[music]

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

Greg Guthrie: Hi everyone, I'm Greg Guthrie, a member of ASCO's patient education content team, and I'll be your host for today's podcast. ASCO is the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and we're the world's leading professional organization for physicians and oncology professionals caring for people with cancer. Today we're going to be talking about what patients should know about cannabis, cannabinoids, and cancer. ASCO recently published a clinical practice guideline on cannabis and cannabinoids for adults with cancer.

I'm happy to have 2 of the co-chairs from the committee that developed this guideline as our guests today. Dr. Ilana Braun is an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Braun.

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thanks so much for having me.

Greg Guthrie: It's a pleasure to have you here today. And Dr. Eric Roeland is an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. Welcome Dr. Roeland.

Dr. Eric Roeland: Thanks, Greg.

Greg Guthrie

Great. So before we begin, I want to note that neither Dr. Braun nor Dr. Roeland have any relationships to disclose related to this podcast, but you can find their full disclosures in this podcast's show notes.

So let's start with the fundamental question about this discussion, and that is what is a clinical practice guideline and how does it help guide cancer care? Dr. Roeland, can you start with this?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Of course, yeah. A clinical practice guideline describes the best practices or what clinicians call the “standard of care” with regard to a specific topic. So this is kind of the blueprint that clinicians use to guide their practice when taking care of people with cancer. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline on the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids summarizes the best available data collected specifically from humans in clinical trials, and we combined that with a multi-disciplinary panel of expert opinion.

Greg Guthrie: Yeah, I think it's really important to always remember that best evidence comes from research in humans as well as from clinical expertise. So it's the best recommendations that we can have to support cancer care.

Dr. Eric Roeland: Greg, I also think it's very important to understand that there are different places that we gain knowledge in research. One is specifically when we are trying to figure out how a drug works, and we will test that in what we call “preclinical models,” which is usually within animals. And then, once we’ve determined safety and efficacy, then we start taking that information and approach studies in humans. And so when our listeners are learning about new data in the use of cannabis or cannabinoids, I encourage everyone to always stop and ask, is this data coming from the animals or is this from humans?

Greg Guthrie: That's such an important point. And I think it's so essential to always look for that piece of evidence whenever you're reading about scientific advances. Alright, so let's take a moment to talk about what it means when we say cannabis and cannabinoids. Dr. Braun?

Dr. Ilana Braun: Cannabis, which is better known as marijuana, is a plant that humans have turned to for thousands of years as a medicine, in manufacturing—for instance, in the making of rope­—and for enjoyment.

It's often mistakenly viewed as having one main ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, but it actually has more than 300 ingredients that act in the body. Some of those ingredients are referred to as cannabinoids. There are 2 cannabinoids of greatest interest, THC, which I just mentioned, and CBD, cannabidiol. THC is responsible for the high feeling some people experience with cannabis. CBD is not.

Currently in the U.S., some cannabis products containing these cannabinoids can be sourced at the pharmacy, others at cannabis dispensaries, and some through more informal means.

Greg Guthrie: That's great. Thank you for that definition here as we continue this discussion. So what do people with cancer typically think cannabis and cannabinoids will do to help them? Dr. Roeland?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Well, it's a great question, Greg, because in clinic, when patients and their loved ones express interest in either starting cannabis or cannabinoids or are currently using them, I always want to explore what their goal of use is. And interestingly, the goals of use are far-reaching. And I have heard everything from, to help with everything, to cure my cancer. And so it's incredibly important to understand why people are reaching towards these products, to understand what their goals are. If they're focused on using this to treat the underlying cancer, or instead of standard cancer therapies, we have grave concerns about this approach. And it may lead to worse outcomes of your cancer.

However, if cannabis or cannabinoids are being used to help with controlling some symptoms during their cancer treatment, it may be helpful. And especially in one particular case where people have really bad nausea and vomiting that persists despite our best medicines to prevent it.

Greg Guthrie: Thank you for that, Dr. Roeland. Dr. Braun, did you have anything to add?

Dr. Ilana Braun: Maybe I will just point out that decisions on what to target with cannabis are often made through trial and error or in consultation with dispensaries, but not as much as I would prefer in consultation with clinical teams.

Dr. Eric Roeland: So I would also add that it's incredibly important to bring these topics up with your clinical team because although cannabis and cannabinoids are considered safe by many because they're quote “natural,” it's important to recognize that they actually can interact with many of the other medications that you're already taking.

For example, patients with cancer might be experiencing really bad pain or anxiety and taking things like opioids or benzodiazepines. And when you combine that with cannabis, it can prolong some of the effects of sedation or confusion. I'd also like to point out that this is not a time where people want to try cannabis for the first time, when they are weak and/or experiencing poor appetite and higher risk of falls. This is not the best time to be trying cannabis or cannabinoids without clear guidance from the clinical care team.

Greg Guthrie: Do you find in writing this guideline and through your clinical experience that most people who are asking about cannabis and cannabinoids, that they already have been trying to use it or are considering it? Because there's a difference there, right? What goal are they looking for, and do they already have a predetermined assumption about what's going to happen with these?

Dr. Eric Roeland: You know, Greg, as clinicians, we talk about a lot of hard stuff. We talk about challenges in terms of health care, access to care, cultural differences, financial toxicity. And it's so fascinating to me that we don't talk about something as simple as whether or not patients are using cannabis. And the reality is that when patients actually bring it up in clinic, I would say that most times they're already using it and are just simply asking for some advice on how to use it safely and effectively. So once I decided to lean in on this topic and create a space for patients and their loved ones to bring it up in clinic, I have found that it's brought up during most clinical encounters.

Greg Guthrie: Fascinating. And so that's likely why the first recommendation of this guideline addresses the importance of communication between doctors and patients on this topic, correct?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Yes, absolutely. I think that doctors are reticent to talk about this topic because of concerns around legal issues, which can be highly varied across the country. And Dr. Braun can speak to this more.

Dr. Ilana Braun: Yeah, so in order to offer the very best care possible, I think that medical teams should know about all the medicines and supplements a person is taking. And this includes cannabis and cannabinoid products. Why? Well, because, as Dr. Roeland mentioned, cannabis and cannabinoids can sometimes decrease the effectiveness of some therapies that a person is on, likely including some cancer treatments, and they can also worsen side effects of other therapies. And then at the same time, cannabis and cannabinoids can be helpful in managing some symptoms of cancer and side effects of cancer treatment. So using them involves a careful weighing of risks and benefits.

So for these reasons, oncology teams really do want to be part of the conversation as someone thinks through decisions around cannabis and cannabinoids. The ASCO guidelines encourage clinicians to be open and non-judgmental and welcome transparent discussions with patients about cannabis and cannabinoids. From there, clinicians should either assist personally if they feel qualified to do so, or refer a patient to high-quality information or an advisor with greater expertise.

As for the types of information that might be helpful to share with the clinical team, a person with cancer who consumes cannabis or cannabinoids might wish to share why they're turning to cannabis, where they get their products, the active ingredients in them—so is it mainly THC or is it mainly CBD­—how they consume them, are they smoking, are they vaporizing, are they taking them by mouth, how often they consume them, what do they experience as the benefits and risks of using cannabis and cannabinoid products? Their clinicians may wish to know whether or not the cannabis products are being used as an add-on to standard treatments or whether they're being used in the place of standard treatments. And as Dr. Roeland suggested, they probably will want to know how much this practice is costing the patient each month and whether it is affordable.

I think it's especially important to speak with your clinical team if you are considering using high-potency cannabis paste in an attempt to treat cancer itself. So not just manage symptoms, but actually treat cancer itself. The reason I think it's so important to share with your cancer team is that these cannabis pastes tend to have very, very high concentrations of THC and sometimes even CBD. And I think your cancer team can be helpful in thinking through the risks and benefits of that, helping to monitor side effects that might arise.

It is commonly the case that people feel a little bit of confusion with very high doses of oral THC.

Dr. Eric Roeland: I absolutely agree. And I think these high doses of cannabis products, they're often a tincture and delivered in a syringe. And it might look like black tar. And people are told to start off with the dosing of a grain of rice. But then they're told that the dose to treat their underlying cancer can be higher than a gram of cannabis a day. In some places it's a gram and a half. This is very high dosing, and it's going to cause people to feel extremely fatigued and increase the risk of falls and being sent to the emergency department. So I want to warn people about this practice in particular, because it can cause harm. We have no evidence that it actually works.

Greg Guthrie: Thanks for that information there. I was wondering, is there a certain person on the health care team that patients should consider talking to, or anyone?

Dr. Ilana Braun: I think anyone. Health care teams keep in close contact with each other. And so this kind of information would be shared amongst the team. So lots of cancer patients begin by sharing with their infusion nurse or their nurse practitioner. They don't even need to share necessarily with their oncologist as a first step. And anyone on the team should, after these guidelines, be able to access high-quality information through their institutions.

Dr. Eric Roeland: And for those patients who might be in a location where they don't have access to an expert or don't have access to educational resources, I think one of the strengths of this current guideline is that we include an appendix, which clinicians can actually use as a 1-page handout for patients and caregivers to answer some of these most basic questions.

For example, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about how to take cannabis or cannabinoids. And what we do see is there's a big difference between ingesting orally an edible versus smoking or inhaling cannabis. And so, for example, cannabis when eaten by mouth can take up to 2 hours to have its peak effect. And unfortunately, what happens is that patients won't feel anything after several minutes to a half hour and then stack doses to the point that they get a much higher dose than they really need. And so we really encourage people to be aware of, if it's an edible, that it can take up to 2 hours. Whereas with your breathing it in or vaping, the effects can happen almost right away.

But again, it's important to recognize that cannabis, whether it's smoked, vaped, or ingested, can be in your body for up to 12 hours and may even impact your ability to drive. So it's important that if you are going to use these tools in combination with the rest of your medicines, it's important to do it in a safe way.

Another product that is now available, even over the counter at many grocery stores, is cannabidiol, or CBD. CBD in its pure form doesn't have the euphoria associated with products that contain more THC. Most people are using this as an anti-inflammatory, or targeting sleep.

I would like to recognize that in our review of the literature, we discovered that high doses, meaning more than 300 milligrams of cannabidiol a day, actually changed the measurable enzyme levels of the liver. These enzyme levels in the liver are the same levels that we use to determine whether or not you can get your chemotherapy. So you want to make sure that you're not taking excessive doses of cannabidiol, meaning more than 300 milligrams a day, because you don't want your chemotherapy delayed because your liver enzymes might be elevated falsely from the use of high doses of cannabidiol.

Greg Guthrie: That's great, Dr. Roeland. Thanks for adding that. As an additive or part of the cancer care plan, like with all medications, we need to be aware of what we're taking and report to our health care team so we can watch for interactions and potential side effects, right?

So what are the rest of ASCO's guideline recommendations when it comes to this guideline for cannabis and cannabinoids?

Dr. Ilana Braun: So as a committee, we submitted cannabis and cannabinoids to the same level of rigorous scrutiny that we would any other aspect of oncologic care.

I can think of few other ways to validate this area of oncology science than to do so. And after an in-depth evaluation, the ASCO committee concluded that of all the reasons that a cancer patient might medicate with cannabis, the best scientific evidence supports using cannabis or cannabinoids to help with nausea and vomiting caused by cancer drugs when standard medications for nausea and vomiting don’t work well enough.

Of note, ASCO guidelines make clear that there isn't evidence to hang our hats on that cannabis and cannabinoids can treat cancer itself. What's more, early evidence suggests that cannabis and cannabinoids may actually worsen outcomes for people taking a cancer treatment called “immunotherapy.” Gold-standard clinical trials are necessary to confirm these worrisome findings, but for the time being, people on immunotherapy should probably best avoid cannabis and cannabinoids. I think Dr. Roeland and I and the rest of the committee have hope that more scientifically proven indications will emerge as cannabis research progresses.

Dr. Eric Roeland: Dr. Braun has also pointed out to me that there's literature and evidence supporting the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids for the management of chronic pain not related to cancer. And this has been actually described in other guidelines, and we need to recognize that our patients living with cancer often have chronic pain that may even predate their cancer experience. However, we do not have strong evidence to support that the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids helps with cancer pain, which is a common reason that people are reaching for these medicines.

Greg Guthrie: Great, thank you, Dr. Roeland. Thank you, Dr. Braun. So this guideline also recommends the use of cannabis or cannabinoids mainly within the setting of a clinical trial, and why is that?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Well, Greg, I think it's incredibly important for people living with cancer and their loved ones to recognize that access to cannabis has far outpaced our ability to validate and study the best methods of using cannabis and cannabinoids in people living with cancer. Meaning access has far outpaced the science that supports its use. We also recognize that just because something is quote, “natural,” doesn't necessarily mean it is also safe, especially in combination with many of the drugs and cancer therapies that patients must receive while they're on treatment.

Therefore, for those of you very frustrated by the lack of evidence to support the use of these medicines in people living with cancer, you should be the first in line to volunteer for any studies that help us collect prospective evidence to demonstrate not only safety but efficacy.

I would also like to recognize how challenging it can be to perform these types of clinical trials based off of the formal designation by the federal government classifying this—cannabis and/or cannabinoids—as a Schedule 1 medicine, which creates multiple barriers for those clinical researchers who want to fully describe the safety and efficacy of these drugs. Therefore, if there is someone near you who is doing clinical research in this space, we greatly would appreciate your involvement in those clinical trials.

