Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Podcast
The Journal of Clinical Oncology podcast, hosted by Dr. Davide Soldato, presents analyses and discussions centered on the latest findings published in ASCO’s esteemed Journal of Clinical Oncology. Through scholarly discourse and examination, this podcast is your resource for navigating oncological advancements and how they impact clinical practice. The JCO Podcast also features in depth summaries and interviews hosted by the year’s fellows in the series, JCO Article Insights.
info_outline
Milan Consensus Endpoints for Bladder Preservation in MIBC
12/11/2025
Milan Consensus Endpoints for Bladder Preservation in MIBC
Guests Dr. Andrea Necchi, Dr. Ashish Kamat and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article ",” focusing on the evolving treatment landscape of MIBC (muscle-invasive bladder cancer) and the need to properly design novel trials investigating non-operative management while including the incorporation of biomarkers and patient perspectives in clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the . I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by authors Andrea Necchi, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at University San Raffaele and Medical Oncology at Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, Italy, and Ashish Kamat, Professor of Urologic Oncology and Cancer Research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Both Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat are internationally recognized experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly in bladder cancer. Today we will be discussing the article titled "." So thank you for speaking with us, Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat. Dr. Andrea Necchi: Thank you, Davide, and thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, absolutely. It is a great honor and privilege to be discussing this very important article with you. So thank you for the invitation. Dr. Davide Soldato: The article that you just published in reports the results of a consensus meeting that was held among experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly for bladder cancer. So the objective was really to define endpoints for a novel generation of trials among patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So my first question would be: what is the change in clinical practice and in clinical evidence that we have right now that prompted the start of such consensus in 2025? Dr. Andrea Necchi: So, we are living so many changes in the treatment paradigm of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In general, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer or urothelial cancer today, thanks to the advent of immunotherapy or immunotherapy combinations, and today thanks to the advent of novel antibody-drug conjugates like enfortumab vedotin in combination with immunotherapy that are actually changing the landscape of treatment of patients with metastatic disease and also are entering quite fast into the treatment paradigm of patients with organ-confined disease with a lot of clinical trials testing these combination therapies, neoadjuvantly or adjuvantly, before or after radical cystectomy. Having said that, by potentiating the efficacy of systemic therapy, an increasing number of patients that receive neoadjuvant therapy of any kind, at a certain point in time, result to have achieved a deep response to systemic therapy, evaluated radiologically with conventional imaging, CT scan or MRI, or with cystoscopy or with other urology-based techniques, urinary cytology, and so. And based on the fact that they achieve a complete response, so no residual viable disease after systemic therapy, they raise concern about the fact that they have to undergo surgery like radical cystectomy that is quite impactful for their quality of life and for the future of their lives after the surgery. So the point that the patients are raising, and the patients are raising this point, is primarily due to the efficacy of systemic therapy. And we have seen so many cases fortunately achieving a deep response. So the question about what to do with the patient that at a certain point, at the start with the commitment to radical cystectomy, but at a certain point in time change their mind towards something else if possible, depending on the fact that they have achieved a deep response, is something that is a question and is a need to which we have to provide data, information, and guidance in general to the patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: If we look at the population that the recommendations were formulated for, we are mainly speaking about patients who would be fit for cystectomy, and this is a very distinct population compared to those who are not fit for cystectomy, both from a medical oncology point of view but also from a urologic point of view in terms of surgery. So, can you explain a little bit to our listeners why you think that this distinction is critical and why you developed this recommendation especially for this population? Dr. Ashish Kamat: That is a very important distinction that you made. To build upon what Professor Necchi mentioned earlier, this question that we get from patients after neoadjuvant therapy or systemic therapy is not a new question. It has been something that they have been asking us for the last 20 or 30 years. "Do I really need to have my bladder taken out?" And patients who are especially not fit for surgery will sometimes say, "Do I need to have my bladder taken out? And if I cannot have my bladder taken out, am I going to just not have anything done?" Because the eligibility for radical cystectomy is also a moving target. Over the years with improvement in surgical technique, improvement in perioperative therapy, ERAS protocols, et cetera, it is really unusual for us to deny a patient the opportunity to have major surgery unless clearly they have very significant comorbid conditions. So I think this endeavor is more broadly encompassing of the patient population than what was evident in previous years. And I really want to give a shout out to Professor Necchi because what we did was, as part of the International Bladder Cancer Group and Professor Necchi is an integral part of the scientific advisory board, we broached this topic broadly during one of our discussions. And of course, Andrea always does this, he picks on a topic and then he says, "Okay, we need to discuss this really in detail," put together a multinational, multicenter collaborative group, but the driving force was our patients. Because our patients are constantly asking, "Do I need to lose my organ? Do I need to have radiation therapy?" which again, also, has a lot of side effects. So this was really to answer the question in today's day and age as to do we need to do local consolidation, and if so, in what way? It is not a new question, but we have newer therapies, newer technology, and better ways to answer this. So it is a much needed question that needs to be answered. And I think the distinction between non-surgical candidates and surgical candidates is a little bit blurred in today's day and age. Dr. Davide Soldato: What about the eligibility, for example, for cisplatin-based chemotherapy? Because I think that that is a very fundamental part of this type of strategy that we apply to patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So we know that there are some caveats for proposing such treatment. And also this population was specifically defined inside this recommendation. Dr. Andrea Necchi: I think that the focus of our work is just to analyze what is happening after any type of systemic therapy the patient may get neoadjuvantly. So it is not actually a question of treatment eligibility or including cisplatin eligibility. This is an old question of today's practice and clinical trials. But regardless of what the patient received neoadjuvantly, the point that we have addressed in our consensus meeting was what to do next as a further step after systemic therapy or not. So basically we are- the consensus guidance includes all-comers, so patients to get any type of systemic therapy. So really non-selected based on specific features that determine a special eligibility to a special or a particular therapy. But an all-comer approach is always the winning approach for the translation to be in practice, an all-comer approach just focusing on what has happened after treatment and that we are assessing by the use of conventional imaging, MRI or CT, cystoscopy, urinary cytology, and trying to merge all together this information, all these features in a unique, shared, reliable definition of clinical complete response that could be used as a biomarker for the selection of newer therapies instead of pathological response that has been historically used, and maybe surrogate for the outcome, the long-term outcome and survival of these patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: A very specific point of the consensus was actually the definition of clinical complete response. As you were saying, this is actually a combination of several parameters including urinary cytology, the use of cross-sectional imaging, for example CT scan, but also the evaluation in cystoscopy of the bladder. Do you foresee any potential problems when applying this type of recommendation, not inside clinical trials, but in the context of routine clinical practice? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Absolutely. And that was the whole reason we had this consensus meeting. What happens nowadays in daily practice, and we see this every day at our center, we see patients referred to us. This definition or this sort of attempt to define clinical complete response is an ongoing issue. And urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists are always looking to see, does my patient have a complete response? That definition and those paradigms have changed and evolved over the years. The FDA had a workshop many years ago looking at this very question. And it was to address the proposal that complete clinical response, which is a clinical definition, a clinical state, does this correlate with pathologic response? And with the technology and the systemic therapies we had then, the answer was ‘no’. In fact, more patients got recurrent disease than did not get recurrent disease. And that is why, of course in the paper we mention the trials that looked at this question, the trials that evolved around this question. And I think the distinction between a clinical trial and daily practice is extremely important when we are looking at this definition per se. Because essentially what happens with this issue is that if the patient is not appropriately counseled, and if the physician does not do the appropriate clinical complete response assessment as Professor Necchi mentioned, right, cystoscopy, cytology, imaging, use of markers that are still in evolvement, we risk doing harm to the patient. So we caution in the paper too that this definition is not ready for prime time use. It is something that needs to be studied. It is a rigorous definition and currently we are recommending it for clinical trials. I am sure eventually it will trickle down into clinical practice, but that guidance was not the purpose of this consensus meeting. Dr. Davide Soldato: There are several parameters that are potentially evolving and could potentially enter inside of clinical practice. For example, you mentioned pelvic MRI and we have now very specific criteria, the VI-RADS criteria, we’re able actually to diagnose and also to provide information. So along with these novel imaging techniques, we also know that there are novel biomarkers that could be explored, for example ctDNA and urinary DNA. So what I was wondering is, why were not these included inside the definition that you provide for clinical complete response? And do you think that, as we are designing these trials to potentially spare cystectomy for this patient, we should include these biomarkers very early so that we can actually provide better stratification for our patients and really propose this type of cystectomy-sparing strategy only to those where we are very confident that we have obtained a clinical complete response? Dr. Andrea Necchi: I would say you have just to wait. So a follow-up is ongoing and hard work is ongoing. At the time we met, at the time we established the meeting in mid-December last year, we had no information on the ctDNA data from major trials, with only a few exceptions. So we were just at the beginning of a story that was more than likely to change but still without numbers and without data from clinical trials. Now in just nine months or 10 months time, we have accumulated important data and newer data will be presented during just a few weeks and a few days regarding the ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA in particular, as a prognostic marker assessed baseline or assessed after neoadjuvant therapy. So the point is certainly well made and ctDNA is certainly well shaped to be incorporated in a future definition of clinical complete response. But you have to consider the fact that most of the data that we are accumulating related to ctDNA are about the post-cystectomy field or the metastatic field. So regarding neoadjuvant therapy, you know, we have neoadjuvant therapy in the context of bladder-sparing approach, basically we have no information. And the point that is emerging in our daily practice when using these biomarkers or in clinical trials, and the impression in general, is that it is a very strong biomarker associated with survival, but we absolutely do not know what is the performance of the test in the prediction of superficial bladder relapses, high-grade pTa relapse in the bladder that is left untouched in the patient. We are considering, and maybe it will be just a matter of further discussion, not just what is happening within the immediate endpoint of clinical CR, but also what is happening later with other survival endpoints. And for example, when looking at the type of events that we may see in this kind of bladder-sparing approaches, most of the events, also in the trials that have been published including the RETAIN study published in , most of the events are related to superficial high-grade superficial non-muscle invasive relapses. So the ability to predict these types of events with ctDNA is completely unknown. Maybe, maybe other liquid biomarkers like urinary tumor DNA, utDNA, could be a bit better shaped in the prediction of this kind of events, you know. But we have still to build the story. So the question is good. The answer is yes, we will likely, more than likely incorporate liquid biomarkers in the definition, but we have to wait at least more data and more robust data in order to translate this information in routine practice, you know. Another consensus meeting is organized by IBCG and the same folks for November. This meeting will be primarily focused on the liquid biomarkers, the interpretation and use and approval and so of liquid biomarkers including bladder cancer. And we will likely be able to address all these, most of these open issues, so most of these points in the next meetings. Dr. Davide Soldato: In the consensus you say that probably clinical complete response is now ready to be included in early phase trials, so actually to test what is the efficacy of the regimens that is being evaluated inside of these trials. But you actually do very in-depth work of defining what are the most appropriate endpoints for later phase trials. So to be very specific, the phase three registrational trials that bring new regimens inside of this space. So I just wanted to hear a little bit about what was the definition for event-free survival, which you define as the most appropriate one for this type of trials. And as you were mentioning before, Professor Necchi, there is a very specific interest on the type of events that we observe, especially when we look at these superficial relapses inside of the bladder. So was this a very urgent matter of debate as we define which type of events should actually trigger event-free survival? And did you make a very thoughtful decision about why using this type of endpoint instead of others, for example metastasis-free survival? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, this was a matter of intense debate as you might imagine. And again, this is a moving target. So as Professor Necchi mentioned, we tend to partner with each other, our organizations, on having definitions of clinical complete response, biomarker, retreats, and then using that as a marker, and you might imagine this definition of what is appropriate event-free survival, what events matter to the patient, is something we have been talking about for two years. It was not just something that came up at the retreat. But at the retreat there was intense discussion. One of the things that we talked about was bladder-intact event-free survival because we are trying to spare the patient's bladder. And do we count bladder-intact event-free survival as something that is relevant? The patient advocates absolutely liked that, right? They wanted that. But then we also learned from some of the studies, for example from the RETAIN study, that the non-muscle invasive recurrences can actually lead to metastatic disease. It is not as benign when you have a patient with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that then develops a non-invasive tumor because maybe there is cancer growing underneath the surface that we don't detect when we look in the bladder. So a lot of those discussions were held, debated. It was a consensus. I have to say it was not 100% agreement on that particular definition, but it was broad consensus. And Andrea, do you want to clarify a little bit as to how we came about that consensus? Because I think this is a very important point we need to make. Dr. Andrea Necchi: We focused on a bit different definition of BI-EFS, Bladder-Intact Event-Free survival. Just stating EFS as an all-inclusive parameter including all type of high-grade relapse or progression or death that may happen to the patient. So that we were counting high-grade pTa, pT1, CIS relapses to the bladder and of course more deeper involvement in the muscle layer and so, and metastatic disease as a relapse. But the point is that as compared to the classical bladder-intact EFS definition of chemoradiation bladder-sparing approaches that is including muscle-invasive relapses only or death as events, we tried to be as inclusive as possible in order to be as much conservative as possible and to raise as higher the bar as possible for the success. And this is actually what the patients are asking us. So they are asking, "Okay, I can save my bladder, sparing radical cystectomy, but at which cost?" So in order to provide an answer, we have to be very, very cautious and be on the right shape, on the right position to say, "Okay, we have accomplished the most, the safest points, you know, by which you can proceed with the bladder-sparing." This is the first point. The other point is related to the MFS, metastasis-free survival that you have mentioned. For sure, it was recognized as a very important point for sure. But in the discussion was clear that our focus was in saving patients, curing the patient, and saving the bladder. Any single event, superficial event that may occur in the bladder-saving approaches of this kind may expose the patient to an extra risk of developing distant metastases, as it happened for example in the RETAIN study. So EFS defined as we have agreed and published, is actually a way of including or anticipating in a safest position the MFS. Because most or if not the entirety of the events of metastasis development in patients undergoing bladder-sparing after neoadjuvant systemic therapy were preceded by a superficial phase of disease relapse, you know. So I remember very, very few, or we can count just on the finger of one hand, the cases that have been reported in the literature developing de novo metastatic disease in the similar bladder-sparing approaches, in particular when using a maintenance immunotherapy strategy, you know, after they reach TURBT. So this is the reason why with all the limitation that Ashish has mentioned, with all the uncertainties that are still there, the nervousness that is still there, EFS, as...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/39328500
info_outline
JCO at 2025 ASH: Pirtobrutinib in Untreated CLL
12/09/2025
JCO at 2025 ASH: Pirtobrutinib in Untreated CLL
JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I’m Jonathan Friedberg, editor of , and welcome to , where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the . The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the . At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don’t have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to at the , and chose to publish them in , so we thank you for that, and - really appreciated. That is this episode of . Thank you for your attention. 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. Disclosures Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/39259810
info_outline
JCO at ASH 2025: A New Validated Staging System for AL Amyloidosis: AL-ISS
12/07/2025
JCO at ASH 2025: A New Validated Staging System for AL Amyloidosis: AL-ISS
JCO Editorial Fellow Peter Li and author Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja discuss the ASH 2025 Simultaneous Publication article, "." TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Peter Li: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. I am Dr. Peter Li, JCO’s Editorial Fellow, and today, I am joined by Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja on . This is a simultaneous publication that will be presented at this year’s ASH Conference. At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript. So, Dr. Khwaja, let’s start off first: What would you say is the significance of your study? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: Thank you very much. This is an important study in that, in the current treatment era, we have really improved outcomes of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis. Traditionally, the staging systems that have been employed, which are the Mayo 2012 and the European modification 2016, have been founded in eras where there were historic treatment protocols. So the significance of this new staging system is looking at outcomes of patients in the modern treatment era. That is patients who are treated with daratumumab-based treatments in the first line. And this is kind of the largest study which is externally validating a new prognostic model in the current treatment era with modern outcomes. Dr. Peter Li: Can you tell our listeners what is different about your new staging system? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: The traditional staging systems, the Mayo 2012 and the European modification of 2016, looked at outcomes of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis with historic treatment protocols. And we know that they looked at outcomes according to an NT-proBNP and troponin, and in the Mayo 2012, they looked at it with the addition of the dFLC, which is the difference in the involved and uninvolved free light chain. Over the years, we have seen that outcomes have improved, and over decades, actually, outcomes are much better when we compare them to the previous decade. If we look at current treatment approaches, those traditional staging systems inadequately determine the poorest prognostic risk. So they are unable to tell us those who are going to perform poorly. Our current new validated staging system looks at the traditional NT-proBNP and troponin but uses the addition of the longitudinal strain. This is an echocardiographic parameter, and it is used widely in treatment centers who treat amyloidosis. This really identifies those ultra-high risk patients, and these are the patients who will perform poorly in current treatment protocols. And why is that important? Well, we need a robust staging system in the current treatment era which can stratify patients who will do well but also stratify those patients who do not do well. Because that is important for counseling patients, for risk stratification, for treatment approaches, and in the future, for designing clinical trials. Dr. Peter Li: And that is referring to the longitudinal strain greater than -9% and NT-proBNP greater than 8,500 and then the high-sensitivity troponins greater than 50, which will define the new staging system. Can you talk more about how you picked these cutoffs and also what that alludes to in terms of the outcomes that you have discovered in this age of daratumumab-based therapy? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: Yeah, that is a really excellent question because we have aimed to build upon traditional staging systems. So clinicians have used these traditional models for many, many years, and they have robustly underpinned our stratification of patients and how we counsel patients. So we didn’t want to change some of these well-established thresholds, but we wanted to test them in the current treatment era. So the NT-proBNP of 8,500 and the high-sensitivity troponin of 50 were the traditionally used thresholds. And they actually stand the test of time. But we found that longitudinal strain additionally and independently predicts outcome independent of these other biomarkers. It is independent actually as a continuous variable, so you can cut this at a number of different stratification points and find independence. But we wanted to determine and discriminate those with the poorest outcomes. So we validated a longitudinal strain threshold of greater than -9% by deriving this from a dataset of patients with the traditionally highest risk. Those are with European stage lllB. And looked at the optimal threshold with time-dependent ROC analysis. So we did this in our derivation cohort and then validated this externally in our external validation cohort amongst a number of centers in Europe, in the US, and in the UK. And it is important to note because longitudinal strain is an echocardiographic parameter, and traditionally the limitations are considered to be inter-vendor and inter-operator variability and intra-operator variability, and there are challenges with reproducibility of some of these measurements. So that is often cited as a limitation. But we found, when we have externally validated this across different centers using different platforms, actually the threshold of -9% is independently predictive of poorer outcomes independent of the traditional NT-proBNP and troponin thresholds, and it is robustly predictive of poorest outcomes. We know that those with stage lllC have a median overall survival of 4 to 7 months in the modern treatment era. And if we sub-stratify these by patients treated with daratumumab, outcomes have improved, but still, even if we look at daratumumab-treated patients, one-year overall survival is still only around 50 percent. So these are a poor risk group in the modern treatment era. Dr. Peter Li: Which kind of makes sense in a way because this kind of predicts whether they have amyloid-related cardiomyopathy. So I think this all tracks with our listeners. But given the poor outcomes even with daratumumab-based therapies, do you think this new staging system would change practice, if at all? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: Yeah, I think that is a really good point because I think it comes to the question of why we use a staging system. What are its applications? I think one of the key things we think about in the clinic is how do we counsel patients when we first talk to them about their diagnosis. So there is a lot of information, but predominantly people want to know, what is my outlook going to look like? And as I say, in the bortezomib treatment era, 2010 to 2020, we used to say you have stage lllB, you have very poor outcomes, median survival maybe around six months. We have shown here that actually those with lllB have much better outcomes definitely over 12 months, up to 24 months in those with daratumumab-based therapies. So we need to counsel them in a different way. We then also need to say, “Well, who are the ultra-high risk?” So we said those with the longitudinal strain of greater than -9% with the traditional NT-proBNP and troponin cutoffs. And those patients will have poor outcomes. We need to talk about palliation. We need to talk about alternate treatment approaches. And then importantly for the community is about treatment and clinical trial design. So again, traditionally the traditional high-risk group lllB used to be considered an exclusion for all major trials. So these were excluded in the ANDROMEDA study, which led to the approval of daratumumab-based therapy, and multiple other trials. And we show here that actually patients with lllB should not be excluded from these studies because they do have good outcomes. And I think we make the important point that those with lllC, who do have poor outcomes, they need a different treatment approach, and we need to think about stratifying these patients differently. So perhaps the next modality of treatment will be the anti-fibril antibodies or a mode of treatment which can clear antibodies or clear the amyloid fibrils from the organs and reduce the organ toxicity early on. We know that those with lllC have poor outcomes particularly within the first year, and organ dysfunction really predominates here. So a different treatment approach is required, and we need to design trials specifically for these patients which look beyond anti-plasma cell clone therapy but also look at clearing the amyloid fibrils and improving organ function as this is predominantly the cause of death in these patients. Dr. Peter Li: That’s an excellent point right there. Do you foresee any limitations to this new staging system, or can you comment on is there potentially a better way to refine this staging criteria in the future? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: Yeah, I think that is a really excellent point to consider, that staging systems always need refining across treatment eras. So we have looked at the bortezomib era, and then we have validated this in the daratumumab-based era. We know that amongst different countries access to treatment varies. We know that there are a number of factors which determine your health-related outcomes. That’s access to healthcare, speed of diagnosis, access to tertiary diagnostics, ability to biopsy, and then supportive care. And I think our staging system highlights the importance of organ dysfunction predominantly causing death early on. And I think that as treatments improve this should be refined. So the expectation I think is, as we have better anti-plasma cell directed therapies, and as we hopefully develop anti-fibril antibodies and anti-fibril clearance drugs, that we will need to revalidate new models to effectively prognosticate in this treatment era. And I also think that as we become a bit more sophisticated with our approaches, we know that this can be refined in the future looking at other prognostic factors with regards to healthcare outcomes. I would say one of the strengths, however, of this model is that it builds on the traditional model, and it’s quite simple to use. You just have the NT-proBNP and the troponin, and then longitudinal strain, which is used quite frequently in amyloid centers, and an echocardiogram is used in essentially all patients for diagnosis. So I think it will certainly be quite practical. But certainly I think, as you say, as treatment approaches change over time, and as we have further options in the future, we will need to refine prognostication. Dr. Peter Li: For the listeners out there, let’s say someone comes in our clinic and we diagnose them with stage lllC amyloidosis. Can you comment on what clinical trials are out there that potentially they can refer their patients to? You mentioned anti-fibril therapy, which I think would be the way of the future. Can you kind of comment what you know at this current stage and point listeners in the right direction? Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: This is the challenge in amyloidosis. We don’t have specific trials that are looking at those with the highest risk. And at present, even the ISA International Guidelines talk about risk according to the old treatment approaches and discuss attenuating our current chemotherapy approaches. And I think that for clinicians out there who identify those at the highest risk, it is really important to have a multidisciplinary approach, to consider palliation and palliative services early, and really work with your fellow cardiologists and renal physicians and neurologists to enable the best supportive care you have in order to deliver this anti-plasma cell directed therapy. We know that actually you only need for most patients small amounts of doses of chemotherapy to get good clonal responses, and we have seen that even in the bortezomib era that actually they have good CR rates and more impressive CR rates with daratumumab. But because of the organ dysfunction, it can be really challenging to deliver these doses. And supportive care is going to be really important particularly for these challenging patients. The future will be designing clinical trials that are appropriate for these patients. At present, we currently don’t have available options, but I think the more we gather this data, the more we work collaboratively as a community, we will be able to mobilize our resources and get the best outcomes for these patients. Dr. Peter Li: First build the field of dreams and then hopefully more therapies will arrive in the future. Thank you so much, Dr. Khwaja, for speaking about the JCO article, "," and for all your valuable input today. Dr. Jahanzaib Khwaja: Thank you very much. Dr. Peter Li: Make sure to check out the presentation at this year’s ASH Conference taking place from December 6 to December 9. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcast. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/39295650
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Simultaneous Durvalumab and CRT in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC
11/24/2025
JCO Article Insights: Simultaneous Durvalumab and CRT in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC
In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ece Cali Daylan interviews author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley about the article, "" by Bradley, et al published October 13, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of . This is Dr. Ece Cali, Editorial Fellow. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss the manuscript, "" The PACIFIC-2 study was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of simultaneous durvalumab with concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab to the concurrent chemoradiation followed by placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized 2:1 to durvalumab and placebo, respectively. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet its primary endpoint. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two arms. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 53% of the patients in the durvalumab arm compared to 59% of the patients in the placebo arm. Of note, the frequency of pneumonitis was similar in the two arms. Approximately 28% of patients in each arm developed pneumonitis, and about 5% of the pneumonitis observed in each arm was grade 3 or higher in severity. Treatment discontinuation rates secondary to the adverse events were higher in the durvalumab arm, 25% compared to 12%. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and death were more frequently seen in the durvalumab arm during the first four months of the treatment, which corresponds to the simultaneous administration of chemoradiation and durvalumab. Dr. Bradley, before we delve into the results, can you please explain the rationale for this study design and how this concept fits into the current treatment landscape? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, this trial came on the heels of PACIFIC after there was a progression-free survival benefit showed in PACIFIC that in the locally advanced unresectable population that consolidation immunotherapy, in this case durvalumab, had a progression-free survival benefit. A number of us in the clinical trial space thought to add concurrent immunotherapy in addition to consolidation immunotherapy that that would also improve outcomes for patients. So a number of trials were launched to follow up of PACIFIC. In this case, this is a phase III trial where the control arm was placebo. There was no overall survival results yet from PACIFIC, just a PFS benefit, and a number of countries across the world had not approved maintenance durvalumab in this space. So this trial looked at the experimental arm, which was concurrent immunotherapy, durvalumab, and chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab versus placebo. Dr. Ece Cali: And if we were to focus on the safety profile first, an increased pneumonitis risk was a theoretical concern when immunotherapy is given concurrently with radiation. Do we see any major differences in the safety profile between the two arms in this trial? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: No, and we were concerned about the addition of concurrent immunotherapy and chemoradiation, like you said, towards concern about increased pneumonitis rate, but we did not see increased pneumonitis in the experimental arm over placebo. And the grade 3 or higher, as you said, it was roughly 5%, more or less, in both arms, so we didn't see increase in pneumonitis toxicity with concurrent IO and chemoradiation. Dr. Ece Cali: But interestingly though, despite the lack of significantly increased toxicity with durvalumab, unfortunately, administering immunotherapy simultaneously with chemoradiation therapy did not improve survival. Lack of superiority of this treatment regimen, as you mentioned, is further confirmed across multiple similar negative trial readouts such as ECOG-ACRIN 5181 and CheckMate 73L. Dr. Bradley, in your view, what are some potential explanations for why this strategy did not pan out in clinical trials? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Regarding toxicity, let me go back and point out that we did see an increased number of immune-mediated adverse events. It was 34.7% in the concurrent immunotherapy arm versus 15.7% in the placebo arm. So that led to a higher number of discontinuations of immunotherapy which I think probably had an effect. So we didn't... there was an increased pneumonitis toxicity, but there were expected immune-mediated toxicities that caused people to stop giving immunotherapy. You can see that in the PFS curves. They were, you know, they crossed over after like a month, but initially there was lower PFS for the experimental arm, and then the experimental arm got better after we divided into four months, before four months and after four months. Dr. Ece Cali: For one reason or another, it looks like the simultaneous administration did not really improve outcomes. We now know that simultaneously giving them another concurrent radiation should really no longer be pursued in clinical trials for this patient population. Can you share with our audience what strategies are being studied in this setting and what trials to watch out for in the future? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Sure, I think when you add concurrent radiation to immunotherapy, there were more central tumors in this trial, I think you're killing lymphocytes and negating the effect of immunotherapy. So I think that's the smoking gun for this trial, for the ECOG trial, for the small cell trial that NRG reported, LU005, and other trials. So correct, I don't think there's any need to continue to pursue concurrent immunotherapy in this space of lung cancer. But that's not to say there aren't many other trials that are either ongoing, have accrued and awaiting results, or being planned for the next phase of clinical trials. We have a trial within NRG Oncology called NRG-LU008. It's a randomized phase III trial that is using an SBRT boost to a peripheral primary and chemoradiation to the nodes, because the primary tumor is the one that fails more often than the lymph nodes, and that's compared to PACIFIC in the control arm. PACIFIC-9 is another trial in the same line as the other PACIFIC trials. That one is using dual checkpoint inhibition versus the control arm being PACIFIC. So there are three arms in that trial, durva and oleclumab, durva and monalizumab versus the PACIFIC arm. And that trial is completed accrual, but we have no results from that study yet. Johnson & Johnson has a trial open looking at a nanoparticle. That's a radiosensitizer where bronchoscopy is used to inject the primary tumor and the lymph nodes with a radiosensitizer. That's a randomized phase ll trial that's ongoing. It's got three arms, two different doses of this radiosensitizing drug and then a control arm without injection at all. The control arm is again the PACIFIC arm. And then those of us within the NCI-based clinical trials evaluation program, CTEP, are proposing an intergroup trial that would compare induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemoradiation followed by maintenance immunotherapy versus PACIFIC in a phase III study. So I think there's other trials that are either completed, ongoing completed, or on the horizon to assess in this patient population. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, we definitely have an unmet need to improve survival outcomes for stage III patients, and it's great to hear that there are so many efforts looking at different strategies to improve outcomes for these patients. Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley, for this informative discussion and for sharing your insights. Any last thoughts? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, we need something, you know. PACIFIC was first reported in 2017, and we really haven't made progress in terms of changing that standard of care control for the last eight years. So we need progress in this area. Dr. Ece Cali: Yep, definitely. Thank you so much for joining, Dr. Bradley. And thank you for listening to . Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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. DISCLOSURES Dr. Bradley Honoria: Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Varian, Inc, Genentech, Inc. Research Funding: Varian Medical Systems Dr. Cali Research Funding Company: BeiGene, Nuvalent, Inc., Astra Zeneca
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/39150535
info_outline
Health Outcomes in Older Childhood Cancer Survivors
11/20/2025
Health Outcomes in Older Childhood Cancer Survivors
