, a highly significant difference in relapse-free survival for patients who cleared ctDNA by the end of treatment compared with those who didn’t. The authors concluded that the recurrence risk for this group remains high, at about 50%, after adjuvant therapy and that it increases with higher ctDNA burden, but treatment escalation didn’t appear to reduce the recurrence risk. Clearance of ctDNA was associated with a favorable outcome, suggesting that as more effective treatments are developed in the future for this group, ctDNA will likely prove to have major utility. Changing gears now, my final selection for today is , presented by Dr. Elizabeth Shafer from the American Cancer Society. This study explored the association of Medicaid expansion with 5-year survival after a cancer diagnosis. Dr. Schafer began her by providing some historical perspective on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on reducing the number of uninsured adults aged less than 65 years in the United States. She then reviewed some recent data on the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer care, including improved screening rates, improved access to cancer surgery, and an increase in earlier cancer diagnosis. The current study builds on earlier data from the American Cancer Society which showed improved 2-year overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed cancer following Medicaid expansion. The new study reported by Dr. Schafer examined 5-year cause-specific survival in individuals with cancer since Medicaid expansion, analyzed according to cancer type and various demographic and social factors. Using data from more than 813,000 individuals from 26 states that expanded Medicaid compared with more than 610,000 from 12 states that did not, the authors reported that similar improvements in 5-year cause-specific survival were observed in the expansion and the non-expansion states, but when analyzed by other factors, differences in outcome emerged. For example, although similar improvements in survival between expansion and non-expansion states were seen in urban communities, there was a significant improvement of 2.55 percentage points in survival for individuals in rural communities in expansion states compared with those in non-expansion states. Similar trends were observed in high poverty areas, where improvements in survival were superior in expansion versus non-expansion states. When examined by cancer type, the authors observed greater improvements in 5-year survival for those with pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer, possibly due to improvements in screening and early access to treatment. The authors concluded that those residing in rural and high-poverty areas experienced the most improvement in cause-specific cancer survival following Medicaid expansion. In summary, it’s encouraging to see an improving trend in cancer mortality overall, independent of Medicaid expansion, but it’s also important to remember that this is yet another study which confirms how implementation of the ACA has improved cancer outcomes and begun to address some of the disparities in cancer care. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today’s speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36733580
info_outline
ASCO25 Preview: Key Research Accelerating Cancer Care
05/22/2025
ASCO25 Preview: Key Research Accelerating Cancer Care
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss top abstracts that will be presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including research on tech innovations that could shape the future of oncology. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Hamilton is also the chair of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program, and she's here to tell us about some of the key abstracts, hot topics, and novel approaches in cancer care that will be featured at this year's Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, it’s great to have you on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Dr. Hamilton, the Presidential Theme of the Annual Meeting this year is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,’ and that's reflected in many of the sessions that will focus on action-oriented guidance to improve care for our patients. And as always, there'll be great presentations on practice-changing abstracts that will change treatment paradigms and transform care. Can you tell us about some of the hot topics this year and what you're particularly excited about? Dr. Erika Hamilton: You're right. Dr. Robin Zon's theme is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,’ and you're going to see that theme really interlaced throughout the ASCO program this year. We had a record number of submissions. Over 5,000 abstracts will be published, and there'll be about 3,000 presentations, either in oral format or poster presentations. We have 200 dynamic sessions. Many of the discussants will be highlighting key takeaways and how we can translate action-oriented guidance to better treat our patients to build a better future. Our state-of-the-art science will include a . This will feature presentations as well as discussion of each of the presentations for clinical late-breaking abstracts. We have Clinical Science Symposia that I'm particularly excited about this year. These will feature key abstracts as well as discussions and a foundational talk around the subject. We're covering novel antibody-drug conjugate targets, turning “cold” tumors “hot” to include CAR T, as well as the future of cancer detection. There'll be rapid oral abstracts, case-based panels, and this will also feature interactive audience polling and case discussions. I also want to highlight the community connection opportunities. There will be 13 that will be meeting on-site during ASCO, and there's also really a plethora of , a , a , and I'm happy to report there will also be live music out on the terrace this year at ASCO. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, that's going to be a really great addition. I have to say, I think this is always a special time of year because excitement starts to mount as the meeting gets closer and closer. And once the abstracts are out there, I certainly personally feel that the excitement builds. Talking of abstracts, let's dive into some of the key abstracts for this year's meeting. I'd like to start out by asking you about . This reports on 15-year outcomes for women with premenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in the SOFT and TEXT trials. It assesses the benefits of adjuvant exemestane and ovarian function suppression or tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression. So, could you talk us through this and tell us what you think the key takeaways from this abstract are? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Absolutely. This is essentially the trials. They are trials that we've been following for quite some time, evidenced by the 15-year outcome. And I think it really answers two very important questions for us regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that are facing hormone receptor-positive disease. The benefit of ovarian function suppression for one, and then second, the benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen, which is our SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator]. So, in terms of the SOFT trial, when we talk about distance recurrence-free interval, which I really think is probably the most meaningful because secondary cancers, et cetera, are not really what we're getting at here. But in terms of distant recurrence-free interval, certainly with tamoxifen, using tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression adds a little bit. But where we really get additional benefits are by moving to exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor with the ovarian function suppression. So, for example, in SOFT, for distant recurrence-free interval for patients that have received prior chemotherapy, the distance recurrence-free interval was 73.5% with tamoxifen, bumped up just a tiny bit to 73.8% with ovarian function suppression. But when we used both ovarian function suppression and switched to that aromatase inhibitor, we're now talking about 77.6%. It may seem like these are small numbers, but when we talk about an absolute benefit of 4%, these are the type of decisions that we decide whether to offer chemotherapy based on. So, really just optimizing endocrine therapy really can provide additional benefits for these patients. Just briefly, when we turn to TEXT, similarly, when we look at distance recurrence-free interval for our patients that are at highest risk and receive chemotherapy, tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression, 79%; 81% with exemestane and ovarian function suppression. And when we talk about our patients that did not receive chemotherapy, it increased from 91.6% up to 94.6%—very similar that 3% to 4% number. So, I think that this is just very important information when counseling our patients about the decisions that they're going to make for themselves in the adjuvant setting and how much we want to optimize endocrine therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks so much for your insight into that. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's turn to hematologic malignancies. reports exciting results on the new agent ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. This is a phase 1b clinical activity study and safety results. This was the pivotal study. And my question is, will this new agent fulfill an unmet need in this NPM1 space? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great question. And I think the answer is almost certainly ‘yes’. So, just as some brief background, NPM1 mutation is known to be a driver of leukemogenesis in around 30% of patients with AML, and it's a poor prognostic factor. And typically, about 50% of these patients will relapse within a year of their first-line therapy, and only around 10% of them will get a subsequent complete remission with salvage therapy. Menin inhibitors, which disrupt the interaction between menin and KMT2A, are known to be active in NPM1-mutated as well as in KMT2A-rearranged AML. And ziftomenib is a selective oral menin inhibitor, which in this study was evaluated at a dose of 600 mg once a day, as you mentioned, a phase 1b/2 study, which is multicenter and presented by Dr. Eunice Wang from Roswell Park. It's a relatively large study of 112 patients who were treated with this standard dose with relatively short median follow-up at this time. The median age was 69 years, and median prior therapies were two, but with a range of one to seven. And I think very importantly, 60% of these patients had previously been treated with venetoclax, and 23% of them had had a prior transplant. Looking at the results overall for this , the overall response rate was 35%, which is actually quite impressive. Specifically for those patients in the phase 2 part of the study, around 23% achieved a CR [complete remission] or CRh [complete remission with partial hematologic recovery]. What's very interesting in my mind is that the response rates were comparable in venetoclax-naive and venetoclax-exposed patients. And the drug was very well tolerated, with only 3% of patients having to discontinue because of treatment-related adverse events. And I think the authors appropriately conclude that, first of all, the phase 2 primary endpoint in the study was met, and that ziftomenib achieved deep and durable responses in relapsed and refractory NPM1-mutated AML, regardless of prior venetoclax, with good tolerance of the drug. And so, I think putting all of this together, undoubtedly, these data do support the potential use of this agent as monotherapy and as a new option for those patients who have relapsed or refractory NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. So, let's move on a little bit more now and change the subject and change gears completely and talk about circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]. This has been a hot topic over a number of years now, and at this year's meeting, there are quite a few impactful studies on the use of ctDNA. We have time to focus on just one of these, and I wanted to get your thoughts on . This is from the trial, which looks at ctDNA in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who receive perioperative durvalumab. Could you tell us a little bit about this study? Dr. Erika Hamilton: So, this was the phase 3 trial, and this is literally looking for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that are cisplatin-eligible, and the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So here, this is a planned exploratory analysis of ctDNA and the association with clinical outcomes from NIAGARA. So, this is really the type of study that helps us determine which of our patients are more likely to have a good outcome and which of our patients are more likely not to. There were 1,000 randomized patients in this study, and 462 comprised the biomarker-evaluable population. There were about half in the control arm and half in the durvalumab arm. And overall, the ctDNA-positive rate at baseline was about 57%, or a little over half, and that had decreased to about 22% after neoadjuvant treatment. ctDNA clearance rates from baseline to pre-radical cystectomy was about 41% among those with durvalumab and 31% among those in control. And the non-pCR rate was 97% among patients with pre-cystectomy ctDNA-positive status. So, this really gives us some information about predicting who is going to have better outcomes here. We did see a disease-free survival benefit with perioperative durvalumab, and this was observed in post-cystectomy ctDNA-positive as well as the ctDNA-negative groups. Shifting gears now to GI cancer, is a long-term safety and efficacy study of sotorasib plus panitumumab and FOLFIRI for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. And this is the study. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. A very interesting study, and this builds upon the phase 3 trial, which I think has just been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This showed that the combination of sotorasib and panitumumab improved clinical outcomes in patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The current abstract, as you mentioned, reports the trial. And this was a phase 1b trial where FOLFIRI therapy was added to sotorasib and panitumumab in previously treated patients with KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The abstract reports the overall and progression-free survival results, as well as some updated safety and response data. So, in this study, patients with this particular mutation who had received at least one prior systemic treatment but were KRAS G12C inhibitor-naive were enrolled into an expansion cohort of the protocol. And these patients received what apparently now recommended as the standard phase 2 dose of sotorasib of 960 mg daily, plus panitumumab and a standard dose of FOLFIRI. And the primary endpoint of the study was safety, and secondary endpoints included confirmed response, overall response, and progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigator. And by November of last year, 40 patients had been enrolled into this study. Common treatment-related adverse events were cutaneous; some patients developed neutropenia, and stomatitis was fairly widespread. Discontinuation of sotorasib because of adverse events was only seen in 1% of patients, although patients did have to discontinue because of toxicity from some of the other agents in the combination. Looking at the results of this study, the updated objective response rate was 57.5%, and the disease control rate was estimated at 92%, going on 93%, with a median time to response of 1.6 months and a median response duration of 6 months. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months, and the overall survival 17.9 months. So, the authors have concluded that this combination, including sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI, does appear to show quite promising long-term efficacy in pretreated patients with this specific mutation. The ongoing phase 3 study they mentioned, , is aiming to evaluate this combination against the standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. So, promising results, and we'd be very interested to see how this particular combination performs in the frontline. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing that. Let's shift gears again and really talk about digital technology. I feel that we're all going to have to get much better with this, and really, there are a lot of promises for our patients coming here. There are a lot of abstracts at ASCO that are focusing on innovations in digital technology, including a really interesting psychosocial digital application for caregivers of patients that are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? It's . Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. This certainly caught my eye, and I think it's intriguing for a number of reasons, partly because it's app-based, and partly also because it specifically addresses caregiver burden and caregiver needs in the oncology setting, which I think is especially important. And although the context, the clinical context of this study, is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, I think it has potential applications way beyond that. We all know that caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation have significant quality-of-life struggles. They are well-documented to have significant psychological and emotional strain before, during, and after stem cell transplantation. And this abstract describes an application called BMT-CARE, which is aimed at improving caregivers' quality of life, caregiver burden, mood symptoms, and coping skills, and so on. So, this was a single-center, randomized trial from MGH [Massachusetts General Hospital] of this app for stem cell transplant caregivers, compared with usual care in those individuals. And the eligible patients, or eligible individuals, were adults caring for patients with heme malignancy undergoing either an autologous or an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients were randomly assigned either to use the app or for usual care. And the app itself—and I think it'll be interesting to actually see this at the meeting and visualize it and see how user-friendly and so on it is—but it comprises five modules, which integrate psychoeducation, behavior change, stress management, and they're delivered through a kind of interactive platform of educational games and videos. And then participants were self-reporting at baseline and then 60 days after transplant. So, around 125 patients were enrolled in this study, of around 174 who were initially approached. So, just over 70% uptake from caregivers, which is, I think, relatively high, and evenly distributed between the two randomized arms. And the majority of the participants were spouses. And at 60 days post-stem cell transplant, the intervention participants reported a better quality of life compared with those who received usual care. If you break this down a little bit more, these participants reported lower caregiving burden, lower incidence of depression, fewer PTSD symptoms, and overall better coping skills. So, the authors conclude that this particular app, a digital health intervention, led to pretty substantial improvements in quality of life for these caregivers. So, intriguing. As I said, it'll be particularly interesting to see how this thing looks during the meeting. But if these kind of results can be reproduced, I think this sort of application has potential uses way beyond the stem cell transplant setting. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I find that just so fascinating and very needed. I think that the caregiving role is often underestimated in how important that is for the patient and the whole family, and really giving our caregivers more tools in their toolbox certainly is quite helpful. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, the meeting is getting closer, and as I mentioned earlier, I think anticipation is mounting. And I wanted to say thanks so much to you for chatting with me today about some of the interesting advances in oncology that we're going to see at this year's meeting. There is a great deal more to come. Our listeners can access links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I'm also looking forward, Dr. Hamilton, to having you back on the podcast after the Annual Meeting to dive into some of the late-breaking abstracts and some of the other key science that's captured the headlines this year. So, thanks once again for joining me today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Be sure to catch my “Top Takeaways from ASCO25.” These are short episodes that will drop each day of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. So, subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, and join me for concise analyses of the meeting's key abstracts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36628985
info_outline
Optimizing Oncology Clinical Pathways at the Point of Care
04/17/2025
Optimizing Oncology Clinical Pathways at the Point of Care