Dr. Ilana Braun: I agree with Eric. By participating in clinical trials, a person is doing a very kind thing for others, helping to advance the science behind cannabis and cannabinoids. Only through this controlled, systematic testing will the medical community understand whether cannabis and cannabinoids can be helpful for indications beyond the chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

And we as a society need to understand whether cannabis or cannabinoids can be helpful for cancer pain, for cancer-related poor appetite, to name just a few. These clinical trials will help us move the field forward. And in terms of personal benefit, I could imagine that clinical trials might offer someone more quality-assured cannabis products, more scientifically based dosing guidelines, careful clinical observation should side effects present, and potentially efficacy. But of course there are no guarantees. That's why we're doing the trial.

Greg Guthrie: Thanks, Dr. Braun. Yeah, clinical trials are a safe way to grow our knowledge in cancer care and treatment. And definitely, as Dr. Roeland said, if we don't have evidence, the evidence in this current guideline to support recommendations, then the only way we can truly find that is by participating in clinical trials. And so I would just note that if you're interested in participating in a clinical trial, talk to a member of your health care team. And there are a number of online resources, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, where people can look for research. That's how we advance the science. So is there anything else people with cancer should know about using cannabis or cannabinoids during cancer treatment?

Dr. Eric Roeland: One key message I think for our listeners is to recognize that people have varying tolerances to this class of medicines. And what I frequently observe is that an older patient is offered an edible by their well-intentioned children who want their mom or dad to start eating more in the setting of their cancer. Unfortunately, I've experienced taking care of people that have had side effects associated with the use of cannabis or cannabinoids leading to even emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

And although these products are overall very safe and you cannot quote “overdose” on them or stop breathing because you're taking too much cannabis, it can be very uncomfortable to feel very confused and unable to stand or walk. That can be prolonged for many people, especially those who feel especially weak during their cancer therapy.

And our loved ones mean well, but sometimes the advice that they're providing could actually cause harm. And sadly, I've had many children of patients who have felt incredibly awful after their loved one had a side effect from these medicines, which actually delayed their cancer care.

Greg Guthrie: Excellent point, Dr. Roeland, thank you for that. Dr. Braun, any final notes?

Dr. Ilana Braun: Yeah, so following on Dr. Roeland's thoughts, I would also add that it's important to think about safe storage for such products, particularly if there are children or pets in the home. Cannabis products sometimes look like medicine and sometimes look like candy or baked goods. And so it's important to store them out of the reach of minors and pets.

And the last thing I'll emphasize is this: if you are living with cancer and medicating or thinking of medicating with cannabis or cannabinoids, please consider sharing this information with your clinicians so that they can help you strategize about an optimal course.

Dr. Eric Roeland: I would like to take a moment to thank the American Society of Clinical Oncology for recognizing that we need to address this important need for people living with cancer. And rather than ignore something that's happening every day in the clinic, ASCO chose to convene a panel of experts and coalesce the data and try to figure out what best practices are in this space.

And to that, I am very proud to be a member of ASCO who chooses to lean into these difficult topics rather than run away. I would also say this is a keen opportunity for everyone to advocate for more research in this space. Because talented folks like Dr. Braun, who want to do research in this space, need advocates, need participants, and need funding to fund this type of research. So again, kudos to ASCO, the members of the panel, and, of course, our patients.

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thank you, Eric, for saying that. I am so grateful to have been a part of this really cutting-edge process. And I think that clinical guidelines will help to de-stigmatize cannabis care in a meaningful way in the oncology clinic.

Greg Guthrie: This has been great. Thanks, Dr. Braun. Thanks, Dr. Roeland. If I can interject, I think one of my biggest takeaways here is every patient, caregiver, if they are or are considering cannabis or cannabinoids, the biggest question is to ask, why am I choosing this? And then to find a member of their health care team and talk to them about that. And that's how we protect each other's health and we ensure the best results possible for everyone. So I want to thank you both so much for this engaging discussion. Dr. Braun, Dr. Roeland, thanks for joining us today. And our listeners, if you'd like to learn more about this guideline, please visit www.asco.org/guidelines. Thanks so much for joining us today, and be well.

ASCO: Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

[music]

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

In this Meaningful Conversations podcast, Dr. Karan Jatwani talks to Dr. Amy Case about what people with cancer should know about hospice care, including the difference between palliative and supportive care and hospice care, who is eligible to enroll in hospice care, and the types of support available for people receiving hospice care and their family and caregivers.

Meaningful Conversations is a Cancer.Net blog and podcast series that describes the important discussions people may need to have with their providers, caregivers, and loved ones during cancer and offers ways to help navigate these conversations.

Dr. Jatwani is a Medical Oncology Fellow at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Dr. Case is the Lee Foundation Endowed Chair of the Department of Palliative and Supportive Care at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Professor of Medicine at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences of the University at Buffalo.

View disclosures for Dr. Jatwani and Dr. Case at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Jatwani: Hi, everyone. My name is Karan Jatwani. I'm one of the 3-year fellows at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. I have finished my palliative care fellowship from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. And I am interested in the integration of oncology as well as palliative care, and that is where I envision my future career to be. And it's my pleasure to be involved in a podcast with Cancer.Net and looking forward to it.

Dr. Case: Hello. My name is Amy Case, and I'm the chair of the Department of Supportive and Palliative Care here at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, and we're in Buffalo, New York. So I appreciate being invited to speak today. And we also have a fellowship that we run here and a pretty comprehensive department with 8 divisions that include palliative, social work, psychiatry, psychology, spiritual care, bioethics, and geriatrics, and also employee resilience. So we have a lot of kind of passion projects we work on in our supportive care department.

Dr. Jatwani: Thank you so much, Dr. Case, for joining us today. I think I've always admired your work. And just to start off, just for our listeners and our audience, if you can just give us a brief idea of what palliative care is, I think that would be the best segue to enhance the discussion.

Dr. Jatwani: So “to palliate” means to make feel better. And when I talk to patients about what it is that we do, I talk about how we take care of the whole person, which includes the physical symptom management, the emotional support, which could include psychiatry, psychology, or social work support of the emotional piece. And then also the spiritual support, which often we work as a team. In order to be palliative care, you actually need to be a team. It can't just be one physician, for example, doing palliative. You need to work as a team. So generally, a core team consists of a physician, a nurse, a chaplain, a spiritual care professional, and a social worker at its core. But sometimes it can be a nurse practitioner providing that or other specialists helping on that team.

Dr. Jatwani: I think one of the key questions that always arise with the patients is, as soon as you talk about palliative care, patients start equating it to death. How do you make sure that the patients you're interacting with, how do you differentiate it with them, and how do you relieve that anxiety whenever the patient hears “palliative care”?

Dr. Case: So no matter what you call the work that we do, there will always be a stigma. So if we change the name to yellow banana, people would be afraid of yellow bananas, right? So I think that the word hospice has-- I joke that it's kind of like a 4-letter word type of situation. We call it “the H word.” Sometimes patients are really fearful to hear that word. And even now, palliative has adopted this stigma. So generally, what I do is I kind of say that it's focused on quality of life. The main goal is to help people feel better, live a better quality of life, to get through their cancer treatments. And I also educate them that people who receive palliative care tend to have better outcomes. Patient-reported outcome metrics are better. So patients often have a prolonged survival. They may be able to tolerate their cancer treatment better and get through those treatments. And that generally, I would say, is something that they're happy to hear.

That's something that they're usually, "Yeah, sign me up for that." When we start with somebody-- we spend an hour with every patient for a new visit. When I start with them, they're really skeptical. Oftentimes, they're looking at me mistrustfully, like, "What is this?" And by the end of the visit, they say, "Where has this been from the beginning of my cancer journey? And why am I only getting this now? This was the best interaction I've had at this organization." And it's because we give them kind of what we call a “wrap-around care,” which is almost like a big hug. We use a lot of skills that include empathy. And with our communication, we often spend a lot of time listening. And I think people really walk out feeling heard. Even if you can't solve it or cure it, you can discuss things that can just make them feel that you were there for them and you listened. And that is very powerful.

Dr. Jatwani: I 100% agree. I mean, that has been my sort of experience as well during my fellowship. I took a lot of those learnings with me when I see my patients. But also, I think coming from an oncology standpoint, I can definitely now understand that I have been at fault when I have not given that palliative blanket that you were talking about at different times. And so my question is, when can patients ask for palliative care? And we'll discuss “the H word,” as you mentioned at the beginning. So we'll discuss with that as well. But when should patients undergoing cancer treatment, when should they ask for involvement of palliative care, or they should advocate for themselves or even the caregivers should advocate?

Dr. Case: Yeah. So I think that generally, palliative care, the beauty of palliative care is that it doesn't really have a time limit. Someone can ask for it anytime. And often, we encourage people right from the beginning. So there's people who may be looking for that extra added support right from the beginning. And so we usually encourage oncologists and the oncology teams to start those discussions themselves.

Dr. Jatwani: And I think at this point of time, I would like to definitely ask you. I think you mentioned “the H word” in the beginning. So can we discuss a little bit more about what is hospice care?

Dr. Case: So palliative care is provided on a trajectory. So it can be provided anytime, even for survivors, for people who are earlier in their diagnosis. But hospice has a timeline on it because it's actually a Medicare benefit that it's like almost like an insurance benefit that kicks in, but the government pays for the patient's care. And so in order to enroll or sign up for hospice, a patient has to have certain criteria in order to meet that. In order to get those things paid for. And so hospices have to—generally, it's when a patient has a life expectancy of 6 months or less, and they have decided that the cancer treatment, meaning chemotherapy, radiation in most cases, immunotherapy, the burden of that is higher than the benefit.

Most of the patients who see us in palliative are still getting their cancer treatment, and we're helping them walk the journey with them through their treatment, helping them feel better, starting those conversations. And then we do something called a transition to hospice. So many of the patients we see in palliative end up transitioning to hospice. How is palliative care different than hospice? How is hospice different than palliative care? They're very similar. The philosophy of care and the way it's provided is almost exact, meaning that it's a team-based approach made up of physical, emotional, and spiritual support for the patient provided by a team. Although in palliative care, many times that's done in a clinic or an inpatient setting. There are home palliative programs that exist. We have one here at Roswell as well. But hospice, 80% of the time, is done at home. Because generally, when people prefer to pass away and we talk to them, where do they want to be at the end of their life? I'd say 95% of people do want to be at home if that's feasible. The biggest barrier that they are worried about dying at home is that they worry about being a burden on their loved ones.

And so that's the way I frame those discussions, is that I ask them about what are the things that they're hoping for. What are the things that they're worried about? And when I find out, inevitably, like I said, it's probably the number 1 fear of people to be a burden on their loved ones. It's this wonderful thing that can reduce burden on family to help care for you and have you be at peace in the place that you wish to be.

Dr. Jatwani: I 100% agree. I think you framed it perfectly that if the discussions-- I think, as you said, they should happen at the right time point. And the other thing is I think they should happen often. They should not happen only once. They should happen at every juncture of time when the cancer care has sort of transitioned into going into the more risk and less benefit window. And that's a spectrum, as you mentioned. It does not have to happen only once, and the provider feels, “OK, I’ve done that discussion. Now I don’t have to do it again.”

Dr. Case: It’s a journey.

Dr. Jatwani: It’s a journey, yes.

Dr. Case: I think we always talk about a journey and that advanced care planning does not happen, excuse me, just once in the trajectory. It happens over multiple time points. And I call it “loosening the lid,” where the lid is often on really tight. There’s maybe often mistrust of the health care system. People are really scared. And you really need to give them that emotional support. And that’s why palliative is so beautiful because we provide them that wrap-around hug when they’re feeling at their most vulnerable. And then when they have comfort with us, then it’s much easier to discuss these really tough topics. And I think establishing rapport, getting to know them as a human being and who they are is extremely important. So, for example, my style is to start any medical visit with a social interaction and asking them about themselves socially. I say, “Let’s put the cancer aside. I want you to tell me about you. Tell me about your family. Tell me about the things that you enjoy doing for fun.” And they often laugh because they want to talk just about the cancer, right? They say, “I don’t have fun anymore.” And then I try to ask them about the things they did before they had cancer. And you see them light up, and you see the rapport being built, and you see the trust. And once you have those types of relationships, these discussions become much easier.

Dr. Jatwani: I agree. So just to transition a little bit more about hospice care, I think you talked about that this hospice care is a Medicare benefit. Can you tell our audience, is it only at home or is it available inpatient as well? And can you speak a little bit about that?

Dr. Case:  Sure. So I mentioned before that generally, the majority of hospice care is preferred to be in the home, and really taking care of someone at the end of life actually can be less scary when you have the support of hospice. And so anyone who’s in the hospital where a discussion is had and then advanced care planning is done, and they say, “You know what? I don’t want to end up being on a ventilator. I’m going to elect to be a, “do not resuscitate or allow natural death.’" If that happens, I actually think it's almost imperative for hospice to also be consulted and offered. Because if you send someone home that is a “do not resuscitate” without those family support in place, the family will struggle. And so I think that it goes hand in hand. So dying at home goes hand in hand with having hospice in place. End of story. You need to have those supports in place. I do not think it will work out well for the family if you do not. And so there are rare circumstances where some physicians provide that support or home palliative can provide that support. But hospice really is the gold standard. So I'd say most of it is in the home.