Guest Dr. Rusha Bhandari and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "Health Outcomes Beyond Age 50 Years in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, " with a particular focus on mortality data, development of secondary malignancies and the importance of education for both patients and healthcare providers regarding long-term follow-up and care. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello, and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the . I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by author, Dr. Rusha Bhandari, a Pediatric Hematologist-Oncologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Population Science at City of Hope, California. Today, we will be discussing the article titled " ." So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Bhandari. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Thanks so much for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to go straight ahead in the paper and start from the title. So, we heard that you included in this study childhood survivors of pediatric cancer that were aged 50 years or higher. So, this is a very critical life stage when we know that there are a lot of aging-related comorbidities that can happen, also in the general population but potentially specifically in childhood cancer survivors. So, first of all, I wanted to ask you, why this specific study in this very specific population? Because I think that we had already some data in younger survivors, but now we are focusing specifically on patients aged 50 or more. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. So, to answer that question, I'll take a little bit of a step back in terms of where we are now and where we came from in terms of treatment for childhood cancers. So, thankfully, we now have great curative therapies and survival rates for many childhood cancers, including the most common ones. But this was not necessarily the case 50 or more years ago. So, we essentially are now seeing the first generation of older survivors who are 30, 40, or more years from completion of their cancer treatment. As you pointed out, we know from younger survivors that they have a markedly higher risk of malignancies and health conditions than the general population. You don't typically expect to see things like heart disease or diabetes, for example, in a young adult. But the question that remained was what the health status and risk of these conditions are in survivors who are entering this critical age, as you mentioned, 50 or older, when you do start to see these aging-related changes in the general population. And the question is whether we're still observing increased risks related to cancer treatment that was delivered 30 or more years ago in these survivors who are now entering ages 50 and beyond. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. You used the data from a study that is called the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. So, just a little bit of explanation for our listeners. How is the study conducted? What type of data are you collecting? And specifically for the interest of the study that was reported in this manuscript, which outcomes were really important for you and were so evaluated in the manuscript? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes. So, the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a really excellent resource that combines information from children who were treated across North America at various different centers and sites. So it gives us a really good understanding of how different survivors are doing as they do progress through their survivorship journey. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study includes a baseline questionnaire when participants are first eligible or first enter the study, and then includes a series of follow-up questionnaires to really understand how they're doing, like I mentioned, as they progress throughout their survivorship journey. And so for this study, we really wanted to take a global look at how these patients were doing as they entered that older age range. And so we wanted to look at outcomes ranging from mortality through the health conditions that we've seen from other survivorship studies, including subsequent malignant neoplasms, other health conditions, I mentioned earlier heart disease and other comorbidities we know survivors can be at increased risk for, and also things like frailty, which we know is, you know, the most widely recognized phenotype of aging. And we see that earlier on in our younger survivors. We want to see how this translated to these older survivors and then also other health outcomes like their health status. What is their self-report of their physical health, their mental health? Things like that. So we wanted a very comprehensive understanding of their health. Dr. Davide Soldato: This is a very comprehensive study. Right now it includes more than 30,000 patients that have been treated for childhood cancer, but specifically looking at the question of survivors aged 50 years or higher, you included more than 7,000 patients inside of this study. So, looking at the first outcome that you mentioned, which I think it's also one of the most important, you look specifically at mortality, and in this specific population, you saw a striking three-fold increase in mortality when comparing these survivors with the general population. I just wanted to dive in this result and ask you: What do you see as the main driver for this excess mortality in this population of survivors? And as you were mentioning, the study also collects information about the treatment received. So, was there any association with a specific kind of treatment that was received for curing these childhood cancers? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: I agree. I would say it's striking to see that mortality risk among the survivors relative to the general population. And we do know, again from prior studies, that survivors of childhood cancer do have an increased risk of mortality compared to the general population, but I think looking at those curves of the cumulative mortality risk was really quite striking as they diverge, and that's, you know, just so long past their initial diagnosis and treatment. We know that subsequent malignant neoplasms or secondary cancers are a really an important contributor to mortality among survivors. And I think it was important to note that even in these older survivors, it's still such an important contributor to mortality, and I think this really highlights the need for us to better understand what is driving specific secondary cancers and what are the differences in the biology and treatment approaches for some of these cancers? And how might that then be contributing to the mortality risk? Dr. Davide Soldato: Related to the treatment mortalities - because I think that one of the main forces of the study, as it is conducted, is that it contains a lot of information regarding radiotherapy, allogeneic transplant, surgery, type of chemotherapy received by these survivors - so, are we able right now with the data that we have to pinpoint which of these treatments can potentially lead to such increased risk of mortality? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: So, we weren't able to look at the comprehensive treatment exposures and mortality risk for this paper. So that might be one of the questions I would put on the side. We were able to look at that in relation to subsequent malignant neoplasms and health conditions though, as you mentioned. Dr. Davide Soldato: Another thing that I think is very important is that you were able to look at specific causes for mortality. So for example, you mentioned the increased rate of neoplasm in this population and specifically, more or less 7.6% of the patients that were included in the study developed another neoplasm after the ones they were cured for in the childhood period. So, you saw a wide range of cancer, for example, bone and soft tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, genitourinary cancer. And as you were mentioning, there were some associations for treatment modalities that were associated with a higher risk of developing this type of cancer. Can you expand a little bit on this? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. And so the key part here was that we really looked at any of these outcomes that occurred beyond age 50. What we found was there is still an increased risk of secondary cancers beyond that initial childhood cancer diagnosis, but when we really looked at that data, it was specifically among survivors who had a history of receiving radiation. And we did not necessarily see an association between different chemotherapy exposures and secondary cancers. And I think this speaks to what we're now learning in terms of the very long-term effects of radiation and how that impacts ongoing health risk even in patients who are 30 or more years out from their treatment. And I think it really highlights the importance of these- the efforts that have been made in the more recent decades to really try and reduce or eliminate radiation where possible, you know, as we've come to understand more about these long-term effects from it. Dr. Davide Soldato: A clear association with radiation therapy but no association when we look at specific types of chemotherapy that were used for curing this childhood cancer. Another thing that I think it's very interesting and you briefly mentioned before is that potentially when we look at these secondary malignant neoplasm that develop in this situation, we might also see some outcomes that are not comparable to the one of the general population, meaning that we managed to cure less this type of cancer when they develop in these childhood survivors. So, I just wanted to understand if you could provide us with a little bit of perspective also from a clinical standpoint being a pediatric hematologist-oncologist as to why this might be happening and how can we potentially increase the cure rate also in this population of childhood cancer survivors? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. While that was not the focus of this study, it was something that we were certainly interested in is understanding how even once a childhood cancer survivor, for example, develops a health condition or a secondary cancer further into survivorship, how does that outcome then differ from someone in the general population? And there's a lot of interest in ongoing studies actually evaluating that and understanding what are the differences from the initial presentation, biology, the characteristics of that cancer, through how they're treated. So I don't know if we have all of the answers for that quite yet, but you can imagine if someone hypothetically had a history of receiving a lot of anthracycline chemotherapy or already having received a lot of radiation, that might impact what treatment they might receive for that secondary cancer or if they already have other existing comorbidities that need to be taken into consideration. Dr. Davide Soldato: Speaking about comorbidities, you were mentioning in the beginning that one of the focuses of this scientific work was really to try and see whether also this type of adverse health outcomes that can be potentially related to treatments were more frequent among these childhood cancer survivors. So I think that it's very interesting that for this comparison, you were able to use the data from the siblings of the patients who were included inside of the study. So, just a little bit of a comment on why you decided to use this specific methodology, which I think has a very nice touch to it when we look at these outcomes like, for example, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and in general, do we see an increased number of chronic health conditions among survivors who were treated for childhood cancers? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, so this is a really excellent strength of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is that they have information, longitudinal information, on survivors as well as their siblings. So, you know, when we were discussing the design of the study, I mentioned that we have initial baseline questionnaires as well as multiple follow-up questionnaires, and that is for both the survivors and the siblings. And so we're able to really understand their health course over time. We chose to evaluate sibling data because then you're really able to look at people who have similar characteristics, right? Similar environmental exposures in theory, potentially similar genetic predispositions and makeups and things like that. And so you can really try and have as good of a comparison as possible. Dr. Davide Soldato: Did we see any increase in chronic health condition when looking at survivors compared to the siblings? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: We did. And while that's been reported before, again, I think it's important to demonstrate that in this older population when you would expect that these siblings would now also be starting to develop different health conditions. Dr. Davide Soldato: One thing that was very interesting is that when we look at the coexistence of multiple comorbid conditions and chronic condition in this population, we also see that for some of these survivors, they basically have the same rates of comorbidities as compared to siblings who are potentially 20 years older than them. So I think that there is really that striking point, as you were mentioning before, of accumulation of changes, also physiological changes that can potentially drive a higher frailty index, which was also higher when looking at these survivors compared to their siblings. One outcome that was really not that worse when we look at survivors of childhood cancer was actually mental health. And as I read the paper, it was something that really surprised me a little bit because you would imagine that going through such a harsh diagnosis, such very complex treatment, very early in their life could potentially lead to some worse health outcomes also in terms of mental health over time. But this was not seen. And just a comment on this, because I think it's a very surprising data. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, I appreciate that question. So, as you mentioned, mental health is such an important issue for patients, both those undergoing treatment as well as those in long-term survivorship. And in our study, we found that survivors were not more likely, as you mentioned, to report poor mental health compared to their siblings. And I think there's a few possible reasons for this. You know, again, this is self-reported data amongst siblings and survivors who survived to at least 50 years of age and completed a questionnaire. And so that is the group of individuals that we were able to evaluate this in, so we have to keep that in mind. But I think our findings may also reflect the resilience of this particular cohort of aging survivors that we included. This finding has been reported in other studies of survivors as well, and so I think it very well may speak to the resilience of the cohort that we're looking at. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back just a little bit, you mentioned that the majority potentially of these survivors who were included in the current analysis were treated between 1970s and 1980s. So, as you were mentioning before, radiotherapy was seen as a significant contributor to second neoplasm and also to the increase of this chronic health condition. So, do you believe that there is still a role for these survivorship studies as we are approaching treatment modalities where radiotherapy is administered less frequently or with lower doses or omitted at all in the treatment course of these survivors? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. I think you mentioned a very important point, which is these findings are most applicable to the patients who were included in this cohort or similar cohorts, those who were treated in the 1970s and 80s who now are 50 years or older at this point in time. And as you know, treatment modalities have really changed. You know, as you mentioned, we'll use less radiation in many cases whenever possible, but there are so many new modalities, so many different chemotherapeutic agents, immunotherapy. There's so much more we need to learn about the long-term effects of some of these newer treatment modalities. And also, we've been able to really intensify our treatment regimens with improvements in both treatment approaches and supportive care. And so I think we have a lot to learn about those late effects, and ongoing studies are certainly needed as we continue to have this growing population of older survivors. Dr. Davide Soldato: And now a more general question which builds on the results of the study but goes a little bit beyond what was the scope of the research. So we have just discussed that there is an excess mortality in general, there is a higher risk for secondary malignancies in this population, we see higher accumulation of chronic comorbid conditions that need to be treated. So building on these results, in your opinion, what would be the best framework to follow up these patients over time? Because I imagine that for some of these patients who have been treated 30, 40 years before the moment where we see this type of events, they can be potentially also discharged from more specialistic medical care. So what is the best course of action? Should we keep all of these patients under observation in a very specialistic environment under the care of the oncologist or the pediatric oncologist? Should we create a stronger bond with general practitioners so they know that there is this problem? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, I mean, I think you're reading my mind. We thankfully do have evidence-based guidelines. We utilize the Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines, which include screening recommendations for secondary cancers, chronic health conditions, everything based on the underlying diagnosis and treatment that these patients received. But we recognize that a large proportion of these survivors do not continue to have lifelong follow-up at a survivorship center, but really do need that specialized screening based on their treatment that they received. And I think for that reason, it's so important that we continue to build relationships with their primary care providers and really make sure that both patients and their providers have this information at hand regarding what their treatment is and what the screening is that they need and that we be able to have this community whereby we are able to help inform the screening in our own survivorship clinics, but also help guide some of the primary care providers who are going to be seeing these patients in the long run. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do we have any data showing what is the adherence rate of these patients to this type of continuous screening and monitoring over time? Because I imagine that that might also be a point for improvement in terms of quality of care. Can we retain as much childhood cancer survivors as we want as we are learning that there are all these potential negative health outcomes over time? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: We definitely within the survivorship community do want to help make sure as many survivors as possible are being engaged, again, whether it's at their specific cancer center or whether it's in the community, recognizing that for many reasons, it's not feasible to always return to that cancer center for your regular survivorship care. I think there's a lot we can do. Going a little bit outside the scope of your question, but I think there's a lot that we can do nowadays in terms of telehealth and being able to communicate with patients and their providers even if they're geographically not located right near us. But we do have data that shows that the further out many...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/39101370
info_outline
Long-Term Remission After Cilta-cel in Patients With RRMM
11/13/2025
Long-Term Remission After Cilta-cel in Patients With RRMM
Guest Dr. Sundar Jagannath and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "," and the efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM (relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma). TRANSCRIPT Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in . I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by author, Professor Sundar Jagannath, Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Tisch Cancer Institute. He also serves as Network Director for the Center of Excellence for Multiple Myeloma, and he is an internationally recognized expert in the field of multiple myeloma. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "." Thank you for speaking with us, Professor Jagannath. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: Thank you for having me, Dr. Davide Soldato. It is a pleasure to be here. is a highly recognized journal among the oncologists, so I am very happy and privileged to be here today. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you so much for being with us. So, I wanted to start a little bit with the rationale of the study and the population that was included in the study. So, the trial that we are discussing, CARTITUDE-1, was already published before, and we observed very good results with a single infusion of cilta-cel. So we had previously reported a median progression-free survival of 30 months, and median overall survival was not reached. So, I just wanted to ask you if you could guide us a little bit into the population that was included in the study and also explain a little bit to our listeners what is the drug that we are discussing, cilta-cel. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: It is a CAR T-cell. This is a patient's own lymphocytes, which goes through apheresis and is sent to the company, where they modify it and introduce the B cell receptor. In this case, you know, there is a heavy chain gene receptor for the BCMA, and in cilta-cel, there are actually two receptor sites on each molecule, or there are two binding domains on each receptor molecule. So, it is considered to be quite efficacious. As you reported, the earlier results that the patients who participated, 97% of the patient responded. Now, you asked about the patients who participated in the clinical trial. This clinical trial was conducted between July of 2018 and October of 2019. At that time, this was a phase 1b/phase 2 trial, and the whole idea was to take patients who had relapsed all the available treatment regimen so that these patients were considered to have, in the unmet medical need situation. So, what does that entail? That means the patient should have been exposed to a proteasome inhibitor, to an immunomodulatory molecule, and to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and should have received at least three or more prior lines of therapy and should be actually progressing on their last line of therapy. So with that requirement, if you look at it, the median number of prior therapy on the patients who participated was actually six. So patients were heavily pretreated. They had exhausted all available treatment options. So, they can participate in this clinical trial. And if not, there have been real-world evidence, such as LocoMMotion, which had reported what is the outcome for such a patient if they were treated outside of this clinical trial, if they were treated with the then available regimen. Their median progression free survival would have been only 3 months, and most patients would have lost their life within a year. So, this was truly an unmet medical need with patients in a very difficult clinical situation. Let’s put it that way. So, those were the patients who participated in this particular trial. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And as we mentioned before, the results that were obtained in this clinical trial were really very interesting. And now, in this issue of the , you are reporting data with a longer follow up. So we are actually at more than 5 years of follow up for the patients included in this trial. So, I just wanted a little bit of insight into why you decided to report these long-term outcomes and what type of information do you think you could provide with this study to the medical community? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because this was a clinical trial that was done in patients who were, as I said, in unmet medical need. Most of the patients had prior stem cell transplantation, had gone through a proteasome inhibitor. Many of them have had both Velcade and carfilzomib treatment. Most of them had been exposed to lenalidomide and pomalidomide. And as required, all of the patients had to have had prior exposure to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody or daratumumab. So, the patients were heavily pretreated. Typically, TIL CAR T-cells came into the field at this particular moment, until then, we were developing small molecules, and they usually would have a PFS of 3 months and median life expectancy of a year, the overall response rate of 30%, and that is how, if you look back, that is how carfilzomib was approved, that is how pomalidomide was approved. So, the drugs which were approved, including daratumumab, you know, the response rate was in the same ballpark. So you would see that most agents, single agents, would have had a response rate in the neighborhood of 30%, the progression-free survival would have been between 3 to 5 months or 6 months at the most, and the life expectancy was short. And here comes a drug, and when I was following the patients at Mount Sinai, I found that there were a subset of patients, they got one-time treatment and they were in complete remission, no trace of cancer with annual evaluation with PET CT and bone marrow evaluation for MRD. So, I said this is remarkable, and this needs to be reported. And I went to the Janssen and company, and they agreed to review the entire experience. This is remarkable that 32 of the 97 patients, or one third of the patients, were alive and progression-free. This is unheard of for any clinical trial until now, that the patient will be progression-free, one third of the patients on a clinical trial will be progression-free, in the late stage of their disease. So that is the most important impact. And that is why this 5-year follow-up results were presented. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. And as you said, we are speaking about a population that was heavily pretreated, that had exhausted all type of treatment options outside of a clinical trial. And as you said, one third of the patients was alive and progression-free after 5 years from being included and infused inside of the study. So, considering this population that, as we said, had received all treatment options, I was wondering if you observed any kind of differences in terms of disease characteristics when looking at these patients that had exceptional response, so, alive and progression-free at 5 years, and the patients that sadly had developed a progression after the infusion in the study. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because we wanted to see who are the patients who are having this exceptional outcome. And we looked at all the 97 patients. If we look at all the patients, we saw that there were initially, out of the 97, 17 patients died earlier in the disease course due to treatment related complications, etc. But there were about 46 patients who had progression of disease and 32 patients, or one third, were alive without progression of disease. Then we looked at the 46 patients who had progression of disease. Of them, we found that 30 had disease progression and its complication, and there were actually 13 patients who were still alive even after progression of disease. So we decided to compare these 46 patients who had progression of disease versus 32 patients who had no progression of disease to see what is the difference. To our surprise, the age was similar, male, female distribution was similar. High-risk cytogenetics, which we would have thought, you know, that is why we say high-risk disease, the term, high-risk cytogenetics was equally distributed. That was really a surprise. Number of lines of prior therapy, number of exposure to drugs, all of that was the same. So that was also interesting. But a theme did emerge. Patients, in general, tend to have lower burden of disease who had the exceptional outcome. But there is one which we considered as bad, the extramedullary disease. Multiple myeloma being a blood cancer, it is usually in the bone marrow. When it starts growing outside of the bone marrow, the extramedullary disease, usually it portends poor prognosis. But we were surprised that actually there were an equal number of extramedullary disease patients even in the long-term survivor as those who had progressed of disease. So the most important takeaway was patients who had lower burden of disease, they had less number of myeloma cells in their bone marrow, percentage wise, and the soluble BCMA level was lower. Soluble BCMA is an indirect measure of the amount of plasma cells in the patient's body. It is like a tumor burden. So they were low. So, this was an important finding because it has future ramification, as you can understand. If this treatment is made available earlier in the disease course of the patients, where we are able to control the disease better, then more patients are likely to have such wonderful outcomes as one third of the patient experience in the late stage of the disease. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, you already mentioned soluble BCMA as a marker of potentially better prognosis as being correlated to a lower volume of disease. I was wondering if you could give us some more information about the biomarkers that you evaluated in the study. For example, you evaluated a little bit the CAR T expansion kinetics and also some others that I think could be interesting and could point to some population that experienced such important benefit. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important point because CAR T-cell, it is a live cell and its efficacy depends upon how well the CAR T-cell is going to function. And then, you know, the patient undergoes apheresis. This is a patient's own lymphocyte. So first and foremost is who would generate good CAR T-cell. Those who have plenty of lymphocytes at the time they are coming for apheresis. This is likely to happen earlier in the course of the disease than in patients who have gone through numerous lines of therapy and exhausted. So, in this particular trial, of course this was in late stage of the disease, and so we were able to show patients who had lower number of T cell in circulation, and the way to measure is if they had more neutrophils and less lymphocytes. So that is what is called as a higher T cell over neutrophil, they did better. If they have more neutrophil than T cells, then they did not do well. So, procurement. The second one is also whether the T cells are more naive, you know, not exhausted T cells. So more naive T cells, if you are able to procure from the patient, they did very well. Now, after the CAR T-cell manufacture, then the expansion, when you put it back into the patient, if the T cells expand very well, so that the effector, that is the CAR T-cells to the tumor ratio is good, so there are more effector cells, the CAR T was able to expand and the amount of tumor was less, then the efficacy was very, very good. As I said, the patients in this group, those who had a lower burden of disease, they did better, and that is because of the CAR T-cell expansion, so the effector to the target ratio was favorable. So that is another important. And then there are also the type of CAR T-cells, having CD4 T cells with central memory phenotype at the peak expansion also makes a difference. So all of that matters. But this is important because the efficacy of the CAR T-cell, it is persistent, long persistent and keeping the cancer down. Its ability to get rid of the cancer completely at the first go around because usually we are not able to detect the CAR T-cells beyond 6 months in the majority of patients and very rarely after a year or two. So it is very uncommon to find the CAR T-cells in circulation or even in the regular bone marrow evaluation. So, efficacy, the expansion, having naive T cells, having good effector to target ratio and more central memory kind of T cell, because if it is all effector T cell, they will get quickly utilized and get exhausted, whereas the central memory cells can expand more and give more effective CAR T-cells. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. I was wondering if you could guide us a little bit into what is your opinion regarding the positioning of CAR T-cells given all of these logistics that is necessary compared, for example, with bispecific antibodies against BCMA, which have the same target, but they do not have all of these logistics before being administered to the patient. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important question, how to sequence these treatments now that we have two BCMA-directed CAR T-cells available. We have three BCMA-directed bispecific and one GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibodies are available. And so the question comes in for at least the currently approved CAR T-cell therapy, there is an obligatory time. You have to go through apheresis and you have to ship to the company, and there is a manufacturing time, roughly about 2 months before they can receive it. During that time, you want to make sure the patient's disease is under control. So that is a given. There are several ways to look at it when we evaluate the patient and talk to the patient. One good thing is now the two CAR T-cells which are approved, one is cilta-cel we talked about, and the other one is ide-cel. Ide-cel is approved in earlier line of therapy, two or more prior lines of therapy, and cilta-cel is approved in patients who have failed one line of therapy and who are lenalidomide refractory. So, the treatment of CAR T-cell is available earlier. And as I said, when you administer CAR T-cell earlier, you are able to keep the disease burden down, and it is a one and done deal. There is a better quality of life for the patient, and you are able to produce long, durable remission and potentially a cure. Now coming to the bispecific, they are currently available in later lines of therapy. So if you look at it from a patient's perspective, you can use the CAR T-cell earlier and then go through the bispecific therapy. But if the patient comes with relapsed refractory myeloma and has not used the CAR T-cell therapy and has not used the bispecific therapy, then the physicians have to decide which one they want to use. If somebody's disease is rapidly progressing and they need immediate tumor reduction and they have already exhausted all available therapy, then going through BCMA bispecific therapy is quite appropriate. And secondly, CAR T-cell therapy is generally given to somewhat physically more fit patients, whereas bispecific therapy, because you are giving antibody at step-wise dosing in this patient, and you have the ability to stop at any particular dose and then come back and redose, whereas CAR T is, you just give it to them one time, you have a lot more control. So intermediate frail or even frail patients can go through bispecific therapy, whereas it would not be in the best interest of the patient to go through a CAR T-cell therapy when they are frail. So that is another important point. But from the information available, when the patient goes on a BCMA bispecific therapy and they start progressing on treatment, usually it is their T cells are exhausted or the BCMA is no longer expressed on the tumor cells. So coming with CAR T-cell later on is usually not effective, whereas giving CAR T-cell earlier, if the patient relapses later, they have good T-cell function and most of the time the BCMA is still expressed. So you are able to give the BCMA to the maximum benefit by using the CAR T first and BCMA later. So if somebody asked me how to sequence this, just off the bat, you will say CAR T first, BCMA bispecific second. But as I said, there are unique situations. Then there is another potential that is happening. You can change the target. You can use a BCMA against GPRC5D to reduce the tumor, and then go ahead and consolidate it with a CAR T-cell therapy. That is also possible. You are changing the target from GPRC5D to BCMA, the tumor is already down, so the patient is likely to benefit. So these are all newer treatment options which have become available to the physician. So they will have to look at individual patients and decide what is the best course of action for that patient. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just wanted to close a little bit with your opinion about how these results translate into clinical practice. So considering this outstanding 5-year data that we have seen, one third of the patients who are alive and progression-free after a single infusion of cilta-cel, do you think that we could start to think about functional cure even in patients who have a diagnosis of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: My feeling is this is important because in this particular study which is published, 12 patients who were followed at Mount Sinai out of the 32 patients who are alive and progression-free, 12 were followed at Mount Sinai. And they were evaluated every year with bone marrow MRD testing by clonoSEQ in 11 of the 12 patients, and one was by multiparametric flow cytometry. So most of them were 10 to the minus 6, not even one in a million cancer cells, and all of them had functional imaging, which is called PET CT every year. So these were patients who had no evidence of disease that we could detect with the technology available today, serologically, in the bone marrow, or anywhere else in the body with a PET CT. They were found to be disease free after a single infusion of cilta-cel. So, that would be almost to the definition of a cure because if you look at cure as a definition for any cancer, cure is defined as a state of complete remission with no trace of cancer that persists over a period of 5 years or longer without maintenance. And that will be applicable for breast cancer, lymphoma, leukemia. So it is a general statement. And if we use that in myeloma too, then I could say that these 12 patients from my center, we proved that they are cured of their myeloma. They are not functionally cured. You’ve got to remember, there is only cure. That was the definition across all diseases. So there is nothing like a functional cure. They are cured of myeloma. So is myeloma curable? This is the first time we are looking at that. We do know, every physician treating myeloma that there are patients out there, 10 year and beyond, without evidence of disease. This has been published by University of Arkansas, Bart Barlogie's group, who has been saying that myeloma is a curable disease for a long time. And many others have shown long-term follow up. But this one in a late stage disease, we were able to show that they were one treatment with no maintenance. All other studies have been in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Nobody has shown in late relapse patients on a clinical trial a third of the patient will be progression-free. And 12 of them who were studied were actually disease free. So they were cured of the disease. So if we accept that, then the next question is, first step towards cure is achieving complete remission. They should have no monoclonal protein by any technology you want to use, no measurable residual disease using next gen sequencing or clonoSEQ, and functional imaging whole body PET CT or whole body MRI. So that is important, definition of the complete remission. And...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38744685
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Xevinapant Plus Chemoradiotherapy in Unresected LA SCCHN
10/27/2025
JCO Article Insights: Xevinapant Plus Chemoradiotherapy in Unresected LA SCCHN
In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Lauren Shih summarizes the article, "" by Bourhis, et al published September 03, 2025 TRANSCRIPT
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38769605
info_outline
Income Among Adolescents and Young Adults Surviving Cancer
10/09/2025
Income Among Adolescents and Young Adults Surviving Cancer
Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Giancarlo Di Guiseppe discuss the JCO article "" TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hi everybody and welcome to another episode of , the podcast where we go in depth on manuscripts that are published in the . I'm your host, Dr. Shannon Westin, social media editor of and gynecologic oncologist extraordinaire. I'm so very excited to talk to you today. We're going to speak about "." And I'm joined today by Dr. Giancarlo Di Giuseppe. He has a PhD in epidemiology that he actually just defended with this very work you're going to hear about today at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. He is now a research fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children. Welcome, Dr. Di Giuseppe. It's so exciting to have you. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Shannon Westin: So we'll get right to it. Let's level set. Can you talk a little bit about the financial impact of cancer on survivors in general? I think this has been a growing area of interest and research, certainly. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, and I think that's a very important question, and I'm so happy that this research is now becoming more popular in the research world because it really addresses a critical issue that cancer survivors and their families must face. You know, you're diagnosed with cancer, and now you need to take time off work because you're hospitalized for chemotherapy. You're going back and forth to the hospital, and that all requires time away from your employment, and as a result of that, that has a significant financial strain, both on you and your family. And that's during therapy. Now, in survivorship, in the years after you've survived your cancer, you still need to deal with all the late effects associated with your treatment and your disease, and that can be psychological, physical, and that impacts your workability as well. So, it's not just exclusive to individuals undergoing treatment but also in survivorship afterwards. It really gets the financial strait that you face as a cancer survivor because you're time away from work and your lost productivity. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, that makes sense. Then I think it would be great to talk a little bit specifically about the patient population that you studied in this particular manuscript. Can you talk a little bit about the adolescent young adult cohort, you know, why you singled out this particular group of people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Absolutely. Adolescents and young adults, or AYAs, which I'll now refer to them as - I'm one of them - we're at a unique crossroads of our life and in our developmental stage of life. We are finishing our post-secondary education. We're entering the workforce. We're forming romantic relationships, and we're really achieving financial autonomy. It's because of this unique developmental stage in life where we've become quite susceptible to health shocks such as cancer. Really, does a cancer and the associated negative financial impacts affect our long term trajectory? So, I'm just finishing my PhD. If I was diagnosed with cancer, I would require a year or two away from my studies. I may or may not finish my education that could then impact my employment and then my financial outcomes later on in life. So it's really this unique population who are going through so many transitions and changes in their lives. How does that cancer really impact that life course trajectory? I think it's unique from an adult who might have, you know, large savings where they can bear the brunt of their cancer financial impacts, whereas AYAs may not have that same financial stability, provide a safety net for the financial impact resulting from their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: You broke my heart a little bit. I realized I'm no longer in that group, so I guess it's time to move on. Okay. So, let's talk a little bit about the overall design of the study. Can you just kind of walk us through how you set everything up? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. So it's a matched cohort study at the population level here in Canada. We have large national administrative databases, and we have this really unique set of data at the national level through Statistics Canada that we can link our cancer registry to tax records. It really provides this unique opportunity to longitudinally follow individuals from their disease forward in time. The main overall design is the matched cohort study. At the time of diagnosis of a cancer case, they're matched to someone from the population on certain characteristics. I follow these individuals from the index date of their cancer case forward in time. The crux of the study itself is a quasi-experimental two-group pre-post study design where I have information before the cancer diagnosis, I have information from their income after their cancer diagnosis, and it's really quantifying how much does that total income change from before the cancer to the after-cancer period. Dr. Shannon Westin: I'm always intrigued about hearing more about financial toxicity in general, certainly very multi-dimensional. Can you speak a little bit about the different ways that you can assess this and measure this and kind of what you chose? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, so financial toxicity really has two main spheres of measurement. There's a direct and the indirect measurements of financial toxicity. So your direct financial toxicities could be related to actually paying for medical treatment and any sort of financial burden as a direct consequence of your disease. Fortunately here in Canada, we have a universal health care system, so patients don't have to pay directly for most of their treatment. There's also indirect financial toxicities, which are not a direct result of the disease. So in this study here, one of the, or the indirect financial toxicity that I measured was the financial impact to income. That's not the only indirect financial toxicity. There could be out-of-pocket expenses for drugs that may not be covered in the universal health care system here. It could be lost productivity at work. There's really this direct and indirect financial toxicities that together result in a significant financial burden and hardships for cancer patients and survivors. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, so you guys did a lot of matching. It was extensive. Can you speak a little bit about the factors you used to match your patients and your controls and kind of why you chose them? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. The matching I think is a really critical aspect of the study, and it really establishes this baseline period of individuals who are cancer-free, who look as similar as possible to the individuals who would eventually develop cancer. So I matched on birth year, sex, marital status, whether or not they had children, if they were born here in Canada or not, as well as a geographic measurement of census division. So it's really in the city or in a rural town. Then I also matched on a 5% buffer of their total income in the year prior to the cancer diagnosis. All this matching was really done in the year before they were diagnosed, and it's to establish this comparator cohort of individuals from the general population who looked as similar as possible to the individuals, or the AYAs, who would develop cancer. It's again to establish this baseline period of a control cohort who looks as similar as possible. So any differences that we might see after the cancer can be attributed to the effects of the AYA who would develop cancer. It's quite powerful, I think, from a study design perspective because it establishes causal inference methods through the study design and through the matching itself. Fortunately, I was able to match on an extensive list of covariates given the large population-based data that I used, particularly the tax records. Tax records contain a whole wealth of information, your marital status, your sex, your income, where you live. So it really provided this rich opportunity to match as closely as possible the AYAs who would develop cancer to someone from the population who wouldn't. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, and I mean I think that's the only way to do this type of research and really make it generalizable and actually, you know, know that you can trust the results that you've got. So I just want to again congratulate you because I think this was just- when I read the design, I was so impressed. So now that we know the design and we understand everything, let's talk a little bit about the characteristics of the actual patient population that you studied. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, for sure. So average age of diagnosis was in their early 30s, so around 32 years old. The breakdown of the population was mostly females, so I think two-thirds of the cohort were actually females who were diagnosed with cancer. Really, a lot of the cancers were thyroid and the breast cancers. These cancers are more common in women than they are in men. So it's really reflective of the different distribution of cancer in AYAs compared to other populations like in children or in older adults. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, bottom line. What did your primary analysis demonstrate and how was the income different based on the types of cancer that people might have been diagnosed with? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, the bottom line is actually quite a disturbing message, I would say, and it's really that cancer causes this long, prolonged financial hardship in survivors. That's, I think, a very important result from the study, and I think it has far-reaching implications. This study demonstrates that these individuals who were diagnosed with this disease that is unforeseen also pay a financial price, and that sustains for many years after their diagnosis. That's overall on average. Once I dove deeper, actually looking at the different cancer types, the message actually gets even more disturbing, I would say, particularly in some disease subgroups. So the central nervous system cancer survivors really have a large reduction in their income, which sustains over 25%, 10 years after their diagnosis, and they never really recover financially from their disease. There are some groups of cancer survivors who really pay a large financial price for their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't know if you're able to tease this out. This is just me thinking off the top of my head. Do you think it's the long-lasting side effects? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think you hit the nail on the head there, absolutely. I think what we're seeing here is a direct result of the late effects that cancer survivors experience. CNS cancer survivors, whether that is a surgical resection, radiation to the head for their tumor, the late effects really impact these individuals in the post-cancer survivorship period. So I think what we're really seeing are these late effects here. Dr. Shannon Westin: The other thing I was kind of struck by is the differential and income loss over time. Can you speak a little bit about that in your work? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. There really is this period of financial vulnerability in the first couple years of diagnosis. So that's year zero, one, two, and three, these first couple years when these individuals are diagnosed with cancer, they are significantly impacted by their disease financially. Some of these reductions in their income is 15%, 20% in the year of diagnosis and the year afterwards. It's unsurprising because this is when these individuals typically are undergoing their treatment. They're not working. They may have even lost their job or quit their job. So it's really reflective in the results in that first few years of their diagnoses where these financial impacts are the largest. I think it provides an opportunity where certain interventions might alleviate some of these large reductions in their income. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, I really was disturbed by your work, and I hate to kind of say it that way because it's such important work. So I'm really- congratulations on everything that you're able to achieve and especially your PhD. But I think shining a light on these types of things is always pretty rough when you really look at the nitty-gritty details. So any thoughts about where we go from here, how do we support these people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think we can support them at multiple different levels. So at the individual level, I think within the clinic setting, financial screening for financial toxicity, financial literacy, I think all these things can be incorporated into cancer care continuum to kind of educate AYAs with cancer about the financial implications of their disease, both in the short and the long term. So I think educating these cancer patients is important. I think at the employer level, really working at the institutional level to incorporate workplace accommodations that might facilitate the return to work process for cancer survivors after their treatment or during, I think would also make the financial burden slightly less if cancer survivors are able to return to work or not have to quit their job because of their disease. And then return to work easier, I think might alleviate some of the employment consequences that these individuals face, which then lead to their adverse financial effects. Then I think also at the policy level, at the governmental level, whether that's incorporating any sort of fiscal stimulus for cancer survivors, whether they're under treatment or in survivorship, any sort of tax breaks that they might be available to them to kind of alleviate some of that financial stress. The reality of it is being diagnosed with cancer and having your income reduced by even 5% - cost of living is expensive, especially now - so I can't even imagine what cancer survivors who are in this economy are facing with rising inflation and cost of living going up. So I think really having tax breaks as well as financial aid for these cancer survivors could really support them both in their cancer journey while they're undergoing treatment as well as some of the sustained effects that they experience afterwards. It's particularly important, as we touched on earlier, for CNS cancer survivors, right? These individuals have this sustained effect that never really returns back to normal, and I think having sort of disability pension or kind of financial aid for these individuals to support them, I think is important. Dr. Shannon Westin: We see this all the time in gynecologic cancers, these young women that support their families, young children, and then lose their ability to do so due to their diagnosis and the treatment they have to receive. So I can't say this enough how important this work was and how honored I am to get to speak with you today. I learned a ton. And thank you to all of you listeners. We're just so excited to have you. This has been long term dynamic financial impacts among adolescents and young adults with cancer: a longitudinal matched cohort study. Thanks again for listening to , and please do wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38357215
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Phase I DLL3/CD3 T-Cell Engager in DLL3-Positive SCLC or NECs
09/29/2025
JCO Article Insights: Phase I DLL3/CD3 T-Cell Engager in DLL3-Positive SCLC or NECs
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Dr. Ece Cal interviews Dr. Martin Wermke, author of the JCO article, "." TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the transcript. Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of . This is Dr. Ece Cali, editorial fellow, and today I am joined by Dr. Martin Wermke, Professor for Experimental Cancer Therapy at Dresden University of Technology, to discuss the manuscript “.” Obrixtamig is a bispecific T-cell engager that binds to DLL3 on tumor cells and CD3 on T-cells. This manuscript presents the phase 1A dose escalation results of Obrixtamig in patients with DLL3+ small cell lung cancer and neuroendocrine carcinomas. In this study, 168 patients were treated with Obrixtamig across four different dosing regimens. 49% of the patients had small cell lung cancer, 42% had extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma, and 8% had large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. Patients received a median of two prior lines of therapy. 33% of the patients had brain metastases at baseline. Of note, this trial did not mandate baseline brain imaging. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached. 88% of the patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, however, only 3.6% of the patients had to discontinue treatment due to treatment-related AEs, and dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs was documented in 2.4% of the patient population. Similar to the other DLL3-targeted bi-therapies, the most common adverse events included CRS in 57%, dysgeusia in 23%, and pyrexia in 21% of the patients. CRS events were mostly mild. They occurred more frequently in the first two to three doses. 9% of the patients experienced ICANS, of which 3% were graded as Grade 3 or higher. And let's review the efficacy results. Responses were only seen in patients who received 90 microgram per kg or more once weekly or once every three weeks dosing. The objective response rate in patients who received an effective dose was 28%. If we review by tumor type, 21% of the small cell lung cancer patients, 27% of the extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma patients, and 70% of the large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma patients had objective response. Median duration of response was 8.5 months, though this data is immature due to short follow-up. Dr. Wermke, DLL3-targeted bispecific T-cell engagers are reshaping the treatment landscape of small cell lung cancer. This trial investigates Obrixtamig in other high-grade neuroendocrine tumors as well. Can you put this trial into context for us and explain why it may represent an important step forward? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to discuss our data today. I think the data with Obrixtamig in small cell lung cancer are largely similar to what has been observed with other bispecific T-cell engagers such as tarlatamab with respect to the response rate and duration. It has, however, been to be mentioned that BI 1438001 had a bit more liberal inclusion criteria than other trials around. You already mentioned the fact that we allowed the inclusion of patients without mandatory brain imaging, which led to some patients having their brain mets been diagnosed during the treatment with obrixtamig and then adding to the progressive disease patients. That is something which was not the case with the tarlatamab trials where you really had to have a brain imaging before, and in the Phase 1 trial you were even required to treat the brain mets before you included the patient. So it is a bit different, more poorest patient population. I think the trial adds on existing data by being the first trial to also include non-SCLC neuroendocrine carcinoma of other origin, for example from the gastrointestinal tract, and also by including large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung, which is a really hard to treat pulmonary neoplasm which currently lacks any standardized treatment. So that is really a step forward which we will build on in the future. Dr. Ece Cali: And one thing I would note in this trial, only patients with tumor expressing DLL3 were enrolled. Can you tell us a little bit more about this target, DLL3 in the context of neuroendocrine tumors, and does DLL3 expression predict clinical outcomes after treatment with DLL3 BiTEs, or do we actually need other predictive biomarkers for these novel agents? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you. That's a pretty interesting question. First of all, DLL3 is an atypical notch ligand, which is expressed by the majority of neuroendocrine carcinomas, virtually absent on healthy adult tissues. Therefore, turning it really into a bona fide target for T-cell engaging therapies, pretty low risk for on-target off-tumor side effects. We found that in all the patients we screened, we had an expression rate of about 94% in small cell lung cancer, 80% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung were positive, and also about 80% of the extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma. So it's really a high prevalence. So the fact that we only included DLL3+ tumors still means we included most of the patients that presented with these diseases. I think at the moment there are no data suggesting a clear-cut association between DLL3 expression levels and outcome on DLL3 CD3 T-cell engagers. There's also not a lot published. If you want to find this out for tarlatamab, you have to look into their patent to really see the data, but it's not clear-cut and I'm sure we need other markers to complement that. And I think what probably plays a major role is intrinsic T-cell fitness. So the question how really diseased your T-cells are, how old you are, because age also correlates with the fitness of the immune system, and other patient characteristics such as tumor burden, we've seen all across the board that the higher the tumor burden, the lower the rate of prolonged response is in such trials. And I also think we need to focus on other components of the tumor microenvironment. So see how high the T-cell infiltration with obrixtamig is and how abundant suppressive elements like regulatory T-cells or myeloid-derived suppressive cells are. That is work which is currently being done. Data are emerging, but I don't think that at the moment we have any clear biomarker helping us to select who should not receive DLL3 T-cell engagers. Dr. Ece Cali: Those are great points and there is a lot we need to learn about how to use these novel agents in the future. I'd like to highlight the results in large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. The response rate in this group was remarkably high at 70%. Though we should note the small sample size of only 14 patients in this trial. After first line chemoimmunotherapy, current approved options for this population have very modest clinical activity. Given these trial results, how do you envision the field moving forward for patients with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, I think LCNEC is really an area which urgently needs further improvement of therapeutic standards. At the moment, as I said, there is no real standard. We are usually extrapolating from results we have in small cell lung cancer or non-small cell lung cancer, but I don't think we have too many prospective trials really informing this. Of course, 14 patients is a small sample size, but I think it's still fair to say that we can claim that DLL3 T-cell engagers are not doing worse in LCNEC than they do in SCLC. And that's why I think we really need to move forward clinical trials that are specifically targeting this population. Although I fear a bit that, given the rareness of this disease and the aggressiveness of its phenotype, that this is probably not the main focus of the pharmaceutical industry. So I think it's up to us academic investigators to really come up with investigator-initiated trials trying to fill the knowledge gaps we have here. Dr. Ece Cali: And one more thing that I want to talk about is the accessibility for these drugs. These novel agents are showing real promise in improving outcomes for patients with high-grade neuroendocrine tumors, an area where progress has been limited until very recently. However, as DLL3 BiTEs become more widely used, issues of logistics and access come into sharper focus. With unique toxicities and the specialized monitoring, their use is restricted to certain centers. Looking ahead, what kinds of strategies could help mitigate some of these adverse events or make these treatments more broadly available? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, I think if you look at countries like the United States where tarlatamab has already been approved, we can see how the management strategies are evolving. I've heard about a colleague equipping their patients with thermometers and a pill of Dexamethasone, alongside with a temperature control protocol and clearly instructing them, "If you measure a temperature above a certain level then start taking the Dexamethasone and come back to our office and we're going to take care of you." I think that's one way to move forward. I think we are lucky in a way that CRS usually manifests within the first 24 hours. This was the same in our study, like in the tarlatamab studies. So we really know when the time of trouble is for our patients. And in this time, I think we need to instruct the patients to stay close to the hospital. I don't think we need to hospitalize all of them, but we probably need them to stay in a nearby hotel to be able to reach the emergency room if needed in a short period of time. And I think we can also learn in this strategy how to manage bispecific antibodies from the experience our colleagues in hematology had because they have been using bispecific T-cell engagers for quite some years right now and they developed strategies and networks that were able to successfully treat these patients also on an outpatient basis. And I think that is clearly an experience we need to follow, acknowledging that we are talking about diseases which are much more frequent than the standard hematology indications. Dr. Ece Cali: Thank you so much, Dr. Wermke, for this informative discussion and for sharing your perspective on this evolving field. Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to talk about data. It was really great being able to share that, and I really think that we are just at the beginning of a new exciting area for the treatment of neuroendocrine carcinomas, and I think much improvement is yet to come for our patients. Dr. Ece Cali: Yes, that's really exciting. And thank you everyone for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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 this 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. Dr. Martin Wermke's Disclosures Honoraria: Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, Merck Serono, GWT, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Regeneron, MJH/PER, Takeda Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squib, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, immatics, Bayer, ImCheck therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Tacalyx, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Zymeworks, PharmaMar, Iovance Biotherapeutics, T-Knife, Genentech Research Funding: Roche Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GEMoaB, Sanofi/Aventis, immatics, Merck Serono, Janssen Oncology, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH"
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38353490
info_outline
TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
09/11/2025
TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Hani Babiker discuss the JCO article "" TRANSCRIPT TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of , the podcast where we get in depth with manuscripts that have been published in the . I am your host, gynecologic oncologist , social media editor at the JCO, and just excited to be here to learn today about pancreatic cancer. None of our participants have conflicts of interest related to this podcast, and it is my honor to introduce . He is an associate professor of medicine, consultant in oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Welcome, Dr. Babiker. Dr. Hani Babiker: Hi, Dr. Westin. Thank you for the great opportunity to discuss our trial, and thank you for having me here. I really appreciate it, and I am excited. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, so are we. So we are going to be talking about “” This was simultaneously published and presented in the JCO and at the annual meeting of ASCO on 5/31/2025. So, let's level set. Can you speak to us just a little bit about pancreatic cancer? What is the survival, and what is the typical treatment for locally advanced disease? This gynecologic oncologist has not kept up in this field. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely, Dr. Westin, and thank you for that question. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer. When I first started my career, the 5-year survival, per the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, was at 4.5%. I always, whenever I was giving talks, say that I really hope that I will see it in the double digit. Now, the 5-year survival for all pancreatic adenocarcinoma is 13.3%. And the 5-year survival, and although it is a double digit, I still hope that I will see it in a higher double digit in the future. It is even worse in patients with metastatic cancer, about 3% 5-year survival for metastatic pancreatic cancer. It is a dismal diagnosis. I really hope in the future we will find a better therapeutic approach to this lethal cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yes, I just lost a very dear friend and colleague to this disease, so I completely agree with you. Well, now that we are settled kind of with the basics here, I would love to talk a little bit about kind of the primary piece of this intervention, the Tumor Treating Fields. So, how does this work? And what diseases has it gotten indications in as yet? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, Tumor Treating Fields is alternating frequency electrical fields that have been studied preclinically and shown that it abrogates cancer cell proliferation. Earlier on, we knew that it inhibits polymerization of tubulin, and hence, it affects cancer cells from proliferating. Later, we are learning that there are multiple mechanisms of action. It affects permeability, allowing for better drug delivery. It also inhibits cancer cell proliferation through affecting autophagy mechanisms that pancreatic cancer cells will use for proliferating and becoming more aggressive. There is also some early data preclinically in colorectal cancer cell lines and lung cancer cell lines and in vivo models showing that it potentially could activate the microenvironment to make it more pro-immunogenic. We recently published papers showing that it could also affect the nanomechanical properties of the tumor microenvironment within pancreatic cancer, hinting towards affecting, potentially, the stroma. So, there are multiple mechanisms to Tumor Treating Electric Fields. It is a new, novel therapeutic approach. Sometimes when I speak with my trainees, I say, "Well, we have surgery, we have radiation and chemotherapy, and this is something new." Tumor Treating Fields initially was studied in refractory GBM and got an indication there. Subsequently, frontline treatment of GBM in a randomized clinical trial, and then malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer. We have studied it in pancreatic cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't think I have ever heard it described so perfectly. That was brilliant. So thank you, and I hope everyone listening knows that you just got a masterclass on this mechanism. You know, they dabbled in it a little bit in ovarian cancer and it didn't quite make the grade, so I was a little definitely disappointed. But very excited about the data we're going to talk about today. So let's get into the PANOVA-3 study. Can you highlight the overall design and also the key eligibility criteria that would be helpful for our listeners? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, it started off with preclinical work in pancreatic cancer showing Tumor Treating Fields with chemo abrogate cancer cell perforation. It led to a trial, the PANOVA-2 trial, that was run in Europe that showed efficacy for OS and PFS in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, which included metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, more so in locally advanced that led to the PANOVA-3 trial, which was an international, global study. This was in more than 190 centers, 20 countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and Asia. It was a randomized trial. Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to either chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel per drug label. The other arm was with Tumor Treating Fields at 150 kHz for a recommendation for patients to wear it 18 hours per day. The primary end point of the trial was OS, overall survival. The secondary end point included other efficacy landmarks such as local PFS, pain control, quality of life, and safety. And there was a post hoc that looked at distant PFS. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's a pretty common secondary end point in pancreatic studies of looking at the pain-free interval. I thought that was really brilliant because, you know, I think in gyn cancers, we see resolution of symptoms as being a really big deal, but it's not necessarily something that we always look at. So I thought that was really nice that you included that. Okay, talk to us a little bit about the population. So, the population that actually got treated in PANOVA-3 is pretty generalizable to what people are treating in the clinic. Dr. Hani Babiker: So, in pancreatic cancer, unfortunately, most of our patients present, approximately 80%, with metastatic disease. Local is divided to resectable, borderline, and locally advanced. We studied this trial, a randomized trial, in locally advanced and unresectable, which is really an unmet need. Most of our patients with locally advanced and unresectable are grouped up with other trials in the metastatic setting without a focus on locally advanced and unresectable, save for a few trials. This year, a trial that we were looking for for a long time, the LAPLACE trial, unfortunately, that we were very excited about, this is a molecule that targeted connective tissue growth factor, that showed earlier efficacy in a randomized trial, did not meet up the median OS end point. And hence, PANOVA-3 is the first trial in locally advanced and unresectable that did meet its primary end point. So, it's a very unmet need in locally advanced and unresectable. A lot of the times, our patients in clinic are treated with frontline chemotherapy that was studied in metastatic disease and locally advanced and unresectable, which include either FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine/abraxane. I do have in my clinic multiple patients that would stay on the regimen for such a long time, and then we would have to devise a mechanism of maintenance, although this is not studied really in details, either with capecitabine or dropping the oxaliplatin to continue FOLFIRI. And then we also approach chemoradiotherapy. So the trial was in a disease in pancreatic cancer that really is an unmet need. So the inclusion criteria included a patient with locally advanced and unresectable. These were done at multiple centers. Most of them academic centers were discussed at the tumor board, and if it's unresectable, they will be meeting specific metrics of appropriate liver function tests, kidney function tests, and blood counts. We excluded patients that obviously had, given that these are electric fields, patients that have, for example, stimulators or pacemakers, knowing that this could potentially affect some of these devices. But for the most part, it was locally advanced and unresectable patients with a very good performance status and good counts. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. I think everyone's excited to hear about the primary outcome of overall survival. What did you find, and how does it compare to some of the recent trials? Dr. Hani Babiker: We're very excited that it did meet its primary end point of median overall survival. It was very exciting knowing that a lot of us were disappointed a little bit of some of the trials that were presented at ASCO GI, such as the LAPLACE trial that I alluded to. Just before the presentation, the PRODIGE 29 trial that is in locally advanced and unresectable that randomized patients with locally advanced disease to either FOLFIRINOX or single-agent gemcitabine, allowing for a crossover, although it did meet its primary end point of PFS, there was no overall survival benefit. So that kind of got us a little bit disappointed, but having the PANOVA-3 trial being positive in median OS got us all excited. In addition, the 12-year overall survival rate was increased in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat. The modified intention-to-treat were patients that have had at least one cycle of therapy with TTFields daily and/or one cycle with chemotherapy, which was gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. There was a trend to improvement in PFS and local PFS, although that did not have statistical significance, but the 12-year PFS rate in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat was significant. For me, as one of the investigators, that told me that there might be a specific biomarker that would tell me that patients could respond greater than others, more exceptional than others, given that 12-month PFS rate was improved. On a post hoc analysis, the distant PFS was improved with the intervention of Tumor Treating Fields with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. In addition, there was an improvement in global health status and quality of life in addition to pain-free survival, which is a strong hurdle in our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma that most present with significant abdominal pain. Dr. Shannon Westin: One of the other questions that I think has come up is around central review. So did you all use central review in this study? Dr. Hani Babiker: Most of the centers were academic centers. These were discussed in tumor boards, which included radiation oncologists and surgeons. I wanted to point out that it's very important to note that the primary end point was overall survival. So the primary end point was not PFS. Hence, the central review would help us, for example, with elaborating and making sure patients were actually locally advanced disease, but in a setting where the primary end point is overall survival, that was the key point of the clinical trial. This trial was discussed at academic centers, and all included tumor boards to decide if patients were locally advanced or not. In the trial, there was a good proportion of patients, or percentage, that had a CA 19-9 more than 1000. That could indicate that potentially there are a fraction of patients that actually had metastatic disease, micrometastatic disease. So that could hint towards why the median OS was slightly lower then in both arms when compared to, for example, the trial that was presented at ASCO GI, the LAPLACE trial. However, having said that, we were very excited about the trial. It was the first positive trial in locally advanced and unresectable to meet median OS survival. Dr. Shannon Westin: It's so awesome. So congratulations. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about your very detailed secondary end points because you had a lot of really prudent choices there. So anything that was interesting or informative in those end points? Dr. Hani Babiker: One major hurdle back we have for most of our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, like I mentioned earlier, is pain. We try to approach it, obviously, with narcotics. If it doesn't work, we try to do celiac axis block interventionally, and that sometimes is successful and sometimes is not. So actually, to see the pain-free survival end point to be met was very exciting for us. And as for me, as a scientist that studies TTFields in clinic and lab as also to develop a mechanism and understanding really how that works. That was very important for us that in addition to chemotherapy, it improved pain-free survival or deterioration of pain. And most importantly, our patients with pancreatic cancer, this disease is very aggressive. It affects quality of life of patients. Patients feel fatigued, tired. It's a procoagulant tumor that causes clots and strokes, etcetera, marantic endocarditis. And one big problem we deal with when we're seeing patients in clinic is obviously that quality of life. Although data have shown with treatment, with frontline regimens, that quality of life improves with treatment and chemotherapy, it's actually great to see that that improvement happens early in addition to Tumor Treating Fields. The other interesting point was that it was not only pain and quality of life, but also digestive symptoms that are improved with this intervention, knowing that a lot of our patients do have pancreatic cancer, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency that affect also with digestion, and a lot of our patients have abdominal pain after eating and diarrhea. So it was interesting to see that also improved with the intervention. Dr. Shannon Westin: You have touched a little bit on some of the adverse events, kind of with the TT mechanisms, but I'd love to hear a little bit more detail around adverse events in general in this study, as well as specific AEs related to the Tumor Treating Fields. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So when we compared both arms, there was a similar toxicity related to the regimen, mostly with chemotherapy, but in specifically to Tumor Treating Fields, there was a rash, and that included dermatitis and rash. Most of the side effects were grade 1 and grade 2. Grade 3 toxicities related to skin was less than 10%, approximately 7% to 8%, and hence did not affect many patients. But it was something to note, and it's something that in the future, when we develop a mechanism of treating patients to note early. We in our clinic have learned to treat patients in the clinical trial early with topical steroids to each patient, of shifting the arrays to mitigate some toxicity and rash. We do advise our patients in hot areas, we keep them aware that sweating, for example, can lead to higher conductivity of electrical fields with a predisposition for rash. So if there's an opportunity to stay in a little bit of a cold area, make sure that the arrays are shifted, use topical steroids early. If it's a significant rash, to hold treatment for at least 48 hours and speak to the investigators. And through these mechanisms, we have learned that we were able to mitigate the rash quite a bit. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, I'm, it's summer right now, and I think- I'm in Texas, you're in Florida, like we know. Okay, so I guess, again, you have been kind of touching on this, but I would love to know, like if in the quality-of-life assessments or if just in your discussions with patients, like how easy is this to use? How easy is the Tumor Treating Fields device to use, and what do patients really think? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. We have learned that whenever we speak with patients, it's always good to discuss with them briefly the science of it. A lot of patients would want to know if it's interventional, is that something that goes, is delivered percutaneously or not, and we explain that these are delivered through arrays that are through the skin. We always touch base with them about a lot of question I get about mechanism of action and then about compliance. So I think one important thing to note is that compliance with the use of the device is a lot of the question we'll get quite a bit. Patients know there's going to take an effort from them, and some of my patients enjoyed it because they felt like they also are fighting the disease by wearing the device. I have learned very quickly that having a team, surrounded by a team that knew how to mitigate some of the side effects and knew how to explain how to use the device helped quite a bit. And this included some of our nurses and our nurse practitioners and our clinical research coordinators who've done a wonderful job of showing these arrays actually to patients before they start on the trial, look at it, know how it works. The other point to know is that the sponsor provided Device Support Specialist, we call them DSS, they have been instrumental in helping us, helping the patients know how to use the device, how to use the generator, how to change the batteries, and that helped us conduct the trials and enroll very well. I would envision in the future with education and relying on the Device Support Specialist and having a team that knows how to use the device and mitigate some of the side effects will go a long way for patients to learn about this treatment. Many of the times our patients said while they are on the clinical trial felt like they are also being part of this team in applying the device and fighting the cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Well, I guess the bottom line. Is it ready for prime time? Is this something you are going to use for your patients in the clinic? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. In a disease that has poor prognosis, and we are trying our best to find new treatments to fight this cancer and treatment modalities, presenting patients with all the treatment options that are out there would be recommended. It's what I would do it for in my clinic. And you know, it's funny that I am mentioning that right now. I had a patient who was seen internationally asking about the trial and the device and had locally advanced and unresectable before they start frontline treatment. I do think that there is going to be an educational piece. Obviously, this is not a pill, it's not an intravenous chemotherapy that we're very well and accustomed to. And some of us in academic centers know it very well. I usually joke that whenever I am talking about it in pancreatic cancer, if there is a radiation oncologist in the room, they will be like, "Yeah, we know all about it. We have been treating patients with GBM over there." So a lot of the times, when we first went to trial, if I had any questions, I would call them and ask them. So from their perspective, they, because they use it as a standard of care in treatment of GBM, they develop significant expertise in it. I think in the GI world, specifically and with oncologists that treat pancreatic cancer and specifically oncologists in the community, learning about the device and how to use it, how to recommend it, how to mitigate side effects, will be hopefully for prime time in the future. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. Sounds like some real educational opportunities there. Well, this has been awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. Babiker. I mean, I learned a ton, and I wish that we could find a way to use this in gynecologic cancers, but really, really just want to commend you on the design of the trial and the success in this really devastating disease. So again, this was "." And as always, I am your host, Shannon Westin. Please go wherever you get your podcasts and have an awesome day. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38147775
info_outline
JCO at WCLC: Multinational Pivotal Study of Sunvozertinib in Exon20ins NSCLC
09/09/2025
JCO at WCLC: Multinational Pivotal Study of Sunvozertinib in Exon20ins NSCLC