Dr. John Sweetenham, Dr. Larry Shulman, and Dr. Rebecca Maniago discuss the integration of clinical pathways and decision support tools into the cancer center workflow, challenges to implementation at the point of care, and the promise of AI to further unlock these tools for clinicians. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Over the last decade or so, there has been a great deal of work and a lot of discussion about the implementation of oncology clinical care pathways at the point of care, which are designed to reduce variability in care, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care and outcomes. Although clinical pathways aim to guide treatment decisions, current data suggests that the utilization of these pathways at the point of care is very low. There are many reasons for this, which we will get into on the episode today. My guests today are Dr. Larry Shulman and Rebecca Maniago. Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. He's also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer and serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Rebecca Maniago is the director of clinical oncology at , a technology platform that collects and analyzes real-world clinical data from electronic health records to facilitate decision making and research. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Larry and Rebecca, welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast and many thanks for being here. Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you, John. Rebecca Maniago: Thank you for having me. Dr. John Sweetenham: Larry, I'm going to start out, if I may, with a question for you. You and I, in a previous podcast, have discussed some of these issues regarding pathway implementation before. But to start out with, it's certainly, I think, helpful for the listeners to remind us all of what are the benefits of oncology clinical pathways and why are we still talking about this 10 years or more on. Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, and that's a great question, John. I think the good news is, and all of us who live in the oncology sphere know this, that there's been tremendous progress in cancer therapies over the last decade. But what that has entailed is the introduction of many new therapies. Their complexity is becoming really very tough for people to manage. And so what we have are oncologists who are really trying to do their best to deliver care to patients that will give them the best chance for survival and quality of life. But it's really, really hard to keep up with everything that's happening in oncology in the context of what we all know is a very busy clinic schedule. Lots of patients coming through and decisions need to be made quickly. Pathways really could help us to guide us into recommending and delivering the best therapies for our patients for a particular disease. You know, cancer is complicated. There are many different types and there are many different therapies. It's just a lot to deal with without some assistance from pathways or pathway tools. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So, knowing that's the case and knowing that these tools reduce variability, improve costs, improve quality of care as well. Starting with you again, Larry, if I may, why do you think it's been so difficult for so many oncologists to use these pathways effectively at the point of care? Dr. Larry Shulman: So, I just wanted to step back a little bit. There are very extensive guidelines that tell us what the best therapies are for really all of the cancers. These guidelines come from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN and the American Society of Clinical Oncology or ASCO and other professional organizations. And they're there. They're there, in free information off their websites. But the problem is how to translate those pretty dense documents into something that will work in the clinic for a patient, for the physician who's working in the electronic health record. And the tools that are available, and there are a number of tools that can integrate with electronic health records, are expensive. You need to purchase them from the vendor and there are yearly fees. And they're also difficult to implement. You need to work with the vendor to integrate them into your own rendition of your electronic health record. And there's a lot of customization that needs to be done. So, it's a financial challenge and it's also a time challenge for people to integrate these tools into their workflow, into their electronic health records. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So speaking from my own past experience of pathway implementation, it certainly has been a major challenge for the reasons that you mentioned and also because of the, I think resistance may or may not be too strong a word, of many of the clinicians to use these for a number of reasons, part of which are the time it takes, part of which many of them feel that the pathways aren't really changing decisions that they might make anyway. So, you know, the uptake of pathway utilization, even in those centers which have been successful in getting something installed and plugged into their EHR, on the whole, hasn't been as good as it could have been. So maybe I'll turn to you, Rebecca, because I know that this is something that you've worked on a lot. And it's a kind of double-barreled question. I think the first part of it is, you know, what do you think are the major roadblocks to high physician uptake in the use of these pathways platforms? And maybe you could talk a little bit about what the various software platforms do to make them more physician-friendly and to enhance utilization right on the front line. Dr. Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, that's a great question. And so, you know, I've worked with a number of customers and physicians over the past five and a half years on implementing these pathways. And the number one pushback is really about the time it takes in the workflow. So, if I had a dollar for every time I heard “every click counts,” I'd be a rich person and it does come down to clicks. And so, you know, as a software vendor, we really have to focus on how do we reduce that friction? How do we make sure that the clicks we are asking for are the ones that actually matter? And how do we continue to streamline that process? And so, you know, while there is a fine balance, because as part of a Pathways platform, at the end of the day, we do need to understand some data about that patient. You need to understand the clinical scenario so you can surface the right treatment recommendation, which means there is some amount of data capture that has to happen. In some circumstances, you know, we can pull some of that data in from the EHR. But unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of that data is messy and it's sort of stuck in documents and unstructured places. And so it doesn't easily flow in, which means we rely on the provider to give us that information. And oftentimes they've already entered it other places. So what's more frustrating than entering data twice? But, you know, I do see a great opportunity here. And this is certainly where software companies are focused is with AI. So, know, for, especially for this data aggregation, a lot of these AI tools can actually scan through the chart instead of relying on the physician to sort of manually skim through and aggregate and find all that pertinent information. That's what AI is really good at. And almost instantaneously, it can find the messy data that lives in those unstructured documents. And wouldn't it be nice if that was automatically populated within these applications so that really all we're asking of the clinician is to validate that that information is accurate. And then choose the treatment that cuts down on the number of clicks, it cuts down on frustration. You know, again, the physician will be the one that needs to make that decision. AI is not there to replace that, but it certainly has a great opportunity to reduce some of this manual documentation and the things that physicians find the most frustrating, especially as it relates to using these pathways tools. Dr. John Sweetenham: One of the pretty common pushbacks that I heard during my time in a couple of institutions was, “Well, you know, I'm sitting here at the point of care with my patients and I already know what I want to do and how I'm going to treat that patient if it's not in the context of a clinical trial. So I don't need to go through, you know, X number of clicks to get me to where I know I'm going to be anyway.” Does either of you have any thoughts about that? I think you've sort of partially answered it, but what do you think, Rebecca? Do you think that this is something that is more easily overcome-able, if that's even a word, than it was a few years back? Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I do. And I think this is where the customization comes into play. So while they may know what an appropriate treatment for their patient is, there are more options now than ever, which means at a local level, there may be multiple options that are clinically equivalent. And so when you think about things like payer pathways or drug margins as an organization, they have to drive some of that from within. But having the capability to do so can then start to sort of sell the value to the provider that, yes, you may know what you want to order for your patient, but would you consider something else if it was clinically equivalent, but it had other benefits to either the patient or the organization? Dr. Larry Shulman: The other thing I would add to that, John, if I can jump in here is that the data is the data and the data shows us that guideline concordant care is not always prescribed to the US. And in fact, in some circumstances, the gaps between what should be prescribed and what is being prescribed are quite wide. So, you know, people feel like they're always doing the best job and making the best recommendations. And I think, you know, I think I am. But, you know, like many of my colleagues at academic cancer centers, I'm highly specialized. I only see patients with breast cancer. But many oncologists throughout the country are more generalists. They're seeing patients with multiple diseases. And it's harder for them to be completely on top of what the current recommendations are in any particular circumstance. Our diseases are complicated. They're getting more complicated all the time with molecular and genomic testing and subcategorizations of different cancers. So, I don't think that we can be too cocky about it, quite frankly. I think we ought to use technology that Rebecca describes for the tools and for AI to really help us. I think if we turn our backs on that, I think we're making a big mistake. You just got to look at the data. The data is pretty convincing. Dr. John Sweetenham: You know ever since we started looking seriously at decision support through pathways a number of years ago, the word has always been around the payers role in this and the day will come where we are going to get reimbursed based on pathway and concordance and I'm not sure that that day has arrived. So I have a question for both of you in this regard actually. And the first of those is maybe I'll start with you for this part of it, Larry. Where do you think we are in that regard? And are you hearing more and more of payers starting to look at pathway compliance? And then on the other end of that, and maybe I'll ask Rebecca about this, is one of the other pushback issues that I used to experience from physicians I worked with was they may go through the pathways platform and come up with a treatment recommendation. The best example of this I can think might be that the recommendation might be a biosimilar. Let's just use that as an example. But the next stage in the process would be to find out whether the patient's insurance would actually cover that particular biosimilar, which opened up a whole new can of worms. So there are two kinds of payer aspects of that. Maybe Larry, I'll ask you to start off by talking about that kind of coverage issue. And then I'll ask Rebecca, if you have any thoughts about the flow the other way in terms of getting drugs approved and what we can do to help from an insurance perspective. Dr. Larry Shulman: Sure, that's really an important point, John. Our current state of affairs with the payers and their attempt to be sure that we're providing responsible, guideline concordant care is the use of prior authorization processes, which are incredibly costly, both for the oncology practices and for the payers. They have an army of nurses sitting at the phone talking to us in the oncology practices to decide whether they're going to pay for something. And frankly, generally, the payers will pay for things that are part of either the NCCN or ASCO or other professional organizations' guidelines. But you need to prove to them over the phone that in fact the patient qualifies for that. We have actually had some experiments with some of the payers to prove that to them in different ways by auto transmission of data. And this would be a big savings for them and for us, it would take away some of the delays in therapy while we're waiting for prior authorizations to go through. And we shouldn't have to do this by phone. The EHR and the pathway tools should aggregate the data, aggregate the potential treatment and be able to transmit those data to the payer. And if in fact it meets the appropriate criteria for guideline concordant care would be approved. Right now, it's a terrible, costly, timely manual process that they should be able to fix. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And have you, you know, from a broader perspective, so not thinking necessarily about individual patients and specific issues around prior authorization, have you seen any movement among the payers to kind of get more aggressive about this and say, okay, you know, we are going to want to see your numbers, we want to know how many of your physicians are now using their pathways platform and so on. Are you seeing any word that that might be happening? Because certainly a few years back, that was the word on the street, as it were, that this day was coming. Dr. Lawrence Shulman: And that's the proposal that we've made to several of our payers. Let us give you the aggregate data. If our guideline concordance is above a certain level, give us a gold card, give us a pass, and we won't need to do pre-authorizations. We've actually done that at my institution in radiology. Aggregate data gives individual physicians that pass if their guideline concordance was appropriate. I got to pass. So I don't need to go through those radiology pre-authorizations for my patients. And I think we can do the same thing with therapeutics. It's been a little bit more cumbersome to do it, and there's some detailed reasons why that is. But that's really what they want to know. And the payers want to know that patients are getting guideline concordant care, but they also realize it's not going be 100%. There are always a few outlier patients who require some variation from the guidelines. But if we get above 80% guideline concordant care, I think many of the payers would be happy to accept that as long as we continue to feed them the data. And that's the case in our radiology process with one of the payers is, you know, I get a gold card, but they continue to look at my data. And if I don't continue to perform well, they'll take that away. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And Rebecca, just returning to you, this issue of prior authorization and facilitating life for the physician at the point of care in terms of knowing, you know, which specific treatment might be covered for a patient. Do you have any thoughts or maybe you could give us some insights on what software vendors are doing to facilitate that part of the process, the communication back to the payers to take some of that burden off the physician and the physician staff? Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, absolutely. And this is a problem we've been trying to tackle for years. And it's not easy. We've tackled it in a couple ways. So first, we try to sort of link up to the payer portal where the information that was being attested to within the application could then be automatically sent. Because at the end of the day, the data points that are being collected to surface treatment recommendations ultimately are the same data points that the payer wants. Unfortunately, there are a lot of data interoperability challenges within that space. So that was not something that was going to be sustainable. However, in current state, because as I mentioned, the customization is key for these products, focusing more on how can we allow practices to embed payer pathways within the application. So again, you kind of start with the backbone of your standard guidelines but then having the capability of adding in a payer pathway that will only show up as that preferred option for a patient who has that insurance, at least at the point of care, the provider sees what the insurer would then approve. So while it's not automatically assuring authorization, we are at least steering the decision in a direction where we think most likely this is going to be approved based upon the pathway that they have access to. So that sort of current state, I agree. We've been talking about this idea of gold carding for years. Presumably the data is there today, right? Like we are able to capture structured data with every order placed to recognize concordance to Larry's point. All those reports are available to provide to payers. I just haven't seen a lot of practices have a lot of success when they tackle it on their own from that direction. Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, thanks. Larry, you and I were at the NCCN annual meeting recently and I know that you've been quite heavily involved in the policy program and in the policy forums and so on at NCCN. Are you able to share anything from this year's meeting in terms of care pathways implementation and what you think might happen next in that regard? Dr. Larry Shulman: NCCN, in my own opinion, has really led the way in defining what guideline concordant care is through their guidelines, which are very extensive, covering basically every cancer and every situation with every cancer. And it's really an astounding amount of amazing work that all of us use and the payers largely use as well. But they've increasingly understood that there's a gap between their guidelines and the implementation of their guidelines. And they are working on some things. They are working on the digitalization of their guidelines to make them more accessible, but also thinking about ways that they may, in fact, fit into the work processes that all of us have when we go to clinic. They’re acutely aware that the country is not where it needs to be in regard to a translation, if you will, of their guidelines in the practice. And I think we're all thinking really hard about whether there are things that we can team up to do, if you will, to try to close those gaps. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just switching gears a little bit back to you, if I can, Rebecca. I think you've said a little bit about this already. What do you think are the next steps that we need to take to more effectively implement these tools in the clinic? I think we've discussed a little bit some of the roadblocks...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/36187885
info_outline
Personalizing Lung Cancer Management With ctDNA: Where We Are and Where We Are Headed
04/03/2025
Personalizing Lung Cancer Management With ctDNA: Where We Are and Where We Are Headed
Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Charu Aggarwal discuss the evolution of ctDNA as a critical tool in precision oncology and its implications for lung cancer management, including its potential role in the early-stage setting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello. I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. The management of small cell lung cancer has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, and today, molecular testing and biomarker testing for lung cancer are absolutely critical in terms of designing treatment options for our patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Charu Aggarwal for a discussion on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) and the role of ctDNA in lung cancer management. Dr. Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Professor of Lung Cancer Excellence and section chief of thoracic and head and neck oncology at University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of that episode. Dr. Agrawal, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you for having me. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's start off with setting the stage for ctDNA technology. These technologies have rapidly evolved from experimental conceptual stage to essential clinical tools for day-to-day clinical practice. Could you briefly discuss how recent advancements in ctDNA technologies are shaping our approach to precision medicine, especially in lung cancer? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Absolutely. And you know, I think we need to just level set a little bit. What exactly is circulating tumor DNA? This is a way to assess exactly that. Every tumor sheds little pieces of tumor-derived DNA into the bloodstream, and this occurs in a variety of solid tumors. But now we have the technology to be able to derive this DNA that’s actually being shed from the tumor into the bloodstream, these minute fragments of DNA, take them out, amplify them and sequence them with a variety of different mechanisms. They can be DNA sequencing alone, they can be DNA and RNA sequencing, they can be whole transcriptome sequencing. The technology, as you rightly pointed out, Dr. Velcheti, has significantly improved from just being able to look at circulating tumor DNA to now being able to amplify it, sequence it, and use it to offer personalized therapy. I think lung cancer is definitely the poster child for such an approach as we have a lot of data that has shown clinical utility and validity of being able to use circulating tumor DNA next-generation gene sequencing to guide therapy. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: There have been so many technological leaps. It's really impressive how far we've come to advance these sequencing platforms. Recent advances with AI and machine learning are also playing important roles in interpreting ctDNA data. How are these computational advances really enhancing clinical decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think while we have firmly established the role of ctDNA in the management of patients with metastatic lung cancer, some of the approaches that you talked about are still experimental. So let me backtrack a little bit and set the stage for how we use ctDNA in clinical practice right now. I think most patients, when they come in with a new diagnosis of stage IV lung cancer, we want to test for biomarkers. And this should actually be the established standard. Now included in the NCCN guidelines and actually also international guidelines, is to consider using blood-based testing or plasma-based testing to look for biomarkers, not just tissue-based testing which had been our historical standard, but to use these plasma guided approaches to identify the seven to nine biomarkers that may be truly implicated in either first- or second-line therapy that are called as your immediately actionable mutations. What you're talking about is AI computational methods. I think there's a lot of excitement about how we can use genomic signatures that are derived from either tissue or ctDNA-based biomarker testing, combine it with radiomic features, combine it with histologic features, look at H & E patterns, use AI algorithmic learning to be able to actually predict recurrence scores, or can we actually come up with predictive signatures that may be extremely helpful? So, I think some of the techniques and technologies that you're talking about are incoming. They are provocative. I think they're very exciting, but very early. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's really amazing how many advances we have with these platforms. You know, the challenge really is the significant gap in terms of uptake of molecular testing. Even today, in 2025, there are significant gaps in terms of all metastatic lung cancer patients being tested for all biomarkers. So, why do you think there's such a challenge in testing patients with lung cancer? In most academic practices, we try to achieve 100% testing for all our patients, but we know from recent studies that that's not the case across the country. What do you think the gaps are? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Biomarker testing is so essential, like you pointed out, for us to be able to guide the right therapy for our patients. And we see this in our practice every day as you and I see patients with lung cancer, that a large proportion of our patients either don't get tested or they start therapy before their test results come back. So, I think this is a real problem. However, to add some optimism to this problem, I do think that we are making a move in the right direction. So, four or five years ago, there was a lot of data being presented at national meetings, including ones from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where we saw that, nationally, the rates of biomarker testing were probably in the rate of 40 to 50%. However, now with the availability of both tissue and plasma, I do think that the rates of biomarker testing are increasing. And if you were to survey a sample or even perform retrospective data research, I believe that the number is closer to 70% of all patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And you know, you asked why is it not 100%? I think there are many reasons. I think the number one reason is tissue availability. Many times, the biopsies are small, or the tumor is very necrotic. So, either the tissue quantity itself is small, or the tissue quantity is insufficient to perform gene sequencing. And that's exactly where plasma comes in. When you don't have tissue availability, we have shown, as have others, that you can use plasma effectively to increase the proportion of patients who are not only tested but also receive the right therapy. I think there are also other barriers, including inertia. You know, I think this is both patient and physician inertia, where patients want to get started quickly, they don't want to wait. Physicians are very busy and sometimes want to be able to deliver treatment as soon as possible. We have seen there are some institutional barriers. Not every institution has in-house gene sequencing testing. So how do you really operationalize, send out these tests in a fast, efficient manner so that you get results back? Is it a pathologist who sends out the test? Is it the medical oncologist? Is it the pulmonologist or the interventionalist? I think there is this need to develop reflex testing mechanisms which some institutions do really well and some don't. And then finally, there are financial implications as well. How do we do this in a most cost-efficient fashion? So there are many barriers, but I'm happy to say that we are making a move in the right direction as we are understanding that it's important to do it, it’s easy to do it maybe with a value add of plasma, and finally, as you said, you know, as these technologies become more available, they're actually getting more cost-effective. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Dr. Aggarwal, you've been at the cutting edge of these advanced platforms and testing. So, what do you do in UPenn? How do you handle all these barriers and what is your workflow for patients in University of Pennsylvania? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: One of the things that I mentioned to you was there may be institutional barriers when it comes to gene sequencing. So, we actually, several years ago now, instituted a very robust reflex testing paradigm where almost all of our patients, regardless of stage, with a non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis, would automatically be reflexively sent to our molecular pathology lab where they would get gene sequencing both for the DNA as well as with an RNA fusion-based platform. And the reason we did this was because we wanted to expedite and reduce the turnaround time. We also wanted to ensure that we were not just doing DNA testing, which I think is really important for our listeners here. There are many fusions as well as certain skipping mutations like MET exon 14 that may be missed on DNA testing alone. So, it's really incredibly important to run both DNA and RNA samples. So, we do this routinely, and based on our research and others, what we also do routinely is that we send concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies or plasma MGS testing upon initial diagnosis. For example, if a patient comes in with a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, their tissue might already be at my molecular pathology lab based on the reflex mechanism that I just described to you. But upon their initial meeting with me, we will send off plasma. And I will tell you this, that Penn is not just one institution, right? We have a large network of sites. And as part of my research, one of the things that we wanted to do was implement wide scale means to improve biomarker testing. And we have done this with the use of technology like you mentioned, Dr. Velcheti: How can we actually use AI? How can we leverage our electronic medical record to identify these patients? So, we have a nudge-based mechanism which actually facilitates the pending of orders for biomarker testing for patients with new diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And we are looking at our rates of biomarker testing but also rates of completion of biomarker testing before first-line therapy started. So many of our participating sites are clusters for our to increase molecular testing. And I'm really excited about the fact that we're able to implement it not just at our main satellite, downtown Penn Hospital, but also across our community. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think that's great. Thank you so much for those insights, Dr. Aggarwal. I think it's so important because having the best technology is just not enough. I think implementation science is actually a real thing. And I think we need to all learn from each other, advance these things. So, I want to ask you about the new emerging paradigm in terms of using ctDNA. Of course, in the metastatic setting, we've been using ctDNA for molecular profiling for a while now. But the recent data around monitoring early-stage disease, especially post-operative monitoring, is an exciting area. There are a lot of opportunities there. Could you please talk us through the emerging data in lung cancer and how do we incorporate ctDNA-based monitoring MRD or should we even do that right now? Is the data ripe enough for us to kind of deploy this in a clinical setting? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think using ctDNA in the early-stage setting is our next frontier in lung cancer. I think naturally we have been able to successfully deploy this in the stage 4 setting. It made a meaningful difference in the lives of our patients, and we are a little bit behind the A ball in terms of how MRD is used in lung cancer. Because, you know, colorectal cancer has already done large-randomized trials based on ctDNA and MRD. It's routinely used in hematological malignancy. So, it makes sense that we should start to use it. However, when I say this, I say this with excitement, but also a little bit of gentle caution saying that we actually don't quite have the prospective randomized data just yet on how to deploy. Yes, intuitively we would say that if you detect ctDNA and MRD, that patient is at higher risk. So, we identify that, but we actually don't know what to do with the second part of that information once you identify a patient with high risk. Are there other techniques that we can then come in with or other drugs that we can come in with to modify that risk? And that's the thing that I think we don't have right now. The other thing that we don't have right now is the timing of the assay, when to use it. Is it to be tested in the pre-op setting? Is the post-op test the best timing, or is it monitoring and dynamics of ctDNA that are most important? And the third thing I will say in terms of precautionary cause is that we don't know which test just yet. There are actually a few commercially available tests out in the market right now. We know about them and I'm sure our community colleagues know about them. Some of them even have Medicare approval. However, many of these tests are currently tissue informed. We don't have tissue uninformed tests. And what does that mean? Tissue uninformed means that you actually take a piece of tumor tissue, you sequence that tumor and based on the gene profile of that tumor, you actually design a panel that can then be used to track the mutations in the blood-based pack. This requires, as the name implies, a tumor. So can this be used in the pre-op setting is a large question. Because coming back to the idea of tissue availability, you and I both know that when we get FNAS and we use it for PDL-1 testing and we use it for gene sequencing, there often isn't enough tissue left for us to then either do whole genome sequencing or even whole transcriptome sequencing, which may be required to build some of these assays. I think the future lies in this idea of tumor uninformed assays because if we could go to a blood only or a plasma only approach using novel signatures like proteomics or methylation, I think that's where the future is. But we're still a little bit early in the discovery stages of those, as well as to come are the validation stages so that we can be confident that these blood-only assays may actually give us an answer. So, with those three cautionary notes, I would say that optimism is still very high. I think ctDNA MRD is the right place to think about. We need to do this for our patients to better identify high-risk patients and to think about means to escalate treatment for them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, and I think with all the changes and evolution of treatments in the management of early-stage lung cancer now with neoadjuvant and adjuvant, there's really a need for an escalation and de-escalation of therapies post-operatively. And I think it's a huge opportunity. I think we all could learn from our colorectal colleagues. I think they've done a really good job at actually doing prospective trials in this setting. I think we're kind of a little behind here. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think in the metastatic setting there are ongoing trials to look at this exact question. How do you choose an appropriate first-line therapy, a monitor ctDNA at the six-week trial? It's being evaluated in a trial called the “Shedders” trial, where if patients are still ctDNA positive at six weeks, then you can escalate treatment because they haven't “cleared” their ctDNA. There has been a lot of research that has shown that lack of ctDNA clearance in the metastatic setting may be a poor prognostic factor. We and others have shown that if you do clear your ctDNA or if you have a reduction in ctDNA load overall, that that is directly related to both an improved progression-free survival and overall survival. This has been shown with both tissue informed and uninformed assays. So I think it's very clear that yes, you can track it. I think the question is: Can you apply that data to the early-stage setting? And that's an open research question. A lot of groups are looking at that and I think it's completely reasonable, especially to determine duration of therapy, to determine optimal timing, optimal timing of scans even. And I think these are just such interesting questions that will be answered in the future. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also like a kind of early detection of resistance patterns that might inform early initiation of combination strategies. And I think it's a lot of opportunities I think yet to be explored. A lot of exciting things to come and I'm sure we'll kind of see more and more data in the next few years. Dr. Aggarwal, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Hope to see you at ASCO. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you so much. This was great and I remain so excited by all of the possibilities to improve outcomes for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you to all the listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today’s speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: ) Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti: Honoraria: Glavanize Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GSK, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Novocure, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Picture Health, Regeneron Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Arcus Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Novocure, Abbvie Speakers’ Bureau: AstraZeneca (an immediate family member) Research Funding (Inst): Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Lilly@Loxo, Candel Therapeutics
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/35934905
info_outline
The Evolving Role of Precision Surgery in Gynecologic Cancers
03/13/2025
The Evolving Role of Precision Surgery in Gynecologic Cancers
Dr. Ebony Hoskins and Dr. Andreas Obermair discuss the surgical management of gynecologic cancers, including the role of minimally invasive surgery, approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, I'm Dr. Ebony Hoskins. I'm a gynecologic oncologist at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, and your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Today we'll be discussing the surgical management of gynecologic cancer, including the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking, timing, and its impact on outcomes. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Andreas Obermair for today's discussion. Dr. Obermair is an internationally renowned gynecologic oncologist, a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Queensland, and the head of the Queensland Center for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Obermair, it's great speaking with you today. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you so much for inviting me to this podcast. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: I am very excited. I looked at your paper and I thought, gosh, is everything surgical? This is everything that I deal with daily in terms of cancer in counseling patients. What prompted this review regarding GYN cancer management? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Yes, our was published in the ASCO Educational Book; it is volume 44 in 2024. And this article covers some key aspects of targeted precision surgical management principles in endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer. While surgery is considered the cornerstone of gynecologic cancer treatment, sometimes research doesn't necessarily reflect that. And so I think ASCO asked us to; so it was not just me, there was a team of colleagues from different parts of the United States and Australia to reflect on surgical aspects of gynecologic cancer care and I feel super passionate about that because I do believe that surgery has a lot to offer. Surgical interventions need to be defined and overall, I see the research that I'm doing as part of my daily job to go towards precision surgery. And I think that is, well, that is something that I'm increasingly passionate for. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I think we should get into it. One thing that comes to mind is the innovation of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I always reflect on when I started my fellowship, I guess it's been about 15 years ago, all of our endometrial cancer patients had a midline vertical incision, increased risk of abscess, infections and a long hospital stay. Do you mind commenting on how you see management of endometrial cancer today? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you very much for giving the historical perspective because the generation of gynecologic oncologists today, they may not even know what we dealt with, what problems we had to solve. So like you, when I was a fellow in gynecologic oncology, we did midline or lower crosswise incisions, the length of stay was, five days, seven days, but we had patients in hospital because of complications for 28 days. We took them back to the operating theaters because those are patients with a BMI of 40 plus, 45, 50 and so forth. So we really needed to solve problems. And then I was exposed to a mentor who taught minimal invasive surgery. And in Australia he was one of the first ones who embarked on that. And I can remember, I was mesmerized by this operation, like not only how logical this procedure was, but also we did rounds afterwards. And I saw these women after surgery and I saw them sitting upright, lipstick on, having had a full meal at the end of the day. And I thought, wow, this is the most rewarding experience that I have to round these patients after surgery. And so I was thinking, how could I help to establish this operation as standard? Like a standard that other people would accept this is better. And so I thought we needed to do a trial on this. And then it took a long time. It took a long time to get the support for the [ - Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium] trial. And in this context, I just also wanted to remind us all that there were concerns about minimal invasive surgery in endometrial cancer at the time. So for example, one of the concerns was when I submitted my grant funding applications, people said, “Well, even if we fund you, wouldn't be able to do this trial because there are actually no surgeons who actually do minimally invasive surgery.” And at the time, for example, in Australia, there were maybe five people, a handful of people who were able to do this operation, right? This was about 20 years ago. The other concern people had was they were saying, could minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer, could that cause port side metastasis because there were case reports. So there were a lot of things that we didn't know anyway. We did this trial and I'm super happy we did this trial. We started in 2005, and it took five years to enroll. At the same time, was ramping up and the LACE trial and GOG LAP2 then got published and provided the foundations for minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I'm super happy that we have randomized data about that because now when we go back and now when people have concerns about this, should we do minimally invasive surgery in P53 mutant tumors, I'm saying, well, we actually have data on that. We could go back, we could actually do more research on that if we wanted to, but our treatment recommendations are standing on solid feet. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, my patients are thankful. I see patients all the time and they have high risk and morbidly obese, lots of medical issues and actually I send them home most the same day. And I think, you know, I’m very appreciative of that research, because we obviously practice evidence-based and it’s certainly a game changer. Let’s go along the lines of MIS and cervical cancer. And this is going back to the [Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer] trial. I remember, again, one of these early adopters of use of robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for radical hysterectomy and thought it was so cool. You know, we can see all the anatomy well and then have the data to show that we actually had a decreased survival. And I even see that most recent updated data just showing it still continued. Can you talk a little bit about why you think there is a difference? I know there's ongoing trials, but still interested in kind of why do you think there's a survival difference? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So Ebony, I hope you don't mind me going back a step. So the LACC study was developed from the LACE trial. So we thought we wanted to reproduce the LACE data/LAP2 data. We wanted to reproduce that in cervix cancer. And people were saying, why do you do that? Like, why would that be different in any way? We recognize that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is not a standard. We're not going to enroll patients in a randomized trial where we open and do a laparotomy on half the patients. So I think the lesson that really needs to be learned here is that any surgical intervention that we do, we should put on good evidence footing because otherwise we're really running the risk of jeopardizing patients' outcomes. So, that was number one and LACC started two years after LACE started. So LACC started in 2007, and I just wanted to acknowledge the LACC principal investigator, Dr. Pedro Ramirez, who at the time worked at MD Anderson. And we incidentally realized that we had a common interest. The findings came totally unexpected and came as an utter shock to both of us. We did not expect this. We expected to see very similar disease-free and overall survival data as we saw in the endometrial cancer cohort. Now LACC was not designed to check why there was a difference in disease-free survival. So this is very important to understand. We did not expect it. Like, so there was no point checking why that is the case. My personal idea, and I think it is fair enough if we share personal ideas, and this is not even a hypothesis I want to say, this is just a personal idea is that in endometrial cancer, we're dealing with a tumor where most of the time the cancer is surrounded by a myometrial shell. And most of the time the cancer would not get into outside contact with the peritoneal cavity. Whereas in cervix cancer, this is very different because in cervix cancer, we need to manipulate the cervix and the tumor is right at the outside there. So I personally don't use a uterine manipulator. I believe in the United States, uterine manipulators are used all the time. My experience is not in this area, so I can't comment on that. But I would think that the manipulation of the cervix and the contact of the cervix to the free peritoneal cavity could be one of the reasons. But again, this is simply a personal opinion. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I appreciate it. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Ebony at the end of the day, right, medicine is empirical science, and empirical science means that we just make observations, we make observations, we measure them, and we pass them on. And we made an observation. And, and while we're saying that, and yes, you're absolutely right, the final [] reports were published in JCO recently. And I'm very grateful to the JCO editorial team that they accepted the paper, and they communicated the results because this is obviously very important. At the same time, I would like to say that there are now three or four RCTs that challenge the LACC data. These RCTs are ongoing, and a lot of people will be looking forward to having these results available. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. In early-stage cervical cancer, the trial looked at simple versus radical hysterectomy in low-risk cervical cancer patients. And as well all know, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the pelvic recurrence rate and any complications related to surgery such as urinary incontinence and retention. My question for you is have you changed your practice in early-stage cervical cancer, say a patient with stage 1B1 adenocarcinoma with a positive margin on conization, would you still offer this patient a radical hysterectomy or would you consider a simple hysterectomy? Dr. Andreas Obermair: I think this is a very important topic, right? Because I think the challenge of SHAPE is to understand the inclusion criteria. That's the main challenge. And most people simplify it to 2 cm, which is one of the inclusion criteria but there are two others and that includes the depth of invasion. Dr. Marie Plante has been very clear. Marie Plante is the first author of the SHAPE trial that's been published in the New England Journal of Medicine only recently and Marie has been very clear upfront that we need to consider all three inclusion criteria and only then the inclusion criteria of SHAPE apply. So at the end of the day, I think what the SHAPE trial is telling us that small tumors that would strictly fulfill the criteria of a 1B or 1B1 cancer of the cervix can be considered for a standard type 1 or PIVA type 1 or whatever classification we're trying to use will be eligible. And that makes a lot of sense. I personally not only look at the size, I also look at the location of the tumor. I would be very keen that I avoid going through tumor tissue because for example, if you have a tumor that is, you know, located very much in one corner of the cervix and then you do a standard hysterectomy and then you have a positive tumor margin that would be obviously, most people would agree it would be an unwanted outcome. So I'd be very keen checking the location, the size of the tumor, the depths of invasion and maybe then if the tumor for example is on one side of the cervix you can do a standard approach on the contralateral side but maybe do a little bit more of a margin, a parametrial margin on the other side. Or if a tumor is maybe on the posterior cervical lip, then you don't need to worry so much about the anterior cervical margin, maybe take the rectum down and maybe try to get a little bit of a vaginal margin and the margin on the uterus saccals. Just really to make sure that you do have margins because typically if we get it right, survival outcomes of clinical stage 1 early cervix cancer 1B1 1B 2 are actually really good. It is a very important thing that we get the treatment right. In my practice, I use a software to record my treatment outcomes and my margins. And I would encourage all colleagues to be cognizant and to be responsible and accountable to introduce accountable clinical practice, to check on the margins and check on the number on the percentage of patients who require postoperative radiation treatment or chemo radiation. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. I have so many questions for you. I don't know the statistics in Australia, but here, there's increased rising of endometrial cancer and certainly we're seeing it in younger women. And fertility always comes up in terms of kind of what to do. And I look at the guidelines and, see if I can help some of the women if they have early-stage endometrial cancer. Your thoughts on what your practice is on use of someone who may meet criteria, if you will. The criteria I use is grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. No myometria invasion. I try to get MRI'd and make sure that there's no disease outside the endometrium. And then if they make criteria, I typically would do an IUD. Can you tell me what your practice is and where you've had success? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So, we initiated the clinical trial that was published in 2021 and it was presented in a Plenary at one of the SGO meetings. I think it was in 2021, and we've shown complete pathological response rates after levonorgestrel intrauterine device treatment. And so in brief, we enrolled patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia, but also patients with grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia had, in our series, had an 85 % chance of developing a complete pathological response. And that was defined as the complete absence of any atypia or cancer. So endometrial hyperplasia with atypia responded in about 85%. In endometrial cancer, it was about half, it was about 45, 50%. In my clinical practice, like as you, I see patients, you know, five days a week. So I'm looking after many patients who are now five years down from conservative treatment of endometrial cancer. There are a lot of young women who want to get pregnant, and we had babies, and we celebrate the babies obviously because as gynecologist obstetricians it couldn't get better than that, right, if our cancer patients have babies afterwards. But we're also treating women who are really unfit for surgery and who are frail and where a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be unsafe. So this phase is concluded, and I think that was very successful. At least we're looking to validate our data. So we're having collaborations, we're having collaborations in the United States and outside the United States to validate these data. And the next phase is obviously to identify predictive factors, to identify predictors of response. Because as you can imagine, there is no point treating patients with a levonorgestrel intrauterine joint device where we know in advance that she's not going to respond. So this is a very, very fascinating story and we got our first set of data already, but now we just really need to validate this data. And then once the validation is done, my unit is keen to do a prospective validation trial. And that also needs to involve international collaborators. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. Moving on to ovarian cancer, we see patients with ovarian cancer with, say, at least stage 3C or higher who started neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Now, some of these patients are hearing different things from their medical oncologist versus their gynecologic oncologist regarding the number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after getting diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I know that this can be confusing for our patients coming from a medical oncologist versus a gynecologic oncologist. What do you say to a patient who is asking about the ideal number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So this is obviously a very, very important topic to talk about. We won't be able to provide a simple off the shelf answer for that, but I think data are emerging. The ASCO guidelines should also be worthwhile considering because there are actually new [on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer] that just came out a few weeks ago and they would suggest that we should be aiming for R0 in surgery. If we can maybe take that as the pivot point and then go back and say, okay, so what do need to do to get the patient to zero? I'm not an ovarian cancer researcher; I'm obviously a practicing gynecologic oncologist. I think about things a lot and things like that. In my practice, I would want a patient to develop a response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So, if a patient doesn't have a response after two or three cycles, then I don't see the point for me to offer her an operation. In my circle with the medical oncologists that I work with, I have a very, very good understanding. So, they send the patient to me, I take them to the theater. I take a good chunk of tissue from the peritoneum. We have a histopathologic diagnosis, we have a genomic diagnosis, they go home the same day. So obviously there is no hospital stay involved with that. They can start the chemotherapy after a few days. There is no hold up because the chances of surgical complication in a setting like this is very, very low. So I use laparoscopy to determine whether the patient responds or not. And for many of my patients, it seems to work. It's obviously a bit of an effort and it takes operating time. But I think I'm increasing my chances to make the right decision. So, coming back to your question about whether we should give three or six cycles, I think the current recommendations are three cycles pending the patient’s response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy because my aim is to get a patient to R0 or at least minimal residual disease. Surgery is really, in this case, I think surgery is the adjunct to systemic treatment. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Definitely. I think you make a great point, and I think the guideline just came out, like you mentioned, regarding neoadjuvant. And I think the biggest thing that we need to come across is the involvement of a gynecologic oncologist in patients with ovarian cancer. And we know that that survival increases with that involvement. And I think the involvement is the surgery, right? So, maybe we've gotten away from the primary tumor debulking and now using more neoadjuvant, but surgery is still needed. And so, I definitely want to have a take home that GYN oncology is involved in the care of these patients upfront. Dr. Andreas Obermair: I totally support that. This is a very important statement. So when I'm saying surgery is the adjunct to medical treatment, I don't mean that surgery is not important. Surgery is very important. And the timing is important. And that means that the surgeons and the med oncs need to be pulling on the same string. The med oncs just want to get the cytotoxic into the patients, but that's not the point, right? We want to get the cytotoxic into the patients at the right time because if we are working under this precision surgery, precision treatment mantra, it's not only important what we do, but also doing it at the right time. And ideally, I I would like to give surgery after three...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/35654300
info_outline
Emerging Therapies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
03/06/2025
Emerging Therapies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. James Foran discuss the evolving treatment landscape in acute myeloid leukemia, including new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy, and the current role for allogeneic transplantation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. There has been steady progress in the therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in recent years, largely based on an increasing understanding of the molecular mechanisms which underlie the disease. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the evolving treatment landscape in AML. We'll explore risk group stratification, new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy for AML, and also a little about the current role for allogenic transplantation in this disease. I'm delighted to welcome Dr. James Foran to this discussion. Dr. Foran is a professor of medicine and chair of the Myeloid Malignancies and Blood and Marrow Transplant Disease Group at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center. He's based in Jacksonville, Florida. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. James, it's great to have you join us on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. James Foran: I'm delighted and thank you for the invitation. Thank you very much. Dr. John Sweetenham: Sure, James, let's get right into it. So, our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying AML has resulted not only in new methods for risk stratification in this disease, which have added refinement to cytogenetics, but also has resulted in the development of many new targeted agents. Understanding that this is a complex area of investigation, and our time is somewhat limited, can you give us a high-level update on the current state of the art in terms of how risk factors are being used for treatment selection now? Dr. James Foran: Absolutely. I think in the past, you know, we had things broken down pretty simply into make a diagnosis based on morphology, do cytogenetics, break patients into the groups of those who were more likely to benefit from therapy – so-called favorable risk – those where the intensive therapies were less likely to work – so-called poor adverse risk, and then this large intermediate group that really had variable outcomes, some better, some worse. And for a long time, the progress was in just identifying new subtle cytogenetic risk groups. And then, late 1990s, we began to understand that FLT3 mutations or NRAS mutations may be more adverse than others that came along. In the first part of this millennium, in the, you know, 2000-2010 range, a lot of work was being done to understand better or worse risk factors with single genes. The ability to do multiplex PCR, and then more recently NGS platforms, have allowed us to really look at many genes and identify many mutations in patients. At the beginning that was used just to sort of refine – who did a little better, who did a little worse with intensive therapy – helped us decide who may benefit more from an allogeneic transplanter for whom that would not be necessary. But the good news is that really, we're now starting to target those mutations. One of the first molecularly targeted treatments in leukemia was FLT3 mutations, where we knew they were adverse. Then along came targeted treatments. I was involved in some of those early studies looking at sunitinib, sorafenib, more recently midostaurin, now quizartinib, FDA approved, and gilteritinib in the relapse refractory setting. So we're moving into a state where we're not just refining prognosis, we're identifying targets. You know, it's been slow progress, but definite incremental progress in terms of outcomes by looking for FLT3 mutations, then looking for IDH mutations, and more recently, mutations involving NPM1 or rearrangement of what we used to call the MLL gene, now the lysine methyltransferase 2A or KMT2A rearrangement, where we now have targets. And it's not just for refinement of prognosis, but now we're identifying therapeutic targets for patients and ways to even look for measurable residual disease which is impacting our care. Dr. John Sweetenham: That's great, James. And I'm going to expand on that theme just a little bit and perhaps ask you to elaborate a little bit more on how the introduction of these new therapies have specifically impacted frontline therapy. And a couple of ancillary questions maybe to go along with that: First of all, is ‘7+3’ a standard therapy for anybody in 2025? And maybe secondly, you know, could you comment also maybe briefly on older patients with AML and how you think maybe the treatment landscape is changing for them compared with, say, 5 or 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: I'll start with the therapy and then work my way back. So we've had ‘7+3’ cytarabine daunorubicin or cytarabine anthracycline since 1976, and we're still using it as the backbone of our intensive therapy. There is still an important role for it, particularly in younger or fitter patients, and particularly for those with intermediate or favorable risk genetic groups or cytogenetic risk groups just because we achieve high rates of remission. Our 30-day induction mortality rates are lower now than they were 10 and 20 years ago. Our supportive care is better. And we still have a busy inpatient hospital service here at Mayo Florida and my colleagues in Rochester and Arizona as well giving intensive therapy. So that remains the backbone of curative therapy for younger adults. We are trying to be a little more discriminating about who we administer that to. We are trying to add targeted agents. We know from, now, two different randomized trials that the addition of a FLT3 inhibitor, either midostaurin or more recently quizartinib, has a survival advantage in patients with a FLT3 mutation, or for quizartinib, a FLT3/ITD mutation. And so yes, ‘7+3’ remains important. Off protocol for somebody who just comes in with acute leukemia in a 40-year-old or 30-year-old or even early 60s and fit, we would still be considering ‘7+3’ therapy and then waiting for an expedited gene mutation panel and an expedited cytogenetics panel to come back to help us discriminate is that a patient for whom we should be giving a FLT3 inhibitor? I think there's a little more nuance about when we do a day 14 bone marrow, do they really matter as much anymore? I still do them. Some of my colleagues find them less important. But we're still giving intensive therapy. We're still giving high-dose ARA-C consolidation for younger patients who achieve complete remission. In older adults, it's a different story. You know, it was only in the early part of the 2000s – 2004, 2007 range – where we really got buy-in from randomized studies that low-dose therapy was better than no therapy. There was a lot of nihilism before then about therapy for older adults, especially over age 75. We know that low-dose ARA-C is better than nothing. It looked like azacitidine was better than ARA-C or at least equivalent or slightly better. But with the advent of venetoclax it was a game changer. I ran a national randomized study of intensive therapy in AML. It was the last national randomized study of intensive therapy in older patients right before venetoclax got approved. And we were very excited about our results, and we thought we had some really interesting clinical results. And