But once someone enrolls in hospice, there is caveats where if a patient is having uncontrolled symptoms that are not managed by the nurses in the home and the physicians by phone or by home visit, that the patient may be able to be brought in to an inpatient hospice unit or a hospital. They can unelect—to come off of, or unenroll—in hospice. For example, they change their mind. They decide, oh, they fall they break a hip, OK? And hospice is not going to fund a non-cancer-related hip fracture repair. So they would have to unenroll from that Medicare benefit, hospice Medicare benefit, and enroll in a different part of their insurance. And it's very easy to enroll and unenroll. And so there are different parts of that Medicare benefit that pay for different things. And so if somebody gets a hip fracture, it doesn't mean they have to not have it repaired. I mean, so you adjust and unenroll them from hospice, get the hip repaired, and then enroll them back in the hospice. And so those types of things can totally be done. It doesn't mean the patient can never come back to the hospital. It doesn't mean they can't change their mind. It doesn't mean that if, say, they get pneumonia, that they can't have their pneumonia treated. So simple infections, like Clostridium difficile (C. diff), pneumonia, the hospice actually gives antibiotics.

They manage a lot of medical treatments like anticoagulation and things like that. So there are, depending on the hospice, leeway with some of those medical treatments. For example, total parenteral nutrition (TPN), percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes, some of those things can be managed in hospice. However, if a PEG tube or a TPN is causing more burden, they will continue to have those discussions about, is this treatment in the best interest of comfort and quality of life? And so that's generally the philosophy of care. And so, yes, they can be inpatient. There can be coming back to the hospital. And there are hospice inpatient units kind of all over the country. Some cities may not have hospice inpatient units, and they have other things like something called a “comfort home,” where comfort homes are depending on the area, the region that you live. Comfort homes exist in some cities where they're run by volunteers, and a patient may not be able to be at home, but they can go to a comfort home. Sometimes hospice can be provided in an assisted living where a patient's home is actually not home, it's in a facility or it can be provided in a nursing home. However, I think there's a misperception that hospice pays for the room and board of those places, and that is actually not true.

So if someone needs a facility to live, then the family or the patient is on the hook, unfortunately, for the room and board. And so a lot of times, that delays discharge. So, for example, family does not want to take that patient home. They are not able to do that. The patient then needs a facility with hospice. The assumption is the hospice will pick up the bill of the facility. So that does not happen. But hospice covers all of the costs related to the care of the patient that's related to their hospice diagnosis.

Dr. Jatwani: For patients who are living alone, who are in the elderly population, who are undergoing cancer-directed treatments, for those patients, is hospice an option? If it is, because that is always a challenging area that we face, how do you deal with those patients?

Dr. Case: That's very challenging. Generally, we would call on social work and some of those specialties to help us figure out a support care network for that patient. And so often, you can actually recruit folks to take shifts coming in and checking on that patient. And so, yes, you can have hospice care for a patient who has a care-- generally, you need to have a caregiver who is around for that patient. Ideally, in an ideal world, there's somebody with that patient 24/7 when the patient is really ill. If the patient is pretty functional and they're on hospice, walking around, there may be some hours out of the day where they may not need someone with them. And really, we kind of determine that on a case-by-case basis. I would say it's not a door-shut situation that if someone lives alone, they could never have hospice. I would not say that. But in an ideal world, we do need to recruit someone to be there with the patient.

If someone has absolutely no one to be there with them during hours during the day, which I think is pretty rare, then generally, if the person is too ill to stay home alone, it'll be a conversation that you have with that patient that they may be moved to a higher level of care, meaning that they may need a skilled nursing facility with hospice on board coming in and checking on them. That's their new home, or they may need an assisted living. And there are some facilities that provide their own hospice, meaning that if you go to that facility, they have a team that's built into that facility that provides them the end-of-life care at the facility, and they don't allow in external hospices. So it kind of depends on your area where you're practicing and asking those questions as, "Do you have an external hospice or do you provide hospice services internally?" And those are questions I often steer patients to ask.

Dr. Jatwani: Just some parting thoughts on in terms of, as you said, hospice has a very selective criteria. And some patients might say, "How can you prognosticate me for living less than 6 months?" That's a challenging question that we often get. And I think you have answered it partly, that it's enroll “on and off switch” kind of situation. But what if a patient starts feeling much, much better on hospice and they feel that they want to come back and get cancer-directed treatment, how does palliative care and hospice care come into that domain?

Dr. Case: Prognostication, when a physician is asked to prognosticate a patient, we call it “the art of prognostication” because you can't always look it up in a textbook and get the right answer. And what one physician may determine is a prognosis for a patient, another one may give a different one. Because we look at the same things, but a lot of times, there's a clinician estimate that comes into it that is really one of those, you put a bunch of facts together and you come up with what we call an estimate. And so sometimes, we may be correct. Sometimes, we may underestimate or we may overestimate.

If a patient enrolls in hospice and they, for example, are doing a lot better, they're outliving the 6 months, the hospice programs often reevaluate those patients, and they do allow folks to stay enrolled with hospice care sometimes quite longer than the 6 months. Sometimes, people are on hospice a year or even longer. What they need to document is that the patient has an ongoing need where they need the multi-disciplinary team supportive care. And so as long as you meet certain criteria, and generally, the criteria are often that they have the continuing progression of the cancer or whatever the other medical illness is, the disease itself, and advancing illness, whether that be chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF). It doesn't have to just be cancer. And you need to also have often a documentation of potentially continued functional decline or functional impairment. So prognosis is tied hand in hand with functional status. And so we don't just look at the computed tomography (CT) scan when we're determining prognosis. We look at nutritional. We look at weight loss. We look at appetite. We look at functional status and comorbidities. And there's a lot of other things that go into that, not just, “Is the tumor growing on the scan, yes or no?” So it's really important to look at a wide array of things when we're determining prognosis.

Dr. Jatwani: Yes. And I think that sort of I just wanted to give our patients some idea of how we determine. I know there are a lot, many things that we have not covered, and we haven't even touched the expertise of Dr. Case, which we hope to do that in the future. And from my end, these are the questions that I had. And we hope to reconnect soon Dr. Case, and get some more insights into other aspects of palliative care, which you have done a lot of wonderful work in.

Dr. Case: Thanks, Dr. Jatwani.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Jatwani and Dr. Case. Find more podcasts and blog posts in the Meaningful Conversations series at www.cancer.net/meaningfulconversations.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

In this podcast, Dr. Abby Rosenberg discusses what parents and family members of children with cancer should know about palliative and supportive care. She addresses the way palliative and supportive care is different from hospice or end-of-life care, what to expect when meeting with the palliative and supportive care team, and the ways this type of care can support children with cancer and their families.

Dr. Rosenberg is the chief of pediatric palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

View Dr. Rosenberg’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Rosenberg: Hi, my name is Abby Rosenberg. I am the chief of pediatric palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children's Hospital. And today we're going to be talking about what pediatric palliative care is, maybe demystifying it a little bit, and more importantly, talking about how it can help kids with cancer and their families.

I think one of the most important things to know about palliative care is that it is a specialized kind of medical care for people who live with serious illnesses like cancer. And folks who are receiving palliative care are receiving extra support to help them with complicated symptoms, pain, distress, as well as complicated decisions that they might need to make in the process of their illness.

Palliative care is really intended to help enhance a person's current care by focusing on their quality of life, and not only the patient's quality of life but also the quality of life for the whole family. In pediatrics, that includes parents, siblings, and other kids who might be members of the community. The way I think about palliative care is that it is really intended to help people live their best lives for as long as possible. And so with that in mind, it can really help a whole bunch of people who are affected by pediatric cancer.

And the way we do that is by delivering help through what we call an “interprofessional team.” And so a palliative care team in pediatrics includes physicians, it includes nurses, includes advanced practice providers like nurse practitioners, it includes social workers. It may also include child life specialists, psychologists, chaplains, other folks who are involved in the child's overall well-being.

Palliative care can be provided at any time in a child's cancer experience and anywhere. It can be delivered while you are in the clinic, while you are in the hospital staying overnight, and we can deliver it to you at home.

Some people confuse palliative care and hospice care, and those are 2 different things. So palliative care can be delivered concurrently with cancer-directed and cure-directed therapy.  And generally, when we talk about hospice, it is for patients and families who have started to understand and recognize that perhaps their cancer might not be curable, and they are making the courageous and loving decision to switch gears and focus more on quality of life without continuing cure-directed therapies. Hospice care, like palliative care, can be delivered in a bunch of different settings. And most times in pediatric hospice care, we think about delivering it to a child in their home and within their home community.

Some of the things that parents often ask us when we're talking about palliative care for their kids with cancer is, how do I know if my child is ready? And how do I ask for it? The answer to the first question is that again, your child can be ready for palliative care at any time. And it's really intended to help you navigate the heart of having a child with cancer. And that can, again, include anything from making complicated decisions, processing complicated information, making plans for you and your child's future, and managing complex pain and symptoms. How you ask for it is in most pediatric cancer centers, there is an embedded palliative care team that can help you. So you can ask any of your doctors and nurses and other folks who are taking care of you and your family.

The last thing I'll say about palliative care is that it is a subspecialty team of experts who are good at all of these things like communication and pain and symptom management. Most pediatric oncologists do what we call primary palliative care, and that is they help support you in all of these things, too. So they help talk to you about complicated decisions and upcoming plans. They help talk to you about what might be coming with your child's symptoms, and they really help you navigate the cancer experience. And so what we try to do in pediatric palliative care is partner with you and your oncology team so that we just become a bigger team, thinking more holistically about all of the ways we can support you and your family. I think, in the end, the message of all of this is that every person taking care of a kid with cancer is trying to help that kid to thrive. And pediatric palliative care can be a really important resource to help kids to do that to the best of their abilities.

So another question that we can hear from parents and families is what to expect when the palliative care team gets called. I think at a minimum, the expectation is that you will meet more people who will be really curious about your family and your child. They will ask a lot of questions about what matters to you, what are your values. They'll ask you questions about what is happening with the child's illness, what are your worries, what are your hopes, and what they do with all of that information is they help you process it, and they help translate it into something that can work for your child's overall cancer care. Part of meeting a palliative care team is always meeting all of these different members of the team, so you'll meet doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, perhaps chaplains, child life specialists, psychologists, all of the folks that I previously mentioned. And the reason we have those big teams is because we recognize that each member of that team can help you with a different part of your whole cancer experience. And so for example, if your faith and your spiritual community is a really big part of how you are coping with being the parent of a child with cancer. We want to connect you with that part of your own strengths and resources and figure out how to support you while you are under our care in the hospital setting.

So one other thing that pediatric palliative care teams can help with is talking within your family. So sometimes we get questions about how do I talk to my child about what's happening, or how do I talk to my child's brothers and sisters about what's happening? Maybe it's a, how do I support their brothers and sisters? It could be about the challenges of being a parent with one kid in the hospital and others at home, and how do you maintain your identity as a parent? How do you still be a good parent to a large family when you have one child who's really sick with cancer? And we in palliative care really can help you with that with all of the different resources and team members that I mentioned, and we can help you talk to your other kids. We can help your kids talk to each other. We can help you think as a parent about how you can navigate the situation that no parent could ever have planned for until they're in it. The other thing that we do within palliative care and the other thing you can expect is we partner very closely with your oncology team, not to replace them or make decisions on their behalf, but more to help them know you better. And so what we do is we talk together about what we are hearing from you, about what your child might need. We provide advice, we provide recommendations, for example, for how to manage perhaps complicated symptoms. We might have conversations with you and your oncologist together in the room to think as a bigger team about how we can support your child's well-being. And we'll often ask you questions in the midst of all of this about what you think is important for your child, how you want to spend your time, how you define your child's quality of life, and how we, as a larger program, taking care of children with cancer, can do better to make sure your kid is thriving for as long as possible.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg. Learn more about palliative and supportive care at www.cancer.net/palliative.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the world’s leading professional organization for doctors who care for people with cancer.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so the data described here may change as research progresses.

The ASCO Annual Meeting brings together physicians, researchers, patient advocates, and other health care professionals to discuss the latest in cancer care. The research presented at this meeting frequently leads to treatment advances and new ways to improve the quality of life for people with cancer. In today’s podcast, Cancer.Net Associate Editors share their thoughts on the most exciting and practice-changing news to come out of the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Daniel Mulrooney will discuss a large international study on maintenance chemotherapy for rhabdomyosarcoma, and several studies on the benefits of physical activity for survivors of childhood cancer. Dr. Mulrooney is an Associate Faculty Member in the Division of Cancer Survivorship at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. He is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Childhood Cancers.

Dr. Mulrooney: This is Dr. Dan Mulrooney from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. I'm the Deputy Director of the After Completion of Therapy Clinic at St. Jude and primarily care for survivors of pediatric solid tumors. During this year's Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a very interesting, large, international study investigating maintenance treatment for rhabdomyosarcoma was highlighted during the plenary session. Maintenance chemotherapy, or prolonged low-dose chemotherapy, is used most frequently in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, but less so for pediatric solid tumors.