JCO fellow Dr. Ece Cali speaks with JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas E. Stinchcombe to discuss the JCO article , that was simultaneously released at the IASLC 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year’s most important oncology meetings. I am your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO editorial fellow, and I am joined by Dr. Tom Stinchcombe, JCO associate editor, to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer abstract presentation, “.” The WU-KONG1B trial is a multinational, phase II study that investigated the efficacy and safety of different doses of sunvozertinib in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations after progression on platinum based chemotherapy. Tom, before we dive into the results, could you walk us through the rationale for this study, and how does it fit into the current treatment options for patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: Thank you, Dr. Cali. I think the clinical context is always important. We have known that EGFR exon 20 insertions exist and that they are resistant to our currently available EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and I think there have been attempts in the past to develop a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, but there is a very narrow therapeutic window between the dose you need to inhibit the EGFR mutation in the cancer and the EGFR receptor on normal tissues, most notably the mucosa, the gut, and the skin. And so, our previous attempts have failed largely because the dose required was not tolerable for patients and they could not really stay on the drug for a long time or they were not very active. And so, I think there was a real desire to develop an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and then, historically, the standard had been a platinum based doublet as the standard of care. And more recently, platinum based doublet with amivantamab has proven to be superior to platinum based chemotherapy alone. I think the context is also important that amivantamab is not necessarily available in all the countries, and so, there are patients who do not have access to amivantamab. Going to the rationale, I think that this drug had shown preliminary promise of having activity but without that being encumbered by those EGFR wild type toxicities, and, therefore, it was really explored in this larger study. Dr. Ece Cali: And what are some key findings from this trial? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: So, I think that we should look at the study design. It is a little quirky, for lack of a better term, in that there is a randomization to 200 versus 300 mg, and then, there was a nonrandomized cohort of 300 mg. So, when you look at the study, if you are a purist, you will just look at the randomized patients. If you are sort of an aggregator, you look at all patients. So, it shows reporting on three cohorts, but I think the key findings are that the 200 mg and the 300 mg treatments had similar toxicities in terms of response rate, duration of response, and progression free survival. And as you know going through the review, there was a lot of queries from the reviewers as to which would be the preferred dose, and to me, I think this really illustrates a dose finding component to a trial design because there is a lot of debate about what the minimal effective dose is or the optimal dose. And in this case, having the two dose cohorts did provide us some valuable efficacy and toxicity information. And then, when I look at the study, I want to make sure it reflects my patient population, and about a quarter of patients had brain metastases, and about 15% had previous amivantamab, and about 5% to 10% had another EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Ece Cali: And what is the objective response rate and the duration of response? These are pretty good numbers for this patient population. Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: In the 200 mg cohort, it was about 46%. The duration of response was around 11 months, and the PFS was around 8 months. The 300 mg cohort was 46%, duration of response 9.8, and the median PFS is 6.9 months, and I think that this is greater activity than we have seen with our previous attempts at EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Dr. Ece Cali: And based on these data, FDA granted accelerated approval for sunvozertinib very recently at 200 mg once daily dosing in this setting. So, that is a major step forward for our patients. Dr. Stinchcombe, how does this impact your clinical practice, and what side effects should oncologists be watching for if they prescribe this medication? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: So, I think it was very interesting that they chose the 200 mg dose, which I think was more tolerable, and when we kind of look at this, there still was a rate of diarrhea, all grade, rash, paronychia, which are the EGFR related toxicities. There can be some decreased appetite, stomatitis, and then, it can lead to some lab abnormalities, like increased CPK and creatinine that physicians have to be aware of. You know, how it will affect my practice is that all these patients had received a platinum based chemotherapy as the first line therapy. I think that this would become my preferred second line therapy for patients outside the context of a trial because of the activity and the tolerability. Dr. Ece Cali: And lastly, several other tyrosine kinase inhibitors are being evaluated for EGFR exon 20 insertion, including in the frontline setting. So, what are some of the outstanding questions in this space, and what data should our listeners keep an eye on moving forward? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: I think you are right that now, there is going to be another EGFR tyrosine kinase that may become available in the next year, and there is another drug, furmonertinib, that is being investigated. I think, for the clinical question, is, well, can we move these into the first line setting? And actually, the development path has two ways of doing this. There is EGFR tyrosine kinase compared to platinum based chemotherapy, and then, platinum based chemotherapy with an EGFR tyrosine kinase versus platinum based chemotherapy, and both have their merits and strengths. And so, I think it is going to be very interesting as we see if those first line trials, one, can they be demonstrated to be superior to platinum based chemotherapy, and then by what magnitude and what the side effects are. But I think we are hoping that in the next couple of years, we will have an additional first line option for our patients. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, it is always great to have more options for our patients. Thank you, Dr. Stinchcombe, for speaking about the JCO article, “Phase II Dose-Randomized Study of Sunvozertinib in Platinum-Pretreated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.” Join us again for the latest JCO simultaneous publications. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of World Lung Conference. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/38063520
info_outline
Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries
08/28/2025
Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries
Host Davide Soldato and guest Dr. John K. Lin discuss the JCO article "." TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello, and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors of the latest articles published in the . I'm your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, a medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by Dr. Lin, assistant professor in the Department of Health Services Research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Lin and I will be discussing the article titled, "." Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Lin. Dr. Lin: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, just to start, to frame a little bit the study, I just wanted to ask you what prompted you and your team to look specifically at this question - so, racial and ethnic disparities within this specific population? And related to this question, I just wanted to ask how this work is different or builds on previous work that has been done on this research topic. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. Part of the impetus for this study was the observation that despite people who are black or Hispanic having equivalent health insurance status - they all have Medicare Fee-for-Service - we've known that treatment and survival differences and disparities have persisted over time for patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. And so, the question that we had was, "Why is this happening, and what can we do about it?" One of the reasons why eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in survival among Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic cancer has been elusive is because these disparities are occurring along a lot of dimensions. Whether or not it's because the patient presented late and has very extensive metastatic cancer; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time even seeing an oncologist; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time starting on any systemic therapy; or maybe it's because the patient has had a difficult time getting guideline-concordant systemic therapy because, more recently, these treatments have become so expensive. Disparities, we know, are occurring along all of these different facets and areas of the treatment cascade. Understanding which one of these is the most important is the key to helping us alleviate these disparities. And so, one of our goals was to evaluate disparities along the entire treatment cascade to try to identify which disparities are most important. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. So, basically, one of the most important parts of the research that you have performed is really focusing on the entire treatment cascade. So, basically, starting from the moment of diagnosis up to the moment where there was the first line of treatment, if this line of treatment was given to the patient. So, I was wondering a little bit, because for this type of analysis, you used the SEER-Medicare linked database. So, can you tell us a little bit which was the period of time that you selected for the analysis? Why do you think that that was the most appropriate time to look at this specific question? And whether you feel like there is any potential limitation in using this type of database and how you handled this type of limitations? Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And I want to back up a little bit because I want to talk about the entire treatment cascade because I think that this is really important for our research and for future research. We weren't the first people to look at along the treatment cascade for a disease. Actually, this idea of looking along the treatment cascade was pioneered by HIV researchers and has been used for over a decade by people who study HIV. And there are a lot of parallels between HIV and cancer. One of them is that with HIV, there are so many areas along that entire treatment cascade that have to go right for somebody's treatment to go well. Patients have to be diagnosed early, they have to be given the right type of antiretrovirals, they have to be adherent to those antiretrovirals. And if you have a breakdown in any one of those areas, you're going to have disparities in care for these HIV patients. And so, HIV researchers have known this for a long time, and this has been a big cornerstone in the success of getting people with HIV the treatment that they need. And I think that this has a lot of parallels with cancer as well. And so, I am hoping that this study can serve as a model for future research to look along the entire treatment cascade for cancer because cancer is, similarly, one of these areas that requires multidisciplinary, complex medical care. And understanding where it is breaking down, I think, is crucial to us figuring out how we can reduce disparities. But for your question about the SEER-Medicare linked database, so we looked between 2016 and 2019. That was the most recent data that was available to us. And one of the reasons why we were excited to look at this is because there were some new treatments that were just released and FDA-approved around 2018, which we were able to study. And this included immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer, and then it also included androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, the second-generation ones, for prostate cancer. And the reason why this is important is because for some time, as we have developed these new therapies, there's been a lot of concern that there have been disparities in access to these novel therapies because of how expensive they are, particularly for the Medicare population. And so one of the reasons why we looked specifically at this time period was to understand whether or not, in more recent years, these novel therapies, people are having increasing disparities in them and whether or not increasing disparities in these more expensive, newer therapies is contributing to disparities in mortality. That being said, obviously, we're in 2025 and these data are by now six years old, and so there are additional therapies that are now available that weren't available in the past. But I think that, that being said, at least it's sort of a starting point for some of the more important therapies that have been introduced, at least for non–small cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. And the database, SEER-Medicare, is helpful because it uses the population cancer registry, which is the SEER registry cancer registry, linked to Medicare claims. So, any type of medical care that's billed through Medicare, which is going to basically be all of the medical care that these patients receive, for the most part, we're going to be able to see it. And so, I think that this is a really powerful database which has been used in a lot of research to understand what kind of care is being received that has been billed through Medicare. So, one of the limitations with this database is if there is care that's received that was not billed through Medicare, we're not going to be able to see that. And this does not happen probably that frequently, particularly because most patients who have insurance are going to be receiving care through insurance. However, we may see it for some of the oral Part D drugs. Some of those drugs are so expensive that patients cannot pay for the coinsurance during that time. And it's possible that some of those drugs patients were getting for free through the manufacturer. We potentially missed some of that. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, going a little bit into the results, I think that these are very, very interesting. And probably the most striking one is that when we look at the receipt of any type of treatment for metastatic breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer - and specifically when we look at guideline-directed first-line treatments - you observed striking differences. So, I just wanted you to guide us a little bit through the results and tell us a little bit which of the numbers surprised you the most. Dr. Lin: So, what we were expecting is to see large disparities in receiving what we called guideline-directed systemic therapy. And guideline-directed systemic therapy during this time kind of depended on the cancer. So, we thought that we were going to see large disparities in guideline-directed therapy because these were the more novel therapies that were approved, and thus they were going to be the more expensive therapies. And so, what this meant was for colorectal cancer, this was going to be any 5-FU–based therapy. For lung cancer, this was going to be any checkpoint inhibitor–based therapy. For prostate cancer, this was going to be any ARPI, so this was going to be things like abiraterone or enzalutamide. And for breast cancer, this was going to be CDK4 and 6 TKIs plus any aromatase inhibitor. And so, for instance, for breast, prostate, and lung cancer, these were going to be including more expensive therapies. And so, what we expected to see was large disparities in receiving some of these more expensive, novel therapies. And we thought we were going to see fewer disparities in receiving some of the cheaper therapies, such as aromatase inhibitors, 5-FU, older platinum chemotherapies for lung cancer, and ADT for prostate cancer. We were shocked to find that we saw large racial and ethnic disparities in seeing some of the older, cheaper chemotherapies and hormonal therapies. So for instance, for breast cancer, 59% of black patients received systemic therapy, whereas 68% of white patients received systemic therapy. For colorectal, only 23% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 34% of white patients. For lung, only 26% of black patients received any therapy, whereas 39% of white patients did. And for prostate, only 56% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 77% of white patients. And so, we were pretty shocked by how large the disparities were in receiving these cheap, easy-to-access systemic therapies. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, I just wanted to go a little bit deeper in the results because, as you said, there were striking differences even when we looked at very old and also cheap treatments that, for the majority of the patients that were included inside of your study, were actually basically available for a very small price to these patients who had the eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid. And I think that one of the very interesting parts of the research was actually the attention that you had at looking how much of these disparities could be explained by several factors. And actually, one of the most interesting results is that you observed that low-income subsidy status was actually a big determinant of these disparities in terms of treatment. So, I just wanted to guide us a little bit through these results and then just your opinion about how these results should be interpreted by policymakers. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to explain a little bit about what low-income subsidy status is and dual-eligibility status. Some of the listeners may not know what low-income subsidy status or dual-eligibility status is. Low-income subsidy status is part of Medicare Part D. Medicare Part D is an insurance benefit that allows patients to receive oral drugs. So these are drugs that are dispensed through the pharmacy, such as the CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as second-generation ARPIs in our study. For patients who have Medicare Part D and whose income is low enough - falls below a certain federal poverty level threshold - those patients will receive their oral drugs for much cheaper. And this is really important for some of these more novel therapies because for some of these more novel therapies, if you don't have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying thousands of dollars for a single prescription of those drugs. Whereas if you have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying less than $10. And so that difference, greater than $1,000 or $2,000 versus less than $10, one would think that the patient who's paying less than $10 would be much more likely to receive those therapies. So that's low-income subsidy status. Low-income subsidy status, importantly, doesn't apply for infused medications like immunotherapy. But it's important to know that most people with low-income subsidy status - about 88% - are also dual-eligible. What dual-eligible means is that they have both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare being the insurance that everybody has in our study who's greater than 65. And Medicaid is the state-run but federally subsidized insurance that patients with low incomes have. And so patients who are dual-eligible - and about 87% of those with low-income subsidy status are dual-eligible - those patients have both Medicaid and Medicare, and they basically pay next to nothing for any of their medical care. And that's because Medicare will reimburse most of the medical care and the copays or coinsurance are going to be covered by Medicaid. So Medicaid is going to pick up the rest of the bill. So, most of the patients who have low-income subsidy status who are dual-eligible, these patients pay almost nothing for their medical care - Part B or Part D, any of their drugs. And so, one would expect that if cost were the main determinant of disparities in cancer care, then one would expect that dual-eligibles, most of them would be receiving treatment because they're facing minimal to no costs. What we found is that when we broke down the racial and ethnic disparity by a number of factors - including LIS status/dual eligibility, age, the number of comorbidities, etcetera - what we found was that the LIS or dual-eligibility status explained about 20% to 45% of the disparities that we saw in receiving treatment. And what that means is despite these patients paying next to nothing for their drugs, these are the most likely patients to not be treated for their cancer at all. So they're most likely to basically be diagnosed, survive for two months, see an oncologist, and then never receive any systemic therapy for their cancer. And this is not just chemotherapies for colorectal or lung cancer. This includes cheaper, easier-to-tolerate hormonal therapies that you can just take at home for breast cancer, or you can get every six months for prostate cancer, that people who even have poorer functional status are able to take. However, for whatever reason, these dual-eligible or LIS patients are very unlikely to receive treatment compared to any other patient. The low likelihood of treating this group of patients, that explains a large portion of the racial and ethnic disparities that we see. Dr. Davide Soldato: And one thing that I think is very interesting and might be of potential interest to our listeners is, did you compare survival outcomes in these different settings? And did you observe any significant differences in terms of racial and ethnic disparities once you saw that there was a significant difference when looking at both receipt of any type of treatment and also guideline-directed treatments? Dr. Lin: We saw that there were large disparities in survival by race and ethnicity when you look overall. However, when you just account for the patients who received any systemic therapy at all - not just guideline-directed systemic therapy - those differences in survival essentially disappeared. And so, what that suggests is that if black patients were just as likely to receive any systemic therapy at all as white patients, we would expect that the survival differences that we were seeing would disappear. And this is not even just looking at guideline-directed systemic therapy. This was looking just at systemic therapy alone. And so, while guideline-directed systemic therapy should be a goal, our research suggests that if we are to close the gap in disparities in overall survival among black and white patients, we must first focus on patients just receiving any type of treatment at all. And that should be the very first focus that policymakers, that leaders in ASCO, that health system leaders, that physicians, that we should focus on: just trying to get any type of treatment to our patients who are poorer or black. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And this was not directly related to the research that you performed, but going back to this very point - so, increasing the number of patients that receive any kind of systemic treatment before looking at guideline-directed treatments - what would you feel would be the best way to approach this in order to decrease the disparities? Would you look at interventions such as financial navigation or maybe improving referral pathways or providing maybe more culturally adapted information to the patients? Because in the end, what we see is disparities based on racial and ethnicity. We see that we can reduce these disparities if we get these patients to the treatment. But in the end, what would you feel is the best way to bring patients to these types of treatments? Dr. Lin: I think the most important thing is to understand that these disparities are not primarily happening because of the high cost of cancer treatment. These disparities are happening because of other social vulnerabilities that these patients are facing. And so these vulnerabilities could be a lot of things. It could be mistrust of the medical system. It could be fear of chemotherapy or other treatments. It could be difficulty taking time off of work. It could be any number of things. What we do know is when we've looked at the types of interventions that can help patients receive treatment, navigation is probably the most effective one. And the reason why I think that is because when patients don't receive treatment because of social vulnerability, I sort of look at social vulnerability like links in a chain. Any weakest link is going to result in the patient not receiving treatment. This may be because they have a hard time taking time off of work. This may be because they had a hard time getting transportation to their physician. It may be because they had an interaction with a physician, but that interaction was challenging for the patient. Maybe they mistrusted the physician. Maybe they're worried about the medical system. If any of these things goes wrong, the patient is not going to be treated. The patient navigator is the only person who can spot any of those weak links within the chain and address them. And so, I think that the first thing to do is to get patient navigation systems in place for our vulnerable patients throughout the United States. And this is incredibly important because in Medicare, patient navigation is reimbursable. And so this is not something that's ‘pie in the sky’. This is something that's achievable today. The second thing is that it's really important that we see these vulnerabilities happening for patients who are dual-eligible, who have both Medicare and Medicaid. One of the reasons why this is important is because there has been a lot of research outside of what we've done that has shown vulnerabilities for dual-eligible patients who have Medicare for a number of different diseases. And the reason why is because, although patients are supposed to have the benefits of both Medicare and Medicaid, usually these two insurances do not play nicely together. It creates a huge, bureaucratic, complex mess and maze that most of these patients are unable to navigate. And so many of these patients are unable to actually receive the full reimbursement from both Medicare and Medicaid that they should be getting because those two insurers are not communicating well. And so the second thing is that national cancer organizations need to be supporting policies and legislation that is already being discussed in Congress to revamp the dual-eligible system so that it...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/37968315
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Lymph Node Dissection for Lung Cancer
08/25/2025
JCO Article Insights: Lymph Node Dissection for Lung Cancer
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Dr. Joseph Matthew interviews authors Dr. Yang Zhang and Dr. Haiquan Chen about their recently published JCO article, "" TRANSCRIPT Joseph Mathew: Welcome to the episode for the August issue of the . This is Joseph Mathew, editorial fellow for JCO, and today, it is my pleasure to have with us Dr. Haiquan Chen and Dr. Yang Zhang, authors of the recently published manuscript, "," which we will be discussing today. Dr. Chen is the Director of the Institute of Thoracic Oncology at Fudan University and the Chief of Thoracic Surgery at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, where he is also the Head of Thoracic Oncology MDT and the Director of the Lung Cancer Center. Dr. Chen is a surgeon-scientist and a pioneer in developing individualized surgical strategies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Dr. Zhang is a surgical oncologist and a member of the team which Dr. Chen leads at the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Welcome Dr. Chen and Dr. Zhang. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation and joining us today as part of this podcast episode. To summarize the salient points, this study presented the interim analysis of a multi-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial investigating the necessity of systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection at the time of segmentectomy or lobectomy in patients with clinical stage T1N0M0 ground-glass opacity-dominant invasive lung adenocarcinoma, as defined by a consolidation-to-tumor ratio of 0.5 or less on thin-section computed tomography and a maximum tumor diameter of 3 cm or less. Eligible participants with intraoperatively confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma on frozen section analysis were randomized to either the systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection arm or to no mediastinal lymph node dissection. In the latter experimental group, mediastinal lymph nodes comprising the N2 nodal stations were not dissected, and the hilar nodes were variably addressed at the discretion of the operating surgeon. The primary endpoint of the trial was disease-free survival at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included perioperative outcomes, the status of lymph node metastasis in the systemic lymph node dissection arm, and 3-year overall survival. Before the trial reached its accrual target, a pre-planned interim safety analysis set for the time point when enrollment reached 300 patients was performed. It was noted that while none of the patients in either arm had nodal metastasis on postoperative pathological evaluation, lymph node dissection-related intraoperative and postoperative complications were more commonly observed in the systematic lymph node dissection arm, including one life-threatening episode of massive bleeding. Since this met the predefined criteria for trial termination, and in accordance with the principle of non-maleficence, further recruitment was stopped and the trial terminated. Although the 3-year disease-free survival and the overall survival for the enrolled patients were comparable, operative outcomes, including the duration of surgery, blood loss, chest tube duration, length of postoperative stay, and the rate of clinically significant complications, were significantly lower in the experimental arm compared with the systematic lymph node dissection group. The authors concluded that for well-selected patients, mediastinal nodal dissection could be omitted without adversely affecting oncological outcomes, representing a significant shift in current surgical practice, given that guidelines the world over recommend systematic lymph node dissection or sampling for all invasive lung cancers. In summary, this study addressed a clinically relevant question with regard to the extent of nodal dissection, especially in the light of recent evidence recommending less extensive parenchymal dissections for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, with the findings suggesting that invasive lung adenocarcinoma associated with ground-glass opacities of consolidation-to-tumor ratio up to 0.5 was an excellent predictor of tumor biology, and in clinical T1N0M0 lesions, a reliable predictor of negative mediastinal lymph node involvement. So Dr. Chen and Dr. Zhang, could you tell us some more about what led you to do this research and the challenges which you faced while recruiting patients for this trial? Dr. Yang Zhang: Dr. Mathew, thank you for your summary. The current clinical guidelines recommend systematic lymph node dissection or sampling for every patient with early-stage lung cancer, regardless of their lymph node status. And in our clinical practice, we observe that this procedure causes a lot of surgical complications including chylothorax and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Furthermore, dissecting the tumor-draining lymph nodes actually may potentially damage the body's anti-tumor immunity. So, Dr. Chen proposed the concept of selective lymph node dissection, which we aimed to dissect the metastatic lymph nodes, while at the same time we try to preserve as many uninvolved lymph nodes as possible. So previously, we have conducted a series of retrospective studies to identify reliable predictors of nodal negative status in certain mediastinal zones, and we have performed a prospective observational phase 2 clinical trial to validate that the six criteria we proposed are 100% in predicting node-negative status. And this forms the basis for our phase 3 clinical trial. Dr. Haiquan Chen: This trial is only one of the series of trials. The meaning of this trial you already said. And for a long time, from the surgeon's point of view, we considered minimally invasive surgery. It minimizes the size of the incision and minimizes the number of the holes we made. So, the true and the high-impact of minimally invasive, we make a concept of minimal dissection, that means organ-level minimally invasive. So we proposed the concept of minimally invasive 3.0, that means minimal incision, minimal dissection (that means organ-level minimal), and systemic minimally invasive. So at first, we judged from the point of minimally invasive surgery. As long as immunotherapy is widely used in the clinical practice, we know immunotherapy, that means you use drugs to stimulate and activate the lymph node site. If we dissect all the metastatic lymph nodes, cut them out, how can we restimulate that lymph node site? So, from minimally invasive trauma and second, from the functional aspect, to try to save as many uninvolved lymph nodes as possible. Joseph Mathew: Thank you, Dr. Chen. That's a very interesting concept that you alluded to even in the discussion of this paper, as to the potential role of the non-metastatic lymph nodes as immune reservoirs. So, coming back to this paper, were there any challenges which you faced while recruiting patients for this trial? Dr. Haiquan Chen: The criteria is very clear. That means invasive adenocarcinoma, that means most of the centimeter is 3.0 centimeter and also CTR ratio less than 0.5. And we can see that, you know, we did study about that. Even the invasive component of the subsolid nodule, it's bigger than the solid part. That means even the pure GGO, we can find out that there's still some invasive component. From this point of view, pure GGO and subsolid GGO, from this part of invasive carcinoma, that means it's a special clinical subtype that we, from retrospective study and also prospective study, we find out this group of patients, there are no mediastinal lymph node metastasis. So I think it's very important for this kind of group that we can avoid doing the mediastinal lymph node dissection. And we can do organ-level minimally invasive surgery. And also, we try to keep the patient's immune function as normal as possible. Dr. Yang Zhang: Well, Dr. Mathew, we believe that the biggest challenge when we are enrolling these patients is that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the mind because systematic lymph node dissection has long been the standard of care. And some patients may misunderstand. Before the enrollment, we have to give them informed consent, but if the patient hears that they may be enrolled in the no-lymph-node-dissection group, they may feel that they do not receive radical, curative-intent surgery. So we believe, as Dr. Chen has said, after the release of our results, the no-lymph-node dissection may be incorporated in the future guideline for those patients without lymph node involvement, we can just omit the lymph node dissection. Joseph Mathew: The study described two pre-planned interim points during the course of subject enrollment when the data was analyzed. So Dr. Chen and Dr. Zhang, could you please explain a little more about these two interim points of analysis that were planned and the rationale behind it? Dr. Yang Zhang: When conducting this trial, we have two concerns. One is if there is any lymph node metastasis, there may be omission of metastatic lymph nodes not dissected in the no-lymph-node-dissection group. And there is another concern is that if all these lymph nodes are uninvolved, then dissecting these lymph nodes may cause life-threatening complications. So, we set the 150 interim analysis to ensure that there is no lymph node involvement in this group. And the other early termination criteria is set because if there is no lymph node involvement found in both groups, then a severe complication which is life-threatening is unacceptable because it threatens the patient's safety. Joseph Mathew: So, although you did briefly allude to in the paper, what was the basis for selecting DFS as the primary endpoint when the objective of this trial was to assess nodal involvement in this subset of tumors? Dr. Yang Zhang: Well, previously, we have done a series of retrospective studies and one prospective phase 2 trial. And in these studies, we have identified that GGO-dominant lung adenocarcinoma, even if it's invasive, it has no lymph node involvement. So this phase 3 trial was primarily designed to compare the survival outcomes. But as the trial went on, as Dr. Chen has concerns that if the patients have no lymph node metastasis at all, it may be unfair to dissect the lymph nodes for patients enrolled in the systematic lymph node dissection group. So there is one life-threatening complication that happens due to dissecting the lymph nodes and injury to the superior vena cava, which leads to massive bleeding. It is at this point that we decided to terminate this trial for patient safety concerns. Joseph Mathew: Yeah, that's a very fair point. So you made sure that the ethical considerations were kept intact. So another point was, there was a mention in the study of the historical data from your institution suggesting a 3-year disease-free survival of 96.6% for patients with clinical T1N0M0 ground-glass opacity-dominant invasive lung adenocarcinoma. So could you please elaborate on the patterns of recurrence which you noted for this group of patients who had developed a recurrence? Dr. Haiquan Chen: Yeah, I think over 90% 3-year DFS, that's the least. From our retrospective data for this kind of group of patients, their DFS is so good. To the best of my knowledge, almost 100%. So this is very conservative, 94, 90% is very conservative. I think the trial eventually would have been positive. It's a special clinical subtype, even for invasive adenocarcinoma, their prognosis is much better than the other type of invasive adenocarcinoma. Joseph Mathew: So this question may be slightly outside the purview of this study, but in your clinical practice, would you advocate either segmentectomy or lobectomy for all patients meeting the trial criteria, that is, lesions measuring 3 cm or less with a CTR of up to 0.5? Or is there a subgroup of patients you would recommend a wedge dissection for? Dr. Haiquan Chen: I think CTR ratio is one parameter and also the location is another very important parameter. So we put it together to make a decision, the patient should do a lobectomy or segmentectomy. Even for an ongoing trial, for even the patient, invasive adenocarcinoma, we can do in the right location, even wedge, it can achieve enough negative margin in the ongoing trial to verify the comparable result for the patient, we can do the wedge dissection. So not just the CTR ratio, that's not the only parameter to make a decision on what kind of procedure we'll do. Joseph Mathew: Yeah, great point, Dr. Chen. So from my perspective, this study was a well-designed, randomized control trial based on a relevant and clinically valid research question. So what, in your opinion, are the main strong points of this study? Dr. Yang Zhang: We believe that this study represents the first randomized clinical trial published, yet, regarding the topic of selective lymph node dissection. It basically offers the highest level of evidence. We believe our results should be incorporated in the future clinical guideline. Joseph Mathew: Given the increasing incidence of these lesions, I think it was- a randomized control trial in this arena was much awaited. And the other point is that GGO-dominant lung adenocarcinomas, the specific clinical guidelines are not very clear. So I think your study brought out that lymph node dissection for these tumors which satisfy the eligibility criteria could be omitted safely. Important consideration here is that the conclusions of the trial were based on an interim analysis, and this analysis was not planned for an early assessment of the primary endpoint. In other words, the study was not adequately powered to detect a significant difference in DFS at 3 years. So Dr. Chen and Dr. Zhang, what do you perceive are the most important limitations of this study which you feel should be addressed in future research? Dr. Haiquan Chen: So the surgery now is more individualized. I think the surgery from the last two decades, from the maximum tolerable intervention to minimum effective treatment, there's a big shift. So I think that the consensus, we can preserve normal lung parenchyma as much as possible. For the lymph nodes, I think that the big shift, we should shift it to keep as many as uninvolved lymph nodes as possible. So that's very important, not just to reduce the intraoperative trauma, but also to keep the immune environment as normal as possible. Joseph Mathew: Another point was the limited long-term follow-up data to determine the actual impact of omitting lymph node dissection on local-regional disease control. So is any future follow-up planned to assess the long-term survival outcomes for the 302 patients which were enrolled in this trial? Dr. Haiquan Chen: Yeah, I think that's very important for us. This trial we terminated just because if we keep the trial going, it's unfair for the mediastinal lymph node dissection group. We tried to just stop here, and we shifted to the single-arm trial. So, 2 or 3 years, this trial and another trial, they will give our final result to demonstrate more if selective mediastinal lymph nodes have a better result than ever before. And we will support the mediastinal lymph node dissection. That's one way. And the American College just asked me, how can we put this policy into clinical practice in the United States? Because most of the patients they meet have solid tumors. So we have another trial, try to figure out how we can make sure before and intraoperative the lymph node status is negative or positive, and then we can solve that problem and put this policy into clinical practice in the Western society. Joseph Mathew: Great. So that would be something we should all be looking forward to. So, this brings me to the final point of discussion on future research in this field. Dr. Chen, you commented in the paper that future studies should focus on improving the reproducibility of CTR evaluation. What are your thoughts on this subject? Dr. Haiquan Chen: The CTR ratio, the concept from the JCOG 0201, just a concept from that prospective study, the phase 2 study, only subgroup analysis they give the concept of CTR ratio and the diameter. How can we reproduce? In our group and also I believe in Japan and in China, in Korea, and in our daily practice, I think CTR ratio is not a big issue. There are two very important things. One, you make sure the CTR ratio, not in a common CAT scan, but in a high-resolution CAT scan. So the imaging, that's the first thing. And the second, not from the single section and a two or three section, you make sure that your calculation is accurate. That's not just the single section, you make sure that you got the conclusion, the CTR ratio is the same number. We make sure that totally we, from the top to the bottom of the whole lesion, we make sure that the CTR ratio is accurate. Joseph Mathew: Thank you, Dr. Chen. I think that would involve training our radiologists also to be aware of the CTR ratio and how it should be interpreted. So another very interesting concept which you had alluded to in the discussion was the potential role of non-metastatic lymph nodes as immune reservoirs. So how do you think we could preserve these nodes and do you think sentinel node biopsies would play a role in future? Dr. Yang Zhang: Actually, Dr. Chen has also led some basic research on this topic. We are investigating the immunological role of the tumor-draining lymph nodes. And our preliminary results have already shown that the tumor-draining lymph nodes of lung cancer, especially those uninvolved lymph nodes, have a vital role in the anti-tumor immunity and also effective response to the current anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. In the future, we believe that by incorporating our clinical evidence and those findings from our basic research, we will be able to provide very strong rationale to support selective lymph node dissection. Joseph Mathew: So lastly, what are the questions that still remain to be answered and what do you perceive as the next step in this field? Dr. Haiquan Chen: I think for the lung cancer surgery, especially for the cT1N0M0, they are more individualized. We can, based on the patient, the location, the CTR ratio, we can do wedge dissection, or segmentectomy, or lobectomy. For the lymph node dissection, we can do no mediastinal lymph node dissection or selective, only to dissect the positive one, or we have to do the systemic mediastinal lymph node dissection. So we can see there are too many combinations. So in the near future, for the surgery perspective, we have it more individualized. In the future, we just try to make sure we do not cut as many as possible. We just make sure that we can avoid over-diagnosis or overtreatment or over-dissected. I think that in the near future, that goal will come true. Joseph Mathew: That's a great point, Dr. Chen. So that would be something also for the thoracic oncology community to work towards. This wraps up today's episode of . Dr. Chen and Dr. Zhang, thank you very much for taking the time to join us today in what has been a very insightful session. Dr. Haiquan Chen: Thank you. Dr. Yang Zhang: Thanks. Joseph Mathew: To our audience, thank you for listening. Please stay tuned for more interviews and articles, summaries, and be sure to leave us your comments and ratings. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/37926345
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: IMS-IMWG Consensus on High-Risk Multiple Myeloma
07/28/2025
JCO Article Insights: IMS-IMWG Consensus on High-Risk Multiple Myeloma