suddenly that's a little bit obsolete in patients over 70 and particularly over age 75 because of the high remission rates with azacytidine venetoclax or hypomethylating agents, so-called HMAs and venetoclax and the survival advantage. Now, it's not a home run for everybody. We quote 60% to 70% remission rates, but it's a little different based on your cytogenetics and your mutation profile. You have to continue on therapy so it's continuous treatment. It's not with curative intent, although there are some people with long-term remission in it. And the median survival went from 10 months to 15 months. So home run? No, but definitely improved remissions, meaningful for patients off transfusions and better survival. So right now it's hard to find an older adult who you wouldn't give azacitidine and venetoclax or something similar, decitabine, for instance, and venetoclax, unless somebody really was moribund or had very poor performance status or some reason not to. And so ‘7+3’ is still relevant in younger adults. We're trying to get better results with ‘7+3’ by adding targeted agents and azacitine and venetoclax in older adults. I think the area of controversy, I guess there are two of them, is what to do in that overlap age between 60 and 75. Should people in that age still get intensive therapy, which we've used for years – the trial of aza-venetoclax was age 75 plus – or with cardiac comorbidities? And I think if you're 68 or 72, many of us are starting to bias towards aza-venetoclax as generally being better tolerated, generally being more outpatient, generally being slow and steady way to get a remission. And it doesn't stop you from going to transplant for somebody who might still be a candidate. The other area of controversy is somebody under 60 who has adverse cytogenetics where we don't do very well with ‘7+3,’ we still give it and we might do just as well with decitabine venetoclax. A lot of us feel that there's equipoise in the 60 to 75 group where we really can ask a question of a randomized study. Retrospective studies might suggest that intensive therapy is a little better, but there are now a couple of randomized studies happening saying, “Can we replace ‘7+3’ in that intermediate age with aza-venetoclax?” And for younger adults similarly, we're looking to see how we apply that technology. Those are the areas where we're really trying to investigate what's optimal for patients and that's going to require randomized trials. Dr. John Sweetenham: Oh, that's great, thank you. And I'll just extend that question a little bit more, particularly with respect to the new targeted therapies. How much are they impacting the treatment of these patients in the relapse and refractory setting now? Dr. James Foran: Oh, they're definitely impacting it. When I trained and probably when you trained, AML was still a medical emergency. But that was the thing that you admitted to the hospital immediately, you started therapy immediately. The rule was always that's the one thing that brings the fellow and the consultant in at night to see that new patient on a Friday or Saturday. Now, we'll still admit a patient for monitoring, but we try not to start therapy for the first three or five or seven days if they're stable, until we get those genetics and those genomics back, because it helps us discriminate what therapy to pursue. And certainly, with FLT3 mutations, especially FLT3/ITD mutations, we're adding FLT3 inhibitors and we're seeing a survival advantage. Now, on the surface, that survival advantage is in the range of 7% or 10%. But if you then pursue an allogeneic transplant in first remission, you're taking disease where we used to see 30%, 40% long-term survival, maybe less, and you're pushing that to 60%, 70% in some studies. And so we're now taking a disease that– I don't want to get off topic and talk about Ph+ ALL. But that's a disease where we're actually a little excited. We have a target now, and it used to be something really adverse and now we can do a lot for it and a lot about it. The other mutations, it's a little more subtle. Now, who knew until 2010 that a mutation in a sugar metabolism gene, in isocitrate dehydrogenase, or IDH was going to be so important, or even that it existed. We know that IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are still a minority of AML, certainly less than 10% to 15%, maybe overall. But we're able to target those with specific IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors. We get single-agent responses. There are now two approved IDH1 inhibitors on the market. We don't yet have the randomized data that adding those to intensive therapy is better, but we're getting a very strong hint that it might be better in older adults who have an IDH mutation, maybe adding those is helpful and maybe adding those to low-intensity therapy is helpful. Those studies are ongoing, and we're also trying with low-intensity treatments to add these agents and get higher remission rates, deeper remissions, longer remissions. I think a lot of work has to be done to delineate the safety of that and the long-term efficacy. But we're getting hints it's better, so I think it is impacting. The other area it's impacting is when you pick up adverse mutations and those have crept into our classification systems like an ASXL1 mutation or RUNX1 mutation for instance, or some of the secondary AML mutations like BCOR and others, where that's helping us discriminate intermediate-risk patients who we think aren't going to do as well and really helping us select a group who's more likely to get benefit from allogeneic transplant or for whom at least our cure rates without allo transplant are low. And so I think it's impacting a lot. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. And I'm going to pick up now, if I may, on a couple of things that you've just mentioned and continue the theme of the relapsed and refractory setting. We've started to see some reports which have looked at the role of immune strategies for patients with AML, in particular CAR T or NK cells. Can you comment a little on this and let us know whether you think either these two strategies or other immune strategies are likely to have a significant role in AML in the future? Dr. James Foran: They are, but I think we're still a step behind finding the right target or the right way to do it. If you think of allogeneic transplantation as the definitive immune therapy, and we know for adverse AML we can improve survival rates and cure rates with an allotransplant, then we know inherently that immune therapy matters. And so how do we do what they've done in large cell lymphoma or in CD19 targeting for B cell malignancies? How do we bring that to acute myeloid leukemia? There have been a number of efforts. There have been at least 50 trials looking at different targets. CD33, CD123, CD7, others, CLL-1. So, there have been a number of different trials looking at how to bind a CAR T or a CAR T construct that can be active. And we have hints of efficacy. There was kind of a provocative in the New England Journal of Medicine a year ago in April of last year from a Chinese group that looked at a CD7-based CAR T and it was 10 patients, but they used CD7 positive acute leukemia, AML or ALL and had a CD7-targeted CAR T and they actually incorporated that with a haploidentical transplant and they had really high remission rates. People tolerated it quite well. It was provocative. It hasn't yet been reproduced on a larger scale, but the strong hints that the strategy is going to work. Now, CD33 is a little tricky to have a CAR T when CD33 is expressed on normal hematopoietic cells. CD123 likewise. That's been something where there's, I think, still promise, but we've struggled to find the trials that make that work. Right now, there's a lot of interest in leveraging NK cells and looking, for a couple of reasons, but NK cells are attractive and NK cell markers might be attractive targets. NK cells might have similar degrees of immune efficacy. It's speculative, but they are likely to have less cytokine release syndrome and less neurotoxicity than you see with CAR T. And so it's kind of attractive to leverage that. We have had some ongoing trials looking at it with bispecifics and there certainly are trials looking at it with CAR NK-based strategies. One of the antigens that people looked at is the NK group 2D. NK group 2D or NKG2D is overexpressed in AML and its ligands overexpressed. And so that's a particular potential target. So, John, it's happening and we're looking for the hints of efficacy that could then drive a pivotal trial to get something approved. One of the other areas is not restricting yourself just to a single antigen. For instance, there is a compound that's looking at a multi-tumor-associated antigen-specific T-cell therapy, looking at multiple antigens in AML that could be overexpressed. And there were some hints of activity and efficacy and actually a new trial looking at a so-called multi-tumor associated antigen-specific T cell therapy. So without getting into specific conflicts of interest or trials, I do think that's an exciting area and an evolving area, but still an investigational area. I'll stop there and say that we're excited about it. A lot of work's going there, but I'm not quite sure which direction the field's going to pivot to there. I think that's going to take us some time to sort out. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. But as you say, exciting area and I guess continue to watch this space for now. So you've mentioned allogeneic stem cell transplants two or three times during this discussion. Recognizing that we don't have an imatinib for AML, which has kind of pushed transplant a long way further back in the treatment algorithm, can you comment a little on, you know, whether you think the role of stem cell transplantation is changing in AML or whether it remains pretty much as it was maybe 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: By the way, I love that you use imatinib as an introduction because that was 6 TKIs ago, and it tells you the evolution in CML and you know, now we're looking at myristoyl pocket as a target, and so on. That's a great way to sort of show you the evolution of the field. Allogeneic transplant, it remains a core treatment for AML, and I think we're getting much smarter and much better about learning how to use it. And I'm just going to introduce the topic of measurable residual disease to tell you about that. So I am a little bit of a believer. Part of my job is I support our allogeneic transplant program, although my focus is acute myeloid leukemia, and I've trained in transplant and done it for years and did a transplant fellowship and all that. I'm much more interested in finding people who don't need a transplant than people who do. So I'm sort of looking for where can we move away from it. But it still has a core role. I'll sidestep and tell you there was an MDS trial that looked at intermediate or high-risk MDS and the role of allogeneic transplant that shows that you about double your survival. It was a BMT CTN trial published several years ago that showed you about double your three-year survival if you can find a donor within three months and get to a transplant within six months. And so it just tells you the value of allotransplant and myeloid malignancy in general. In AML we continue to use it for adverse risk disease – TP53 is its own category, I can talk about that separately – but adverse risk AML otherwise, or for patients who don't achieve a really good remission. And I still teach our fellows that an allotransplant decreases your risk of relapse by about 50%. That's still true, but you have to have a group of patients who are at high enough risk of relapse to merit the non-relapse mortality and the chronic graft versus host disease that comes with it. Now, our outcomes with transplant are better because we're better at preventing graft versus host disease with the newer strategies such as post-transplant cyclophosphamide. There are now new FDA-approved drugs for acute and chronic graft versus host disease, ruxolitinib, belumosudil, axatilimab now. So we have better ways of treating it, but we still want to be discriminating about who should get it. And it's not just a single-minded one-size-fits-all. We learned from the study that was published in the JCO last year that if you have FLIT3-positive AML,...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/35473165
info_outline
Practice-Informing Research Across GU Oncology: Highlights From GU25
02/27/2025
Practice-Informing Research Across GU Oncology: Highlights From GU25
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Peter Hoskin discuss key abstracts in GU cancers from the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, including novel therapies in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer and the impact of combination therapies on patient outcomes. TRANSCSRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-informing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Peter Hoskin, the chair of this year's ASCO GU Symposium. Dr. Hoskin is a professor in clinical oncology in the University of Manchester and honorary consultant in clinical oncology at the Christie Hospital, Manchester, and University College Hospital London, in the United Kingdom. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Peter, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I am very pleased to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The GU meeting highlighted remarkable advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. What stood out to you as the most exciting developments at the ASCO GU Symposium? Dr. Peter Hoskin: The theme of this year's meeting was "Driving Innovation, Improving Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the years. We were thrilled to welcome almost 6,000 attendees on this occasion from over 70 countries, and most of them were attending in person and not online, although this was a hybrid meeting. Furthermore, we had more than 1,000 abstract submissions. You can imagine then that it fostered fantastic networking opportunities and facilitated valuable knowledge and idea exchanges among experts, trainees, and mentees. So, to start I’d like to come back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. And congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the data from the trial, which we were eagerly awaiting. I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial, Abstract LBA18? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Peter, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So, let’s talk about the trial. First of all, I would like to remind our audience that the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was approved by the U.S. FDA in June 2023 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR gene alterations, after this combination improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival compared to enzalutamide alone in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-cohort phase 3 trial. In the abstract I presented at ASCO GU 2025, we reported the final overall survival data, which was a key alpha-protected secondary endpoint in cohort 1, which enrolled an all-comer population of patients with mCRPC. So, at a median follow-up of around 53 months, in the intention-to-treat population, the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of death by 20% compared to enzalutamide alone, with a median OS of 45.8 months in the experimental arm versus 37 months in the control arm, which was an active control arm of enzalutamide. This improvement was consistent in patients with HRR alterations with a hazard ratio of 0.54 and in those with non-deficient or unknown HRR status, with a hazard ratio of 0.87. In a post hoc analysis, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.78 favoring the combination in those patients who did not have any HRR gene alteration in their tumors by both tissue and ctDNA testing. Consistent with the primary analysis, the updated rPFS data also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 33.1 compared to 19.5 months in the control arm, and a hazard ratio of 0.667. No new safety signals were identified with extended follow-up. Thus, is the first PARP inhibitor plus ARPI study to show a statistically significant and a clinically meaningful improvement in OS compared to standard-of-care enzalutamide as first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC unselected for HRR gene alterations. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj. That’s a great summary of the data presented and very important data indeed. There was another abstract also featured in the same session, Abstract 20, titled “Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit more from androgen receptor pathway inhibitors? meta-analyses of individual participant data.” Neeraj, could you tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely, I would be delighted to. So, in this meta-analysis, Dr. David Fischer and colleagues pooled individual participant data from different randomized phase 3 trials in the mHSPC setting to assess the potential ARPI effect modifiers and determine who benefits more from an ARPI plus ADT doublet. The primary outcome was OS for main effects and PFS for subgroup analyses. Prostate cancer specific survival was a sensitivity outcome. The investigators pooled data from 11 ARPI trials and more than 11,000 patients. Overall, there was a clear benefit of adding an ARPI on both OS and PFS, with hazard ratios of 0.66 and 0.51, respectively, representing a 13% and 21% absolute improvement at 5 years, respectively, with no clear difference by the class of agent. When stratifying the patients by age group, the effects of adding an ARPI on OS and PFS were slightly smaller in patients older than 75, than in those younger than 65, or aged between 65 and 75 years. Notably, in the trials assessing the use of abiraterone, we saw very little OS effects in the group of patients older than 75, however there was some benefit maintained in prostate-cancer specific survival, suggesting that other causes of death may be having an impact. The effects of the other ARPIs, or ‘lutamides’ as I would call them, were similar across all three age subgroups on both OS and PFS. Therefore, the majority of patients with mHSPC benefit from the addition of ARPIs, and the benefits/risks of abiraterone and other ‘amides’ must be considered in older patients. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thanks, Neeraj. Another great summary relevant to our day-to-day practice. Of course, there’s ongoing collection of individual patient data from other key trials, which will allow robust comparison of ARPI doublet with triplet therapy (including docetaxel), guiding more personalized treatment. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Peter, we need more data to help guide personalized treatment for patients with mHSPC and potentially guide de-escalation versus escalation strategies. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, would you like to mention Abstract 17 titled, “Overall survival and quality of life with Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone in poor-risk, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer in ,” presented by Dr. Louise Emmett? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Of course I will. So, was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial conducted in Australia. It randomized 163 patients into adaptive doses (2 or 4 cycles) of Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment in PSMA-PET-CT-positive, poor-risk, mCRPC. The interim analysis of ENZA-p with median follow-up 20 months showed improved PSA-progression-free survival with the addition of Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide. Here, the investigators reported the secondary outcomes, overall survival, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). After a median follow up of 34 months, overall survival was longer in the combination arm compared to the enzalutamide arm, with a median OS of 34 months compared to 26 months; with an HR of 0.55. Moreover, the combination improved both deterioration-free survival and health-related quality of life indicators for pain, fatigue, physical function, and overall health and quality of life compared to the control arm. Consistent with the primary analysis, the rPFS also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 17 months compared to 14 months with a HR of 0.61. So, the addition of LuPSMA improved overall survival, and HRQOL in patients with high-risk mCRPC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. Great summary, and promising results with Lu-177 and ARPI combination in first line treatment for mCRPC among patients who had two or more high risk features associated with early enzalutamide failure. Before we move on to bladder cancer, would you like to tell us about Abstract 15 titled, “World-wide oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC) meta-analysis leveraging individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials (): An analysis from the X-MET collaboration,” presented by Dr. Chad Tang? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. So, with metastatic-directed therapy (MDT), we have a number of phase 2 studies making up the database, and the X-MET collaboration aimed to consolidate all randomized data on oligometastatic solid tumors. This presented pooled individual patient data from all the published trials involving patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer who received MDT alongside standard of care (SOC) against SOC alone. The analysis included data from five trials, encompassing 472 patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer, and followed for a median of 41 months. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MDT plus SOC or SOC alone. The addition of MDT significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 32 months with MDT compared to 14.9 months with SOC alone, with an HR of 0.45. Subgroup analyses further confirmed the consistent benefits of MDT across different patient groups. Regardless of factors like castration status, receipt of prior primary treatment, stage, or number of metastases, MDT consistently improved PFS. In patients with mHSPC, MDT significantly delayed the time to castration resistance by nine months, extending it to a median of 72 months compared to 63 months in the SOC group with an HR of 0.58. In terms of OS, the addition of MDT improved the 48-month survival rate by 12%, with OS rates of 87% in the MDT+SOC group compared to 75% in the SOC alone group. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. These data demonstrate that adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improves PFS, rPFS, and castration resistance-free survival, reinforcing its potential role in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. So, let’s switch gears to bladder cancer and start with Abstract 658 reporting the OS analysis of the trial. Would you like to tell us about this abstract? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, sure, Neeraj. This was presented by Dr. Matt Milowsky, and it was additional efficacy outcomes, including overall survival, from the trial which evaluated adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer after radical surgery. The phase 3 trial previously demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival with nivolumab. With a median follow-up of 36.1 months, disease-free survival was longer with nivolumab compared to placebo across all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, reducing the risk of disease recurrence or death by 37%. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced this risk by 42%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 31%. Overall survival also favored nivolumab over placebo, reducing the risk of death by 30% in all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and by 52% in those with tumors expressing PD-L1 at 1% or higher. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced the risk of death by 26%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 33%. Alongside this, the safety profile remained consistent with previous findings. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These results reinforce adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care for high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer, offering the potential for a curative outcome for our patients. Dr. Peter Hoskin: I agree with you Neeraj. Perhaps you would like to mention Abstract 659 titled, “Additional efficacy and safety outcomes and an exploratory analysis of the impact of pathological complete response (pCR) on long-term outcomes from .” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. Dr. Galsky presented additional outcomes from the phase 3 study, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The study previously demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival and overall survival with durvalumab compared to chemotherapy alone, with a manageable safety profile and no negative impact on the ability to undergo radical cystectomy. Among the 1,063 randomized patients, those who received durvalumab had a 33% reduction in the risk of developing distant metastases or death and a 31% reduction in the risk of dying from bladder cancer compared to those who received chemotherapy alone. More patients who received durvalumab achieved a pathological complete response at the time of surgery with 37% compared to 28% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Patients who achieved a pathological complete response had better event-free survival and overall survival compared to those who did not. In both groups, durvalumab provided additional survival benefits, reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 42% and the risk of death by 28% in patients with a pathological complete response, while in those patients without a pathological complete response, the risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 23% and the risk of death by 16% when durvalumab was added to the chemotherapy. Immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 21% of patients in the durvalumab group compared to 3% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 3% compared to 0.2%. The most common immune-related adverse events included hypothyroidism in 10% of patients treated with durvalumab compared to 1% in the chemotherapy-alone group, and hyperthyroidism in 3% versus 0.8%. At the time of the data cutoff, these adverse events had resolved in 41% of affected patients in the durvalumab group and 44% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj, for the great summary. These findings further support the role of perioperative durvalumab as a potential standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur with your thoughts, Peter. Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to mention Abstract 664 reporting updated results from the trial, which evaluated enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, of course. Dr. Tom Powles presented updated findings from the study, and in this abstract presented 12 months of additional follow-up for EV-302 (>2 y of median follow-up) and an exploratory analysis of patients with confirmed complete response (cCR). The study had a median follow-up of 29.1 months and previously demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. This is now the standard of care in global treatment guidelines. Among the 886 randomized patients, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 52% and the risk of death by 49% compared to chemotherapy. The survival benefit was consistent regardless of cisplatin eligibility or the presence of liver metastases. The confirmed objective response rate was higher with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab at 67.5% compared to 44.2% with chemotherapy. The median duration of response was 23.3 months with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 7.0 months with chemotherapy. A complete response was achieved in 30.4% of patients in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 14.5% in the chemotherapy group, with the median duration of complete response not yet reached in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 15.2 months in the chemotherapy group. Severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.3% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 69.5% in the chemotherapy group, while in patients who achieved a complete response, severe adverse events occurred in 61.7% of those treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 71.9% with chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 1.1% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 0.9% with chemotherapy, with no treatment-related deaths occurring in those who achieved a complete response. These findings clearly confirm the durable efficacy of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, reinforcing its role as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and no new safety concerns have been identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for this great summary. Moving on to kidney cancer, let’s talk about Abstract 439 titled, “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (S) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Final follow-up results from the trial.” Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. Dr. Motzer presented the final results from the phase 3 trial, which compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab against sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. The data after more than five years follow-up show that the combination therapy provided sustained superior efficacy compared to sunitinib. In terms of overall survival, we see an 11-month improvement in median OS, 46.5 months for the cabo-nivo versus 35.5 months for sunitinib and a 42% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, with median progression-free survival nearly doubling – that’s 16.4 months in the combination group and 8.3 months with sunitinib. Importantly, the safety profile was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual medicines, with no new safety concerns identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Great summary, Peter. These data further support the efficacy of cabo-nivo combination therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma, which is showing a 11-month difference in overall survival. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Neeraj, before wrapping up this podcast, would you like to tell us about Abstract 618? This is titled “Prospective (Cologne trial of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in metastatic seminoma) trial: Final results.” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Peter. I would be delighted to. Dr Heidenrich from the University of Cologne in Germany presented the data evaluating retroperitoneal LN dissection in patients with clinical stage 2A/B seminomas. Seminomas are classified as 2A or B when the disease spreads to the retroperitoneal lymph nodes of up to 2 cm (CS IIA) or of more than 2 cm to up to 5 cm (CS 2B) in maximum diameter, respectively. They account for 10-15% of seminomas and they are usually treated with radiation and chemotherapy. However, radiation and chemo can be associated with long-term toxicities such as cardiovascular toxicities, diabetes, solid cancers, leukemia, particularly for younger patients. From this standpoint, Dr Heidenrich and...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/35425910
info_outline
Therapeutic Advances Across GI Cancers: Highlights From GI25
02/06/2025
Therapeutic Advances Across GI Cancers: Highlights From GI25
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. David Wang discuss key abstracts in GI cancers from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including major advances in CRC, neoadjuvant approaches in esophageal cancer, and innovative studies on ctDNA. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Today, we're bringing you some key highlights from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, and I'm delighted to be joined by the chair of GI25, Dr. David Wang. Dr. Wang is a GI medical oncologist at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Wang, thanks for coming on the podcast today. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: GI25 featured major therapeutic advances across the spectrum of GI malignancies, and it was exciting to hear about innovations and novel approaches that are shaping the future of our field. Before we start talking about specific abstracts, could you share some of your key highlights from the meeting? Dr. David Wang: Sure. Our theme this year was “Breaking Boundaries to Enhance Patient Centered Care.” Past years’ themes have focused more on precision oncology, but we wanted to broaden our focus on patients and to be more holistic, which kind of led us into some of the Intersection [sessions] that we had. Each day started with a different Intersection. The first one was “”, where invited speakers talked about bispecific antibody drug conjugates, theranostics, CAR T and other cell-based therapies. The second day was on “,” and this included looking at polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer, microRNAs and liquid biopsies such as exosomes and pancreatic cancer and non-endoscopic screening modalities in esophageal cancer. And on our final day, we wanted to talk about “,” looking at evidence-based uses of acupuncture and supplements in patients who are receiving treatment for cancer, mindfulness-based practices and exercise. And of course, we had a fantastic keynote talk by Dr. Pamela Kunz from the Yale School of Medicine titled, “.” She highlighted the intersection of science, patient care, and health and gender equity. And I would encourage your podcast listeners to access the lecture in ASCO's Meeting Library if they haven't yet had a chance to hear Dr. Kunz’s wonderful lecture. We were really happy this year because the attendance hit a new record. We had over 5,000 people attend either in person or virtually from their home or office, and we had almost 1,000 abstracts submitted to the meeting, so these were either record or near record numbers. We offered a lot of different networking opportunities throughout the meeting, and attending found these to be incredibly rewarding and important and this will continue to be an area of emphasis in future meetings. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Let's take a deeper dive into the exciting studies presented at GI25. The late breaking abstract LBA143 was . This was the first results of NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. What are your thoughts about this study? Dr. David Wang: Yeah, so we know that colorectal cancer patients with MSI-high tumors don't necessarily respond well to chemotherapy. And we were fortunate because last year actually looked at two different arms – so this was NIVO + IPI compared to standard of care chemotherapy and showed its very significant improvement in median progression-free survival. And that was actually published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in November of 2024. This year's presentation actually focused now on NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy. And as you know IPI+NIVO can be quite toxic. So this was an important analysis to be done. So we know that NIVO is definitely more easily tolerated. So what was interesting was that the 2-year and 3-year progression-free survival not surprisingly favored IPI+NIVO and this was statistically significant. And the overall response rate was also better with IPI+NIVO versus NIVO alone. I know we're always concerned about toxicities and there were higher grade 3 and 4 toxicity incidences in the combination arm versus the monotherapy arm, but overall, only about 28 additional events in several hundred patients treated. So I think that's well-tolerated. Our discussant Dr. Wells Messersmith actually said that, with this new data, he would consider doing combination immunotherapy in any patient that presented in the front line with MSI-high or deficient mismatch repair colorectal cancer that was metastatic. Dr. Shaalan Beg: One of the focuses for directing first-line therapy for colorectal cancer has been right and left sided colon cancer because we know these are two different cancers with their own unique molecular subtypes. We heard on Abstract 17, the trial, the final analysis of modified FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS wild-type and left sided metastatic colorectal cancer. How do you summarize the findings of this study and what should our readers be aware of? Dr. David Wang: Interestingly, this was a phase 2 and the emphasis of the abstract was actually a subgroup analysis of those patients with RAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type as well as left sided cancers. So, I think the entire study enrolled 359 patients, but the analysis that was discussed at the meeting really focused on 178 patients that fit that characteristic. Very similar to what we've seen in prior studies, left-sided tumors have better response to cetuximab versus bevacizumab. And if you flip it so that you now are looking at right sided tumors, targeting EGFR is actually detrimental. The depth of response was better with cetuximab in these left sided RAS and BRAF mutant tumors. And so the lead author actually suggested that this could be a new first-line standard of care. And the question is, is there a benefit of doing this triple agent regimen with modified FOLFIRINOX? We know there's a lot more toxicity with that. Not clear that there's a benefit for that over FOLFOX, maybe in younger patients that could tolerate it. When our discussant, again Dr. Wells Messersmith, spoke about this, he said that, in his practice he would, again, favor cetuximab over bevacizumab in combination with chemo, these left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors, but that he would actually prefer a doublet versus a triplet chemo regimen, and that is consistent with the current NCCN guidelines. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Another area where colorectal cancer has been a wonderful model to study new technology has been in the area of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). And the trial is looking to see if ctDNA can inform adjuvant treatment decisions for stage II and III colorectal cancer. And in Abstract 15, we heard final results of the sub-cohort. What were the findings there? Dr. David Wang: is another one of these important ctDNA studies. It was an observational study, not a randomized trial, but it did provide a lot of different insights to us. We know that there were over 1,700 patients enrolled, and so it was reported that this is the largest ctDNA study in colorectal cancer performed in the United States. And they were able to analyze over 1,100 patients. Some of the key findings were that postoperative adjuvant therapy management decisions actually changed in 1 out of 6 patients, so that's pretty significant. In terms of surveillance, we know that patients who have ctDNA positivity, this is prognostic of recurrence. In terms of patients who have positive ctDNA post-surgery, it looked like, at least in this observational study, the majority of patients who received any benefit were those who had positive ctDNA. So adjuvant therapy, even in stage II and stage III patients seemed to only benefit those patients who have positive ctDNA. I think that does raise the question, and this also was brought up in the discussion, which is “Can we de-escalate adjuvant therapy in terms of patients who are ctDNA-negative post-op?” And Dr. Richard Kim from Moffitt felt that we are not yet there. Obviously, we need randomized control trials where we are taking ctDNA results and then randomizing patients to receive adjuvant or non-adjuvant to really know the difference. Other questions that come up with use of ctDNA include: What do you do with these patients who turn positive? This study for actually followed patients out to two years after surgery. So what you do with a positive ctDNA result wasn't really clear. It seems to suggest that once you turn positive, patients go on to more intensive surveillance. You know, again as an observation, patients who did turn positive were able to go to metastasis-directed therapy much more quickly. And again, this was supposedly to improve their curative intent therapy. And I think the other question that has been brought up all the time is, is this really cost effective? Patients want to know, and we want to give patients that information, but I think we're still stuck with what to do with a positive ctDNA level in a patient that's on surveillance because no randomized control studies have actually suggested that we need to start systemic therapy right away. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah. And I guess in terms of practice informing or practice changing, these results may not give us a clear answer. But because a lot of patients are asking for these tests, it does give us some real world experiences on what to expect in terms of conversion of these positive into negative and the outcome so we can have a shared decision making with our patients in the clinic and then come up with a determination on whether ctDNA for molecular residual disease is something which would be worthwhile for the care of our patient. But more to come, I guess, in coming years to answer different problems around this challenge. Dr. David Wang: Yes, I agree. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The trial looked at the use of encorafenib, cetuximab and chemotherapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. We've covered this combination for a second- third-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer previously. Abstract 16 from GI25 was evaluating the use of this regimen in the first-line space. Everyone was looking forward to these results, and what did the investigators present? Dr. David Wang: I think this is, as you mentioned, a nice follow up to later lines of therapy where Dr. Kopetz from MD Anderson pioneered use of encorafenib, cetuximab and binimetinib in the trial. Everybody was kind of curious what would happen now if you use encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting. And so this is an interim analysis that was pre-planned in the phase 3 open label trial. And even though there were three arms, and so the three arms were encorafenib plus cetuximab, encorafenib plus cetuximab plus FOLFOX, or standard of care chemo, only two arms were presented in the abstract. So basically looking at encorafenib plus cetuximab and FOLFOX-6 versus standard of care therapy, and the overall response rate was statistically significant with a 60.9% overall response rate encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemo arm versus standard of care chemo was only 40%. The interim overall survival also was different. It was 92% versus 87% at 6 months and 79% versus 66% at 12 months, again favoring the chemotherapy plus encorafenib plus cetuximab. In terms of the statistics, the p was 0.0004. However, the pre-plan analysis required the p-value to be 1x10 to the -8. And so even though this looks really good, it hasn't quite met its pre-specified significance level. The good thing is that this is only interim analysis and the study is ongoing with future analysis planned. So the real question is: Does it matter when we actually use this regimen? We know that the regimen's approved in the second third-line setting. What about in the first line? And there was some preclinical data that the discussant reviewed that shows that patients actually benefit if this is done in the first-line setting. For example, there was some preclinical data showing that even FOLFIRI, for example, can upregulate RAS, which would make tumors more resistant to this combination. This was thought to be practice-changing in a patient that has B600E showing up treatment naive that we should probably consider this regimen. And actually this did receive accelerated FDA approval about a month ago. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and for what it's worth, I put up a Twitter poll asking my Twitter followers on how the trial results will change their approach for newly diagnosed BRAF mutated colorectal cancer. We got 112 responses; 72% said that they will incorporate encorafenib, cetuximab, FOLFOX for their frontline BRAF mutated patients. But 23% said that they would like to wait for overall survival results. Dr. David Wang: Wow, that's interesting. They really want that 1x10 to the -8. Dr. Shaalan Beg: I guess so. All right. Let's change gears and talk about esophageal cancer. LBA329 was the study which presented preliminary results from a randomized phase 3 trial comparing sintilimab and chemoradiotherapy plus sintilimab versus chemoradiotherapy for neoadjuvant resectable locally advanced squamous esophageal cancer. Where are we in this space? Dr. David Wang: Okay. So, yeah, this was an interesting trial. Again, just to set the context, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is more prevalent in Asia. And the sites as well as the patients were mostly from Asia. So this was again a phase 3 trial with interim results. They only rolled 146 out of the planned 420 for this interim analysis. And yeah, they're using immune checkpoint inhibitor that we don't use in the United States, sintilimab, combined with their two standards of neoadjuvant therapy, either chemotherapy, which is more common in Asia, or or chemoradiation, which is more common in the US and Western Europe, versus chemoradiation. And so they actually had two primary endpoints, but only were reporting one. So their two primary endpoints were pathCR and the other one was event-free survival. The event-free survival, again, was not reported at the meeting. What they found was that in terms of pathCR rate, if you take the two arms that are really informative about that, chemoradiation plus sintilimab versus chemoradiation alone, the pathCR rate was 60% versus 47%. We know that chemo alone doesn't induce as much of a pathCR rate, and that was 13%. So it was found that the delta in terms of pathCR between the chemoradiation arms, one with sintilimab and one without, was significant. And this actually confirms data again from Asia, like for the trial where it used another immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in addition to neoadjuvant chemo. So as our discussant for this abstract said, yes, we know that radiation combined with chemotherapy improves pathCR rates, but we have recent data from the trial, we don't know that that necessarily will translate to overall survival. So again, waiting for additional enrollments and longer term follow up before incorporating this into clinical care here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So David, how do the results of the trial compare with our practice in the United States and ongoing studies asking questions for neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal carcinoma in the United States? Dr. David Wang: I think obviously immune checkpoint inhibitor in the new adjuvant setting is important. Jennifer Eads at UPenn is running that which is looking at chemoradiation plus or minus nivolumab, and then in non-pathCR responders randomized to adjuvant nivolumab per or nivolumab with intensification adding ipilimumab. We know that the trial just came out, and was published actually during the meeting, and that really focuses on adenocarcinomas. So adenocarcinomas of the GE junction, distal esophagus, now, we would probably treat very similarly to gastric using perioperative FLOT. However, the standard in the US for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma remains neoadjuvant chemoradiation. We know that squamous cell carcinomas are more exquisitely sensitive to radiotherapy. And then obviously in those patients who don't achieve a pathologic complete response, the expectation would be that they would go on to receive nivolumab per . Again, the thought is that these tumors are more sensitive to immunotherapy given their higher incidences of mutational changes. And so again, this kind of goes along with the positive results seen in the trial that we just discussed with sintilimab but also with pembrolizumab. Obviously, we await the results of Jennifer's trial. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And the last abstract I was hoping we could get your perspective on was Abstract 652, which is a Phase 3 study of everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus monotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the trial. What were the results of this study? Dr. David Wang: So, I just want to give a shout out because we did have a session at this year's GI ASCO that looked at more rare tumors. So appendiceal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, those kinds of things. So again, I would encourage your listeners to listen to that session if they have interest in that. Another type of rare tumor was adenosquamous tumors. But in terms of the trial, this was again an interim analysis of his phase 3trial and it was looking at combining everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus. So we know that in pancreatic-gastric neuroendocrine tumors, if you have low Ki-67, a well differentiated tumor, that the standard of care really is a somatostatin analog, and sometimes if they're more aggressive, we kind of consider molecular targeted therapy with everolimus. This was asking the question of whether we should do the combination on the frontline. And what was interesting is in this study, the patients were actually more of a poor prognostic set. So they had Ki-67 up to 20% or these were patients that actually had multiple liver lesions. And what they found was a median for progression free survival was improved with a combination out to 29.7 months versus 11.5 months with the somatostatin analog alone, and that the overall response rate was 23% versus 8.3%, again, favoring the combination. If you looked at subgroup analysis, it was actually those patients who had Ki-67 greater than 10%, so the more aggressive tumors, or those with diffuse liver lesions that had the most benefit. So I think that would be the patient population I would consider this new combination with using would be those patients again with poorer prognosis neuroendocrine tumor phenotype. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you very much, Dr. Wang, for sharing your insights with us today and your great work to build a robust GI Cancers Symposium this year. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. I mean that really is a cooperative effort. We appreciate all the members of the GI25 Program Committee as well as the ASCO staff that just made it an outstanding meeting. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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...
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/35165355
info_outline
Advances in Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer With Germline Mutations
01/30/2025
Advances in Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer With Germline Mutations
Dr. Jasmine Sukumar and Dr. Dionisia Quiroga discuss advances in adjuvant therapy for patients with early breast cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations, including how to identify patients who should receive genetic testing and the significant survival benefits of olaparib that emerged from the OlympiA trial. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Hello, I'm Dr. Jasmine Sukumar, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm an assistant professor and breast medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. On today's episode, we'll be exploring advances in adjuvant therapy for high-risk early breast cancer in people with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Dionisa Quiroga, an assistant professor and breast medical oncologist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Quiroga, it's great to have you on the podcast. Thanks for being here. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you. Looking forward to discussing this important topic. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Let's start by going over who should be tested for BRCA1/2 genetic mutations. How do you identify patients with breast cancer in your clinic who should be offered BRCA1/2 genetic testing? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: So, guidelines on who to offer testing to somewhat differ between organizations at this point. I would say, generally, I do follow our current , though. Those guidelines recommend that BRCA1/2 mutation testing be offered to all patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer and are 65 years old or younger. For those that are older than 65 years old, there are additional factors to really take into account to decide on who to recommend testing for. Some of this has to do with personal and family history as well as ancestry. The NCCN also has their own specific guidelines for who to offer testing to. For example, people assigned male at birth; those who are found to have a second breast primary; those who are diagnosed at a young age; and those with significant family history should also be offered BRCA1/2 testing. I think, very important for our discussion today, ASCO and SSO also made a very important point that all patients who may be eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered testing. So clearly this includes a large amount of our patient population. In my practice, we often refer to our Cancer Genetics Program. We're fortunate to have many experienced genetic counselors who can complete pre-test and post-test counseling with our patients. However, in settings where this may not be accessible to patients, it can also be appropriate for oncology providers to order the testing and ideally perform some of this counseling as well. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Thank you Dr. Quiroga. Let's next review where we are in current clinical practice guidelines. What current options do we have for adjuvant therapy specific to people with high-risk early breast cancer and BRCA1/2 genetic mutations? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Our current guidelines recommend adjuvant olaparib for one year for individuals with HER2-negative high risk breast cancer. This approval largely came from the data and the results of the trial. This was a prospective phase 3, double blind, randomized clinical trial. It enrolled patients who had been diagnosed with HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer who also carried germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants of either the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes. The disease also had to be considered high-risk and there were several criteria that had to be evaluated to deem whether or not these patients were high-risk. For example, those who are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, if they had disease that was triple-negative, they needed to have some level of invasive residual disease at time of surgery. Alternatively, if the disease was hormone receptor-positive, they needed to have residual disease and a calculated CPS + EG score of 3 or higher. This scoring system is something that estimates relapse probability on the basis of clinical and pathologic stage, ER status, and histologic grade, and this will give you a score ranging from 0 to 6. In general, the higher the score, the worse the prognosis. This though is available to the public online to allow providers to calculate this risk. For the subset of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, for them to qualify for the trial, if they had triple-negative disease, they needed to have a tumor of at least 2 cm or greater and/or have positive lymph nodes for disease. For hormone receptor-positive disease that was treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, they were required to have four or more pathologically confirmed positive lymph nodes at time of surgery. From this specified pool, patients were then randomized 1:1 to get either adjuvant olaparib starting at 300 mg twice a day or a matching placebo twice a day after they had completed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment if needed. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And what were the outcomes of this study? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: The study ended up enrolling over 1,800 patients and from these 1,800 patients, 70% had a BRCA1 mutation while 30% had a BRCA2 mutation. About 80% of the patients had triple-negative disease compared to hormone receptor-positive disease. Interestingly, about half of all patients enrolled had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy while the other half received adjuvant chemotherapy. Looking at the outcomes, this was overall a very positive study. We actually now have outcomes data from a median of about 6 years out. This was just reported in December at the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. There was found to be a 9.4% absolute difference in six-year invasive disease-free survival favoring the olaparib arm over the placebo arm. What was also interesting is that this was consistent across multiple subgroups of patients and the benefit was really seen whether or not they had hormone receptor-positive or triple-negative disease. The absolute difference in distant disease-free survival was also high at 7.8% and additionally favored olaparib. Most importantly, there was found to be a significant overall survival benefit. The six-year overall survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group compared to 83.2% in the placebo group. This translates to about a 4.4% difference and a relative 28% overall survival benefit in using olaparib. Now, future follow up is going to be very important. Follow up for this study is actually planned to continue out until June 2029 so we can continue to observe if these survival curves will continue to branch apart as they have so far at each follow up. And I think this is especially important for those patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive cancers because we know those patients are at particular risk for later recurrences. As an additional side note, the researchers also noted that there were fewer primary malignancies in the olaparib group, not just of the breast but also primary ovarian or fallopian tube cancers as well, which is not completely surprising knowing that this drug is also heavily used and beneficial in different types of gynecologic cancers. Ultimately, the amount of adverse events reported have been low with only about 9.9% of patients receiving olaparib needing to discontinue drug due to adverse events, and this is compared to 4.2% reported in the placebo group. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: You mentioned that the trial showed an overall survival benefit, but interestingly the trial looking at olaparib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Could you discuss those differences? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: I agree, that's a very good point. So comparator arm was, of course, a placebo. So while this isn't the same as comparing to chemotherapy, it does still potentially suggest that there is a degree of benefit that olaparib can provide when it's introduced in the early local disease setting compared to advanced metastatic disease. I think we need more future trials looking at potential other combinations to see if we can improve the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in the metastatic setting. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: For patients who do choose to proceed with use of adjuvant olaparib due to the promising efficacy, what side effects should oncologists counsel their patients about? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: The most common notable side effects, I would say with olaparib and other PARP inhibitors are really cytopenias. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting can occur as well as fatigue. There are some less common but potentially more serious side effects that we should counsel our patients on. This includes pneumonitis. So counseling patients on if they're short of breath or experiencing cough to let their provider know. Venous thromboembolism can also be increased rates of occurrence. And then of course myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia is something that we often are concerned about. That being said, I think it should be noted that interestingly in the trial so far, there have been less new cases of MDS and AML in the olaparib group than actually what's been reported in the placebo group at this median follow up of over six years out. So we'll need to continue to monitor this endpoint over time, but I do think this provides some reassurance. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Since the initiation of the trial, other adjuvant treatments have also been studied and FDA approved for non-metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. So for example, the trial established adjuvant capecitabine as an FDA approved treatment option in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who had residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So if a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease is eligible for both adjuvant olaparib and adjuvant capecitabine treatments, how do you decide amongst the two? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: If a patient's eligible for both, I honestly often favor olaparib, and I do this because I find the data for adjuvant olaparib a little bit more compelling. There are also differences in toxicity profile and treatment duration between the two that I think we should discuss with patients. For example, olaparib is supposed to be taken for a year total, whereas with capecitabine we typically treat for six to eight cycles with each cycle taking three weeks. There are some who may also sequence the two drugs in very high-risk disease. However, this is very much a data free zone. We don't have any current clinical trials really comparing these two or if sequencing of these agents is appropriate. So I don't currently do this in my own clinical practice. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Nowadays, almost all patients with stage 2 to 3 triple-negative breast cancer will be offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy pembrolizumab per our trial data. With our current approach, pembrolizumab is continued into the adjuvant setting regardless of surgical outcome, so that patients receive a year total of immunotherapy. So in patients with residual disease and a BRCA germline mutation, do you suggest using adjuvant olaparib concurrently with pembrolizumab? Do we have any data to support that approach? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: I do. I do use them concurrently. If a patient is eligible for adjuvant olaparib, I would use it the same way as if they were not on pembrolizumab. That being said, there are no large studies currently that have shown what the benefit or the toxicity of pembrolizumab plus olaparib are for early-stage disease. However, we do have some safety data of this combinatorial approach from other studies. For example, the phase 2/3 study showed that patients with advanced metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who were receiving concurrent pembrolizumab and olaparib had a manageable safety profile, particularly as the toxicities of these drugs alone don't tend to overlap. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And what about endocrine therapy for those that also have hormone receptor-positive disease? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Adjuvant endocrine therapy should definitely be continued while patients are on olaparib if they're hormone receptor-positive. An important component of this will also likely be ovarian suppression, which should include recommendation of risk reducing bilateral salpingo oophorectomy due to the risk of ovarian cancer development in patients who carry BRCA1/2 gene mutations. In most cases, this should happen at age 40 or before for those that carry a BRCA1 mutation, and at age 45 or prior for those with BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And do you also consider adjuvant bisphosphonates in this context? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Yes. Like adjuvant endocrine therapy, adjuvant bisphosphonates were also instructed to be given according to standard guidelines in the trial, so I would recommend use of bisphosphonates when indicated. You can refer to the to guide that decision in order to utilize this due to multiple clinical benefits. It doesn't just help in terms of adjuvant breast cancer treatment but also reduction of fracture rate and down the line, improved breast cancer mortality. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Particularly in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, another adjuvant therapy option that was not available when the trial started are the CDK4/6 inhibitors, ribociclib and abemaciclib, based on the and studies. So how do you consider the use of these adjuvant therapy drugs in the context of olaparib and BRCA mutations? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Yeah, so we are definitely in a data-free zone here. And that's in part because the and the studies are still ongoing and reporting data out at the same time that we're getting updated data. So unlike some of our other adjuvant treatments that we discussed, where olaparib could be safely given concurrently, the risk of myelosuppression and using both a CDK4/6 inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor at the same time would be too high. In some cases, even if a patient has a BRCA1/2 mutation, they may not meet that specified inclusion criteria that set for what they consider to be high-risk disease. And we know from the and the trial there are also different markers that they use to denote high-risk disease. So it's possible, for example, in the NATALEE trial that looks specifically at adjuvant ribociclib, they included a much larger pool of hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancers, including a subset that did not have positive axillary lymph nodes. In cases where patients would qualify for both olaparib and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, I think this is worth a nuanced discussion with our patients about the potential benefits, risks and administration of these drugs. I think another point to bring up is the cost associated with these drugs and the length of time patients will be on for, because financial toxicity is always something that we should bring up with patients as well. When sequencing these in high-risk disease, my practice is to generally favor olaparib first due to the overall survival data. There is also some data to support that patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations may not respond quite as well to CDK4/6 inhibitors compared to those without. But again, this is still outside of the purview of current guidelines. Fortunately, we have more potential choices for patients, and that's a good thing, but shared decision making also needs to be key. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And while our focus today is on adjuvant treatment for people who carry germline BRCA mutations, what about other related gene mutations such as PALB2 pathogenic variant? Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: That's a great question. Clinical trials in the advanced metastatic setting have shown that there is efficacy of olaparib in the setting for PALB2 mutations. This is largely based on the phase 2 trial and that provided a Category 2B NCCN recommendation for patients with these PALB2 gene mutations. However, we're really still lacking enough clinical data for use in early-stage disease, so I don't currently use adjuvant olaparib in this case. I am definitely eager for more data in this area as the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in PALB2 gene mutations is very compelling. I think also, in the same line, there's been some data for somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in the metastatic setting, but we still have a lack of data for the early stage setting here as well. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Thank you Dr. Quiroga, for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: Thank you, Dr. Sukumar. Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today’s speakers: @ Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Dionisia Quiroga: No relationships to disclose Dr. Jasmine Sukumar: Honoraria: Sanofi (Immediate Family Member)
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/34999245
info_outline
How to Advance Cancer Care for Native Americans
01/09/2025
How to Advance Cancer Care for Native Americans
Native American oncologist Dr. Amanda Bruegl and Dr. Noelle LoConte discuss culturally tailored interventions and the importance of community engagement to advance cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for Native communities. TRANSCRIPT ASCO Daily News: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. On today's episode, we'll be discussing cancer care for Native American communities who face unique challenges and disparities in accessing and receiving cancer care. I'm delighted to be joined by two oncologists who will be sharing their insights on ways to advance cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment through culturally tailored interventions and community-based programs for high-risk Native Americans whose issues are chronically overlooked in the healthcare system, according to experts. Dr. Amanda Bruegl is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine. She is a gynecologic oncologist at the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute and a citizen of the Oneida Nation and descendant of Stockbridge-Munsee. Dr. Noelle LoConte is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin Madison Carbone Cancer Center where she also serves as a GI medical oncologist, geriatrician and leads community outreach. Full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Thanks so much for having me. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: Thank you for having us. ASCO Daily News: Dr. Bruegl, I'd like to start by asking you to tell us a bit about your background and how it has influenced your career and interests as a gynecologic oncologist. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: I grew up in Wisconsin and I have a Native parent and a non-Native parent. And so having an awareness of both cultural influences in my life has really shaped my interest in cancer prevention. Seeing the high rates of preventable death in cancer among Native populations in gynecologic cancers, in particular, has really driven me to dedicate my research career toward decreasing the morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer among Native women. ASCO Daily News: Well, can you tell us about your work in cancer prevention, specifically cervical cancer? The data shows that Native Americans in Oregon get cervical cancer one and a half times more than the general state population and die from it two times more often. What are the factors, the barriers, that are contributing to these high rates of cervical cancer? Dr. Amanda Bruegl: The data in Oregon is actually not just limited to Oregon. Our group did some work in collaboration with the , and we found that, as you stated, . And that's true for the Pacific Northwest. And if you dig deeper into the literature, you see that these rates are true across Indian Country, sometimes worse. When we looked at the age groups, we found that older women had three times the rate of mortality. So looking at like 45 to 65. As I was looking through the literature to figure out, well, why is this, we found that there are very, very few funded studies that even look at this. We have a known persistent disparity that is chronically understudied and underfunded. And so I'm trying to do work in this arena to explore this further. A follow up that we did was looking at whether we are using the prevention tools. So it's common across the United States that we have two very powerful prevention tools. So participation in cervical cancer screening doesn't necessarily prevent cervical cancer, but you can have early detection of pre-invasive disease or detection of early-stage disease, which is highly curable. And then we also have HPV vaccination, something geared towards the youth in our communities across the U.S. HPV vaccination starting at age 9 with a goal of complete vaccination by the age of 12. So we looked at: Are we using these two tools in Indian Country? And what we found was that participation in cervical cancer screening, looking at who is up-to- date among Natives, and we found that overall the population had about 60% rates of up-to- date on cervical cancer screening compared to general US rates, which are in like the high 70s or low 80s. And then when we looked at that age group that has higher rates of mortality, we actually found that there's only about a 50% rate of up-to-date screening. So we know in one arena people aren't participating in screening. And there's a variety of different contributors to that. There's access to care. How far do you have to travel to get to a provider who will provide cervical cancer screening? Among Native women, there's an over 50% rate of history of sexual trauma, sexual violence, pelvic exam trauma. It's a huge barrier to coming in for this very sensitive exam. There is also mistrust with the medical system in general. There's high turnover of providers at Indian Health Service Clinics. The clinic that I'm currently working at now, so I do outreach at a clinic one day a month and I'm the longest standing doc at that clinic and I'm a consultant who comes one day a month. I've been there since 2016. And so when you can't develop a relationship with a provider and develop trust and there's just this churn of new people every three to six months, developing a relationship to allow someone to feel comfortable with a very personal and private examination can be a huge barrier. On the HPV vaccination side, we found that the numbers for HPV vaccination were pretty optimistic. So the numbers have been going up since our study period started in 2015. The clinics in the Pacific Northwest that are serving Native populations are doing a great job with education, outreach and increasing the numbers. The group with the greatest rates of HPV vaccination are for people assigned female at birth in the 13-18 age group. They are the only group that is approaching the . But there's still work to be done in this arena. Those are some big drivers of why this persistent disparity continues. ASCO Daily News: Absolutely. You mentioned some very serious barriers. Sexual trauma, mistrust, long distance to travel to clinics. Looking ahead, can you tell us about potential screening tools that could improve screening? And I also wanted to ask you about innovations you're excited about that could be potentially incorporated into practice to increase the ability and comfort of your patients to screening and access to HPV vaccination. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: So, in terms of cervical cancer screening and how to increase the rates, there are a number of different things in the literature broadly across populations that really show that knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening guidelines is associated with guideline concordant care. And so ensuring that our patients in our communities know and understand what the recommendations are is very important. Efforts to provide education to women in the community, community stakeholders, and culturally tailored content can all be important for increasing the rates of cervical cancer participation. Another thing that has the potential to really help improve screening rates is HPV self-collection. The FDA just recently approved HPV self-collection which can help empower an individual to do their own testing on their own body and not have someone else place a speculum in a private personal area where they're not comfortable. Some of the tribes in our region are starting to adopt this practice. And I just gave a talk to the regional Indian Health Service medical directors and have had really positive feedback about clinics working towards bringing this into their practice. I hope that the FDA can move forward with allowing patients to do this in the comfort of their own home. Sadly, the FDA in their evaluations decided it had to be a clinic administered test. So someone still has to go through the barrier of finding time to, if they have caregiver responsibilities or work, to have these responsibilities taken care of for someone else so they can drive to a clinic. So these barriers of transportation and caregiving are not addressed by this. It addresses some of the trauma, that barrier. And so I think in the US, we can do better about bringing this like FIT testing to our patients. I really hope and challenge our country to move forward with that a bit more. Geraldine Carroll: Thanks, Dr. Bruegl. I'll come back to you in a moment, but first I'd like to switch gears and address some of the challenges faced by Native communities in Wisconsin that were featured in a fascinating presented by our guest, Dr. Noelle LoConte, at the recent ASCO Quality Care Symposium. The study found that radon levels in Native lands in Wisconsin were much higher than anticipated and may explain higher rates of lung cancer among Native communities in the state. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. So, Dr. LoConte, can you tell us more about this and your incredible partnership with the in this work? Dr. Noelle LoConte: You bet. Thanks for the interest. First of all, I think it's just an incredible privilege to work with all of these communities. So, I wanted to say at the jump that this was a joint project led by the cancer center that I'm affiliated with, but also with the Stockbridge-Munsee community. They approved the project and they designed it with us, and they retain ownership of the data. Data sovereignty is an important issue when you're doing this work. But we came to them wanting to work on something around cancer. I actually thought maybe colorectal cancer screening. But in meeting with the health center and the tribal community members, it became clear that they were more concerned that they had intergenerational rates of cancer, and they felt that they were being poisoned by their land. And that brought me to the state Environmental Health Program. And we looked at some data and realized, one, their lung cancer rates were quite high, but two, their radon testing rates were quite low. And that that was a place where we thought we couldn't make some forward momentum. So, we designed a program to educate around radon and radon testing and mitigation and then tested all the homes on the reservation. And we successfully tested all homes for radon and then successfully mitigated all the homes that tested over four picocuries per liter, which is the recommended level at which you should mitigate per the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. The statewide average for Wisconsin is 10% positive. And amongst homes that had a basement, which is thought to be the highest risk kind of dwelling in the Stockbridge-Munsee Reservation community, the positive rate was 77%. And when you take all the homes together because we had some homes with crawl spaces or slab foundation, it was around, I believe, 55% positive, so much higher than 10%. ASCO Daily News: Well, that data is just striking. Your study certainly illustrates the vital role that cancer centers can play in mitigating structural determinants of health among Native communities, such as with housing quality. Do you think this will inspire a similar approach in other regions of the country? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I think this work was possible because of philanthropy. It is very, very hard to get grant funding for mitigation, in particular. Mitigation is usually done once in the life of the dwelling, but it is very, very expensive. A cheap mitigation is $750, and many are many thousands of dollars especially when you're looking at very rural communities where there's not really a mitigator within hundreds of miles and you have to really negotiate to get somebody to come out there. Every cancer center that's designated by the National Cancer Institute has to have a community outreach and engagement unit or program. I would argue that rather than us generating reports describing disparities, that this kind of work to actually dismantle these determinants of health and move power back into the community is an ideal role for a cancer center. But the funding was definitely a tricky piece of it. And I would hope that we could either envision funding mechanisms that allow for this kind of direct service to communities, or we can continue to work with philanthropic agencies to fund this. ASCO Daily News: Well, looking through a wider lens at the experience of Native communities navigating cancer care, I'd like to ask each of you to comment on how you think the oncology community can better support and serve high-risk Native populations. What message would you like oncologists to take away from this discussion today? Dr. Bruegl, would you like to respond first? Dr. Amanda Bruegl: There's so many layers to needs in our communities. First and foremost, it's important to understand that American Indians and Alaska Natives are sovereign people, sovereign nations. We've been written into the US Constitution as citizens of our own tribes. And it's important to remember that when working with our populations. I think it's also really important to remember that there's treaty law that promised healthcare to our communities. And you see that we are underfunded in all aspects of healthcare, and it's a driver. And people on the healthcare side of things need to remember we represent the failures of the healthcare system to care for our Native communities. Whether or not you wake up in the morning with a goal to help, you have to remember that you represent the institution and the history of this country and are going to be asked to prove yourself in a genuine fashion. And that takes time. I think for people who are in research, it's really important to think about how do you engage and partner with tribal communities so that we're not chronically left behind and left out of study? We seldom show up in the data, and we have to find our own data. Tribal epidemiology centers have been really paramount in helping tribes get access to their data and analyze their data. But you can see in trial after trial after trial, we're sort of shoved into the other box. And so it's so difficult to understand how the cancer story relates to us and how do we improve it? ASCO Daily News: Thank you, Dr. Bruegl. Dr. LoConte, would you like to comment on this as well? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah. I had jotted down a few points. Many are going to be a little bit of a repetition here, but I think the overarching theme is that the goals for academic medicine often are not the goals of the community that you may be seeking to work in, and so being able to pivot was key to the success of my project, I think. Can't underestimate the importance of trust. And trust takes a lot of time and a lot of showing up and a lot of being consistent and delivering on what you say you're going to do. And there's a lot of turnover in academic medicine. People leave institutions, move on for promotions. None of that is going to help strengthen these relationships. So I think institutions would be wise to invest in people that stay. I think there should be things like retention bonuses for those of us that stay in places and do community work. It's certainly not the sexy stuff. It's not what gets you in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, for example, but I was beyond delighted that I was on the podium for the ASCO Quality Care Symposium. And I think continuing to elevate this work as meaningful and important work, just as important as clinical trials and new drugs, is really important. I would like to second the motion or the thought that we need to support full funding for the Indian Health Services. It is a promise we made that we continue to underdeliver on that continues to harm patients every day, particularly in the latter half of the year when they run out of funding pretty consistently. For those of us that are non-Native doing this work, to know the history of the community that you're working in and be really mindful of that but also know the role that your institution played in propagating some of these harms. And I think we need more Native physicians that really will help to have concordance with patients and physicians. And so as much as we can support getting more Native folks starting really early – high school, middle school, interested in medicine and biomedical research, all the way through medical school residency fellowship would be really, really impactful. We have a program here founded by Amanda's husband called the , or NACHP. It's really a feather in our cap here and I would love to see all medical schools have some sort of pathway program like that. We won't get out of this hole until we start to really take that seriously. ASCO Daily News: Well, thank you so much, Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl for taking the time and showing up for Native communities, and all your work to advance cancer care. We are certainly very grateful for your time today and we will embed links to all of the studies discussed in the transcript of this episode. So thank you again, Dr. LoConte and Dr. Bruegl. Dr. Noelle LoConte: You're welcome. Dr. Amanda Bruegl: Thank you for having us. ASCO Daily News: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. Again, you'll find links to the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today’s speakers: @noelleloconte.bsky.social Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Amanda Bruegl – No relationships to disclose Dr. Noelle LoConte: Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, PDGx Research Funding: Exact Sciences
/episode/index/show/ascodaily/id/34759785