In a study conducted by the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group that included patients from 14 different countries, investigators studied adding maintenance chemotherapy to the treatment of high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. Rhabdomyosarcoma is a rare tumor, which mostly occurs in children but can also present in adults. Fortunately, treatment is often successful. But up to 20 to 30 percent of patients may still relapse after treatment meaning additional treatment is needed and making long-term cure more difficult. Standard treatment involves 6 to 8 months of intensive chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. These investigators wanted to know if adding additional low-dose chemotherapy for six months after standard treatment might improve survival. They studied patients greater than 6 months to less than 21 years of age with high-risk disease based on the histology and location of their tumors. 186 patients were randomized to standard therapy. And 185 were randomized to receive the additional 6 months of maintenance chemotherapy, which included vinorelbine given IV, weekly, for 3 weeks every month, and cyclophosphamide taken orally everyday. And at 5 years, the overall survival was statistically better in the maintenance chemotherapy group, 87% versus 74% in the standard therapy group. Fortunately, toxicity from the additional chemotherapy was minimal and mostly included low blood counts, although approximately 30% of patients also had an infectious complication. These investigators concluded that this additional maintenance therapy is an effective and well-tolerated strategy for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma and proposed to investigate this method in other solid tumor types.

Now additionally, a number of studies presented at the meeting highlighted the importance of physical fitness among childhood cancer survivors. A study from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia collected physical activity data from the parents of childhood cancer survivors and a control population. Fortunately, the parents of survivors reported more physical activity in their children than the control parents with 31% of survivors meeting the recommendations of the American Cancer Society for moderate to vigorous physical activity, which is greater than or equal to 300 minutes of activity per week. However, nearly two-thirds of survivors did not meet the recommended activity level.

Subsequently, a large study from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort assessed 577 childhood cancer survivors, and 286 healthy community controls. In this study, individuals underwent a series of tests including an echocardiogram and cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a treadmill. Measures of relative peak oxygen uptake or “VO2 max” were obtained to assess exercise capacity. Survivors had a lower VO2 max compared to controls, and this worsened with increasing intensity of previous exposure to cardiotoxic therapies such as anthracyclines and chest radiation. This was also associated with a relatively new measure on echocardiography called global longitudinal strain. In fact, global longitudinal strain, and not the more common measure of ejection fraction, was associated with impaired VO2 max among cancer survivors. Global longitudinal strain may become an important new screening marker for cancer survivors.

And finally, 2 studies from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, or CCSS, highlighted the importance of exercise for childhood cancer survivors. The CCSS is a multi-institutional study that uses questionnaires to assess outcomes among a large population of cancer survivors from across North America. Investigators collected data on physical activity, classified as metabolic equivalent tasks, or METs, and expressed as MET-hours per week. Exercise levels were categorized into groups ranging from none or 0 MET-hours per week and increasing incrementally to 3 to 6, 9 to 12, and 15 to 21 MET-hours per week. 3 to 6 MET-hours per week is equivalent to approximately 20 minutes of brisk walking per week, and 15 to 21 MET-hours per week is equivalent to approximately 60 minutes of brisk walking every day for 5 days per week.

And in the first study, investigators showed a decrease in psychological burden among cancer survivors, decreased depression and somatization, and improvements in quality of life and cognitive function among those with increased levels of physical activity. As little as 20 minutes of brisk walking per week was associated with this lower psychological burden. Importantly, in a longitudinal analysis, CCSS investigators showed a decrease in mortality with increasing intensity of physical activity. And looking over eight years, survivors who increased their level of exercise had a 40% reduction in the rate of death compared to those who maintained a low level of exercise. Taken together, these studies presented at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting highlight the safety and significant health and psychological benefits of exercise for survivors of childhood cancer.

ASCO: Thank you Dr. Mulrooney.

Next, Dr. Hyman Muss will discuss a study on a tool that can be used to improve communication between older adults with cancer and their doctors. Dr. Muss is a Professor of Medicine at the University Of North Carolina School Of Medicine, and the Director of the Geriatric Oncology Program at the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Program. He is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Geriatric Oncology.

Dr. Muss: My name is Hy Muss, and I'm a medical oncologist with a major interest in geriatric oncology. And today I'm going to talk about what I think is 1 of the most exciting studies I've seen in years pertaining to cancer care in older patients, an ASCO presentation by Dr. Supriya Mohile and our colleagues on a large, randomized trial they did, focused on improving communication of older patients with their physician.

So this was a very large PCORI-funded trial in the United States, a federally funded study for patients 70 and older with a whole variety of different cancers. And in this study, what happened were older patients were either randomized to an intervention, which included giving a questionnaire, a geriatric assessment, that asked about function and all types of other issues related to older people, social support etc. And together with that information, there were recommendations for the doctor to talk with the patient about, such as if they had poor social support, maybe get them to a senior facility. Or if they had problems getting meals, set up meals on wheels. Or if they had a physical handicap, get them to physical therapy to try to overcome it. So that was all provided to the doctor.

And the second group of patients just got kind of very little information sent to the doctor. And so what happened in this trial, which was extremely exciting, was that they had 500 patients accrued to this, so this is a huge number of patients. And about half were given the intervention arm and half were just routine care. And it showed that the patients who went through the intervention, and that information was provided to the doctor, had much better communications with the doctor about their illnesses, about their cancer care.

And more importantly, it led to interventions that were very helpful and that probably improved their quality of life and physical well-being, although, these data were not reported in the presentation. And this is really special, because the standard care arm, a lot of things were not discussed, and a lot of things that older patients had may not be related to their cancer but are extremely important for the oncologist to know. And these are things like, "How are you doing at home? Are you able to care for yourself? Do you pay your bills? Do you have good social support? Can you go to the grocery store, etc.? Also, what are your friends like? What are your family like? Do you have people interested in you that take you out, do things?" And frequently, those issues aren't discussed, and they're integral to the care of older people.

So they showed the value of a geriatric assessment, which discovers many more things than the usual questions doctors ask you in 1 or 2 sentences about your function. And more importantly, they improved care, they improved communication, and they led to interventions that make people's lives better, and perhaps, someday a lot longer.

So I thought this was a terrific study. Dr. Mohile and her colleagues broke the glass on showing how important geriatric assessment—where we ask questions about your function, about your health and other things, that are generally not part of a routine history and physical—how important this is to improving care. So I hope you take a look at this at the ASCO site. It's a wonderful trial, and I think it's the beginning of many more similar trials to come. Thank you.

ASCO: Thank you Dr. Muss.

Next, Dr. Michael Thompson will discuss several topics in multiple myeloma that were explored at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a discussion on the cost and value of myeloma drugs, a study that compared different doses of a treatment for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, and several studies that explored ways to personalize myeloma treatment, also known as precision medicine. Dr. Thompson is a hematologist/oncologist, and the Medical Director for the Early-Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health Care in Wisconsin. He is also the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Multiple Myeloma.

Dr. Thompson: Hello. I'm Mike Thompson, a hematologist/oncologist at Aurora Health Care of Wisconsin. I'm also the Associate Editor for Cancer.Net on myeloma. Today, I'm going to discuss a few myeloma-related areas reported at the ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting. The first is a value debate, which was on Sunday, between Mayo colleagues and friends, Dr. Fonseca and Dr. Rajkumar, who had discussed the question of costs and value in multiple myeloma in this session, Global Myeloma, Health Disparities, and the Cost of Drugs. They disagreed on some issues. But my take-home from their debate was that both the absolute costs of care as well as value, which was utility divided by cost, are important to our entire healthcare system as well as to patients and their families. There was no immediate changes to costs of care after that debate, but I think it's something important that we will all be watching as new drugs are developed in the future.

Another important study was the A.R.R.O.W. study, which was reported on by Dr. Mateos, and was later published with the first author, Dr. Moreau. This was a phase III study of 2 different doses of carfilzomib with dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory myeloma patients. So there was the traditional twice-weekly dose, and there was the once-weekly dose. And the conclusions were that the once-weekly dose with a dose up to 70 milligrams per meter squared improved progression-free survival and overall response rate. And later in the publication, it showed that it improved survival versus the twice-weekly dose at 27 milligrams per meter squared, with a similar side effect profile.

So that is very good news for patients that might get that doublet therapy and have to come into the office less frequently. The caveats with that study are that this dosing was not compared to an intermediate dose of 56 milligrams per meter squared, which has been widely used after that study was published a few years ago. So it's looking at the lowest dose versus the highest dose. And it's also for patients with a performance status of 0 to 1, which means they're doing well. And for many of those patients, we wouldn't use a doublet therapy; we'd use a triplet therapy. So that may limit the applicability in practice, at least, in the United States. And we also don't know that combining this Kd regimen with another myeloma drug is safe or effective, so those studies are ongoing.

And the third topic that was of interest at ASCO 2018 was precision medicine in multiple myeloma. So there were at least 3 parts to this. One is risk stratification. And this has been going on for a while, looking at the cytogenetics and FISH. And the NCCN and Mayo mSMART guidelines give some guidance on how to treat based on risk. Also there was talk about the CAR-T therapies, which may be the most specific or precision type of medicine you can get. And those studies are ongoing but not yet widely available for myeloma, but everyone is very interested in those data. Other therapies were targeted therapies, and there are not as many examples in multiple myeloma as there are in some diseases like lung cancer. But there are some alterations such as BRAF, where BRAF inhibitors are used or can be used in a few patients, in myeloma that have that. And there's great excitement about the BCL-2 inhibitor or venetoclax for t(11;14), which is the most common translocation found in multiple myeloma.

So those are some of the main things I took away from this ASCO meeting. We really need to think about costs and value and the impact it has on our patients. We need to think about trying to dose drugs in ways that are more convenient to patients, and in this case, seemed to be more beneficial. And we have to keep looking ahead to do more things with targeted therapies to see if we can get away from some of the toxicities of some of our chemotherapy agents. Coming up will be more studies over the next year for ASCO 2019, and I look forward to seeing what changes between now and then.

ASCO: Thank you Dr. Thompson.

Finally, Dr. Jyoti Patel will discuss the ongoing research in targeted therapy and precision medicine for lung cancer. Dr. Patel is Professor of Medicine and Director of Thoracic Oncology at the University of Chicago and is the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for lung cancer.

Dr. Patel: Hello. I'm Jyoti Patel. I'm the Director of Thoracic Oncology at the University of Chicago and a long-time ASCO member, and I would like to talk to you today about some of the most important research takeaways from our recent ASCO Annual Meeting. So remember, this is a meeting where about 40,000 cancer care providers come together to discuss and to present the most groundbreaking research and its impact for patients. So this is certainly a meeting that is exciting for all of us and really represents, I think, the best of what's happening in the field.

I think when we look at what's happening with lung cancer—because there's so many people affected with lung cancer in the United States where nearly 200,000 people every year are diagnosed with lung cancer—we can say that we've made significant leaps forward in the past decade, and it's really changed the paradigm in how we treat patients with advanced disease. So it's a disease in which systemic therapy is really the mainstay of therapy because it's not confined to the lung where we may do surgery or radiation, this is really a disease that has spread and is treated as a more chronic condition.

Our efforts at understanding the biology of cancer have really now come back to the bedside, and many of the groundbreaking research trials that were presented really revolved around this idea of personalization of therapy based on biomarkers. Understanding the cancer genome now has a direct impact for our patients. When patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, I think all of these studies point to the fact that we need to have adequate characterization of the tumor. So it's no longer okay to say my patient has non-small cell lung cancer, which is the most common kind of lung cancer, it's really incumbent upon the oncologist, and pathologist, and pulmonologist, and surgeon to come together and further define whether or not there are particular mutations that would serve as good targets for drugs, or whether this is an inflamed tumor and may be best treated with immunotherapy.

When someone's diagnosed with lung cancer, I know it's often difficult for a patient, or family member, to first meet the oncologist and say yes, we have this diagnosis, but I'm waiting for additional tests. But that time that it takes to do this testing—and it's very complex, we look at anywhere from 3, at the very minimum, to almost 1,000 genes at my institution's program—in which we try to match particular drugs with therapies. And the reason we do this is because in about 30 or 40 percent of patients with non-small cell lung cancer that's non-squamous, the most common kind, we're able to find an easily druggable target. So we find EGFR and ALK and ROS1, and so we've got updates on all of those targets at ASCO.

But this year there was really a lot of excitement about a new target called the RET fusion protein and when 2 chromosomes sort of flip-flop and form a protein that causes this cancer to grow. Now this is uncommon, and medically it affects about 1 to 2 percent of patients with lung cancer, but when you look at the enormous burden of lung cancer, that's thousands of patients a year.

What we found was that there's a really selective drug that targets this protein and can shut down the cancer cells and cause deep responses, so almost 80 percent of patients with significant reduction in their tumor and lung responses with an oral tablet that's very well-tolerated. The idea is that we need to absolutely try to do a biopsy, understand if there are multiple markers, and that list continues to grow for which there are druggable targets. And there was a lot of excitement about drugs that target genes such as the MET exon 14 oncogene, or something that's been very elusive for some time, the EGFR exon 20 mutations. These are single sort of base misreads in our DNA that causes cancer to grow, but if 1 patient has this target, and we're able to deliver a drug that causes patients to have nice responses and a return to wellness, I think that's great for all of us.