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Michael Hughes summarizes “International Myeloma Society and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Recommendations on the Definition of High-Risk Multiple Myeloma" by Avet-Loiseau et al. published on June 09, 2025 along with an interview with author Dr Nikhil C. Munshi, MD. TRANSCRIPT Michael Hughes: Welcome to this episode of . This is Michael Hughes, JCO’s editorial fellow. Today I am interviewing Dr. Nikhil Munshi on the “” by Avet-Loiseau et al. At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript. While some patients with multiple myeloma live for decades after treatment, others exhibit refractory or rapidly relapsing disease irrespective of treatment administered. We term this “high-risk myeloma.” Multiple risk stratification systems have been created, starting with the Durie-Salmon system in 1975 and evolving with the advent of novel therapeutics and novel treatment approaches. In 2015, the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) was introduced, which incorporated novel clinical and cytogenetic markers and remained, until recently, a mainstay of risk stratification in newly diagnosed disease. Myeloma as a field has, just in the past few years, though, undergone explosive changes. In particular, we have seen groundbreaking advances not only in treatments - the introduction of anti-CD38 agents and the advent of cellular and bispecific therapies - but also in diagnostic technology and our understanding of the genetic lesions in myeloma. This has led to the proliferation of numerous trials employing different definitions of high-risk myeloma, a burgeoning problem for patients and providers alike, and has prompted attempts to consolidate definitions and terminology. Regarding cytogenetic lesions, at least, , published here in the JCO in February of 2025 and , posited a new cytogenetic classification system to realize a shared platform upon which we might contextualize those trial results. This article we have here by Dr. Avet-Loiseau, Dr. Munshi, and colleagues, published online in early June of this year and hot off the presses, is the definitive joint statement from the International Myeloma Society (IMS) and the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). What is high-risk multiple myeloma for the modern era? The IMS and IMWG Genomics Workshop was held in July 2023 and was attended by international myeloma experts, collaborating to reach consensus based on large volumes of data presented and shared. The datasets included cohorts from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM); the HARMONY project, comprised of multiple European academic trials; the FORTE study, findings from which solidified KRd as a viable induction regimen; the Grupo Español de Mieloma Múltiple (GEM) and the PETHEMA Foundation; the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG); the UK-based Myeloma XI, findings from which confirmed the concept of lenalidomide maintenance; Emory 1000, a large, real-world dataset from Emory University in Atlanta; the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Clinical Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma to Personal Assessment of Genetic Profile (CoMMpass) dataset; and some newly diagnosed myeloma cohorts from the Mayo Clinic. Data were not pooled for analyses and were assessed individually - that is to say, with clear a priori understanding of whence the data had been gathered and for what original purposes. Consensus on topics was developed based on the preponderance of data across studies and cohorts. In terms of results, substantial revisions were made to the genomic staging of high-risk multiple myeloma, and these can be sorted into three major categories: A) alterations to the tumor suppressor gene TP53; B) translocations involving chromosome 14: t(14;16) (c-MAF overexpression), t(14;20) (MAFB overexpression), and t(4;14) (NSD2 overexpression); and C) chromosome 1 abnormalities: deletions of 1p or additional copies of 1q. In terms of category A, TP53 alterations: Deletion of 17p is present in up to 10% of patients at diagnosis and is enriched in relapsed or refractory disease. This is well-documented as a high-risk feature, but the proportion of the myeloma cells with deletion 17p actually impacts prognosis. GEM and HARMONY data analyses confirmed the use of 20% clonal cell fraction as the optimal threshold value for high-risk disease. That is to say, there must be the deletion of 17p in at least 20% of the myeloma cells on a FISH-analysis of a CD138-enriched bone marrow sample to qualify as high-risk disease. TP53 mutations can also occur. Inactivating mutations appear to have deleterious effects similar to chromosomal losses, and the biallelic loss of TP53, however it occurs, portends particularly poor prognosis. This effect is seen across Myeloma XI, CoMMpass, and IFM cohorts. Biallelic loss is rare, it appears to occur in only about 5% of patients, but next-generation sequencing is nevertheless recommended in all myeloma patients. Category B, chromosome 14 translocations: Translocation t(14;16) occurs in about 2% to 3% of patients with newly diagnosed disease. In the available data, primarily real-world IFM data, t(14;16) almost always occurs with chromosome 1 abnormalities. Translocation t(4;14) occurs in about 10% to 12% of newly diagnosed disease, but only patients with specific NSD2 alterations are, in fact, at risk of worse prognosis, which clinically appears to be about one in every three of those patients. And so together, the CoMMpass and Myeloma XI data suggest that translocation t(4;14) only in combination with deletion 1p or gain or amplification of 1q correlates with worse prognosis. Translocation t(14;20) occurs in only 2% of newly diagnosed disease. Similar to translocation t(4;14), it doesn’t appear to have an effect on prognosis, except if the translocation co-occurs with chromosome 1 lesions, in which case patients do fare worse. Overall, these three translocations - t(14;16), t(4;14), and t(14;20) - should be considered high-risk only if chromosome 1 aberrations are also present. In terms of those chromosome 1 aberrations, category C, first deletions of 1p: Occurring in about 13% to 15% of newly diagnosed disease, deletion 1p eliminates critical cell checkpoints and normal apoptotic signaling. In the IFM and CoMMpass dataset analyses, biallelic deletion of 1p and monoallelic deletion of 1p co-occurring with additional copies of 1q denote high-risk. In terms of the other aberration in chromosome 1 possible in myeloma, gain or amplification of 1q: This occurs in up to 35% to 37% of newly diagnosed disease. It upregulates CKS1B, which is a cyclin-dependent kinase, and ANP32E, a histone acetyltransferase inhibitor. GEM and IFM data suggest that gain or amplification of 1q - there was no clear survival detriment to amplification - is best considered as a high-risk feature only in combination with the other risk factors as above. Now, in terms of any other criteria for high-risk disease, there remains one other item, and that has to do with tumor burden. There has been a consensus shift, really, in both the IMS and IMWG to attempt to develop a definition of high-risk disease which is based on biologic features rather than empirically observed and potentially temporally dynamic features, such as lactate dehydrogenase. Beta-2 microglobulin remains an independent high-risk indicator, but care must be taken when measuring it, as renal dysfunction can artificially inflate peripheral titers. The consensus conclusion was that a beta-2 microglobulin of at least 5.5 without renal failure should be considered high-risk but should not preclude detailed genomic profiling. So, in conclusion, the novel 2025 IMS-IMWG risk stratification system for myeloma is binary. It’s either high-risk disease or standard-risk disease. It’s got four criteria. Number one, deletion 17p and/or a TP53 mutation. Clonal cell fraction cut-off, remember, is 20%. Or number two, an IGH translocation - t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) - with 1q gain and/or deletion of 1p. Or a monoallelic deletion of 1p with 1q additional copies or a biallelic deletion of 1p. Or a beta-2 microglobulin of at least 5.5 only when the creatinine is normal. This is a field-defining work that draws on analyses from across the world to put forward a dominant definition of high-risk disease and introduces a new era of biologically informed risk assessment in myeloma. Now, how does this change our clinical approach? FISH must be performed on CD138-enriched samples and should be performed for all patients. Next-generation sequencing should also be performed on all patients. Trials will hopefully now begin to include this novel definition of high-risk multiple myeloma. It does remain to be seen how data from novel therapeutic trials, if stratified according to this novel definition, will be interpreted. Will we find that therapies being evaluated at present have differential effects on myelomas with different genetic lesions? Other unanswered questions also exist. How do we go about integrating this into academic and then community clinical practice? How do we devise public health interventions for low-resource settings? To discuss this piece further, we welcome the esteemed Dr. Nikhil Munshi to the podcast. Dr. Munshi is a world-renowned leader in multiple myeloma and the corresponding author on this paper. As Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Director of the Multiple Myeloma Effector Cell Therapy Unit, and Director of Basic and Correlative Science at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, he has presided over critical discoveries in the field. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Munshi. Dr. Nikhil Munshi: Oh, it’s my pleasure being here, Michael, to discuss this interesting and important publication. Michael Hughes: I had a few questions for you. So number one, this is a comprehensive, shall we say, monumental and wide-ranging definition for high-risk myeloma. How do you hope this will influence or impact the ways we discuss myeloma with patients in the exam room? And how do we make some of these components recommended, in particular next-generation sequencing, feasible in lower-resource settings? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So those are two very important questions. Let’s start with the first: How do we utilize this in our day-to-day patient care setting? So, as you know well, we have always tried to identify those patients who do not do so well with the current existing treatment. And for the last 30 years, what constitutes a myeloma of higher risk has continued to change with improvement in our treatment. The current definition basically centers around a quarter of the patients whose PFS is less than 2 to 3 years. And those would require some more involved therapeutic management. So that was a starting point of defining patients and the features. As we developed this consensus amongst ourselves - and it’s titled as “International Myeloma Society, International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Recommendation” - this IMS-IMWG type of recommendation we have done for many years, improvising in various areas of myeloma care. Now, here, we looked at the data that was existing all across the globe, utilizing newer treatment and trying to identify that with these four-drug regimens, with transplant and some of the immunotherapy, which group of patients do not do as well. And this is where this current algorithm comes up. So before I answer your question straight, “How do we use it?” I might like to just suggest, “What are those features that we have identified?” There are four features which constitute high-risk disease in the newer definition. Those with deletion 17p with 20% clonality and/or TP53 mutation. Number two, patients with one of the translocations - t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) - co-occurring with 1q amplification or deletion 1p32. And that’s a change. Previously, just the translocation was considered high-risk. Now we need a co-occurrence for it to be called high-risk. The third group is patients having biallelic deletion 1p32 or monoallelic deletion 1p32 along with 1q amplification. And finally, patients with high beta-2 microglobulin, more than or equal to 5.5 mg/dL, with normal creatinine less than 1.2 mg/dL. And the question, “How do we use this?” There are multiple areas where we incorporate high-risk features in our treatment algorithm. One of the first areas is where we would consider the induction regimen. If a patient has a high-risk disease, we would definitely consider a four-drug regimen rather than a three-drug regimen, although we are beginning to incorporate four-drug for all groups. That’s one important thing. Number two, those are the patients where we do consider consolidation with transplant or maybe in the new world, considering some of the immunotherapeutic consolidation more early or more aggressively. Number three, these are the patients who get a little bit more maintenance therapy. So normally, lenalidomide might end up being our standard maintenance regimen. In patients who have high-risk disease, we incorporate either addition of daratumumab or the anti-CD38 targeting antibody and/or addition of proteasome inhibitor, either bortezomib or carfilzomib. So you would have multi-drug maintenance therapy in these patients. And in high-risk patients, we follow them with maintenance longer periods of time. One very critically important point to keep in mind is that to get the better outcome in high-risk disease, we must try to get them into MRD negativity because there is clear data that patients who do achieve MRD negativity, despite having high-risk disease, have a much superior outcome. They become near to standard-risk disease. And so, in high-risk patients, I would try to do whatever various options I have to try and get them into MRD-negative status. And when these patients relapse, we do not wait for the classic progression criteria to be met before we intervene. We would propose and suggest that we intervene earlier before the disease really blasts off. And so there are a number of areas in our setting where this high-risk definition will help us intervene appropriately and also with appropriate aggressiveness to achieve better outcome, to make this similar to standard-risk disease. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Munshi. And thoughts on how to really integrate this not only into academic centers but also lower-resource settings? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So that’s a very important question, Michael. And when we were developing this consensus, we were very cognizant of that fact. So wherever available, I think we are recommending that over a period of next 2, 3, 5 years, we should begin to switch over to sequencing-based methods because two components of this definition, one is TP53 mutation, which we cannot do without sequencing, and also reliably detecting deletion 1p requires sequencing-based method. So in the low-resource countries - and there are many in this world, and also even in our own country, patients may not be able to afford it - the older method with FISH or similar such technology, which is more affordable, is also acceptable for current time. They may miss a very small number of patients, maybe 2% to 3%, where these finer changes are not picked up, but a majority of this would be captured by them. So the current practice might still be applicable with some limitation in those patient populations, and that’s what we would recommend. What is happening, fortunately, is that actually sequencing-based method is becoming cheaper. And in many centers, it is cheaper to do the sequencing rather than to do the FISH analysis. And so my hope is that even in low-resource centers, sequencing might be more economical in the end. It’s, I think, the access to technology, which is a little bit limited currently, but it’s hopefully becoming available soon. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Munshi. And staying for a minute and looking at the multiple myeloma subsets which might be missed by this really still very broad-ranging high-risk definition, at least by prior risk stratification systems, right, there is this group of patients who have standard-risk cytogenetics by R-ISS or R2-ISS, but they have primary refractory disease or they relapse early. We call these, as you are well aware, functionally high-risk disease. What proportion of previously FHR, functionally high-risk, myeloma patients do you expect to be captured by this novel definition? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So I think the newer definition - and we can look at it both ways, but the newer definition should capture most of the functionally high-risk definition. To put it differently, Michael, there are patients who we know are, as you mentioned, functionally high-risk. Those are the patients who might have plasma cell leukemia, those who might have extramedullary disease, those who might not respond to our four-drug induction. If you don’t respond to the four-drug induction, almost by definition, they are high-risk. However, a majority of them have one of the abnormalities that we are describing here. There would be a very small proportion which may not have. And if they do not have, we know one of the important components of this definition here is also that the genome, we know, keeps on evolving. So there may be a very small clone with the high-risk feature which was not obvious in the beginning. Following treatments or following relapse, that clone predominates, and now the patient’s disease becomes high-risk. So the definition would incorporate or would capture these functional high-risk patients, but as you said, in countries where resources are not available, using this functional high-risk would also be helpful and advantageous. Sometimes LDH ends up being a high-risk. In our studies, LDH has not come out to be high-risk anymore because the features we are describing captures most of those patients, but those alternatives, older, can still be considered if other newer techniques are not available. Michael Hughes: Got you. And in terms of these older definitions, yes, that incorporate tumor burden, these empirical observations about how myeloma presents, do you foresee any additional tumor burden indicators being added to future definitions of high-risk disease? Or do you instead see this particular definition as a major waypoint on the journey towards a fully biologically grounded definition of high-risk disease? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: I think your second part is what is going to happen. I think the tumor burden-related definition is being now replaced by the biological or genomic-based definition. And I think at some point, it will be quite fully replaced. One component not here, and it is because one thing, we don’t have enough data; number two, we don’t know how it will pan out, is also the influence of the microenvironment on the risk definition. For example, the immune system, the immune function, etc. But not enough data exists to suggest how it would change the current definition. So in future, would a definition be totally genomic or it could be more integrative? And my personal guess is that it would be more integrative and that some immune features might come into the picture, especially now that we are using immune-based therapy as a very important component of treatment - CAR T-cells, bispecific, and antibody-based treatments. What role the immune system plays in either supporting tumor or what role suppression of the anti-tumor immunity plays? They all will be important how patient outcomes end up being, and which in turn could translate into how patient’s risk stratification might happen. So I think the older tumor burden-related definitions probably will become things of the past. What we have currently proposed and consensus developed is the new path forward, and...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/37576385
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Pooled Taletrectinib Efficacy and Safety
06/30/2025
JCO Article Insights: Pooled Taletrectinib Efficacy and Safety
In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Peter Li summarizes "" by Pérol et al, published April 03, 2025, followed by an interview with first author, Dr Maurice Pérol. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Peter Li: Welcome to this episode of . I am Dr. Peter Li, JCO’s editorial fellow, and today I am joined by Dr. Maurice Pérol on “,” by Pérol et al. At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript. Before we start our interview, I want to give our listeners a quick summary of the TRUST study. For those tuning in, the TRUST study is a phase II, single-arm, open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter trial looking at the efficacy and safety of a novel, next-generation ROS1 TKI, taletrectinib, in advanced ROS1-mutated non–small cell lung cancer. While a relatively rare mutation, the prevalence of ROS1 mutations ranges from 0.9% to 2.6% of patients, with a third of patients presenting with brain mets at diagnosis.Current FDA-approved therapies include crizotinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which have varying degrees of efficacy, in-coming with trade-offs in CNS penetrance and safety with newer generations, particularly in the realm of neurological side effects, highlighting an unmet need in this arena. A total of 273 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer with confirmed ROS1 mutation were recruited for this study. 160 patients were TKI-naive, while 113 were TKI-experienced with either crizotinib or entrectinib. Patients with asymptomatic brain mets were also allowed to enroll. In the TKI-naive arm, the median age was 57, with 91% of patients having stage IV disease, 20% having no more than one cycle of chemo, and 23% having brain mets at baseline. In the TKI-experienced arm, the median age was 53, with 97% having stage IV disease, 37% having received prior chemo, and about 50% having brain mets. Furthermore, about 10% of the study population had received entrectinib, while more than 90% had received crizotinib. About 10% had a known G2032R acquired resistance mutation. Taletrectinib was dosed at 600 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was overall response rate, with secondary endpoints being disease control rate, duration of response, time to response, and progression-free survival. For those with brain mets, intracranial overall response rate and disease control rate were also assessed. Median follow-up time was about 21 months in both cohorts. In the TKI-naive cohort, the overall response rate was 89%, with 8 patients achieving a complete response. Disease control rate was 95%, with a median duration of response of 44.2 months. Time to treatment response was about 1.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 45.6 months, with 52.6% not having progressed at 3 years. While overall survival data were immature, 66% of patients were still alive at 3 years. In the pretreated cohort, overall response rate was 56%, with 5 patients achieving a complete response. Overall response rate was 53% for those who were crizotinib-pretreated and 80% for the entrectinib-pretreated patients. Disease control rate was 88%, and median duration of response was about 16.5 months. Time to treatment response was also 1.5 months, and median progression-free survival was 9.7 months. Median overall survival was not reached, but 77.5% of patients were still alive at 1 year. Responses were consistently seen across subgroup analyses. 17 TKI-naive and 32 TKI-pretreated patients had measurable brain mets. In the TKI-naive arm, intracranial overall response rate was 77%. Disease control rate was 88%, and duration of response was 15 months. In the TKI-pretreated arm, intracranial overall response was 66%, with one patient achieving complete response. The disease control rate was 94%, and duration of response was about a year. For the 13 patients who had a known G2032R mutation, a 62% response rate was noted. Most common treatment-related side effects were AST/ALT elevation, nausea, and vomiting, with most being grade 1 or 2. Most common neurological side effects were dizziness, dysgeusia, and headache. Again, most were grade 1. QTc prolongation is another important adverse event to note, occurring in about 18% of all patients. Discontinuation rate from treatment was only 7%. There were three treatment-related deaths in this study: one from hepatic failure, one from pneumonia in the naive arm, and one from liver dysfunction in the pretreated arm. Dr. Peter Li: Maurice, thank you so much for joining us today to talk about your paper. Would you mind just giving yourself a brief introduction to the listeners out there of who you are? Dr. Maurice Pérol: So, my name is Maurice Perol. I'm a thoracic oncologist working in the Cancer Center of Lyon in France. And I'm involved in clinical research in thoracic oncology. I've been involved for many years now. Dr. Peter Li: Okay. And for listeners out there, don't forget, he's also the primary author of the paper that we just talked about. So, Maurice, let's begin. Can you tell our listeners what is the significance of your study? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, the results of these two large phase II studies - TRUST-I, which has been conducted in China, and TRUST-II, which was a global, worldwide phase II study - so, the results place taletrectinib as the TKI with the most favorable efficacy-tolerability ratio of the available ROS1-targeting TKIs, especially in frontline therapy. And this is based on the response rate, which was very impressive, the CNS penetration with a great CNS activity, the duration of response with a compelling 45 months median PFS in frontline setting. The level of activity in pretreated patients after crizotinib or entrectinib was also impressive and similar to that of repotrectinib, for example, but with a more favorable neurological tolerance profile. The toxicity is mainly represented with grade 1 or 2 transaminase elevation, but without clinical symptoms, and GI toxicity, but mainly grade 1 and 2. The neurological toxicity is low, especially for dizziness, showing that taletrectinib spares TrKB in a large part. And finally, there is also a decrease in toxicity over time, especially for GI toxicity and liver toxicities, which allows a very long and a prolonged administration, which is very important in this setting. Dr. Peter Li: These are all excellent points. Can you tell the listeners if there are any limitations that we should be concerned about, about this study? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Sure. This data comes from single-arm phase II studies. So, this is not comparative data. And a phase III trial, which compares taletrectinib to crizotinib, is ongoing to evaluate the superiority of taletrectinib over the standard of care. Another limitation comes from the lack of systematic brain imaging at each tumor evaluation in patients without brain metastases at baseline, not allowing to assess the intracranial PFS in all patients, and which did not allow us to assess the CNS protective issue from taletrectinib, especially in patients without brain metastases at baseline. Dr. Peter Li: Another question that I have is, with this novel TKI now available, how would you recommend the sequencing of these drugs? Would you start with someone on an alternate TKI and then reserve taletrectinib second line or later? Or would you use it upfront? Or does it depend? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, it is a very important question, as we have now different available TKIs. Looking at the efficacy-toxicity balance, I would strongly favor the use of taletrectinib in frontline setting, in first line. The response rate, the CNS activity, the duration of response with a very compelling 45 months median PFS, and moreover, the good tolerance profile over time are strong arguments in favor of giving taletrectinib in frontline. Generally speaking, the use of the most active agent as frontline treatment in lung cancer depending on an oncogenic addiction is probably the best way to improve the patient's outcome. This is true for patients with EGFR mutation, for patients with ALK fusions, and this is probably also true for patients with ROS1 fusion. So, I would probably argue in favor of a frontline use of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: Listeners are going to ask, well, if you use taletrectinib upfront, then what are you going to use second line once they progress? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, we have some new compounds which are under development today. For example, the NVL-520, which is a very interesting compound, which seems also to be active in case of resistance mutation. But I do think that we have to use the best-in-class TKI in frontline because, you know, the extension of PFS after acquired resistance you can obtain with a second-line TKI is always shorter than the benefit you can obtain by using the most active agent in frontline. And this is true for the majority of oncogenic addiction in lung cancer. Dr. Peter Li: That makes sense. I also noticed that cognitive impairment wasn't listed in the safety table. Is that not an issue that you've observed at all with taletrectinib, or is it still an issue but less so because, like you mentioned earlier, because of its higher selectivity? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question because we have some ROS1-targeting TKIs like repotrectinib, entrectinib, and even lorlatinib, with some neurological adverse events and some cognitive issues. Taletrectinib is a very selective ROS1-targeting TKI, and it spares very well the TrKB, for example, explaining that we did not observe any cognitive impairment with taletrectinib in the TRUST study, showing also with the low level of other neurological adverse events, dizziness, dysgeusia, for example, the high selectivity of the compound and the preservation of TrKB. So, this is very important when you consider the long duration of treatment in those patients with ROS1 fusion. If you have to take a drug for more than 2, 3, or 4 years, of course, the neurological adverse events are very important, and they can clearly impair the quality of life. So, this is a very important point, the very low level of neurological toxicity of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: And I think that goes to say why you would favor using it frontline as well compared to entrectinib or repotrectinib. Last question that we have for you is: well, what's next? You mentioned there's a phase III trial comparing it to crizotinib. I think one of the questions that a lot of us would have is: why not compare it to one of the newer agents as a comparator arm? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question. Crizotinib remains the standard of care in many countries for ROS1-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer outside of the US, especially in Europe, and in particular in patients who do not have brain metastases at diagnosis. Entrectinib has a better CNS penetration, but it did not achieve a better PFS than crizotinib in phase I/II trials, and clearly, it has a less favorable tolerance profile with weight gain, edema, and neurological adverse events. Repotrectinib has overall a level of activity which seems close to that of taletrectinib. So, it makes it difficult to consider a comparative trial that would, for example, test taletrectinib in comparison with repotrectinib because this kind of study would need a very large number of patients and a very late readout. Considering if you have a median PFS of more than 3 or 4 years, it would be very difficult to have results in before 4-5 years. So, from a pragmatic point of view, the comparison of taletrectinib to crizotinib is probably the best way to evaluate in a phase III setting the level of activity of taletrectinib, especially in the CNS, because this study will probably allow us to assess the CNS protective effect of the compound for patients without brain metastates at baseline. So, I think probably it's a pragmatic study that will allow us to confirm the high level of activity and the good tolerance profile of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: Well, thank you, Maurice, so much for speaking about the JCO article, “Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST,” and for all your valuable input today. Thank you for listening to Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/37178720
info_outline
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated NSCLC
06/02/2025
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated NSCLC
JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I am joined by JCO Associate Editor, Dr. Tom Stinchcombe. In this episode, we will discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation ".” NeoADAURA is a randomized global phase III study investigating the efficacy of neoadjuvant osimertinib-containing regimens in patients with resectable EGFR-mutated stage II to IIIB non–small-cell lung cancer. 358 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy, or placebo plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. The primary endpoint was major pathological response. Osimertinib plus chemotherapy and osimertinib alone demonstrated MPR rates of 26% and 25%, respectively, compared to 2% in the chemotherapy plus placebo arm with a p-value of less than 0.001. Tom, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Great question. Yeah, I think to give a little context, obviously, chemotherapy and immunotherapies preoperatively is becoming the standard of care. However, patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer generally have not responded to immunotherapy, and many of the trials excluded patients with known EGFR mutation. There have been smaller phase II trials that had looked at EGFR TKIs preoperatively, but none of these were definitive. So I think that this trial is a big trial, and I think some of the strengths are that it has osimertinib alone and chemotherapy with osimertinib arms as compared to the standard of chemotherapy. I think it's going to be really interesting at the meeting to see how this is discussed by the discussant and also what the reaction is to its public presentation. And I think that's largely because there's an alternative paradigm now, surgical resection adjuvant osimertinib, that's available to patients. So I think this will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the induction therapy. For patients with known N2 disease, I've generally given some form of induction therapy prior to surgical resection. So I think that's the subgroup of patients that I'm most likely to employ this approach with based on the results. Dr. Ece Cali: So, in this trial, more than 90% of the patients on the osimertinib-containing regimens underwent curative-intent surgery. So, this speaks to the feasibility of the approach, and the higher MPR rate with osimertinib-containing regimens is encouraging. Event-free survival data is currently immature. You have already touched upon some of the strengths of the trial, but what are the weaknesses and the strengths of this trial? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: So, I mean, I think there are some weaknesses. A major pathological response was chosen as an endpoint, and there could be an argument that path CR is more of a prognostic marker. However, the rates of path CR are relatively low, so it would have been very hard to design a trial such as that. And then I think the trial started off as a preoperative trial but effectively became a perioperative trial with preoperative EGFR-TKI, postoperative osimertinib. And so I think it's going to be very hard to determine what the contribution of the components are. And then you've hit on another part that I think is very important when we interpret the data that the maturity on the event-free survival is only 15%, and most people are still on therapy. So the event-free survival, which is an important endpoint, is very immature right now. Dr. Ece Cali: And this trial was designed to compare the neoadjuvant approaches, hence the comparator arm here is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. So, considering the ADAURA trial results with upfront surgery followed by osimertinib as adjuvant, so how do you see this trial's impact on the current clinical practice? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, very good question, I think one that we're still struggling with as we kind of look at this data. I think, for me, stage II patients will most likely go to surgery and then get adjuvant osimertinib, and then maybe the N2 patients will get an osimertinib-containing regimen as an induction therapy. I think one of the questions is does it really matter when you get the osimertinib as long as you get it at some point? And I think that's going to be the critical interpretation of some of the data at this point. Dr. Ece Cali: And how do you think this trial shapes the future research for patients with resectable EGFR-mutated lung cancer? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, I mean, I think it shows that chemotherapy was really modestly active with an MPR rate of 2%, no pathological responses. And then I think you're going to have to look at an osimertinib plus another targeted therapy component. I think, you know, when I looked at the osimertinib versus the chemo-osimertinib arm, I also was sort of surprised that the MPR rate and the path CR rate were very, very similar. So I think that the question is would a double targeted therapy approach or some other approach matter? And I think it also sets a safety standard. And you touched on this in your comments, that there was not a disparity in terms of the rate of going to surgery or R0/R1 resections. So patients were not having progressive disease events or toxicities that prevented surgery. So I think it does give us good safety data. Dr. Ece Cali: Tom, thank you so much for sharing your insights on the JCO article, "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36806655
info_outline
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare
05/31/2025
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare
JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Lauren Shih and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Stephanie Wheeler discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Lauren Shih: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO annual meeting series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentations at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Lauren Shih, JCO editorial fellow, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Stephanie Wheeler to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "." Let's start with the relevance of the article. Dr. Wheeler, can you explain this to our listeners? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you so much. Let's get right into it. So this article is really about understanding different types of Medicare plans and what we should expect to see in terms of their use of low-value treatments for cancer patients. So, as Medicare really is focused on trying to limit the use of low-value cancer treatments, we really need to better understand the drivers of variability. So we know that many cancer patients have multiple treatment options available to them. We also know that the vast majority of older adults beyond age 65 are insured by Medicare, and about half of them are on Medicare Advantage plans, which are serviced by private insurance. And private insurance companies in this case are receiving capitated payments for Medicare beneficiaries to manage their service utilization and reduce costs. So, with respect to Medicare Advantage versus the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, it's not really been known to what extent low-value treatments are differentially used by these types of plans for cancer patients. And so that was really the focus of this article. What the authors found is that across six different types of treatments, in general, the folks who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans had reduced use of low-value treatment. So that's a good sign for Medicare beneficiaries. And although the relative difference in that use was somewhat low, this translates to a significant number of Medicare enrollees across the country not receiving these low-value treatments. And of course, this translates to considerable savings at the society level. Dr. Lauren Shih: Are there any additional key results that we should review? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yeah. So I'll tell you just a little bit more about the methods and also their findings. So they looked at six different low-value treatments, and this was in, again, 100% of national Medicare enrollees from 2015 through 2021. So the six low-value treatments that they examined were the use of G-CSFs among patients receiving low-risk chemotherapy and denosumab for those who had castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Then they also looked at four high-cost treatments, including using nab-paclitaxel instead of paclitaxel for patients with breast or lung cancer; second, adding bevacizumab to carboplatin plus paclitaxel for ovarian cancer; third, using brand-name drugs instead of generics when generics were available; and fourth, using biologics instead of biosimilars when biosimilars were available. And these are all, by the way, non-recommended treatments according to a variety of guidelines, including NCCN and ASCO's Choosing Wisely guidelines. So they used the Medicare claims data to examine use of these regimens. They also analyzed results by type of Medicare Advantage plan, whether people were enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, or an HMO, or a preferred provider organization plan, or a PPO. They also looked at the largest Medicare Advantage insurers—including Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealth—and limited their analyses to those that had complete encounter data. And what they found across the board is that the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans generally had lower use of these low-value treatments. And the largest differences between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare plans were in the outcomes, including G-CSF use and using denosumab for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and then the combination of bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel. And all of these had a change in use ranging from about 19% change to 24% change in use. This is significant as a field as we look at ways in which different plan organization can influence use of treatments, particularly given the excess cost of cancer care. This is something we really want to pay attention to. So I'd encourage folks to look more closely at the results by treatment type as well as the results by plan type to see a little bit more about what was going on across different plan types. Dr. Lauren Shih: Great. And are there any outstanding questions that need to be answered? Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yes, there always are, of course. I think the study has several strengths that are worth noting. First, they have 100% of Medicare enrollees, so there's national coverage there, which is, you know, quite outstanding. They also use an appropriate choice of analysis to help deal with some of the selection. So they use inverse probability of treatment weights, and they control for practice and county indicators to try to get some realistic adjustment for the selection that happens in terms of how patients are enrolled in different Medicare Advantage versus traditional fee-for-Medicare plans. These statistical approaches are a good idea, but they are limited by the observed variables that we can use for these kinds of adjustments. And so any unobserved—confounding or any unobserved factors that would influence selection in these plans aren't going to be captured well. So preferences, for example, that patients may have about different types of plans when they're insuring themselves and their families may not be captured. Second, the data that are used are only encounter data from those plans with complete records. That may mean that smaller Medicare Advantage insurers or those that don't have as comprehensive records are not included. So this may not be reflective of their practice patterns. And then third, of course, this only looked at six different low-value cancer treatments. It remains to be seen whether this kind of finding extends to other types of low-value cancer treatments, and that's an opportunity for future study. Finally, I would say that we don't exactly know why these patterns exist. It could be that Medicare Advantage plans have different approaches to prior authorization. They could have more in-house quality control and management to really understand, among their population for whom they're receiving Medicare Advantage payments, to really look at care quality and assess Choosing Wisely guidelines. We don't know exactly how that's playing out. And so we need additional data to really figure out what's working here and what are opportunities for future policy and payment innovations that can further reduce low-value care. Dr. Lauren Shih: Great. Thank you so much, Dr. Wheeler, for speaking to us about the JCO article, "Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare." We really appreciate your insights. Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thanks for having me. Dr. Lauren Shih: Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36770800
info_outline
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Avelumab Plus Cetuximab vs. Avelumab in Advanced cSCC
05/31/2025
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Avelumab Plus Cetuximab vs. Avelumab in Advanced cSCC
JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Grant McArthur discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Grant McArthur. Today, we will discuss Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "." Let's start with a brief overview of the clinical trial. This is a randomized phase II trial that compared avelumab plus cetuximab to avelumab in PD-1/PD-L1 antibody-naive patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. This is a cooperative group study conducted in the United States. Sixty patients were randomized one-to-one and stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Patients on the cetuximab plus avelumab arm had a median PFS of 11.1 months, while patients on the avelumab arm had a median PFS of 3 months, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.48 with a p-value of 0.018. Grade III or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48% of the patients on the combination arm versus 21% of patients on the avelumab arm. Dr. McArthur, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data? Dr. Grant McArthur: These results are very important because they provide proof of concept for inhibiting PD-L1 as a target when combined with EGFR, so inhibiting PD-L1 with avelumab and inhibiting EGFR with cetuximab, in a randomized trial with a very significant impact in terms of efficacy. So, what this does is it provides proof of concept for inhibiting those targets in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Avelumab is not approved for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and so further studies would need to be done, particularly asking the question about combination with the approved PD-1 agents cemiplimab and pembrolizumab. Dr. Ece Cali: I still find the difference in median PFS with various PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors striking in this context. In this trial, avelumab, as you mentioned, the PD-L1 inhibitor, demonstrated a median PFS of 3 months, whereas PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have demonstrated longer median PFS in other trials. So, what are some potential reasons for this, and do you think this difference impacts the interpretation of the results here? Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the obvious reason for the differences is that avelumab targets PD-L1, where pembrolizumab and cemiplimab inhibit PD-1, so there could be simply a difference in the target to explain those differences in progression-free survival. However, as you point out, cross-trial comparisons, one has to do with caution because you can, in different phase II studies, enroll different patient populations, which would impact the progression-free survival. So, we have to be cautious about that interpretation. However, given that cemiplimab and pembrolizumab are the approved agents, I think they are the logical ones for further clinical development. Nonetheless, this is still a very important proof-of-concept trial showing that there is a strong clinical signal when you combine EGFR inhibition with inhibition of PD-L1 versus PD-L1 alone. Dr. Ece Cali: I want to highlight some of the safety data presented in this trial as well. The treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events was much higher in the combination arm, reaching 31% compared to the 14% in the single-agent avelumab arm. The most common grade III adverse events were infusion reaction, rash, and diarrhea in the combination arm. So, these adverse events may affect patients' quality of life significantly. So, what are your thoughts on this, Dr. McArthur? Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the safety data is important. What we're seeing is safety related to each individual agent. So, we have diarrhea and skin rash from the cetuximab, and the infusion reactions is a common toxicity of avelumab. I think what's important, given this is proof of concept inhibiting these targets going forward to further studies, is that agents such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have a very low infusion reaction rate. So, the treatment discontinuations due to infusion reaction are unlikely to be an issue with cemiplimab and pembrolizumab when further clinical trials are done. Of course, there is still the issue of diarrhea and skin rash. Now, that can be managed in many patients with EGFR inhibition, you know. However, one would have to await safety data from a significant patient cohort with a combination of cetuximab with either cemiplimab or pembrolizumab, of course, to assess the clinical impact of those safety signals. But I would expect there to be definitely rash and diarrhea as predominant toxicities with those other combinations as well. Dr. Ece Cali: And lastly, I think we touched upon this a little bit, but how do you think this trial impacts the clinical practice, and what are some outstanding questions that need to be addressed in this field in light of the data from this trial? Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the most important outstanding question is - of course, we've already alluded to in our conversation - regarding using anti-PD-1 agents such as pembrolizumab or cemiplimab. So, that needs to be undertaken. Clearly, a randomized trial would be required combining cetuximab with those agents because they are quite active as single agents with impressive response rates and PFS. So, that is the way forward. There's other important clinical questions as well, though. So, patients that get locally aggressive or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin are often immunosuppressed. And so, we do need data in patients that are immunosuppressed, either due to treatment of immune-related disorders - and also organ transplantation. We see a lot of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in organ transplant patients. So, these are important patient subsets that would also need to be investigated in further clinical development. However, overall, you know, this is a strong signal, hazard ratio of less than 0.5, and very worthy of further investigation in randomized trials of inhibiting these targets. Dr. Ece Cali: This was a great discussion. Thank you so much for your insight, Dr. McArthur, for speaking about the JCO article "A Phase II Randomized Trial of Avelumab Plus Cetuximab Versus Avelumab Alone in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36770985
info_outline
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
05/31/2025
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
JCO Editorial Fellow Peter Li and JCO Associate Editor Eileen O'Reilly discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Peter Li: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Peter Li, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Eileen O'Reilly to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "." Now, let's start with the relevance of the article. Eileen, can you explain this study to our listeners? Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: Thanks very much, Peter, for the invitation today to discuss this. Yes, so this is a positive phase 3 trial that was conducted in locally advanced, unresectable pancreas cancer. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, international standard, with or without tumor-treating fields. And this is a device like a battery pack that you would wear with a goal to wear that approximately 18 hours a day. And the primary endpoint of this study was overall survival, with key secondary endpoints of tumor response, progression-free survival, looking at pain-free survival, and distant progression-free survival. So, the primary endpoint was met with a median overall survival of 16.2 months compared to 14.2 months on the intervention versus control arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.82. And so that met the pre-specified boundary. There was not an increase in progression-free survival, but there was an increase in control of pain on the tumor-treating fields study. So, it was a large, global study, community, academic sites, randomized 570 people, and it supports what I think we've seen in other difficult-to-treat malignancies using tumor-treating fields, that there's a signal of interest. Dr. Peter Li: Can you speak to some of the strengths and weaknesses of this study? Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: So, strengths: it was a large study. It included community sites, it included academic sites. It included ECOG performance status 0, 1, and some patients with 2. The intent was locally advanced. It probably is fair to say that there were some patients who had more advanced disease based on early progression, based on relatively high CA 19-9 for a percentage of people. But likely that was, with random assignment, that would have presumably fallen out between the arms. The inclusion of patients with a lower performance status is nice to see in large phase 3 studies in pancreas cancer. So, they would be some of the strengths. So maybe some of the limitations are the fact that it's an open-label study - so, always some biases inherent in that. Acknowledging that the primary endpoint was overall survival, presumably that wouldn't be directly influenced by that. And there was an imbalance of women on the control arm, and women do fare a little better in this disease, so possibly kind of weighted one of the study arms a little bit. But nonetheless, I think it was a rigorously designed and rigorously conducted phase 3 trial. It's always hard to fully interpret the signal in locally advanced disease because of the fact that some patients go on to surgery, some patients have a treatment switch of cytotoxic therapy, some patients will go on to radiation. And the endpoint here of overall survival, to a degree, eliminates some of that. So, the benchmark, I think, was generally high here. Dr. Peter Li: Gotcha. And then with these findings and this positive study, how do you foresee this research being implemented and how it will impact clinical practice moving forward? Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: I think there'll be an educational need to introduce this approach to the community and to the pancreas cancer world. Again, there's a precedent in glioblastoma and data from other diseases, so there's some familiarity with this. I think people always want to understand how it works and why it works, and that's something that we'll look forward to hearing more about mechanistically, and also seeing how it can be built upon. And there's some intriguing data with the combination of tumor-treating fields and immunotherapy that's being evaluated in the PANOVA-4 study. So, we'll stay tuned to hear how that reads out in due course. But I think overall, it'll be educational and learning, managing the cutaneous impacts or some skin irritation effects from this, and building on this signal in locally advanced disease. Dr. Peter Li: Well, thank you so much, Eileen, for your time and for speaking about the JCO article, "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal, Phase 3 PANOVA-3 Study." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36771155
info_outline
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer
05/31/2025
JCO at ASCO Annual Meeting: Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer
JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Peter Li and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Andrew Ko discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Peter Li: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Peter Li, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I'm joined by Dr. Andrew Ko, JCO Associate Editor, to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "." Now, let's start off with the relevance of this article. Andrew, can you please explain this to our listeners? Dr. Andrew Ko: Sure. Thanks, Peter. So, this was a very large international study evaluating the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. And just for context, that combination has been approved for use in other solid tumor types. It's FDA approved for renal cell carcinoma, for example, and endometrial carcinoma. But this study was looking specifically at this combination together with a chemotherapy backbone - so either FOLFOX or CAPOX - and comparing that to what at the time was a standard of care, which was just standard chemotherapy by itself. So, this very large study was intending to look at this particular novel combination. And we can get into some of the nuances of this study because the way that the experimental, the combination arm, was designed was perhaps a little bit more on the unusual side and led to maybe some imbalance in terms of how we think about the respective arms. Dr. Peter Li: Okay. We can definitely talk more about that as we go on. So, what are some of the key results of this study, and how do you think this will impact practice in the future? Dr. Andrew Ko: That's a good question. Technically, it was not a positive study. Well, it was positive in the sense that the co-primary endpoints - which included both progression-free survival and overall survival - so, progression-free survival, it did technically meet its endpoint, both in terms of the overall population and the preplanned subgroup analysis of patients who had a PD-L1 CPS of greater than or equal to 1. So, there was a PFS benefit with the experimental combination - the lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, plus chemotherapy - compared to chemotherapy alone. I will say the benefit was on the more modest side. So, if you even look at the medians, it was not a marked difference. If you look at the hazard ratios, they did meet statistical significance. On the other hand, this did not translate into a benefit for overall survival. So, when you ask, "Well, is this going to inform practice?" I'd have to say no. It highlights, I think, that JCO does want to publish articles that aren't necessarily going to be practice-changing, but that I think offer a lot of insights into trial design and important aspects of investigating novel treatments, even if they don't end up moving the needle in routine clinical practice. Dr. Peter Li: I totally agree with you. I mean, it was significant in terms of progression-free survival, but again, not clinically significant. And then overall survival, the interventional arm actually appeared to do slightly worse overall. Can you make some comments on the strengths and the weaknesses of this study, and where do you see us going from here? Dr. Andrew Ko: So, I think a couple of things worth highlighting in this study, very well designed, more than 800 patients in total. So, first of all, as I mentioned at the beginning, the combination was a little bit unique in terms of patients enrolled to the experimental arm got the combination of lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, together with chemotherapy for a very finite duration. So, that period of chemotherapy they received was only three months. And per protocol, patients then just segued to, quote unquote “maintenance treatment” with just the lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination. Whereas patients on the control arm, meaning chemotherapy alone, would continue chemotherapy basically in perpetuity until their disease progressed or intolerable toxicity. So, there really was an imbalance in terms of, if you think that chemotherapy or continuing chemotherapy beyond that initial three-month period of time may be significant, that could have had some impact on the robustness or the efficacy of the experimental arm. There were some other aspects in terms of perhaps some differences in the rates of post-progression treatment, in other words, patients going on to receive second-line treatment. I think the other very relevant aspect, Peter, in this study was that the control arm - and no fault of the investigators - but the control arm at the time the study was ongoing just consisted of chemotherapy, FOLFOX CAPOX, by itself, without an immune checkpoint inhibitor, right? And we clearly know, based on results of several large phase III studies, and it's now in standard clinical practice, that we routinely use chemotherapy plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Certainly for patients with CPS PD-1/PD-L1 scores that are, well, you could argue greater than 1, or perhaps greater than 5 or 10. But the point being that the control arm of the study probably doesn't reflect what is currently used in clinical practice. And that's just always a challenge in clinical trial design, right? That when a study is designed and when it rolls out, you're always at risk in a rapidly changing and moving field that the standard of care may evolve during the lifetime of that particular trial, which is what I think you see in LEAP-015. Dr. Peter Li: Totally understand. And the survival we see from this study is also roughly similar to the combination of immuno-chemotherapy that is the standard of care today, which is, the authors mentioned, 12 to 14 months. Thank you so much, Andrew, for your input and for speaking about the JCO article "Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Metastatic Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The Phase III Randomized LEAP-015 Study." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36795520
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Double Hit Myeloma Correlates With Adverse Patient Outcome
05/29/2025
JCO Article Insights: Double Hit Myeloma Correlates With Adverse Patient Outcome
In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Michael Hughes summarizes "Co-Occurrence of Cytogenetic Abnormalities and High-Risk Disease in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma" by Kaiser et al, published February 18, 2025, followed by an interview with JCO Associate Editor Suzanne Lentzsch. Transcript Michael Hughes: Welcome to this episode of . This is Michael Hughes, JCO's editorial fellow. Today I have the privilege and pleasure of interviewing Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch on the “” by Dr. Kaiser and colleagues. At the time of this recording, that will be linked in the transcript. The urge to identify patients with aggressive disease, which is the first step in any effort to provide personalized medical care, is intuitive to physicians today. Multiple myeloma patients have experienced heterogeneous outcomes since we first started characterizing the disease. Some patients live for decades after treatment. Some, irrespective of treatment administered, exhibit rapidly relapsing disease. We term this ‘high-risk myeloma’. The Durie-Salmon Risk Stratification System, introduced in 1975, was the first formal effort to identify those patients with aggressive, high-risk myeloma. However, the introduction of novel approaches in therapeutic agents—autologous stem cell transplantation with melphalan conditioning, proteasome inhibitors like bortezomib, or immunomodulatory drugs like lenalidomide—rendered the Durie-Salmon system a less precise predictor of outcomes. The International Staging System in 2005, predicated upon the burden of disease as measured by beta-2 microglobulin and serum albumin, was the second attempt at identifying high-risk myeloma. It was eventually supplanted by the Revised International Staging System (RISS) in 2015, which incorporated novel clinical and cytogenetic markers and remains the primary way physicians think about the risk of progression or relapse in multiple myeloma. Much attention has been focused on the canonically high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in myeloma, typically identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization: translocation t(4;14), translocation t(14;16), translocation t(14;20), and deletion of 17p. Much attention also has been focused on the fact that intermediate-risk disease, as defined by the RISS, has been shown to be a heterogeneous subgroup in terms of survival outcomes. The RISS underwent revision in 2022 to account for such heterogeneity and has become the R2-ISS, published here in the Journal of Clinical Oncology first in 2022. Translocations t(14;16) and t(14;20) were removed, and gain or amplification of 1q was added. Such revisions to core parts of a modern risk-stratification system reflect the fact that myeloma right now is in flux, both in treatment paradigms and risk-stratification systems. The field in recent years has undergone numerous remarkable changes, from the advent of anti-CD38 agents to the introduction of cellular and bispecific therapies, to the very technology we use to investigate genetic lesions. The major issue is that we're seeing numerous trials using different criteria for the definition of high-risk multiple myeloma. This is a burgeoning problem and speaks very much now to a critical need for an effort to consolidate all these criteria on at least cytogenetic lesions as we move into an era of response-adapted treatment strategies. The excellent article by Kaiser and colleagues, published in the February 2024 edition of the JCO, does just that in a far-ranging meta-analysis of data from 24 prospective therapeutic trials. All 24 trials were phase II or III randomized controlled trials for newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The paper takes a federated analysis approach: participants provided summaries and performed prespecified uniform analyses. The high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities examined were translocation t(4;14), gain or amplification of 1q, deletion of 17p, and translocation t(14;16), if included in the original trials. All of these were collected into zero, single, or double-hit categories, not unlike the system currently present in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. The outcomes studied were progression-free survival and overall survival, with these analyses adhering to modified ITT principles. The authors also performed prespecified subgroup analyses in the following: transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma, transplant non-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma, and relapsed/refractory myeloma. They, in addition, described heterogeneity by the I2 statistic, which, if above 50%, denotes substantial heterogeneity by the Cochrane Review Handbook, and otherwise performed sensitivity analyses and assessed bias to confirm the robustness of their results. In terms of those results, looking at the data collected, there was an appropriate spread of anti-CD38-containing and non-containing trials. 7,724 patients were evaluable of a total 13,926 enrolled in those 24 trials: 4,106 from nine trials in transplant-eligible myeloma, 1,816 from seven trials in transplant non-ineligible myeloma, and 1,802 from eight trials in relapsed/refractory disease. ISS stage for all patients was relatively evenly spread: stage I, 34.5%; stage II, 37%; stage III, 24%. In terms of high-risk cytogenetic lesions, double-hit disease was present in 13.8% of patients, and single-hit disease was present in 37.4%. In terms of outcomes, Kaiser and colleagues found a consistent separation in survival outcomes when the cohort was stratified by the number of high-risk cytogenetic lesions present. For PFS, the hazard ratio was for double-hit 2.28, for single-hit 1.51, without significant heterogeneity. For overall survival, the hazard ratio was for double-hit disease 2.94, single-hit disease 1.69, without significant heterogeneity except in patients with double-hit disease at 56.5%. By clinical subgroups, hazard ratios remained pretty consistent with the overall cohort analysis. In transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma, the hazard ratio for progression is 2.53, overall survival 4.17. For transplant non-ineligible, 1.97 progression, 2.31 mortality. Relapsed/refractory disease progression 2.05, overall mortality 2.21, without significant heterogeneity. Of trials which started recruitment since 2015, that is to say, since daratumumab was FDA approved and thus since an anti-CD38 agent was incorporated into these regimens, analysis revealed the same results, with double-hit myeloma still experiencing worse survival by far of the three categories analyzed. Risk of bias overall was low by advanced statistical analysis. In terms of subgroup analysis, double-hit results for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma may have been skewed by smaller study effects, where the upper bound of the estimated hazard ratio for mortality reached into the 15 to 20 range. In conclusion, from a massive amount of data comes a very elegant way to think about the role certain cytogenetic abnormalities play in multiple myeloma. A simple number of lesions - zero, one, or at least two - can risk-stratify. This is a powerful new prognostic biomarker candidate and, somewhat soberingly, also may confirm, or at least suggests, that anti-CD38 agents are unable to overcome the deleterious impact of certain biologic characteristics of myeloma. Where do we go from here? This certainly needs further a priori prospective validation. This did not include cellular therapies. The very scale at which this risk-stratification system operates, agnostic to specific genetic lesion, let alone point mutations, lends itself also to further exploration. And to discuss this piece further, we welcome the one and only to the episode. Dr. Lentzsch serves as an associate editor for JCO and is a world-renowned leader at the bleeding edge of plasma cell dyscrasia research. Dr. Lentzsch, there are several new investigations which suggest that translocation t(4;14), for example, is itself a heterogeneous collection of patients. There are other studies which suggest that point mutations in oncogenes like TP53, which were not assessed in Kaiser et al., carry substantial detrimental impact. Is this classification system - no-hit, single-hit, double-hit - too broad a look at tumor genetics? And how do you think we will end up incorporating ever more detailed investigations into the genetics of multiple myeloma moving forward? Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: Michael, first of all, excellent presentation of that very important trial. Great summary. And of course, it's a pleasure to be here with JCO and with you to discuss that manuscript. Let me go back a little bit to high-risk multiple myeloma. I think over the last years, we had a lot of information on what is high-risk multiple myeloma, and I just want to mention a couple of things, that we separate not only cytogenetically high-risk multiple myeloma, we also have functional high-risk multiple myeloma, with an early relapse after transplant, within 12 months, or two years after start of treatment for the non transplant patients, which is difficult to assess because you cannot decide whether this is a high-risk patient before you start treatment. You only know that in retrospective. Other forms of high-risk: extramedullary disease, circulating tumor cells/plasma cell dyscrasia, patients who never achieve MRD positivity, extramedullary multiple myeloma, or even age and frailty is a high risk for our patients. Then we have gene expression and gene sequencing. So there is so much information currently to really assess what is high-risk multiple myeloma, that is very difficult to find common ground and establish something for future clinical trials. So what Dr. Kaiser did was really to develop a very elegant system with information we should all have. He used four factors: translocation t(14;16), t(4;14), gain or amplification of 1q, and deletion of 17p. Of course, this is not the entire, I would say, information we have on high risk, but I think it's a good standard. It's a very elegant system to really classify a standard single-hit, double-hit, high-risk multiple myeloma, which can be used for all physicians who treat multiple myeloma, and especially, it might also work in resource-scarce settings. So, ultimately, I think that system is an easy-to-use baseline for our patients and provides the best information we can get, especially with a baseline, in order to compare clinical trials or to compare any data in the future. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Lentzsch. To the point that you made about this isn't the full story. There does, as you said, exist this persistent group of functional high-risk multiple myeloma where we see standard-risk cytogenetics, but these patients ultimately either exhibit primary refractory disease or very early relapse despite aggressive, standard aggressive treatment. How do you see risk-stratification systems incorporating other novel biomarkers for such patients? Is it truly all genetic? Or is next-generation sequencing, gene expression profiling, is that the answer? Or is there still a role for characterizing tumor burden? Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: Excellent question, Michael, and I wish I would have the glass ball to answer that question. I see some problems with the current approach we have. First of all, to do the cytogenetics, you need good material. You only detect and identify what you have. If the bone marrow is of low quality, you have mainly peripheral blood in your bone marrow biopsy, you might not really fully have a representation of all cytogenetic changes in your bone marrow. So I think with a low-quality sample, that you might miss one or the other really cytogenetic high risk. So, having said this, I think circulating tumor cells, that might be something we will look into in the future, because circulating tumor cells are readily available, can be assessed without doing a bone marrow biopsy. And what is even more exciting, in addition to the circulating tumor cells or plasma cells, using them is next-generation sequencing. I think at the moment, we are more in a collection phase where we really try to correlate sequencing with our cytogenetics and especially to establish next-generation sequencing in all of our patients. But I think after that collection phase, maybe in the future, collecting peripheral blood and doing sequencing on peripheral blood samples might be the way to go. In addition, I don't want to forget the imaging. We started with a skeletal survey, and we know that you probably need to lose 30% of the bone before you see a lesion at all. So having imaging, such as diffusion-weighted imaging, whole-body MRI, is also, together with sequencing of the tumor cells, a step into the right direction. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Lentzsch. Bringing this back to the article at hand, how has Kaiser et al. changed the way we discuss myeloma with patients in the exam room? Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: I think we have more data on hand. So far, we talked about standard risk and high risk, but I think right now, with a very simple system, we can go into the room and we can tell the patient, "Listen, you don't have any of those cytogenetic abnormalities. I think you have a standard risk. We might give you a simple maintenance treatment with Revlimid." But we might also go into the room and say, "I'm really concerned. You have so-called double-hit multiple myeloma. You have high-risk and at least two of those abnormal cytogenetics which we discussed, and I think you need a more intense maintenance treatment, for instance, double maintenance." I think we know that a high-risk multiple myeloma can be brought into a remission, but the problem that we have is to keep those patients into a remission. So, I think a more intense treatment, for instance, with a double maintenance, or with consolidation after transplant, and a longer and more intense treatment is justified in patients who have that truly high-risk multiple myeloma described here. Michael Hughes: Dr. Lentzsch, thank you so much for your time and your wisdom. Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Michael Hughes: Listeners, thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36750340
info_outline
Pembrolizumab and Bevacizumab for Melanoma Brain Metastases
05/08/2025
Pembrolizumab and Bevacizumab for Melanoma Brain Metastases
Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato Hello and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the . I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care. Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy. Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine. Dr. Davide Soldato So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma. Dr. Harriet Kluger Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there. When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients. Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body. Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%. So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice? Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible. Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader. So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study. What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate. Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution. I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients? Dr. Harriet Kluger The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks. Dr. Davide Soldato And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis? Dr. Harriet Kluger I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected. Dr. Harriet Kluger There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting. So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy. Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined. Dr. Davide Soldato Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts? Dr. Harriet Kluger I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen. Dr. Davide Soldato Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results? Dr. Harriet Kluger You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator? Dr. Harriet Kluger So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36477850
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: ESPAC4 Long-Term Follow-Up in Pancreatic Cancer
04/28/2025
JCO Article Insights: ESPAC4 Long-Term Follow-Up in Pancreatic Cancer
In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Joseph Mathew summaries Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapy in the ESPAC4 Phase III Trial, by Palmer, et al published December 5, 2024. Transcript Joseph Mathew: Hello and welcome to the . I'm your host, Joseph Mathew, and today we will be discussing the article "" by Dr. Palmer et al. To summarize the relevant evidence, the ESPAC-4 was a European phase 3 multicenter randomized clinical trial published in 2017 comparing adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) with gemcitabine monotherapy following macroscopic margin-negative resections for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The trial had included non-metastatic patients aged 18 years or older, World Health Organization (WHO) performance scores of 2 or less, creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min, and a life expectancy of over three months who had not received any prior anticancer treatment. Patients who had undergone R2 resections were selectively excluded. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 within 12 weeks of pancreatectomy to one of the two treatment arms, with chemotherapy initiated within two weeks from the date of randomization. The regimens involved six cycles, each lasting four weeks, for an overall duration of 24 weeks. In the monotherapy arm, gemcitabine dosed at 1 g/m² was given as an intravenous infusion once a week for three weeks, followed by one week off. In the GemCap arm, capecitabine dosed at 1660 mg/m² was added to gemcitabine, given daily for three weeks, followed by one week off. Patients were followed up every three months, with the primary endpoint being overall survival (OS). The study showed that at a median follow-up of 43.2 months, GemCap was associated with a significantly longer OS than gemcitabine alone. Subsequently, in 2018, the Phase 3 randomized PRODIGE 24 trial was conducted in centers across France and Canada, comparing adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) with gemcitabine in a similar subset of patients with resected PDAC and reported longer OS with the mFOLFIRINOX regimen. This study, however, had more restrictive eligibility criteria when compared to ESPAC-4, including patients aged under 80 years, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with no significant cardiovascular disease, and a postoperative serum CA 19-9 of less than 180 U/mL. There was hence a subset of ESPAC-4 patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria for mFOLFIRINOX as set by the PRODIGE 24. The present study was conducted to estimate the overall 5-year survival rates for patients of ESPAC-4 receiving GemCap and gemcitabine, further stratifying survival in either arm according to the status of the surgical margins (R status) and the resected nodes (N status), and also to investigate whether GemCap retained a survival benefit over gemcitabine in PRODIGE 24-ineligible patients. A total of 732 patients, evenly distributed between both arms, were followed up for a median period of 104 months. Adjuvant GemCap was found to retain its survival advantage over gemcitabine, with a significantly longer median OS of 31.6 months when compared to 28.4 months with gemcitabine alone. Further subgroup analysis was performed with reference to the resection margins and the nodal status. As a reminder, in the ESPAC-4 trial, 60% of patients were found to have microscopically positive margins (an R1 resection), and 80% were node-positive. The difference in survival was greater in patients undergoing microscopic margin-negative resections (R0) who experienced a median OS of 49.9 months with GemCap when compared to 32.2 months with gemcitabine. Node-negative patients also had a significantly greater 5-year OS rate with GemCap of 59% versus 53% with gemcitabine monotherapy. However, it is important to note that no significant difference in survival outcomes was observed in margin-positive (R1) or node-positive patients in the two arms. The investigators also evaluated GemCap in the subgroup of 193 patients (comprising 26.4% of the ESPAC-4 cohort) who were not considered to have met the eligibility criteria for PRODIGE 24. The survival benefit of combination therapy was retained in this group, with patients receiving GemCap experiencing a median survival of 25.9 months compared to 20.7 months with adjuvant gemcitabine. Although cross-trial comparisons have limited validity, good agreement was noted in adverse grade 3 or greater toxicity associated with the control gemcitabine arms of ESPAC-4 and PRODIGE 24, serving as the basis for a qualitative comparison of toxicities between mFOLFIRINOX and GemCap. Neutropenia was more prevalent in the GemCap arm, affecting 40.8% of patients compared to 28.4% with mFOLFIRINOX. However, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered to 62.2% of patients in PRODIGE 24. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was also more prevalent with GemCap. Patients on mFOLFIRINOX were more likely to observe grade 3 or greater fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, sensory peripheral neuropathy, and paresthesias. The investigators concluded that GemCap was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC undergoing an upfront resection who were not feasible for mFOLFIRINOX. Further exploratory analysis revealed that patients under the age of 70 who had undergone a microscopic margin-negative (R0) resection for node-negative PDAC were likely to derive an OS benefit from the addition of capecitabine to gemcitabine in the adjuvant setting. In contrast, mFOLFIRINOX would be more effective than gemcitabine in patients with positive margins (R1) or involved nodes, as per the PRODIGE 24 trial. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit . 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36339355
info_outline
Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment
04/10/2025
Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment
Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Jessica Burris discuss the article "" and how persistent smoking following cancer diagnosis causes adverse outcomes while smoking cessation can improve survival. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide SoldatoHello and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the . I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by JCO author Dr. Jessica Burris. Dr. Burris is an Associate professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky and co leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program at the Markey Cancer Center. Her research focuses on smoking cessation among cancer survivors, health disparities, and behavioral interventions to promote health equity. She also leads the BIRDS Lab, which explores the intersection of smoking, social determinants of health, and cancer survivorship. Today I will be discussing with Dr. Burris on the article titled . So, thank you for Speaking with us, Dr. Burris. Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you for inviting me. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo today we'll be discussing an important study on the implementation of smoking assessment in cancer care and specifically through the Just Ask Initiative. So, we know that tobacco use is a critical factor in cancer treatment outcomes in general, and yet integrating systematic smoking assessment into oncology care has faced various challenges. So, Dr. Burris, to start off our interview, I would like to ask you to briefly introduce the Just Ask Initiative for those of our readers and listeners who may not be familiar with it. So, a little bit about the primary goals and why do you think that routine smoking assessment is such an important aspect of cancer care and why the Just Ask Initiative focuses on this specific issue? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, as you mentioned before, smoking is a really critical factor in terms of cancer care and cancer outcomes. It impacts a lot of things, from complications after surgery up into cancer mortality, but it also impacts patient's quality of life. Their pain may be more severe, they're more tired, their distress levels are higher. So, there's just a lot of different reasons why we need to understand and address smoking in the context of cancer care. But like you said too, there's a lot of barriers as well. But in order to effectively treat nicotine dependence and tobacco use, we really need to know who is currently smoking. And so that was really the driver for Just Ask, wanting to make sure that we are asking every person with cancer at their diagnosis and as they go through treatment, what their smoking history is, if they are currently smoking, which we usually consider to be any smoking or other tobacco use in the past 30 days, so that once we can identify that person, then we know who we need to help. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was very clear. And in terms of methodology, Just Ask was really a quality improvement type of initiative that involved the programs that were contacted and approached to participate in this type of initiative. And the methodology is pretty standard for this type of implementation science, which is the Plan Do Study Act methodology. So just a little bit of background on this type of methodology and why do you think it might be so successful when implementing these types of changes at the structural level and when we are implementing these types of programs. Dr. Jessica BurrisRight. So, the American College of Surgeons requires all the accredited cancer programs, both Commission on Cancer and the NAPBC or the ones that focus on breast cancer, to do at least one quality improvement project annually. And most of the programs do use the evidence-based Plan Do Study Act approach. I think it's a great one. It has a lot of evidence behind it, but it also is very practical or pragmatic. So, you're using data from your local healthcare system or clinic or program to inform what it is that you do. And then you're constantly pulling data out to see how well you're addressing the clinical practice change that you're hoping to achieve. And so, data is going in and coming out and you're using that to inform exactly what it is that you're doing over time. So, it's an iterative approach to practice change and again, one that has proven successful time and time again. And so that's the program that these programs and Just Ask used in order to increase the frequency by which they ask patients about smoking. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo as you were saying, the main objective of the initiative was really to understand if we are asking patients diagnosed with cancer and survivors if they are smoking. And how can we better report this information inside of the medical chart of the patient. So, what was the primary endpoint or the objective that you had for this type of intervention? And can you give us a little bit of results? So, what did you find the implementation of this quality improvement? How did it change the percentages of patients that were asked about smoking habits? And a little bit, what is your opinion on the results that you obtain in the study? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, the goal was simple and that was to have an ask rate that was at least 90%. The way that we defined an ask rate is among all newly diagnosed cancer patients, how many were asked about their smoking history and their current status at that initial visit? And so, we wanted all of the participating programs who opted in to Just Ask in 2022 to achieve that 90% ask rate by the end of this one-year quality improvement project. And again, using the Plan Do Study Act approach, it was a very pragmatic study in some ways. So, what we did was we provided an intervention change package that we made available online. And programs could access that whenever they needed to and pull-down educational resources, patient facing materials, practical tools for changing the EHR or pulling data out of the EHR, any of those number of things. And then we also hosted webinars over the course of the year. And those webinars were great because half the time they were in response to questions that programs were asking as they went through the Just Ask QI project. And the other half of time we were really just reminding programs of the rationale and the reason for making sure that they're asking. And then of course, letting them know that they don't have to stop there, they should be advising patients to quit and assisting them with cessation. Even though that wasn't the goal of Just Ask, the goal again of Just Ask was getting that 90% rate. And so, we had over 750 programs who opted in to Just Ask and did this QI study with us, and it was successful. So, we met the goal, or rather the programs met the goal of that 90% ask rate. And that was maintained over time. And that was just fantastic. So again, we know that the end goal is really to assist patients with quitting, but we can't do that unless we know who to help. And so, you have to ask first. And again, they were able to do that. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo thank you very much. The quality improvement program was absolutely successful. And to go a little bit in the numbers, by the end of the one-year implementation of the program, you report a 98% rate of asking patients who first approached the centers or over time if they were or not smokers. So, you said before that you targeted a 90% ask rate in terms of smoking habits. But when looking at the data, I noticed that you already had in the baseline survey where you asked the programs about what were the practice before the implementation of the Just Ask initiative, already something that was quite close to the 90%. And yet, despite starting from such a good point, which was basically your endpoint, you still observed a major change over the years of the implementation. So, I wanted to just underline a little bit what is the value of this type of programs. And still starting from such a very high standard still, we managed to further improve. And as you were saying, this is pivotal and I think it's fundamental to really understand and see who are the patients that we need to refer and then to help in the smoking cessation. So, I just wanted a little bit of a comment on these very important results, despite already starting from a very good background from the centers. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm glad that you brought up the baseline. So, I think one thing that's important about this study is that we looked at our ask rate or the asking as a clinical practice in two different ways. So, the 98% that you referred to that we found at the final survey is based on a response to a question on the frequency of asking. So, it's a Likert type question. And essentially what we did was we combined programs that reported usually asking or almost always asking into one, and that's where we arrived at the 98%. And at baseline it was 92%. What's interesting though is that we also asked them to report the specific number of patients who were seen in their cancer program during the prior six months and the number of patients who were asked about smoking in the prior six months. And with that we could get a proportion. And in every case, the self-report Likert question had a higher outcome than the raw data based on the data that was pulled from the EHR. And so, we saw this increase significantly over time, both in the self-report Likert question, but also in the EHR based data. And so, it was a win in two ways. What I think is really interesting though is that at baseline, even though 92% of programs said that they regularly ask about their patient smoking status, 16% of programs could not provide data that would allow calculation of an ask rate. So, they were reporting that they were able to do so but then could not actually do so. So, I think what that means essentially is that there's a disconnect between what programs are doing regularly or they believe that they're doing regularly and what their data actually shows. And it could be an issue with the quality of the data that's going into the EHR, or it could be an issue with pulling the data out of the EHR. And so one of the things that we saw that I think is a second indicator of success of Just Ask is that the quality of the data that programs were inputting into the EHR related to their patients smoking history and smoking status did improve over time, which meant that by the end it really was the case that the vast majority of programs were asking. And not only that, but they were also documenting it in a way to where it could inform patient care. Does that make sense? Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And I think that that explanation really is truly important because I think that it also connects a little bit to how the initiative was able also to change things at the structural level, to be sure that there was the best possible way of asking, but also of having that information readily available inside of the EHR. This also connects a little bit to my next question, which was a little bit about organizational structure and also implementation barriers, which you report also as a self-reported information by the specific programs. So, there was a little bit of implementation barriers that was reported by the programs and this was not a specific endpoint of the Just Ask initiative, but you kind of mentioned it a little bit. The difficulties in pulling data from the EHR in understanding whether the information was collected and how it was collected. This might be one of the implementation barrier when we are looking at initiatives like Just Ask. So, I just wanted a little bit of your opinion if you think that these implementational barriers are more on the organizational side or on the provider side. And how can we use these quality improvement programs to really tackle this type of barriers to improve overall the reach and the importance of our action regarding smoking cessation. Dr. Jessica BurrisThe devils in the details, right? So I think it's a “both and” situation and not either or I think for providers, for individual providers, oncologists, nurses, supportive care providers, the issue of feeling like they're not fully trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment, and also feeling because of a lack of training that they don't feel confident or competent or even comfortable having conversations with their patients about their smoking history or being in the position to where they can really help someone who wants to quit in choosing the best path and way forward to do that that really matters. And so organizational readiness, these programs that participated were pretty high even at baseline in terms of the organizational readiness. They understood that it's a problem and they wanted to do something about it. And they were really eager and chomping at the bit to do so. But that has to trickle down to individual providers. And so, I think one of the implementation strategies that was used was staff training and provider education. And a lot of the participating programs chose that strategy. And I think as staff and providers are trained in how to ask and how to do so in a way that is nonjudgmental and that doesn't lean into things like stigma or blame or making patients feel guilty that perhaps their behavior led to their cancer, but really just understanding tobacco history and understanding nicotine dependence and the best strategies that we have to address those things that helped and that made a difference but it also is things at the system level, like having good EHR data, being able to pull those data out at a regular interval every three months or every four months, or even every six months to make sure that you're tracking smoking and also quitting over time. Both of those things need to happen. And I think those were things that we saw change as a result of Just Ask participation. Dr. Davide SoldatoRelating to this, provider readiness also to counsel patients on how to stop smoking or what is the best strategy. Despite, as you said in the very beginning, this was not the objective of Just Ask because you just wanted to improve the rate of smoking assessment and the quality of reporting of smoking assessment. You still observed higher rates of patients and survivors that were actually referred to some kind of intervention for smoking cessation. So, I was just wondering, why do you think that even though that was not required, you still observe this type of improvement? Like, is it just inherent to the fact that we are improving and we are placing more interest and more attention on the fact that patients should quit smoking, or do you think that it relates to something else completely? Dr. Jessica BurrisI think there's probably multiple things going on. One is once you're fully aware of the fact of the impact of smoking after a cancer diagnosis, you're going to be compelled to do something, I think. And so just the simple fact of knowing now that the patient sitting in front of you has smoked in the past week or two, they may be under a lot of stress because they're coping with cancer and they're coping with the side effects of their treatment. They may even have increased their smoking since their cancer diagnosis. And now you have this information. I think people who are providing cancer care, they want to improve the health and the life of the person sitting in front of them. And if they understand that smoking is a detriment or a hurdle to their doing so, then they're also more inclined to try and help that person quit smoking. And so, I think the asking and the documenting likely led to an increase in assistance and referrals to tobacco treatment specialists or to a state quit line, which was also common, simply because that's part of providing quality care. I think also there's been a greater emphasis nationally, in part led by the National Cancer Institute and a cancer moonshot initiative that it led, they're really focused on getting more treatment to more patients with smoking and increasing the reach and the effectiveness of the treatments that we provide. And so, I think there has been a shift in oncology care broadly to put more attention on smoking and smoking cessation as part of standard cancer care. And so, I think this kind of shift in the field also informed things as well as, again, thinking about the patient and the individual who's in the room and wanting to do something about the problem that you've just identified. Dr. Davide SoldatoAnd one thing that I believe is truly exceptional about the Just Ask initiative is really also the diversity of the type of programs that you involved. Like, you went from community centers to more academic centers. And really, I did not have the impression reading the manuscript that there was any difference in the way this type of quality improvement initiative can really benefit all these programs and all these centers. So, I was just wanting to have your opinion or comment on how do you think this type of initiative could be transferable across the country and across different settings and different types of cancer care? Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm really glad that you brought that up, because I think most of the clinical trials that are done in this area are done at academic medical centers, which are admittedly kind of resource rich places to receive cancer care. And so, what works in academic medical center may not work in a small rural practice in the middle of Kansas, for example, or in Mississippi. And it may not work in other community-based practices, even if they're larger and set in an urban setting. And so, one of the things that frankly I loved about Just Ask is that it was very heterogeneous in terms of the sites and the participating groups. And so not only was it national and by far the largest initiative in this area, again with over 750 different programs, but the programs were diverse. So, we had large community-based programs, integrated networks, smaller community programs. And then the academic centers were actually the smallest. Only like 10 or 12 out of the 750 plus were academic. And so, it was very different than what is the norm in this research area and in this area generally in terms of clinical practice. And we were able to show that the type of program that participated had no bearing on their success. And so, when we think about initiatives that work and interventions that work, we also really have to think about what is scalable and what could be disseminated across different practices. And this is one of those things that can. It worked and it worked across different swaths of group, which was great. Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And just one last comment about the intervention, and it's also a point that you raised in the manuscript. This initiative, like many others also at the national levels that have been reported previously, they rarely had really the participation or the perspective of the patients embodied inside of them. So, I was wondering, how do you see the field moving forward. Like you envision something that would implement sort of a co-creation with patients or cancer survivors in order to really create something that is more appealing and takes more into consideration what is the patient perspectives when we are approaching something like smoking cessation, which as you were mentioning before, it can have a lot of stigma or already some negative feelings by the patients and feelings of guilt regarding the fact that they smoked and that might have caused that cancer. So just a little bit of your opinion as to how you see the implementation science in smoking cessation moving forward while integrating also the patient perspectives. Dr. Jessica...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/36052640
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Smoking Assessment
03/31/2025
JCO Article Insights: Smoking Assessment
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Lauren Shih summaries "" by Jessica L. Burris, et al published November 19, 2024. Come back for the next episode where JCO After Hours host, Dr. Davide Soldato interviews the author of the JCO article discussed, Dr. Jessica Burris. TRANSCRIPT Lauren Shih: Hello and welcome to . I'm your host Lauren Shih, and today we will be discussing the article, “” by Dr. Jessica Burris and colleagues published in the March issue of JCO. This study reports the finding of the Just ASK Initiative, an effort aimed at improving universal smoking assessment in cancer programs nationwide. We know that smoking after a cancer diagnosis is associated with numerous negative outcomes including worse survival, increased treatment related complications, poorer quality of life and higher healthcare costs. Patients who smoke are also at increased risk for cancer recurrence and second primary malignancies. Despite these risks, data show that a significant number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer still smoke and around 15% of cancer survivors continue smoking. Recognizing this discrepancy, national oncology organizations strongly recommend routine smoking assessment and cessation support as part of standard cancer care. However, despite these guidelines, smoking assessment and cessation assistance remain inconsistent across oncology practices. Surveys show that most National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers have insufficient resources to effectively support smoking cessation efforts. To address this gap, several large scale initiatives have been launched, including efforts by the National Cancer Institute, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and the American College of Surgeons. The largest of these initiatives, through the American College of Surgeons, is the subject of our report today. In 2022, the American College of Surgeons introduced the Just ASK Quality Improvement Program with the goal of increasing routine smoking assessment. As member institutions, accredited programs are required to complete at least one quality improvement program annually. And in 2022, 40% of programs chose to participate in Just ASK. The primary goal of this quality improvement program was to ask at least 90% of newly diagnosed cancer patients about their smoking status. Offering smoking cessation support was encouraged, but not a mandatory component or primary endpoint for the initiative. To implement Just ASK, participating programs used a well-established Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology which is a structured, iterative approach for improving healthcare processes. Programs used local quality improvement teams and resources for implementation and had access to online training, educational webinars, and technical resources to help integrate smoking assessment into routine care. Programs completed three surveys: a baseline survey reflecting smoking assessment practices in the year before Just ASK; a midpoint survey after six months of participation; and a final survey after one year in the program. The surveys assess program characteristics, barriers to smoking assessment, readiness to change, and the frequency of smoking related clinical practices such as asking about smoking, documenting smoking status, and advising smoking cessation. Programs reported on implementation strategies they adopted to improve smoking assessment. Finally, programs reported the number of newly diagnosed cancer patients they saw, how many were asked about their smoking status and how many were identified as current smokers during each reporting period. Results from 762 participating cancer center programs were analyzed. The programs represented a diverse mix of practice sites with over 50% identified as community based. Retention in the program was high, with nearly 90% of programs completing the final survey. Most programs reported moderate organizational readiness at baseline along with an average of 4.6 implementation barriers to conducting routine smoking assessment. Barriers included factors such as lack of time, competing clinical priorities, and lack of designated tobacco treatment specialists. At baseline, the ask rate was 87.8% and this increased to 91.9% at the final survey, meeting the previously identified goal for the initiative. Throughout the initiative, programs reported increases over time in assessing smoking status, in advising patients who smoked and quit, and in documenting these assessments and recommendations in the medical record. Importantly, the smoking rate among patients asked ranged from 18.5% to 19.8% across the three surveys, demonstrating a high rate of current smoking among newly diagnosed cancer patients. The most common implementation strategies adopted by programs to promote change included gaining leadership support, improving documentation on the electronic health record, and training staff and providers. There were no major differences in implementation strategies based on program type. Organizational readiness was positively associated with better smoking assessment practices, and implementation barriers had a negative impact, although not always statistically significant. The number of implementation strategies used by programs showed a positive, significant association with smoking assessment practices at the final survey. Exploratory analyses did not suggest that program type or patient volume had a consistent relationship with the outcomes. Although the primary goal of Just ASK was smoking assessment and not cessation assistance or intervention, programs did report on cessation related practices. For example, programs reported providing education or self-help materials increased from 26% to 48%, referrals to tobacco treatment specialists increased from 25% to 35%, and referrals to quit lines increased from 27% to 45%. Prescribing or recommending FDA approved cessation medications increased from 17% to 21%. In conclusion, Just ASK is the largest nationwide initiative to standardize and improve smoking assessment in cancer care. It successfully improves smoking assessment across a diverse range of cancer practices, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of newly diagnosed cancer patients were asked about their smoking status. As nearly 20% of the cohort reported smoking, this represents a critical first step in helping patients access smoking cessation resources. Participating programs demonstrated small but sustained practice changes in smoking assessment, meeting the a priori determined goal of a 90% ask rate. However, as a quality improvement initiative, Just ASK was not designed as a clinical trial, so conclusions regarding the efficacy of the program as an intervention are limited. Selection bias may have also played a role in the findings as program participation was voluntary. Additionally, the initiative lasted just one year and while the initial improvements were steady during that time, the long term impacts of Just ASK on smoking assessment remain uncertain. Looking ahead, the American College of Surgeons recently completed the Beyond ASK initiative. This initiative is designed to go a step further and focuses on improving smoking cessation assistance and we await the results. The Just ASK initiative demonstrates the routine smoking assessment is feasible to complete as routine cancer care. This assessment is essential as identifying patients that smoke is the first and critical step towards offering smoking cessation support, which in turn can improve health outcomes and reduce cancer treatment costs. While Just ASK was a success in increasing assessment, the challenge now is ensuring that smoking cessation support is readily available for all patients who need it. Thank you for listening to . Please give us a rating or review and subscribe so you never miss a episode. You can find all ASCO shows at 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/35812215
info_outline
Botensilimab Plus Balstilimab in Advanced Sarcomas
03/13/2025
Botensilimab Plus Balstilimab in Advanced Sarcomas
Dr. Shannon Westin and her guest, Dr. Breelyn Wilky, discuss the JCO article, "“Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas." TRANSCRIPT Shannon Westin: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of , the podcast where we get in depth on research that has been published in the . I am your host, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Consultant Editor of the JCO, Shannon Westin. I serve here from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. And I am so excited to welcome Dr. Breelyn Wilky. She's an Associate Professor and the Director of Sarcoma Medical Oncology in the Department of Medicine Division of Medical Oncology, and the Cheryl Bennett & McNeilly family endowed chair in Sarcoma Research, the Deputy Associate Director of Clinical research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Welcome. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here. Shannon Westin: And with all those titles, I'm super impressed that she was able to complete the manuscript that we're going to discuss today, which is “.” And this was published in the JCO on January 27, 2025. And please note, our participants do not have any conflicts of interest. So this is exciting. Let's first level set. Can you review with us just the current state of sarcoma incidents, survival outcomes, that kind of thing so we all know where we're starting? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Yes. So, you know, sarcomas are really, I like to call them the black box cancer type. And the big thing is that there's really more than a hundred different kinds of sarcomas, which collectively altogether make up only 1% of adult cancers. And so we talk about these as being bone and soft tissue tumors, but really, the heterogeneity is just incredible. You're talking maybe 10,000 to 12,000 new cases of soft tissue sarcoma per year, which is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. And the trouble with these is that while you can cure sarcomas if you find them early and they're localized, when they metastasize and spread and are not resectable, we're looking at median overall survivals of really only 12 to 18 months, even, you know, with our best therapies that we have. So, really there's just a dire need for new treatments for this really tough group of diseases. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I agree. I'm a gynecologic oncologist, and we have our little subset of sarcomas that I know there's a little bit out of every one. So I'm really excited to pull this manuscript as one of our podcasts offerings because I think we're all seeing these patients in the clinic and certainly our listeners that have sarcoma or have family members with sarcoma, this is so good to have a real focus on a rare group of tumors that have been a little bit lumped together. Now, with that being said, I know this is such a heterogeneous population, but can you briefly overview a little bit around the standard of care for treatment of recurrent sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: We have actually been using the same drugs really since about the 1970s, and up until very recently, nothing had really challenged doxorubicin, the old ‘red devil’, like we used to call it. And this has been the mainstay of treatment for metastatic sarcomas and really used across the board. In the GYN literature, for uterine leiomyosarcoma, we did see some promising activity with the combination of doxorubicin and trabectedin coming out of the French group. But, except for that study, no combination therapy or new drug has been proven better in terms of overall survival compared to doxorubicin monotherapy, really over 40, 50 years. So it's definitely a tough situation. Now, we do have other drugs that we use, so most patients will wind up getting doxorubicin-based therapy. There's a couple of other regimens that we'll reach to, like gemcitabine docetaxel. And once you get into the specific subtypes, we have some approvals in liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas for some other drugs. But really the median progression for survival for most of these regimens is somewhere four to six months. And response rates typically are somewhere like 10%, 15% for most of these. So it's really just a very tough field and a tough group of patients to try to make an impact for. Shannon Westin: So let's talk a little bit more kind of getting focused on what you've studied here. What's been the role of immunotherapy thus far in the treatment of sarcomas maybe prior to this particular study? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Clearly, we all know that immune therapy has just changed cancer care forever over the last few years for so many different types of cancers and diseases like melanoma and renal cell and lung cancer have just been transformed by checkpoint inhibitors specifically directed against PD-1 or CTLA-4 or both. And so, of course, you know, sarcoma docs we're super excited to try to see if these might potentially have activity in our tumors as well. I never had seen myself in my career getting into immunotherapy until I was able to run an investigator-initiated study during my role in Miami, where we combined pembrolizumab, so PD-1 inhibitor, with axitinib which was a pan-VEGF inhibitor. And lo and behold, like I had patients that I was seeing responses when other treatments, all those chemotherapies I was just talking about had failed. And one of my first patients I treated was about a 60-year-old lady with something called cutaneous angiosarcoma. So this is a blood vessel sarcoma all over her face. And we had treated her with 10 different therapies, all the chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapies, clinical trials, and nothing was working. But I put her on a phase 1 trial with a baby dose of CTLA-4 and this woman had a complete response. And so for me, once I saw it work in even just those couple of patients, like that was nothing that we'd ever seen with our chemotherapy regimens. And so that sort of shifted my career towards really focusing on this, and this is about the time where some of the studies started to come out for sarcomas. And the take home with sarcoma is about 20% of sarcomas have this sort of immune hot physiology. So what that basically means is if you look at gene expression of immune related gene signatures, or you look for infiltrating T-cells, sort of the SWAT team of our immune system, like you can find those in the tumors. And it's sort of evidence that the immune system had some clue for that 20% of patients that this was a foreign tumor and that it should be attacking it and maybe just needed a little help. But globally, about 80% of sarcomas are these immune cold tumors, which means the immune system has no clue that these things are even a threat. And there's almost no immune activation, very, very few antigens. In other cancer types, high neoantigens or tumor antigens help the immune system work better. And so that basically goes with what we've seen with trials of PD-1 or CTLA-4 blockade. About 20% of sarcomas, with some exceptions, can respond. But really 80% across the board, you're stuck, you just can't get them to be recognized. And so that's where I think this data is so interesting is there's some signals of activity in these immune cold tumors which, at least historically with the trials we've done so far, we really haven't seen that with sort of the traditional checkpoints. Shannon Westin: So I think now this is a great time to maybe talk about the study design in general, the eligibility and just give us kind of a run through of that. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So this trial was a phase 1 trial of a drug called botensilimab, which is a next generation CTLA-4 directed immune modulator. So what makes botensilimab different is that the CTLA-4 end is very similar to other CTLA-4 inhibitors that are out there, but it's been engineered on the back end of the molecule that binds to Fc gamma receptors to basically bind tighter with higher affinity. And what this translates to in laboratory models and increasingly now in patients is it does a better job of priming, of educating our T cells, our, again, these highly intelligent antigen specific cells, but also natural killer cells. It does a better job of sort of educating those. It helps to activate macrophages and other supporting actors in the immune response. And so the idea here is that there's evidence that botensilimab may do a better job at creating new responses in immune cold tumors. The study combined either botensilimab as monotherapy or in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor called balstilimab. And this was all comers, really a variety of tumor types. And to date I think we're close to about 500 patients with a variety of solid tumors that have been accrued to this study, this C-800-01 phase 1 trial. This paper reports on the sarcoma patients that were enrolled as part of this study. And so, again, given what I've told you about sarcomas being really immune cold, we were just so excited to have the opportunity to enroll on a next generation immune therapy for these tumors that really we were running into roadblocks trying to use immunotherapy previously. Shannon Westin: It's a very compelling idea and I'm so excited for you to tell people what you found. I think first things first, it was an early phase trial. So why don't we talk a little bit about the safety of the regimen. Was there anything that you didn't expect? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So similar to other checkpoint inhibitors, you know, the idea is that these drugs can cause immune mediated toxicities, right? So essentially you're revving up the immune system and it can sometimes get a bit confused and start attacking our normal cells, our normal organs, leading to essentially any number of toxicities of basically head to toe, something can get inflamed and you can develop a toxicity from that. So the key take homes with this particular drug with, botensilimab with balstilimab, we saw colitis was sort of the primary immune mediated toxicity and it was about a third of patients, give or take. It happens and it can be aggressive and needs to be managed aggressively. And you know, one of the things that we learned very quickly taking part in this study is how important it is that as soon as patients start to get diarrhea, immunosuppression gets on board. So steroids, early use of TNF alpha blockade, so infliximab for example, if we jumped on it quickly and we recognized it and we got the patients treated, it would resolve fairly quickly and even some patients could remain on treatment. So I think that was sort of the first take home is “Okay if you get colitis, you treat it fast, you treat it early and you can still have patients not only recover, which essentially everybody recovered from this colitis and then being able to continue on treatment and still have their anti-tumor responses.” So that's the first point. The second thing that was really interesting is part of the engineering of botensilimab on the back end of the molecule, it's been designed to decrease complement binding and it's thought that that triggers some of these other toxicities that we've seen with prior CTLA-4 inhibitors like pneumonitis or hypophysitis. We actually don't see that with botensilimab. So there's sort of this selective toxicity that may reflect the design of the molecule. But overall the treatment was, we didn't see any new safety signals that were outside of what we would expect in class. And colitis was sort of the dominant thing that we had to be ready for and ready to manage. Shannon Westin: We've been doing it for a while now, so we kind of know what to do and we can act quickly and really try to mitigate and avoid some of the major toxicities. So that's great that that was what was reflected in what you found. And then of course I think: What about the efficacy?” Right. This is what we care about as practitioners, as patients. Does it work and are there any subtypes that seem to benefit the most from this combination? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So for the sarcoma patients, we treated 64 patients and 52 of those patients were evaluable for efficacy. So a decent size group of patients in sarcomas, where, you know, typically our trials are pretty small, they're very rare, but we had 52 evaluable with at least one post baseline scan. So that was our criteria. And basically we saw across all of the patients, and keep in mind, these are heavily pre-treated patients, as you mentioned, so a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, so most of these patients had had chemotherapies and then about 20% had also had prior immunotherapy as well. So PD-1 treatments or so on. The overall response rate by RECIST was 19.2% for all of the evaluable patients. And then with iRECIST, which is sort of that immune adapted response criteria that allows for early pseudo progression, we actually had another patient who did have that. And so that response rate was 21.2%. Overall, we were really excited to see this in a heavily pre-treated group of patients. But what was really exciting to me was when we looked at the subset of patients that had angiosarcoma, that blood vessel tumor I was talking about earlier with my other patient. So angios come in two flavors. One is this sort of cutaneous type, or meaning involving the skin that has a UV signature, a UV damage signature, very similar to melanoma. So these tumors tend to have a high mutation burden. And oftentimes there is a track record that we've seen responses with immunotherapy in cutaneous angiosarcomas. But the other group that we deal with is called visceral angiosarcomas. And so these are totally different biologically. These are often driven by mutations in MYC or KDR amplification, and they arise in organs, so primary breast angiosarcoma, not associated with radiation, or they can arise in the liver or the spleen or an extremity. So these are very, very different tumors, and the visceral ones almost never historically have responded to checkpoint inhibitors. So we had 18 patients with angio split - 9 with cutaneous, 9 with visceral. And we were just blown away because the response rate for that group was 27.8%. And if you looked at the responses between the hot ones and the cold ones, it was almost equal and a little bit better in the visceral. So we had a 33% response rate in visceral angiosarcoma, which is crazy, historically speaking, and about 20% again in the cutaneous angios. So for a disease where visceral angio gets treated with chemotherapy, might respond initially, but then rapidly progresses - like these people go through multiple lines of therapy - to have a third of patients responding, and then some of those responses were durable. Our median duration of response for the study was 21.7 months, which is just nuts for sarcomas where we just don't see those sorts of long term benefits with the drugs that we have. So I think those are kind of the two main things. There were other subtypes that had clinical benefit and responses as well in d-diff liposarcoma, soft tissue leiomyosarcoma, which are again thought to be fairly cold immune subtypes. So just really exciting to kind of see responses we hadn't expected in a very challenging group of tumors. Shannon Westin: We see all these patients and we have patients that respond so well to immunotherapy with other histotypes. And so it's so exciting to see an option for these really hard to treat tumors that our patients struggle with. So this is so, so very exciting. I wanted to make mention, you know, I was really impressed with the amount of translational work you were able to do in this early phase study. So do you want to review just maybe a few of the key findings that you guys discovered? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: It's always great. I'm a translational researcher at heart and we do a lot of immune correlative work. And I think the reason I got so excited about this field to begin with was trying to learn why it works for some patients and why it doesn't work for other patients. So I'm a huge believer in learning from every patient that we can. So it's such a testament to the company, Agenus, who sponsored this trial to invest their time and resources into correlative studies at this phase. It's huge. So we learned a couple of things. IL-6 or interleukin 6 is a cytokine that basically has, in other tumor types, been associated with worse outcomes. And what we were interested in this group is we saw the same thing. And again, sarcomas have very, very little correlative biology that's done. We're really in infancy and understanding the microenvironment and how that milieu balances out in our tumors. So we were really excited to see again that lower peripheral interleukin 6 associated with improved overall survival. So again, kind of sorting out a group of patients that might be immunologically favorable when it comes to this type of therapy. The other thing that's important to know about sarcoma is so the other tumor types are lucky and have PD-L1 expression and the tumor is a biomarker, but we never have PD-L1 expression. We can find it in sarcomas and it can be loosely correlated with a chance of benefit with immunotherapy. But I've had patients respond that were PD-L1 negative, and I've had patients that were loaded with PD-L1 that didn't seem to make a difference. And that's not just in this study. So we saw in this trial a trend towards improved overall survival with PD-L1 expression that wasn't significant, but there was like this trend. And it's really interesting because, again, this is largely a CTLA-4 directed therapy. And so what we wondered is if PD-L1 expression is an index of sort of this underlying potential immunogenicity. And actually PD-1 works very late in the whole immune process. That's really at the very end where you've got the T cell that's facing the tumor cell and it's just activating that T cell that's already grown up and already educated and ready to go. Whereas CTLA-4 is really educating in early immune responses and expanding the T cells that have potential to kill. So I'm interested to look into this in more depth in the future to see if this is actually the biomarker for CTLA-4 directed therapy that we've been looking for, because we really don't have a great sense about that. And then the last piece just to note is that in this trial, like most others, very, very few sarcomas had high mutational burden. Everybody was very low, which reflects the population. And it's just really more encouragement than an immune cold tumor with very crappy neoantigens can still respond to immunotherapy if we get them the right agents. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I mean, I'm taking notes because we have such a struggle with this across the gynecologic tumors. I'm like, “Okay, maybe this is finally it.” So hopefully your work will go on to really inspire us across a number of solid tumors that have been traditionally cold. So, so very exciting. And I would just say for my last question, obviously, congratulations on this successful study. What do you think are the next steps for this combination in sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So, again, just to your point, this trial enrolled a bunch of different subtypes, and sarcomas are not the only immune cold tumor that this combo has looked really promising for, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer that was platinum refractory, non-small cell lungs. So I think the future is really bright for immune cold tumors kind of across the board. So, yes, lots of hope for not just sarcomas but in terms of our patients, I just have to be so grateful to Agenus for their interest in a rare disease. Sometimes it's hard to get that interest for a very challenging group of patients that are all heterogeneous, they are not all the same and our big clinical trials are a few hundred patients. It's just a very different...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/35636405
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: Long-Term Outcome of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer
02/24/2025