Often getting the right tissue is tough because sometimes we just don't have enough tissue. And, certainly, we've seen considerable progress with liquid biopsies in recent years, and there's been good concordance between blood-based biopsies as well as tissue, and so our field is rapidly evolving in ways that we can bring the best drugs to the best patients.

We're starting to do this with immunotherapy. There's a protein called PD-L1 which helps us assign appropriate therapy for patients. And so if someone has a high PD-L marker on their tumor, those patients may get immunotherapy alone with an expectation that they would have a nice response and durable disease control with good quality-of-life. So with effort to really characterize tumors, although it can be difficult when someone's first diagnosed to wait to get all these markers right, which is on the order of about 2 to 3 weeks, the downstream effects of characterizing the tissue and getting the right drugs to the right patients are really enormous because we are able to see patients that return to wellness.

Certainly this was an exciting meeting. And I think more and more we're seeing not only medical oncologists, but patients and patient advocates, understanding the importance of biopsies, and an incredible effort by industry, as well, to really make these assays and these tests more accessible to patients, and to make the turnaround times even faster, and to use less tissue to get the right answers. I'm optimistic that we'll continue to see this trend, and there will be more and more drugs that will be optimized for particular patients.

ASCO: Thank you Dr. Patel. If this podcast was useful, please take a minute to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Google Play.

To learn more about all of the science presented at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting, visit www.cancer.net/ascoannualmeeting. If you have questions about whether new research may affect your care, be sure to talk with your doctor.

Cancer.Net is supported by ASCO’s Conquer Cancer Foundation, which funds breakthrough research for every type of cancer, helping patients everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at conquer.org/support.

[music]

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the world’s leading professional organization for doctors who care for people with cancer.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so the data described here may change as research progresses.

In today’s podcast, Dr. Timothy Gilligan and Liz Salmi will discuss their article “Patient-Clinician Communication Is a Joint Creation: Working Together Toward Well-Being,” from the 2018 ASCO Educational Book. They cover several ways people with cancer and members of their health care team can work together in order to improve their communication, including a study on sharing clinical notes with patients, a recent guideline from ASCO on physician-patient communication, ways to address religion and spirituality, and tips for patients.

Dr. Gilligan is an Associate Professor and Medical Oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center. Ms. Salmi is a brain tumor survivor, and Senior Strategist in Outreach and Communications for OpenNotes.

Published annually, the Educational Book is a collection of articles written by ASCO Annual Meeting speakers and oncology experts. Each volume highlights the most compelling research and developments across the multidisciplinary fields of oncology.

ASCO would like to thank Dr. Gilligan and Ms. Salmi for discussing this topic.

Dr. Gilligan: Hello, my name is Dr. Timothy Gilligan from the Cleveland Clinic. I'm joined today by Liz Salmi of OpenNotes and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In this podcast, we will be sharing some key points from our 2018 ASCO Educational Book article titled “Patient-Clinician Communication Is a Joint Creation: Working Together Toward Well-Being.” I would also note that Dr. Andrea Enzinger from Dana-Farber was an author on that.

So, Liz, we were going to start with talking about your piece on this, your work with OpenNotes. And for those who haven't heard of this, the idea is making progress notes openly available to patients so they can read the progress notes about their medical care. Can you talk a little bit more about what OpenNotes is and what's at stake here?

Liz Salmi: Sure. Absolutely. Thanks for that intro. And I just want to say my role at OpenNotes—I do outreach and communication work, but, also, I think it's important for the audience to know that I am also a patient. I'm a person living with a malignant brain tumor or brain cancer. And I'm now a 10-year survivor, but I'm still living with active disease. So what I'm talking about today is not just part of my job, but it's also very personal to me. And so what you just kind of gave me a lead-in on, is explaining what OpenNotes is, but I do want to repeat a little bit about that. So OpenNotes is now a national movement that stems from real medical research, and it's a movement dedicated to making healthcare more open and transparent by giving people—or patients—access to their doctors' notes via existing secure online patient portals.

And when I say that, I want to make it clear that OpenNotes is not a product, or it's not a piece of software. It's more of just a concept of let's give patients full access to their medical records. And when we talk about OpenNotes, a lot of patients will say, "Well, what is a doctor's note?" Right now, I, as a person, can login to my digital online portal to email with my doctor, or, say, set up appointments, or order prescription refills. And sometimes, after a visit I can see a visit summary of a little bit of what transpired at my visit with my doctor. But what I don't see is my clinical notes.

Now, clinical notes, a lot of people and patients don't realize that after every clinical visit with a doctor, they go back to their office and write up these really detailed notes of everything that transpired during the visit. But most patients, about 93% of the US population, don't have access to this information. And it's a bummer because that information is so detailed. And as a person living with cancer, I'm kind of dealing with something that's emotional and overwhelming, and most people can't remember everything that their doctor says. And most doctors keep track of all of this in their clinical notes.

And OpenNotes, as a research project, was looking into what would happen if we gave people or patients easy access to those clinical notes that the doctors write. Would they understand those notes? Would they get some sort of benefit or value out of it? What would doctors think about that? And so I want to talk about what that original study is, and I'll hopefully try to do it quickly. But OpenNotes started as this research project. It was conducted in 2010, the first project, and it has now been replicated at multiple sites around the country. The original research was done with over 100 primary care doctors and 20,000 patients. And we tested this concept of sharing notes at 3 sites, at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, at Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania, and at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

And at the beginning of the project, they asked all the clinicians who'd be sharing their notes, "What do you think's going to happen?" And the doctors thought, "Gosh, we write these notes at such a high level because it's a communications tool with our other colleagues. And we don't think our patients are going to really understand what we're writing. And we're also concerned that patients might be afraid of what they read because there's all kinds of stuff we capture in there." And they also surveyed those patients. Before they received their notes, they surveyed them and said, "What do you think's going to happen? You're going to now read your notes for the next year. What do you think?" And patients, even people like me, were like, "I don't know what to expect. I've never seen this type of information before."

So fast-forward to a year later, and what they found was that during that year about 80% of patients read a note, and 75% of patients reported benefits. They felt like, "Wow, if I can read my doctor's notes, I feel more engaged in my care. I better understand why certain medications were prescribed to me. I felt like I had more control over my care." Sharing the notes improved the doctor-patient relationship. 99% of patients felt better or the same after reading just one of their doctor's notes. They felt they could trust their doctors more. And, just like regular people, sometimes doctors make mistakes. And sometimes those mistakes would transfer to their clinical notes, and patients, when they're reading those notes, were able to point out errors. For example, the doctor might write, "There's a problem with your left knee." And the patient will say, "Actually, I was talking about my right knee." So there was this opportunity for a little bit of quality control.

Dr. Gilligan: Well, thank you. So you've outlined, obviously, some of the benefits to patients in terms of direct access to information, the opportunity to correct mistakes, the chance to feel more empowered. I'm curious. Often, we hear from clinicians fears that this is going to generate a lot more phone calls or problems, or patients will get upset. Can you talk just a little bit more about what the research has shown in terms of what has actually happened when this has been turned on, so to speak?

Liz Salmi: Absolutely. So we've learned a lot. They're concerned that by sharing their notes, it's going to increase that doctor or other clinician's workflow, meaning if a patient reads a note and anything about it is unclear, or maybe there's a word and phrase they don't know, it's going to trigger an email or a phone call back to the doctor. So mainly, the concern is workflow. And we've seen—and it continues to show—that workflow does not increase. W

hy is that? Well, often, a patient will go to a visit, leave that doctor's visit, and then later go, "Oh, my gosh. I can't remember what my doctor said." If they don't have access to their notes, that triggers an email or maybe a phone call saying, "Oh, hey, Doc. I can't remember. Did you tell me to do this or that?" or, "How many times am I supposed to take this medication?" or, "How many exercises do I need to do each week?" or, "What was that thing you said?" With OpenNotes, patients can actually go back to the doctor's notes, the exact record of that interaction, and refer to the note itself. So that decreases the need for another email or another phone call.

Occasionally, a patient might read a note and have a question that the note triggers. So then they might follow up with a question through email or a phone call. So the 2 kind of cancel each other out, and, overall, you don't see an increase in workflow.

Also, they’re worries that most doctors have in advance of sharing notes. "Oh, my gosh.  I think my patient is going to read what I write, and they're going to get stressed out by it." But that never happens. And what is written in a medical record and in a note is what the doctor actually says to the patient. So there shouldn't be any new information, necessarily, in the note. An interesting thing to think about is that after that original study, all the doctors who shared their notes after that entire year were allowed to stop sharing their notes, but not a single 1 did. They were like, "Oh. This is working out for me. My patients seem to like it. So I'll keep going."

Dr. Gilligan: So I want to use that as a segue because we have two other subjects we need to cover in this podcast. Both in the article and in the session we did, we talked about the new ASCO patient-clinician communication guidelines, the first guideline that's been published. And that was published late 2017.

The guideline was broken down into 9 key areas that we thought were important. One was just core communication skills. How do you have the conversation in a better way?

One thing that's often unappreciated is that a lot of Americans have low health literacy. They have low numeracy. If we say to a patient, "There's a 30% chance of this or that," that may sound very obvious to us what it means, but it often is misinterpreted. And even lay persons, what we might consider average or normal numeracy or literacy, don't take in the numbers they get from healthcare professionals as fluently as they think they do, and there are better and worse ways that have been studied of doing that, and we talk about that.

Cost of care is a new issue. Bankruptcy from healthcare is a large problem in this country. There's a lot of unaffordable drugs out there, so how to talk about that is an issue that comes up in it.

Underserved population is a concern that we address, whether it's racial or ethnic minorities or other underserved populations. The LGBT community and their healthcare needs is increasingly recognized, and ways in which they encounter challenges in the healthcare setting a problem, so we talk about that.

And then lastly, the issue of how do we train people to get better? There's been a lot of research in how people improve in communication, and I think the big take home from that is that communication is a motor skill. It's like learning how to play a sport or a musical instrument, and the way people get better at it is by practicing it and then getting feedback so that they can improve.

And then the last piece that I really wanted to get your thoughts about was how do we talk about spirituality for patients with patients? We know that from studies of patients and surveys that the majority of patients think spirituality, whether or not that's formal religion, but spirituality in general, is important to them in coping with serious illness, and yet it's something that many providers feel unprepared or unskilled at in terms of bringing up. So in a sense, this links in with the former topic of key communication skills. I'm curious your thoughts, as a patient, what you think about the issue of spirituality and how it can be helpful to patients going through a difficult time.

Liz Salmi: Yeah, no, absolutely. And thanks for clarifying. There's formal religion and then there's just kind of general spirituality, kind of a vague aspect or a way of looking at things. And, I think, as a person who-- I don't attend church, but I do think about how I view my place in the world and as that relates to my cancer experience is they kind of go hand-in-hand.

And when I was first diagnosed, realized I had a brain tumor, and then I had a brain surgery, and I'm laying in the hospital 24 hours later, and a chaplain walked into the room and introduced himself and said, "Hey, I'm the hospital chaplain. And I just want to let you know that I'm here to talk to you." They are basically offering their support. But as a new patient and someone who's never been in the hospital before, I had no idea what the role of the chaplain was. And I told the person. I was like, "Yeah, I don't want to talk to you right now. What are you doing here?"

And they also scared me. The presence of a chaplain, I had only seen from TV that if a religious person came into a hospital room it meant somebody was dying. And I was like, "I just had brain surgery 24 hours ago. They're sending in a religious person to see me. Does that mean I'm dying?" So it freaked me out, and I told the person, "No, I don't want to see you. Please leave." And then when the nurse came in to check on me, I said, "What was that all about?" and the nurse says, "Oh, if you don't want a chaplain to come see you, I can make a note to not have them come see you again." I said, "Yeah, please do that."

So, actually, in my medical record, someone made a note in my inpatient notes, "Patient refuses chaplaincy services." And it wasn't until 2 years ago, so like 8 years after diagnosis and that first brain surgery that I learned a chaplain is non-denominational. They're there just talking about psychosocial, spiritual issues, that it has nothing to do with a particular religion at all. They're just there to help. And I think it's a bummer and a disservice that I didn't find out until eight years later when, really, I probably could have benefited from having someone to talk to from that perspective.

Dr. Gilligan: I think the promise here is that if we feel confident that we have the tools to do this, and we know how to have the conversations, and then we start having them, we'll be taking better care of our patients because they're telling us in surveys over and over again that this is important to them, and it would help them if they could talk about it. But it has to be done in a skilled way. And as your story, Liz, tells, if it's not done that way, then it can be unhelpful. It reminds me of Rana Awdish in her book In Shock talks about story where she wakes up in the ICU, and she's getting last rites. And that's not really the way you want to be introduced to a priest [laughter].

Liz Salmi: No way. That's wild.

Dr. Gilligan: It was kind of shocking to her at the time. Obviously, she survived to write about it, thank God.

Liz Salmi:  Well, you talk about these communication guidelines, which are for doctors to help them better understand how to communicate well with patients, but I was just curious if you have a couple tips for the listeners who, mainly, are patients for this podcast. What can patients do to help ensure smooth communication with our healthcare team? Do you have any tips for us if we want to kind of take control of situation a little bit?