JCO Article Insights: Long-Term Outcome of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Peter Li summarizes “,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. published on December 13, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Peter Li: Hello and welcome to the . I'm your host Peter Li and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article, “,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. For a reminder to the audience, the FOWARC study is a Chinese-based study that looked into the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based regimens with or without radiation. This study was first published back in 2019 where the three-year data showed no difference in three-year disease-free survival over survival between the three study arms. As a reminder of what those arms were, there were one historical control and two interventional arms. The control arm used 5-FU with radiation therapy with five cycles of 5-fluorouracil with radiation during cycles two to four followed by surgery and then seven cycles adjuvantly. Their first interventional arm was the same as the control arm with the addition of oxaliplatin on day 1of each cycle. And lastly, the third arm was FOLFOX only for four to six cycles followed by surgery and then six to eight cycles adjuvantly completing about a total of 12 weeks of chemotherapy. They recruited about 495 patients with 165 patients randomized to each arm. They were relatively well balanced by age, clinical staging and distance from the anal verge. Median age was about mid-50s with a slight male predominance and patients were primarily stage 3 with 20% to 30% being stage 2. About 30% had clinical T4 disease and about 25% had clinical N2 disease. Median follow up time was 122.5 months or 10 years and their follow up endpoints were disease-free survival, overall survival and local recurrence, and they also performed subgroup analyses based on post surgical pathological staging. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a significant threshold of p being less than 0.05. About 451 patients actually underwent surgery, which is about 91% of patients. The main reason for not going through surgery was due to refusal but one was due to toxicity and two were due to disease progression in the control arm. Follow up loss rate was about 10% in each group. Now looking at their primary endpoints in their initial study, local recurrence was about 8.8% in the control arm versus 7.9% in the FOLFOX radiation group versus 9.2% in the FOLFOX only group. Distant metastasis was about 30% in each arm and the sites of metastases were primarily in the lung and liver. Now, following up with 10 years, there were only three new events in the chemoradiation group with local recurrence happening at 10.8% in the control arm versus 8% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 9.6% in the chemo only group. These findings were not statistically significant. In their subgroup analysis by pathological staging, they found that pathological CR or complete response had a lower rate of local recurrence compared to those with increasing pathological staging coming in at 3% versus 4.3% versus 11.6% versus 15.8% in pCR versus Stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. And they found no difference in each stage with each interventional arm. Looking at long term survival their 10-year disease free survival showed 52.5% in the 5-FU radiation group versus 62.6% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 60.5% in the chemotherapy only group with no statistically significant difference between three groups. By pathological staging, they found improved 10-year disease survival in those who achieved pathological complete response versus those who did not with 84.3% in the pCR group versus 78.7% versus 56.8% versus 27.7% in the stage 1 versus 2 versus 3 group. And again they found no statistical significance difference between each arm. Now looking at the 10-year overall survival rates between the three arms, in the control arm the 10-year overall survival was 65.9% versus 72.3% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 73.4% in the chemo only group. By pathological stage, again, they showed a statistically significant difference in those who achieved pCR versus those who had pathological stage 1 to 3 disease with overall survival being 92.4% in those who achieved pCR versus 84.9% versus 68.6% versus 48.8% in stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. Now in the discussion, authors mentioned that with a median follow up of 10 years, FOLFOX alone had similar disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis and overall survival compared to those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, justifying the omission of radiation without compromising results or outcomes for each patient. There were no differences in subgroup analysis for disease free survival local recurrence or overall survival based on pathological staging. There were only three new events compared to the last follow up, with local recurrence happening only in the chemo radiation groups. Local recurrence rates at 10 years was about 10%. Compared to other clinical trials such as CAO, ARO or AIO-94, the rate of local recurrence was similar to those historical trials. The authors also compared their findings to the PROSPECT study which looks at the use of total neoadjuvant chemo radiation versus chemotherapy alone, which boasted only about a 2% local recurrence rate. But as a reminder, high risk locally advanced rectal cancers were excluded, mainly those with T4 or N2 disease, which may explain the difference in terms of local recurrence in the PROSPECT versus this study. Another finding is that pathological complete responses are also an important prognostic marker with lower 10-year local recurrence rate, disease-free survival and overall survival with worse outcomes with increased pathological staging. Distant metastasis rates were still at 30%, with the most common site being lung then liver then lymph nodes consistent with other historical studies. Chemotherapy seemed to be better at reducing liver mets than lung metastasis per their findings. In their post hoc analysis of their own study, chemo radiation was also associated with higher incidence of low anterior resection syndrome and persistent ostomy compared to chemotherapy alone, meaning that they had better quality of life with the chemotherapy only approach. In conclusion, a chemotherapy only approach can be safe and a feasible treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer without compromising outcomes. Omission of radiation may reduce the risk of overtreatment and improve quality of life for some of these patients. However, this does not necessarily exclude the role of radiation as it may still play a role in a response escalation approach for those who do not respond to chemotherapy alone. This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to . Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/35407170
info_outline
High Omega-3, Low Omega-6 Diet with Fish Oil and Prostate Cancer
02/13/2025
High Omega-3, Low Omega-6 Diet with Fish Oil and Prostate Cancer
Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guests Dr. Bill Aronson discuss the article "High Omega-3, Low Omega-6 Diet With Fish Oil for Men With Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance: The CAPFISH-3 Randomized Clinical Trial" and how Omega-6 are predominant in the American diet while the study significantly lowered the intake of Omega- 6 fats. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of , the podcast where we get in depth on manuscripts published in . I'm your host, Dr. Shannon Westin, GYN Oncologist by trade and one of the grateful Social Media Editors of the . And I am very excited to welcome a special guest today, Dr. William Aronson. He is professor of Urology in the UCLA Department of Urology, the Chief of Urology at Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Chief of Urologic Oncology at the Veterans Administration West Los Angeles. Welcome, Dr. Aronson. Dr. William Aronson: Thank you, Shannon, and delighted to be here. Dr. Shannon Westin: We are so excited to have you discussing your manuscript, “,” which was published in the on December 13, 2024. So let's get right to it. First of all, you know we have a very mixed audience, so can you just level set for us and speak about the population you studied in this important trial - that low risk, favorable, intermediate risk prostate cancer. How common is that? How is it defined? That would really help. Dr. William Aronson: I would say about 50% of the patients that we diagnose with prostate cancer either have low risk disease or what we call favorable intermediate risk disease. So when the pathologists look at the cancer under the microscope, they assign what's called a Gleason grade. Grade 3 is the slower growing type of prostate cancer, grade 5 is the fastest growing type, and grade 4 is somewhere in between. So a low risk group would be only the grade 3, the slower growing type. And the favorable intermediate risk group would actually be the grade 3+4, which means they mostly see the low risk type in there, but they also see the slightly faster growing type, grade 4. So this is what we typically see. We see these patients on a very regular basis when they're newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, got it. And then can you walk us through just what the management options are typically for this patient population? Dr. William Aronson: So typically for what we call the low risk group, the patients with a low PSA and only that grade 3 type, slower growing type of prostate cancer, the standard recommendations are active surveillance. So typically, we'll periodically monitor these patients with PSA blood testing and periodically do prostate biopsies depending upon the patient's other medical problems. Dr. Shannon Westin: So I think it would also be really helpful just to understand what your typical management options are for this patient population. Dr. William Aronson: So for patients with low risk prostate cancer, they only have the Gleason Grade 3+3 with a low PSA. The standard practice is observation. And so these men will periodically see them and measure their PSA values. And periodically, they'll undergo prostate biopsy to make sure they're not getting progression of their disease. For men with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer, that's a little different. In some practices, the patient and the urologist will decide to do active surveillance. In other scenarios, these patients will definitely elect treatment, either with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy or other treatments that are available. Dr. Shannon Westin: So your manuscript notes that there was a high level of interest in dietary supplements and approaches among patients with prostate cancer that do elect for active surveillance. Prior to the results of CAPFISH-3, did we have any data to support those types of recommendations? Dr. William Aronson: We actually don't have any long term prospective randomized trials that support that recommendation. There have been a number of very interesting epidemiologic studies, for example, suggesting maybe a plant-based diet might be helpful. Or a number of other studies suggesting maybe more tomato-based products like tomato sauces or tomato paste may be helpful. But no prospective longer term randomized trials that were positive. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, that makes sense. So what led you all to explore the high omega-3, low omega-6 fatty acid diet in this trial? Dr. William Aronson: After our initial omega-6 studies, we subsequently did some studies where we raised the omega-3 from fish oil and lowered the 6, looking at a more favorable ratio of the omega-3 to omega-6. And once again, we found that in our animal models, there was a significant delay in progression of prostate cancer. That then led us to perform a clinical trial. It was a short term trial in men prior to undergoing radical prostatectomy. And in these men, they were randomly assigned to one of two groups, either a western high fat diet or a low fat diet with fish oil. And we found after just four to six weeks, a significant change in the Ki67 level in their radical prostatectomy tissue. And Ki67 is actually a strong indicator of prostate cancer progression, spread, or even death from prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, and I think that leads us really nicely into the design of the current study. So why don't you walk us through how CAPFISH-3 was designed. And you've already spoken a little bit about your primary endpoint. Dr. William Aronson: Based on the results of what we saw in the lab and what we saw in our short term clinical trial, we decided to perform a one year trial, a longer term trial in men on active surveillance. And these men were randomly assigned to either a diet with slight reduction in dietary fat, specifically reduction in the omega-6 intake as well as increase in foods with omega-3 and fish oil capsules. The other group, we asked the men to just not take fish oil capsules, but they could eat whatever else they wanted during the course of the study. Men in the diet where we lowered the omega-6 and raised the omega-3, they were seen by a dietitian once a month to really ensure that they were compliant with that intervention, which they were. The other intriguing part of our study, which I think is super important, is the precision that was used when these men underwent prostate biopsy. So, at baseline and at one year, when these men underwent prostate biopsy, they had the same site within the prostate biopsied. That's important because it's not so easy to find the same site within the prostate because of heterogeneity throughout the prostate. And so we were able to obtain that high level of precision as they were in an active surveillance program at UCLA with Dr. Leonard Marks. Dr. Shannon Westin: So we spoke a little bit about what's important about the Ki67 index as your primary endpoint. Can you talk a little bit about what the study found with your intervention? Dr. William Aronson: So we found that the Ki67 index increased by 24% in the control group and decreased by 15% in the low omega-6, high omega-3 group with fish oil capsules. So that ended up resulting in a statistically significant change between the groups favoring the low omega-6, high omega-3 group. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then what were the secondary endpoints that CAPFISH-3 explored? Anything of note that you want to review for the listeners? Dr. William Aronson: So a number of positive secondary endpoints from the trial. Firstly, we saw that the triglyceride levels were lower, which is what can typically be seen with omega-3 intake. We also saw reduced levels of a cytokine, a circulating factor in the bloodstream called ‘macrophage colony stimulating factor’. And that's particularly interesting because there's a certain type of macrophage which is well known to be involved in prostate cancer progression in men with more advanced prostate cancer, and we've been able to inhibit that in our animal models and in our tissue culture studies. And it was especially interesting to see that we did have an effect on this particular cytokine in this prospective randomized trial. We did not see changes in a number of other measures, including Gleason grade or PSA. These are measures that we use in clinical practice. To see an effect on those would have required a longer term and larger study to be performed. Dr. Shannon Westin: That makes sense. I think it's always great to try to get as much of these types of translational data as we can. But sometimes you just have to do what is reasonable and you get what you get. It looks to me like this regimen was fairly well tolerated. Did you obtain any patient reported outcomes or feedback on the trial? Dr. William Aronson: So, there were four patients in the fish oil group that did have some side effects, and we withdrew them from the study. They did have some effects on their upset stomach, and a number of men also had some diarrhea as well. And so for those four patients, we did withdraw them from the study. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then I guess the last question I have is really, what's next for this intervention? Are we ready to move this to the clinic or what do you see as next steps? Dr. William Aronson: Well, this next step that we're working on right now is to better understand exactly what happened in these patients. So we have blood, we have tissue, we're doing genetic studies on these patients. So that's really the first step, in our mind, to better understand what happened before moving to the next step. I'm particularly intrigued about trying this intervention in men with more advanced prostate cancer, specifically because of what we see, this particular diet and how it's affecting the patient's immune system and how that may favorably affect their course of their prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, great. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us about such an important clinical trial, and I really appreciate all the work you're doing and hope to get to see you soon. Dr. William Aronson: Well, thanks for having me, Shannon. It's really an exciting finding and I think it's something that clinicians and patients are going to be super interested in. Dr. Shannon Westin: We love straightforward interventions that actually make a difference, so you guys are to be congratulated for that. And I just want to thank all of you for listening. Thanks again, and I hope you enjoyed this episode of . Be sure to check out our other wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day. 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. Dr. Aronson Disclosures: Stock and Other Ownership Interests Johnson and Johnson Speakers' Bureau Company name: Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding: Lantheus Medical Imaging
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/35263840
info_outline
JCO Article Insights: TROPION-Lung01 Dato-DXd in NSCLC
01/27/2025
JCO Article Insights: TROPION-Lung01 Dato-DXd in NSCLC
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Ece Cali summarizes findings from the JCO article, "" TRANSCRIPT Ece Cali: Hello and welcome to the . I'm your host Ece Cali and today we will be discussing the article the “.” Despite significant advances in non-small cell lung cancer treatment over the past decades, second line treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations have remained largely unchanged since 2000. Many clinical trials failed to demonstrate improved overall survival compared to docetaxel based regimens. TROPION-Lung01 is a global open label randomized phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Dato-DXd is an antibody drug conjugate targeting TROP2 and delivering deruxtecan, a DNA topoisomerase 1 inhibitor, as its payload. The trial is designed with dual primary endpoints of progression free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival. The initial PFS results were presented at ESMO in 2023 and this article reports more detailed data and overall survival analysis of the trial. In the TROPION-Lung01, 299 patients were randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd and 305 patients to receive docetaxel. Patients were stratified by the presence of actionable genomic alterations, histology, treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy as the last line of therapy, and geographical region. The baseline characteristics of the patient population were overall balanced between the treatment arms. I'd like to highlight a couple of key points here. The median age was 63 years in the Dato-DXd and 64 years in the docetaxel arm. Similar to the many clinical trials in the thoracic oncology field, this is younger than the median age of lung cancer diagnosis in the US, which is around 70. African American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in this trial with 41% of patients identifying themselves as white and 39% as Asian. The D\docetaxel arm had a slightly higher percentage of male patients, 69% versus 61%. The majority of the trial population, 73%, had adenocarcinoma. Patients with actionable genomic alterations were included in this trial if they received one or more targeted therapy and platinum based chemotherapy prior to the enrollment. 17% of the trial population had an actionable genomic alteration in this trial. When it comes to the efficacy results in the full analysis set, the PFS improvement was statistically significant. The median PFS was reported as 4.4 months for the Dato-DXd, and 3.7 months for the docetaxel arm with the hazard ratio of 0.75 and a P value of 0.004. However, after a median follow up of 23 months, the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival. The median overall survival was 12.9 months for patients treated with Dato-DXd and 11.8 months for patients treated with docetaxel with the hazard ratio of 0.94 and a P value of 0.53. Objective response was a secondary endpoint and the confirmed objective response rate was 26% with Dato-DXd, and 13% with docetaxel. Now let's take a closer look at some of the subgroup analyses. Exploratory analyses of key subgroups in TROPION-Lung01 demonstrated differences in efficacy based on histology. In the nonsquamous subgroup, Dato-DXd showed a longer progression free survival of 5.5 months compared to 3.6 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. However, in the squamous subgroup, Dato-DXd performed worse with a progression free survival of 2.8 months compared to 3.9 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. A similar trend was observed in the overall survival analyses, though confidence intervals crossed 1 in both histology subsets, in this case, the differences observed were not statistically significant. In the nonsquamous subset, the median overall survival was 14.6 months with Dato-DXd and 12.3 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. In the squamous subset, both arms had shorter survival compared to the nonsquamous subset. The median overall survival with Dato-DXd was almost two months shorter, so 7.6 months, compared to 9.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. While these analyses suggest the potential survival benefit for Dato-DXd in nonsquamous subset, this trial was not powered to test this hypothesis hence these analyses remain exploratory. Another subgroup analysis of note was the group with actionable genomic alterations. Patients with actionable genomic alterations achieved a median PFS of 5.7 months with Dato-DXD and 2.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.35. Similarly, the median overall survival was longer in patients with actionable genomic alterations by almost six months, with a median overall survival of 15.6 months with Dato-DXd and 9.8 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.65. Now, let's talk about safety. Grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events occurred in 26% of patients with Dato-DXd and 42% with docetaxel. The most common adverse event of any grade seen in the Dato-DXd arm were stomatitis seen in 47% of patients, nausea in 34%, and alopecia in 32%. Treatment related interstitial lung disease occurred in 8.8% of patients on Dato-DXd and 4.1% of patients on docetaxel. Of note, grade 5 drug related ILD was more frequent with Dato-DXd. Seven patients on Dato-DXd and one patient on docetaxel died secondary to drug related ILD in this trial. In summary, TROPION-Lung01 aims to address an unmet need for patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. For this population, the treatment options remain limited with poor survival outcomes. TROPION-Lung01 is a positive trial by design due to clinically modest improvement in PFS. However, the lack of overall survival improvement is disappointing. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest Dato-DXd may offer survival advantage in specific subsets such as nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer and patients with actionable genomic alterations. However, these findings require further validation in a prospective trial since TROPION-Lung01 was not designed to address these questions. The data from this trial alone is not sufficient to argue for a change in clinical practice. However, it informs how the future trials using this drug should be tailored. This highlights the importance of studying potential predictive biomarkers earlier in the drug development and incorporating these biomarkers prospectively into the clinical trial designs. Due to the lack of overall survival benefit in this trial, the biologic license application for accelerated approval of Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer was voluntarily withdrawn. New BLA was submitted for Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated advanced EGFR positive non-small cell lung cancer. This BLA is based on data from TROPION-Lung05, TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-PanTumor01. Of note, the results of TROPION-Lung05 trial have been just published in . This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to . Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit 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.
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/34945320
info_outline
Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence
01/09/2025
Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence
Host Dr. Davide Soldato and his guests Dr. Ann Wu and Dr. Alexa White discuss the article "" and the editorial "" TRANSCRIPT The guests on this podcast episode have no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to , the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the . I am your host, , Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Anna Wu and Dr. Alexander White. Dr. Wu is a professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of UCS, while Dr. White is an investigator in the Epidemiology branch of the Environment and Cancer Epidemiology Group at the National Institute of Health. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, “,” and the . So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Wu, Dr. White. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for having us. Dr. Alexandra White: Yes, thank you so much for the invitation to be here. Dr. Davide Soldato: So before going in depth about the results of the study that was published in the JCO, I was wondering if you could give us like a brief introduction and a little bit of background about what was known about air pollution as a risk factor for breast cancer and what was the evidence before this study was conducted. Dr. Alexandra White: Okay. I can start with that question. So, there's been research for decades looking at the relationship between air pollution and breast cancer. And it's been a really challenging question to address for a number of reasons. One being that it can be really difficult to assess exposure to air pollution and many previous studies have had really limited information on people's residences over time. But in general, what we thought leading up to this study was that evidence was most consistent that exposure to traffic related pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide was more consistently related to a higher risk of breast cancer. The evidence for fine particulate matter or PM2.5 was less consistent. More recently, there have been a few large, well conducted studies that have supported a positive association. This new study in the multiethnic cohort led by Dr. Wu is really important because it really demonstrated that, in this large study of over 50,000 women in California, that they also do see an association with PM2.5. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much for the introduction. So, Dr. Wu, we just want to hear a little bit more about the results. So, what was the association that was observed for PM2.5? And specifically, the study that you ran was focused on a very diverse population, a multiethnic cohort, and so I was wondering if you observed any type of differences when you consider the different populations that were included in your study. And if you could also give us a little bit of what was the composition of the women that were enrolled in this cohort. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for the question. So, the multiethnic cohort study is a cohort of over 200,000 individuals who were enrolled when they lived in Hawaii or California. For the air pollution studies that we've been conducting, we have focused on primarily the California participants. And in this instance for the breast cancer study, it was based on roughly 56,000 individuals out of- there were about 100,000 because half of them were men and they were not included. Of the California participants, 75% of them were African Americans or Latinos and they were self-identified as these racial ethnic groups when they enrolled in the study. And this was a particularly important consideration for us because in most of the studies that have been published so far on-air pollution and breast cancer, as well as other cancer sites, most of those studies were conducted among whites in the US or whites in Europe. And even if they included non-white populations, the numbers tend to be small so that they were not able to conduct racial ethnic specific analysis. So, we were particularly interested in examining these other racial ethnic groups because we know from other studies that racial ethnic minority groups tend to live in communities of low socioeconomic status and those communities also tend to have higher levels of various types of environmental pollutants. And so, it was important for us to actually try to tease apart these various interrelated factors. So, what we found was that per 10 micrograms per cubic meter, we had a 28% increased risk overall in all participants combined that meet across the racial ethnic groups. We actually did not see any differences or significant differences in the hazard ratios by race ethnicity and they were in general quite compatible with each other. But we did see a stronger finding among the white participants in our study. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you, a lot, Dr. Wu. So, I think it's very interesting the fact that in the end you observed that air pollution is a significant risk factor across all the ethnicities that were included in the study. But I think that one very strong point of the manuscript and one very strong point of the analysis was that in the end you also corrected for a series of different factors because we know that the incidence of breast cancer can be modified, for example, by familial history or BMI or smoking habits or also alcohol consumption. And a lot of these risk factors were included in your analysis. And so, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit whether you observed any significant differences when you observed or included also these risk factors in your analysis, or whether the association for air pollution as a risk factor stands even when we consider all of these other elements. Dr. Anna Wu: Yes. So, we considered all the well-established breast cancer risk factors. And in this situation, we were particularly interested in considering smoking, alcohol intake, use of menopausal hormones, history of diabetes, body mass index, family history, as well as physical activity, because many of these risk factors, such as, for example, diabetes and body mass index, they are risk factors for breast cancer, and air pollution, have also been found to increase risk of these factors. So, in our analysis, we first adjusted for all of these potential confounders in a mutually adjusted manner, so all of them were considered. In addition, we also conducted stratify analysis. So as an example, we stratified the analysis to examine whether the hazard ratio associated with PM2.5 provided comparable risk estimate or hazard ratio estimates for never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Although we did not see significant heterogeneity by these various subgroups, we did see a significantly stronger effect of PM2.5 among individuals who did not have a family history of breast cancer. Interestingly, our finding was also stronger among individuals who were never smokers and light alcohol drinkers, even though the results were not significantly different. So, we surmised that maybe individuals who already had a high risk because of other established risk factors for breast cancer, we were less likely to be able to observe the effect of air pollution. But it's important to note that other studies, such as the ones that Dr. White has conducted, have also looked at various subgroups, and I think part of the limitation that all of us have is that once you subdivide the study population, even if you start out with a large sample size, often the sample size gets cut in half or a third. And so, we still lack the statistical power to be able to observe significant differences. But I think it is important to note that, in fact, the hazard ratio estimates are actually quite comparable, but we did see a hint of stronger effects among never smokers, and people who were light alcohol drinkers. So, I think this is an area that we certainly need to continue to investigate since there are other subgroups, such as menopausal status, such as hormone receptor status of breast cancer, that we need to consider in future studies. There's still a lot of work we need to do to sort this out, to actually figure out who are the women who are the most susceptible to the exposures. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. White, I would really love a comment from you on this specific area and specifically on what still needs to be done. And related to this, a question actually, for both of you, because I think that from a methodological point of view, there is a lot of work that goes into deciding how we are going to assess the exposure to air pollution. So which type of data are we going to use? Which type of data are we currently using in the epidemiological studies that have been conducted and in the one that we are discussing right now in JCO? And what are the caveats for this data that we are using? Meaning, I think that we use mostly residential addresses, which means that we are looking at the exposure where people actually live, which might not be the place where they spend most of their time. For example, if someone is working, maybe they could be more exposed and have higher exposure when they are at work compared to when they are at home. So, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an overview as to what is the methodological standard of care right now in terms of this analysis and what can we do better to refine and understand this specific factor as Dr. Wu was mentioning? Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so I'm happy to take a first stab at that question. So, I think it's important to note just how far we've come. I think even a few years ago, air pollution was really not considered a risk factor for breast cancer. And a lot of the work that we've been doing and others have really moved this forward in terms of understanding this as a risk factor. And as I mentioned earlier, there have been a lot of challenges in exposure assessment. And to get to your question, I think that our studies in general are doing better at looking at exposure over more years, residences, more time. We know that cancer takes time to develop, and we can't rely on just a single snapshot of exposure. But as you mentioned, almost all of the studies published have really exclusively focused on residential estimates of exposure. And so, there's a real need to understand the exposures that people are experiencing in other aspects of their life, from their commute to their jobs, to really capture that totality of exposure. And then I think one of the points that Dr. Wu was alluding to as well as we know that breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease, so risk factors for breast cancer vary by tumor subtypes, by menopausal status at diagnosis. And a lot of studies have really focused on considering breast cancer as a combined outcome, and that might be missing some really important signals where we might have a stronger effect for certain subtypes due to the fact that there's different biologic pathways that are underlying these subtypes or by menopausal status. And so having large study populations where, as we discussed earlier, would really give us the power to look among these smaller groups of women who might be more susceptible and those with younger women, we know that incidence of cancer is rising in young people, and we need to understand the risk factors for that. And most of our studies are really focused on older individuals, so I think that's one important gap, as well as having the power to really look at different differences by tumor subtypes. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think it's very interesting, and I think one point both of you made in the original article and in the accompanying editorial is also the fact that we tend to look at these risk factors in people who are actually aged, while we maybe should be looking at this in an earlier phase of development and potentially during puberty. Do you think that we should design studies that are more focused on this population even though I think that they will take a lot of time to produce significant results? Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah. I think that it is really important to consider how exposure during early life is related to breast cancer risk. We know that exposures during pregnancy or even as early as during puberty might be particularly relevant for breast cancer. And I think a lot of our studies have really been up against the challenge of the fact that exposure monitoring for air pollution really didn't start until the 1990s. And so, it's challenging, especially for these older cohorts, to get back at that time period that might be relevant. But I think that's something that definitely newer cohorts are going to be able to address, and I think it's going to be really important, and also will give us some clues to better understand the important windows of exposure, but also that might provide clues for the biologic pathways as well that are relevant. Dr. Davide Soldato: And just a related question, because I'm not aware of this, but are there right now cohorts that are specifically looking at this in the US or in other parts of the world? If you are aware of that, of course. Dr. Alexandra White: There have been some cohorts that have focused on exposure during these hypothesized windows of susceptibility, but I don't think they've been able to follow those women long enough to develop breast cancer. One of the things that we're working on in the sister study is trying to expand our assessment of air pollution exposure back in time to try to get at these earlier windows of exposure. So, I'm hoping that it's something we'll be able to comment on and at least for some of the women in our cohort who are younger. But I don't know, Dr. Wu, if you're familiar with any other populations that are doing this now? Dr. Anna Wu: Well, NCI funded several new cohorts in the last couple years that are really focused on trying to get a much more refined exposure assessment. So, I know colleagues at University of Michigan that are peers and also Dr. Wei Zheng at Vanderbilt, they are putting together newer cohorts that are younger and also trying to include a range of exposure, not just air pollution, but really environmental exposures. Those cohorts I think have the potential in the future to try to address some of these questions, but again, it will take at least another number of years before there are a sufficient number of endpoints so that they can actually do these types of studies. Another possibility is that there are a number of big cohort studies in Asia. The age of diagnosis tends to be earlier in Asia. I know that investigators in China are very interested and concerned with the air pollution effects in China. I think there are potentials that in other countries where the age of breast cancer diagnosis is actually younger than in the US and if they establish in a manner that allows them to assess air pollution that they may have opportunities. And I think the other way to try to address this question, whether there are studies where you can actually tap into either biomarkers or pathology samples so you won't be actually studying air pollution in a large population, but you're actually narrowing it down to try to see if you see any signals in a way that would give you some additional clues and insights as to the mechanism. So I think we're going to have to piece together various types of study to try to answer the questions because one type of study like these observational air pollution studies, will allow us to address one slice of the questions that we have and then we need to put together other studies so that we can address other aspects that we're interested in to put it together. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much both of you. That was very interesting. Coming back to the results of the manuscript, we really focused up until now on PM2.5. But it's true that inside of the study you evaluated different pollutants. So, I was wondering whether you saw a similar association for other pollutants that were included in the study or whether the association for higher risk was observed only for PM2.5. Dr. Anna Wu: The results for NO2, NOx, PM10, and carbon monoxide were actually very compatible with the risk estimates that other studies have published as well as from the meta-analysis. So, I would say that our results from the other pollutants are actually very consistent with other results. I think one difference is that our PM2.5 estimates were based on the satellite-based PM2.5 estimates, whereas all the other pollutants were based on monitoring station estimates from EPA sponsored air monitoring stations. So, they are not measured in the same way. And I think different studies over time have used either monitoring station type measures for other pollutants. And I think we were particularly interested in PM2.5 because the measurement of PM2.5 in the monitoring world didn't start until around 2000. So, studies up until that time were less able to actually provide the assessment of PM2.5 as good as we can for air pollution. There's always misclassification. So, I think it's a matter of how much misclassification in the assessment. But, again, we are really limited in really just having exposure over one part of adult life. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And one potentially related question. We are speaking in general about air pollution, but I think that since we are considering residential addresses, probably we are capturing more either traffic pollution or pollution that comes from probably industries or stuff like that, which is mostly related to residential areas or the place where people live. But I think that in the end we also think about air pollution as something that can come from different forms. And one very interesting point, Dr. White, that you made in your editorial is also that there is a global change also in the way we are faced with air pollution. For example, you made the example of wildfires in your editorial and how this might potentially change exposure to air pollution, maybe for limited times, but with concentrations that are fairly higher compared to what we generally observed. So, I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on that and also, if there is potentially a way to also consider this in future epidemiological studies. Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so when we talk about exposure to fine particulate matter, PM2.5, we're assessing exposure to particles that are based on the size of the particle, and we're really not evaluating the types of particles that people are experiencing exposure to. And we know that, in general, that PM2.5 composition really varies geographically due to differing sources of exposure. So, like you were saying, there might be a stronger contribution to industry or from agriculture or from traffic. And so that could really change the PM2.5 exposure profile that individuals experience. And so it could be that this is another really important area that this research needs to consider, which could really help us identify what sources of exposure are most relevant. Wildfires are a really important growing concern. We know that wildfires are increasing in both intensity and duration and frequency, and we really don't understand the long-term health impacts of wildfires. But we know that wildfire associated PM2.5 might be one of the most dominant contributors to PM2.5 moving forward. And although we've seen historic declines in PM2.5 in the US after the Clean Air Act, those declines have really stalled. PM2.5 itself is projected to increase over the next few decades, so understanding different PM2.5 composition profiles and the sources that drive them can really help us identify the most important targets for any potential interventions. And wildfire PM2.5 in particular may be of concern because it's a...
/episode/index/show/jcopodcast/id/34775725