Dr. Gilligan: Yeah, no, that's a great question. So 1 of the things I find interesting about that is that in the early research on the impact of communication on patient medical outcomes, it was documented very early that outcomes in managing high blood pressure, managing diabetes, other hard medical outcomes, not the more patient-satisfaction, softer stuff-- that hard outcomes improved if you either taught clinicians to communicate better or taught patients to communicate better. Either one has a positive impact on healthcare, so it's very appropriate to ask. The reason we focus on training clinicians is there are many fewer clinicians than there are patients out there. Training all the patients in the world would be a lot of people to train.

I think the most important thing is to come organized, to have it very clear what your priorities are, and what you're hoping to accomplish, and to try to lay that out early in the appointment. And it's helpful for us clinicians to know, but it's also helpful to advocate for yourself if you come in with a clear sense of what your goals are and what you're hoping to get out of the encounter.

I think the other thing I would say is it's really helpful to bring someone with you. I think if I'm ever in the hospital, I would want a family member there. And if I ever have a family member in the hospital, I'm going to be there, too, because in the modern healthcare system you need to advocate for yourself. And so I think being prepared and organized is one way you can advocate for yourself. Bringing someone with you can help, as well.

The last thing I would say is the model of communication skills that we teach is really built around building stronger relationships between clinicians and patients. And I think that, on both sides, it's a 2-way street, that relationship. If we both pay attention to the fact that we will work together much more effectively if we have a strong relationship, then we can try to communicate with each other in a way that helps build that up.

Illness is stressful. People get upset. They get angry, and all that is natural. But the more we can remember that, in the end, we're on the same team, we're kind of rolling the same direction. I usually find myself saying this to clinicians to try to avoid getting into unnecessary conflict with patients. But I think also, too, on the patient side. So those would be the 3 things I would really think about: being organized, bringing a family member with you when possible—I realize it's not always possible—and then paying attention to the nature of the relationship and attending to the relationship, not just the work that you're trying to get done. There's certainly more I could say, but it's a big subject.

Liz Salmi: Yeah, no, absolutely. And thank you for that. It was really helpful. I know, from an OpenNotes perspective, we often realize that access to information also helps ensure smooth communication. And when doctors and patients are on the same page and able to look at some of the same information, a patient's level of understanding increases. And it helps us make better decisions overall.

Dr. Gilligan: I agree, 1 of the things I like about giving patients more access to information is 1 of the things I, in a sense, challenge patients to do is to take more ownership over their own care. They should know what medications they're on, and they should know why they're on them, and they should know why they take them. I don't say that in a critical sense, but just if it's me, and someone has me on medication, I want to know why, and I want to know which drugs I'm taking. And keeping track of that, I think, taking more ownership over that, and really knowing your medical history to the best extent that you can helps you get better care in our system.

Liz Salmi: Yeah. Absolutely. High five on that one.

Dr. Gilligan: Well, it's been great talking to you again, and--

Liz Salmi: Same. Yeah, and thank you. It was a pleasure to get to write this article with you in the ASCO Educational Book, which, I believe, anyone can read at ASCO.org/edbook.

Dr. Gilligan: That's right. That's right. So look it up, take a look. We hope that you enjoy it. Thank you for listening to our podcast.

ASCO: Thank you Dr. Gilligan and Ms. Salmi. Please visit ASCO.org/edbook to read the full article. And if this podcast was useful, please take a minute to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Google Play.

Cancer.Net is supported by ASCO’s Conquer Cancer Foundation, which funds breakthrough research for every type of cancer, helping patients everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at conquer.org/support.

[music]

The ASCO Annual Meeting brings together physicians, researchers, patient advocates, and other health care professionals to discuss the latest in cancer care. The research presented at this meeting frequently leads to treatment advances and new ways to improve the quality of life for people with cancer. In today’s podcast, Cancer.Net Associate Editors share their thoughts on the most exciting and practice-changing news to come out of the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

This podcast features an interview with Martha "Meg" Gaines, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Director of the Center for Patient Partnerships. She shares her personal experience with cancer and explains how it led her to advocate for others with cancer and found the Center for Patient Partnerships. She also discusses patient-centered care, and shares tips for patient advocates.

The ASCO Annual Meeting brings together physicians, researchers, patient advocates, and other health care professionals to discuss the latest in cancer care. The research presented at this meeting frequently leads to treatment advances and new ways to improve the quality of life for people with cancer. In today’s podcast, Cancer.Net Associate Editors share their thoughts on the most exiting and practice-changing news to come out of the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Approximately 70% of people diagnosed with cancer are 65 or older, and often older adults with cancer have different needs and concerns than young adults or children. In this podcast, we will discuss new recommendations from ASCO about how doctors can assess older adults in order to ensure they get the care they need.

This podcast will be led by Dr. Arti Hurria and Dr. William Dale, two co-chairs of the expert panel that produced these recommendations.

In this podcast, Dr. Paul Celano discusses what patients should know when taking medication for cancer treatment, including tips for safely storing the medication, special considerations for oral chemotherapy and opioids, as well as resources to help dispose of unneeded or expired medications.

Treatment for head and neck cancer can often cause side effects that make it difficult to eat. In this podcast, dietitians Maureen Gardner and Annette Goldberg discuss several side effects that may be caused by head and neck cancer treatment and offer tips for managing these side effects and taking in enough nutrients, including information about feeding tubes.

In this podcast, Dr. Timothy Gilligan will discuss new research presented at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium: Advancing Care and Research, held February 16-17 in Orlando, Florida. This multidisciplinary meeting brings together primary care physicians, oncologists, patient advocates, and others to discuss ways to address cancer survivors’ unique concerns. 

The research discussed in this podcast includes mention of suicide. If you need help, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Research into new forms of biologic therapy, such as immunotherapy or targeted therapy, have made dramatic advances in treating and managing cancer, but these therapies can be very expensive. You may be familiar with generic drugs, which are identical copies of brand-name drugs, and are often much cheaper. However, the manufacturing process for biologic therapies is so complex, it is not possible for a different manufacturer to make an identical copy. 

In this podcast, Dr. Gary Lyman discusses biosimilar agents, which are similar, but not identical, copies of these drugs. Dr. Lyman discusses some of the differences in manufacturing biosimilar agents, the criteria that are used to ensure they are as effective as the original drug, and some of the ways that biosimilars can help reduce the cost of cancer care.

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

The theme of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was “Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research.” From June 2 to 6 in Chicago, Illinois, and online, cancer researchers and clinicians from around the world gathered to discuss the latest cancer research and how to ensure that all people receive the cancer care they need.

In the Research Round Up series, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss the most exciting and practice-changing research in their field presented at the meeting and explain what it means for people with cancer. In today’s episode, our guests will discuss new research advances in treating non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, and mesothelioma. 

Dr. Charu Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Associate Professor of Medicine in the Hematology-Oncology Division at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Lung Cancer.

Dr. Melina Marmarelis is an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Medical Director of the Penn Medicine Mesothelioma Program, and the co-director of the Molecular Tumor Board at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Specialty Editor for Mesothelioma.

Dr. Kristin Higgins is a radiation oncologist, Professor and Vice Chair in Clinical Research in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine and medical director of radiation oncology of The Emory Clinic at Winship Cancer Institute's Clifton campus location. She is also a 2023 Cancer.Net Advisory Panelist for Lung Cancer.

You can view disclosures for Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Marmarelis, and Dr. Higgins at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Aggarwal: Hello and welcome to this Cancer.Net Research Round Up podcast. Today, we will be talking about the latest research from the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology from June 2023, and I'm joined today by 2 experts in the field of lung cancer. Before I introduce them, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Dr. Charu Aggarwal. I'm an associate professor for lung cancer excellence at the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center. I'd now like to introduce Dr. Melina Marmarelis.

Dr. Marmarelis: Hi, so happy to be here. I'm Melina Marmarelis. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the medical director of the Penn mesothelioma program.

Dr. Aggarwal: And Dr. Kristin Higgins.

Dr. Higgins: Hi, everyone. I'm Kristin Higgins. I am a thoracic radiation oncologist at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University. I'm a professor and vice chair for clinical research for radiation oncology.

Dr. Aggarwal: Fantastic. So today, we'll talk about relevant research as it applies to practical implications in the clinic for practitioners, but most importantly, patients with lung cancer. I'd like to start off by discussing 2 key studies, and I would love for perspectives from our faculty here. The first study I want to highlight is the ADAURA trial. This is a trial that has already sort of changed practice in most recent years when the study was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020, but we have new updates on this study as of 2023. So, in brief, this was a study that looked at the value of administering an oral pill called osimertinib that is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor against the EGFR, or the epidermal growth factor receptor, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

We know that non-small cell lung cancer is quite a heterogeneous disease with some subsets of patients having mutations that may render them increasingly sensitive to the effects of these tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In fact, these pills have been used in the metastatic setting for several years based on an improvement in overall survival. What the ADAURA study tried to do was ask the question if this pill would add an incremental advantage after receiving curative-intent surgical resection in those with early-stage lung cancer. So this study enrolled patients with stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection and focused only on those patients that had sensitizing EGFR mutations with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients could receive chemotherapy after having the surgery and then were basically randomized into 2 groups, one of whom received osimertinib at a dose of 80 milligrams once daily for a total of 3 years. Patients were followed up for recurrence.

We already know from the earlier results that patients who received osimertinib had a better chance of delaying the recurrence of disease. However, what we found at the Annual Meeting this year is that the administration of this osimertinib also improved overall survival, which is really what we all look for in the oncology world. If you're administering a therapy, especially for a long duration, we want to be able to see a survival benefit, and that's what we saw. In fact, in patients who received osimertinib, there was a 49% less likelihood of dying from lung cancer compared to those who did not receive osimertinib. This, I think, is practice-affirming. It may not be practice-changing because some of the practitioners started using osimertinib after its FDA approval in December of 2020, but I think it just confirms our practice as it delivers an overall survival advantage in these patients. One thing that's increasingly important is to identify patients who have this mutation, so now we have efforts underway locally as well as nationally to perform molecular genotyping on all patients with lung cancer so that we can adequately and appropriately treat those with early-stage lung cancer following curative resection or following surgery. Melina and Kristin, what are your thoughts?

Dr. Marmarelis: Well, I think these results are really important because it did, as you say, affirm kind of what we're already doing, but I think the most convincing part of this for me is the prevention of spread of disease to the brain. This is not comparing osimertinib after surgery versus osimertinib ever, which I think is a difficult part about interpreting this trial. But I think the fact that it prevented disease from going to the brain is really meaningful to everyone, to patients, to the physicians that are caring for them, so I think that's a really important endpoint.

Dr. Higgins: I agree with Melina. I think this is really exciting for our patients. It's exciting to have more treatment options for early-stage lung cancer. I think patients that are diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer are highly motivated to do everything they can to improve their likelihood of being cured. So I tend to have a lot of conversations about side effects and toxicities with patients that have questions and are sort of wondering how it will affect their quality of life, and of course, that is an important piece of it because patients that do have curable lung cancer are probably starting off with a better overall quality of life, but I think generally speaking, our patients have tolerated it well. I'm also kind of excited from a radiation oncology point of view. We treat patients with stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT] that are medically inoperable. And we have another trial with a cohort looking at osimertinib for those patients that have EGFR mutations, too, and that's ongoing, again, applying the same concept of trying to really use these SBRTs that work really well in the advanced setting, moving them into earlier stages of disease to help us care for more patients. So overall, I think it's really exciting, and I think it's a huge win for the clinical research community.

Dr. Aggarwal: Well, that's wonderful. And I think this certainly advances the field as this is the first targeted therapy approved for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. I should add that AstraZeneca, the company that makes this drug, has provided institutional research funding to my institution, and I also serve as an advisor to them, but I was not involved personally in the research of this clinical trial.

I'd like to move on but stay within the field of early-stage lung cancer and talk about another study called the KEYNOTE-671 study, and this is important because it really applies the idea of using immunotherapy before and after surgical resection in patients with early-stage lung cancer. Just to give a little bit of background to our listeners, we now have 3 approvals for the use of immunotherapy in patients with early-stage lung cancer. Two of those are in the adjuvant setting, meaning that if a patient undergoes surgical resection or surgery for early-stage lung cancer, they can receive either atezolizumab or pembrolizumab following that surgery, and that has been shown to improve outcomes in terms of reducing the chances of recurrence.

We also have another approval, which is the third approval in early-stage lung cancer, where 3 cycles of chemotherapy and immunotherapy are administered prior to surgery, also called as the neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy approach. This drug that has been approved in combination with chemotherapy is nivolumab, and this approval came from a clinical trial called CheckMate 816 that showed both that patients who received this neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy approach had a higher proportion of patients who had complete response or pathologic complete response in their tumors at the time of surgery and also showed that the chances of the disease coming back after surgical resection was much lower amongst those that had received this intervention.

The current study, the KEYNOTE-671 study, builds upon this concept and adds both a before-surgery intervention as well as an after-surgery intervention. So what this study did was it enrolled patients with early-stage, stage II to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer, and patients in the intervention arm received 4 cycles of chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab, underwent surgery, and then received immunotherapy with pembrolizumab for up to 13 cycles. Patients in the control arm received only chemotherapy prior to surgery and then placebo for up to 13 cycles after. This was a large study with about 786 patients randomized, and what we found was that those patients that received the intervention had a much higher likelihood of remaining disease-free or event-free following surgical resection as well as in the early analysis, an improvement in overall survival with about a 27% reduction in the risk of death. So I do think that this is the first study that shows us that use of both neoadjuvant as well as adjuvant. So sort of this perioperative approach of using immunotherapy before and after surgical resection can actually lead to improved outcomes. This is ultimately what we want for our patients, improvement in overall survival, improvement in cure rates, etc. The study has been silent on the use of radiation therapy, although it has gone into details in terms of the kinds of surgery that was done. Kristin, what are your views about this?

Dr. Higgins: I think postoperative radiation after resection for non-small cell lung cancer has sort of started to fall out of favor because of the Lung ART trial that was published in Europe, a randomized phase III trial that showed no differences in disease-free survival or overall survival. And that's not to say that there aren't more study questions on ways to give it safer and ways to incorporate radiation in with the chemo-IO approach, and there are some novel ways to do that, and we're going to see some data presented at the World Lung Cancer Conference looking at some of those novel approaches. But standardly, when patients receive neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy followed by surgery, we typically would not offer radiation. There are instances, though, when patients have positive margins, for example, and in that situation, it's sort of a discussion on a case-by-case basis. But ideally, we're hoping that most of these patients that go to surgery are able to get a complete resection, and that's really the key component of the decision-making for deciding if patients are eligible for this approach.

Dr. Aggarwal: I agree. Melina, any additional thoughts on this trial?

Dr. Marmarelis: I think it's an exciting trial for the reasons that you mentioned. I think it does bring up a number of questions about whether both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy are needed. I tend to like the idea of having immunotherapy present when the tumor is present before surgery, so I like kind of having that on board, but I think we still don't know which is more important.

Dr. Aggarwal: So it certainly raises many more questions, which hopefully will be answered in the future. KEYNOTE-671 trial was conducted by Merck that produces the drug Keytruda, or pembrolizumab. We have received institutional research funding for other trials. I was not personally involved in this clinical trial. I do serve as an advisor for Merck. I think we'll bring you more research from the ASCO Annual Meeting. And I'll turn it over to Dr. Marmarelis to discuss some more exciting research.

Dr. Marmarelis: Thanks, Charu. So perhaps it's not surprising that one of the exciting things I picked from ASCO has to do with mesothelioma. And I just want to put into context a little bit about why this trial was important. This is IND227. It was a cooperative group trial done across Canada, France, and Italy, and this was chemotherapy plus or minus pembrolizumab in patients with pleural mesothelioma that did not undergo surgery. So this was their first treatment, and they were not undergoing surgery. And the reason this trial was important is that in the last few years, we had results from CheckMate 743, which was looking at IPI/NIVO, so a combination of immunotherapies versus chemotherapy. And there was an improvement in survival for those that received double immunotherapy, and that improvement was most pronounced in the non-epithelioid population, which is actually a smaller subset of pleural mesotheliomas.

And so as we've seen in the lung when we look at immunotherapy versus chemo, it raises the question of whether combination immunotherapy plus chemotherapy would actually be better for all and, in particular, for all histologies in pleural mesothelioma. So this was looking at that concept. It took the standard chemotherapy, carboplatin-pemetrexed or cisplatin-pemetrexed, and then combined it with one immunotherapy, so slightly less than the combo immunotherapy seen in CheckMate 743, and that was pembrolizumab.

And what they saw was that there was a small overall survival improvement in the group that got pembrolizumab. Again, that was most pronounced in patients in the non-epithelioid group, so those with sarcomatoid or biphasic histology. And this is really a prelude to several other trials that are coming out in mesothelioma, namely the DREAM3R trial, which is looking at chemotherapy plus or minus durvalumab. That control arm also includes IPI/NIVO, so that will be really important to be able to compare those, and then also the BEAT-meso trial, which is looking at chemotherapy-immunotherapy but also with an anti-VEGF agent, bevacizumab. So I think this was an important trial. It's a little bit of proof of concept, but there's still a lot that we're looking forward to. It's not quite practice-changing in the clinic, although I think it's certainly an option that people are using, but I'm looking for more data going forward.

Dr. Aggarwal: It's incredible to see how far we've come in mesothelioma within the last decade. We are introducing immunotherapy. We're introducing novel agents in the first-line setting.

Dr. Marmarelis: The other trial that I was interested in was KEYNOTE-789, which is looking also at patients with EGFR mutations and those that had the original osimertinib as their first-line treatment or another tyrosine kinase inhibitor and then had disease progression on that TKI. And this is an area of huge need. We have patients that do really well on targeted therapies, and then they have disease progression, and we're looking for additional targeted options, but we're also looking for effective chemotherapy options. And one of the questions that has risen from this is whether there's a role for immunotherapy. We know that immunotherapy alone in patients with EGFR mutations is not very effective when you look at a broad population, but in combination with chemotherapy, it's possible that it can add some benefit. So this trial looked at those that had EGFR mutations, had disease progression after a targeted therapy, and then it randomized them to chemotherapy plus or minus pembrolizumab, so chemotherapy plus or minus immunotherapy, and interestingly, it had no difference in the progression-free survival or the overall survival. So the 2 arms were really similar in terms of outcomes. There was also no difference in the overall response rates of the amount that the drug actually shrinks the tumor. So it really doesn't look like immunotherapy is adding much to chemotherapy for these patients. I think we still need to look a little bit closer because there are probably some patients with EGFR mutations that could benefit from immunotherapy, but we're really not very good at identifying those.

One of the questions that comes up in this space is whether to add anti-VEGF treatment in addition to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. So there are some upcoming trials looking at that.

Dr. Aggarwal: I think this was a trial that was actually very important and again, practice-affirming that this idea of continuing chemotherapy without adding immunotherapy, patients are not losing much. In fact, they're not gaining anything by adding immunotherapy as shown in this clinical trial. I think continuing immunotherapy, so continuing osimertinib, may be important in this setting also because we know that osimertinib can cross the blood-brain barrier. It can provide that CNS [central nervous system] protection.

Dr. Marmarelis: Yeah, I think that's a great point that the comparison here is not chemotherapy plus osimertinib. It's chemotherapy alone. So I agree that the control arm is not quite what some of us do. I agree. I do the same as you do. I also just want to mention that the KEYNOTE trial and the previous trial about mesothelioma used pembrolizumab, which is made by Merck. We have received institutional funding, and I've served as an advisor as well as received honorarium from Merck.

Dr. Aggarwal: Melina, those were 2 very important studies and certainly, I think, answer some very relevant questions in clinic in the management of patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, for example. And then I think we look forward to more practice-changing data in mesothelioma. Kristin, I would love to hear research from ASCO from you. What caught your interest?

Dr. Higgins: So I have a special interest in small cell lung cancer. And I think there was one important small cell lung cancer trial that I wanted to review with everyone. It was SWOG S1929. And SWOG is the Southwest Oncology Group, and it's a cooperative group that conducts clinical trials in cancer funded by the National Cancer Institute. And this is a randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab and chemotherapy followed by randomization to continuing the maintenance of atezolizumab with a PARP inhibitor. Now, we know from prior data that PARP inhibition is attractive for small cell lung cancer because PARP is expressed frequently in small cell lung cancer, and there is a biomarker called Schlafen-11 that preclinical data and prior data has shown can predict response to PARP inhibition. And this trial was sort of a proof-of-concept trial, a small, randomized phase II trial testing whether or not that Schlafen-11 biomarker could be used to direct therapy. Now, in this trial, there were 309 patients that were registered. They then had to have their tumor samples sent for central testing for the Schlafen-11 expression.

One thing that I think is important to bring up is that in small cell lung cancer, there's this belief that it's really hard to get tissue samples from small cell lung cancer and it's a difficult thing logistically because it's just a lot harder to access these tumors. But interestingly, in this trial, 80% of patients had tumors that were evaluable for the biomarker, and the median time to the test result was only 7 days. So patients were able to get their tumor tested, get it sent out, get results in a rapid manner, and then be randomized based on these results. The primary endpoint for this trial was progression-free survival, and the primary endpoint was met. Progression-free survival was 4.2 months versus 2.8 months.

Now, I think many people will say the magnitude of benefit here is not very much, but it's small cell lung cancer, and we don't have a lot of positive trials in this space, and we also don't have many trials that have used a biomarker to direct therapy. So I think for those reasons, it's really exciting to see these results. It was also conducted within a cooperative group with multiple different sites across the United States, and the fact of the matter is that we can do trials like this in small cell lung cancer patients, and I think it will sort of serve as a precedent for future trial design. Now, the overall survival for the trial is still premature. It didn't look that much different with the PARP inhibitor, but that doesn't mean that, again, things could change with more follow-up. And I really like the approach of this trial design, and I'm excited to see biomarker-driven trials in small cell lung cancer. Charu and Melina, what do you guys think about this study? And what do you think about our small cell lung cancer patients and our ability to conduct future trials like this?

Dr. Aggarwal: I think this is certainly an advance. As you pointed out, Kristin, it shows us that we can conduct trials in the space. I think it offers a lens into the potential of personalized therapy in small cell lung cancer, which has eluded us for a very long time. The standard of small cell lung cancer has not changed significantly for a very long time, so I think this is very exciting and can't wait to see more things come in the future.

Dr. Marmarelis: Yeah, I agree. I think we've always been asking for additional biomarkers, especially in such a difficult disease like small cell. And so this is really exciting to see potential biomarkers and that it was feasible to actually pose that question and study it. So that part's really exciting.

Dr. Higgins: Great. And I should also say I was not involved in the study, and I'm not associated with any of the pharmaceutical companies that were involved in the study for S1929. And the final study that we wanted to talk about was the phase III LUNAR study, and this is sort of a different type of trial in the setting of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It was studying tumor treatment fields with standard of care in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer after progression with platinum-based therapies.

And first, I just want to step back and explain what tumor treating fields are. Tumor treating fields are applied to a patient with a transducer that's placed on the skin, and what it does is it applies an electrical field, and that disrupts mitosis when the cancer cells are trying to divide. And the mechanism of cell death is a little bit unclear. There are sort of many mechanisms that are postulated, one of which is immunogenic cell death, but we don't really know, I think, what's happening. But there have been studies that show improved results with tumor treating fields and other diseases. For example, particularly in glioblastoma multiforme, tumor treating fields are used in combination with surgery, radiation, and temozolomide (Temodar). So it's something that's being used in other disease sites, and this is some of the early data that we've seen in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

And so in this trial, 276 patients were randomized to tumor treating fields plus standard of care or standard of care alone. Now, I should mention that this trial began enrolling patients in 2016, and so the standard of care was very different. After platinum-based therapies, the standard was considered docetaxel. Of course, platinum-based therapy alone for frontline treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer is also not the standard of care anymore. And so I think with that in the background, it does make interpretation of these results somewhat difficult, and that's probably the major caveat to this study. But nonetheless, patients were randomized, 276 patients. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. They were looking at progression-free survival and overall response rates as secondary endpoints as well as overall survival in patients that received immunotherapy versus just chemotherapy alone. And the trial was positive. Overall survival was improved. The median overall survival was 13.2 months for patients that received tumor treating fields with standard of care versus 9.9 months for standard of care alone. If you look at 3-year survival, it was 18% versus 7%.

I think this is a new type of therapy for our patients with non-small cell lung cancer. It is somewhat of a difficult thing to wear the transducer, and you have to wear it for many, many hours. So that is one thing that I think can be difficult for patients that are using this treatment, but nonetheless, it is something new for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. I do know that the technology of tumor treating fields is being studied in other settings for non-small cell lung cancer, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer, for example, and also in the frontline setting. I think this trial kind of speaks to the fact that the landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer is changing so rapidly, and when we're studying something novel, we have to make sure that we make these trials feasible for enrollment so that we can get them completed rapidly, and we can get a readout and it doesn't become obsolete based on this shift in the standard of care. So I think it just really kind of drives home that we need to make sure that we're taking that into account with trial design. It's not standard of care changing right now, but it'll be interesting to see how the data evolves over time. Melina, I'm interested to hear your point of view because I know that these can be used in mesothelioma, maybe not that frequently. What is your experience with tumor treating fields, if any?

Dr. Marmarelis: Tumor treating fields are approved as a device in pleural mesothelioma in the first-line setting in combination with chemotherapy. They have been used off-label in other settings, but that's the device approval. The trial that looked at tumor treating fields in mesothelioma was a single-arm trial, so there was no control arm, and it was really actually just looking at the safety of the device. So I have not used it personally in mesothelioma, although I know of patients and I know of real-world studies looking at its use, and I think it's potentially an interesting modality of treatment, especially in combination with immunotherapy, given that it really doesn't have a lot of additive toxicity. But I think the question is really, which patients are benefiting from it, and which patients are able to actually wear the vest in the case of mesothelioma?

Dr. Higgins: Yeah. Any thoughts, Charu?

Dr. Aggarwal: I agree, and I think this is going to be largely driven by patient experience. I think this is going to be quite onerous to wear this, carry the suitcase, so I would be very interested in patient reported outcomes as well as patient experiences and stories, which will really drive our use here.

Dr. Higgins: Yeah, that's a great point. I should say that this trial was sponsored by Novocure. My institution does have other Novocure studies underway, and we receive research funding, but I was not involved in the study, and I did not personally receive any research funding.

Dr. Aggarwal: Thank you, Kristin. This has been a wonderful review of practice-changing and some promising research that came out of the ASCO Annual Meeting. I hope our listeners enjoyed it, and we'll be sure to update you with the next annual research conference. Thank you, everyone.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Marmarelis, and Dr. Higgins.

You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

In today’s podcast, Dr. Noelle LoConte discusses the relationship between alcohol use and cancer, and explains why ASCO has released a statement on this topic. 

There are many benefits to being physically active during and after cancer treatment. However, the side effects of cancer treatment can make it challenging to get to a gym or complete standard exercises. In this podcast, we discuss these challenges, tips for staying physically active, and the benefits of participating in a fitness program designed for cancer survivors, like LIVESTRONG at the YMCA. 

A ketogenic diet is a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that has some specific neurological effects. In today’s podcast, Annette Goldberg talks with Dr. Roy Strowd about this diet, its history, and its potential benefits in people with certain types of brain tumors.

Many people with cancer receive long-term therapy after their primary cancer treatment—such as surgery or chemotherapy—has ended, in order reduce the risk of their cancer returning or worsening. In today’s podcast, Dr. Ryan Nipp discusses the unique challenges faced by people who receive this extended therapy and their caregivers. Dr. Nipp also talks about the importance of survivorship care plans and having open communication between patients and their health care team in addressing these challenges.

In today’s podcast, Dr. Judith Paice discusses options for managing cancer-related pain, including opioid medications, and medication-free alternatives. She also discusses the use of cannabinoids, which are derived from marijuana, including recent clinical research and associated risks and barriers. 

In today’s podcast, Dr. Erika Ramsdale and Dr. Andrew Chapman discuss new options for improving care for older adults with cancer, including online tools and telecommunications options. Dr. Ramsdale is a board-certified specialist in geriatric medicine and medical oncology at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dr. Chapman is the co-director of the Jefferson Senior Adult Oncology Center and a board-certified medical oncologist and hematologist at Thomas Jefferson University.

A therapy animal has been trained to visit hospitals and other healthcare environments to provide comfort, help decrease a patient’s pain or discomfort, encourage movement, and even serve a role in a patient’s treatment program. In today’s podcast, Leslie Horton will discuss what is involved in training a dog or other pet to become a therapy animal.

Genetic testing can help estimate a person’s chance of developing cancer in their lifetime based on changes, or mutations, in their genetic code. Genetic counselors are specially trained medical professionals who can assess and advise people on their individual risk of cancer based on their family’s history of cancer and the results of genetic testing. In this podcast, Tiffani DeMarco explains the role of a genetic counselor and discusses how genetic testing has changed over time.  

Voices on Cancer is a Cancer.Net Blog series where advocates share their stories and the lessons they have learned about being a cancer advocate. In this Voices on Cancer podcast, young adult cancer survivor Matthew Zachary shares his advocacy story and shares tips to help advocate for young adults with cancer.

Through art therapy, someone with cancer can explore and express feelings that they may not be able to say aloud. In today’s podcast, Michelle Itczak will discuss the role of art therapy in cancer care, and what someone with cancer should know about working with an art therapist. 

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

The theme of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was “Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research.” From June 2 to 6 in Chicago, Illinois, and online, cancer researchers and clinicians from around the world gathered to discuss the latest cancer research and how to ensure that all people receive the cancer care they need.

In the Research Round Up series, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss the most exciting and practice-changing research in their field presented at the meeting and explain what it means for people with cancer. In today’s episode, our guests will discuss new research in symptom tracking and improving health equity in childhood cancer.

First, Dr. Fay Hlubocky discusses research on new ways of tracking symptoms in order to improve outcomes in people with cancer. Dr. Hlubocky is a licensed clinical health psychologist with an expertise in psychosocial oncology and a health care ethicist at the University of Chicago. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Psychosocial Oncology.

You can view Dr. Hlubocky’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Hlubocky: Welcome. I'm very glad that you are able to join us today. My name is Dr. Fay Hlubocky. I am honored to serve as the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Psychosocial Oncology. I'm a clinical health psychologist specializing in psychosocial oncology at the University of Chicago Medicine. Psychosocial oncology centers on addressing the emotional needs of patients, caregivers, and clinicians from clinical research and educational perspectives. I have no conflicts of interest to report today.

Today, we will discuss research on quality cancer care that was presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. The theme for this year's meeting selected by the 2022-2023 ASCO President, Dr. Eric Winer, required all attendees to critically examine how interactions between clinicians and patients have changed over the years. “Partnering with Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research” centered on the need to observe what has been improved, what has worsened, and what can be achieved to make interactions between clinicians and patients better. The extraordinary quality and psychosocial care research presented at this meeting honored and fulfilled Dr. Winer's theme. For example, one session centered on the use of novel informatics technology to carry out research and care in the cancer clinical setting. This session, entitled, “Implementing Innovation Informatics-based Technologies to Improve Care Delivery and Clinical Research,” illuminated the current research progress of implementation for emerging information technology innovations in cancer care delivery.

This session was designed to help oncologists and cancer care team to evaluate whether and how to integrate these innovations into their own clinical context. One outstanding research presentation was by Dr. Monika Krzyzanowska from Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital called, “Implementing ePROs in the Real World Oncology Practice,” where she emphasized the importance of not only identifying and monitoring patient-reported outcomes or specific symptom burdens such as pain, fatigue, depression, or anxiety in the clinic, but yet they need to be monitored across the patient's treatment course well into survivorship at different time points, including at home. Therefore, there is a need for a standardized approach of identifying symptoms from patients because as Dr. Krzyzanowska said, patients forget to report even distressing symptoms, and clinicians at times are not always prepared to obtain these symptoms from patients. Historically, in the clinic setting and as patients receive treatment in the chemo suite, we have moved from paper and pencil clinical assessments to the use of robust assessments via electronic medical records systems in both the clinic and subsequently while patients are at home. She reported that more than 10 randomized clinical trials examined the benefits of remote monitoring for patients who undergo mostly systematic therapy with consistent improvements in both symptom control and other outcomes, including survival. She provided very robust real-world and life examples of successful implementation of patient symptom monitoring systems.

For example, these have shown consistently that there's a need of improvements in symptom control, but improvement with the other outcomes. To date, she reported on several ongoing initiatives, including a large oncology community practice in Arkansas, who reported on their preliminary initial experiences with an assessment platform of 1,000 patients on systemic therapy who reported symptoms on a weekly basis. This team identified a very high recruitment rate of 79% with amazing retention rate at 88% at 6 months, dropping to about 67% at 12 months. Another real-world implementation example she noted is the work by the National Cancer Institute-funded SIMPRO consortium project, where 6 cancer centers evaluate symptom burdens in 2 different clinical scenarios: patients receiving systematic therapy and patients recovering from surgery. Here, patient data and symptoms are collected via an EMR-based E-system to readily respond to patient needs. The preliminary data and a whole host of research presentation centered on SIMPRO at the Annual Meeting showed that it was feasible, but yet a dynamic design is needed to address any operational and technical barriers for optimal implementation. Ideal partnerships between oncologists, cancer teams, patients, administrators, as well as the IT team is needed for optimal implementation as Dr. Krzyzanowska emphasized.

Once these interventions are implemented, a study of sustainability of consistent patient reporting with adequate follow-up by team members, such as nursing, is important for long-term practice success. Finally, she reports that the future research of ePROs evaluation will involve novel approaches, such as clinical teams that will need to gather more complex data, including the use of dynamic approaches, such as wearable technologies, machine learning to address barriers and to improve the overall patient experience. In fact, a specific example of this type of research which reported on both the benefits and barriers centering on ePROs trials at the ASCO Annual Meeting included a very large randomized controlled trial by a Danish team led by Dr. Blechingberg Friis to evaluate the effects of remote symptom monitoring of patients with advanced lung cancer completing induction treatment in a Danish setting. Patients were randomized 1-to-1 to a remote symptom monitoring or an intervention arm added to standard care or just a standard care arm alone. Patients in the intervention arm completed an electronic questionnaire from home covering 13 common symptoms related to lung cancer. A severity alarm or threshold was applied to each question where elevated scores were sent to a clinical nurse for intervention. Weekly compliance to symptom monitoring during that first year was 82% with an intention to monitor population.

Although remote monitoring did not significantly improve clinical outcomes for all patients with advanced lung cancer in the Danish population, the benefits were identified for a subgroup of patients not receiving maintenance therapy and for those with a prior organizational experience with ePROs monitoring, which may be essential for improving outcomes of symptom monitoring.

In summary, as indicated by the researchers and Dr. Krzyzanowska, more research is needed using these novel approaches to determine the best ePROs platforms for the practice setting. Yet these approaches are critical to improve the overall quality of life of patients, especially during treatment, after surgery, and well into long-term survivorship. In summary, patients should be encouraged to discuss symptom burdens from physical to emotional with their oncology team and to use this technology.

It was an honor and pleasure to present this research to you today. Thank you for listening to this brief summary of new research and quality care from the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Best wishes.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Hlubocky.

Next, Dr. Daniel Mulrooney discusses new research on improving health equity in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer. Dr. Mulrooney is an Associate Member in the Division of Cancer Survivorship at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. He is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Pediatric Cancers.

You can view Dr. Mulrooney’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Mulrooney: Hello, my name is Dr. Dan Mulrooney from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. I am the Deputy Director of the After Completion of Therapy Clinic at St. Jude and primarily care for survivors of pediatric cancers. Like previous meetings, the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was quite busy and full of research presentations sharing knowledge and advances in cancer treatment and care. Nearly 100 abstracts were presented concerning children with cancer, and these ranged from early studies of new agents to treat relapsed or refractory cancers, some of the most difficult to cure, to molecular profiling of tumors, to late outcome studies characterizing late effects, improved surveillance methods, and potential preventive treatments for adverse effects after cancer therapy.

Now, while all of these were particularly exciting to hear and learn about, this year's meeting also had an important focus on addressing equitable cancer care for all children diagnosed with cancer. When a child is ill, it affects the entire family and can be very stressful for all concerned and may especially place a burden on families economically, particularly for those who may live in underserved areas or lack resources when their child is first diagnosed with cancer. Importantly, financial stresses can increase over the course of treatment. And unfortunately, studies have shown that outcomes are inferior for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds compared to those from other, more resource-filled backgrounds, despite the same protocol-driven therapies. Today, I'd like to highlight some of these presentations. Please note, I do not have any relationships to disclose related to any of these studies.

A study with the goal of determining the ability to assess social determinants of health in upfront treatment protocols was conducted by the Children's Oncology Group, or COG, a large consortium of pediatric oncology centers that runs national and international trials to advance the treatment of children with cancer. Historically, the COG was only collecting information on race, ethnicity, insurance, and ZIP code. Collecting information on household material hardship may provide information that might be addressed and modified and help improve the treatment of children with cancer. However, before this study, it was not clear if parents would be willing to share this information with their child's treatment team.

Investigators asked parents of children newly diagnosed with neuroblastoma and enrolling on the COG study ANBL1531 to complete a survey about where they live, their household income, and their access to stable food, housing, utilities, and transportation, which were called “measures of household material hardship.” Investigators also asked about access to social supports. The surveys were administered with paper and pencil and in the primary language of the participant. 360 of 413 eligible participants, or 87%, opted to complete the survey across 101 different treating sites. 89% of the surveys were completed within 11 days of enrollment. Most participants answered all of the questions. In fact, less than 1% left some questions unanswered.

Importantly, nearly one-third of participants reported having household material hardship, of which 55% reported a single insecurity around food, housing, utilities, or transportation. And 45% reported multiple hardships in these domains. These investigators are planning to extend this work and evaluate associations with cancer outcomes in the hopes of better understanding the mechanisms of these disparities and developing interventions to address these issues in future COG studies. This study raised important issues about what can be done to improve or minimize household material hardship for families of children with cancer.

In a pilot study conducted by the same study group at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and in collaboration with the University of Alabama, investigators studied the feasibility of a randomized intervention providing transportation and groceries to low-income pediatric oncology families. To be eligible, participants had to be less than 18 years of age at diagnosis of cancer and living in a household that screened positive for food, housing, utility, and/or transportation insecurity, the measures of household material hardship, and those who would be receiving at least 4 courses of chemotherapy.

Participants were treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute or the University of Alabama between May 2019 and August 2021, and were randomized to receive the intervention called PediCARE, which provided transportation and groceries versus usual care, and this was conducted over a 6-month period. The main outcome was to test the feasibility of the intervention. Would families participate? And the secondary outcome was to assess what proportion of recipients successfully received the intervention and if they found it acceptable. The total of 40 families agreed to participate and be randomized, and none dropped out of the study. All completed surveys at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up period, suggesting that the intervention was feasible, could be successfully delivered, and was acceptable to families.

Now another study from the large Childhood Cancer Survivors Study, or CCSS, assessed the association between the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, and Medicaid enrollment among childhood cancer survivors. These investigators linked data from over 13,000 5-year childhood cancer survivors to Medicaid insurance data across the years of 2010 to 2016. Survivors were adults, ages 18 to 64 years old, and all had been diagnosed with cancer prior to age 21 years, between the years of 1970 and 1999. The analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, education, and chronic health conditions. The primary aim for these researchers was to determine any Medicaid enrollment for greater than 1 month in the year. They found that Medicaid enrollment rates increased in states that expanded Medicaid coverage from 17.6% pre-expansion to 24% post-expansion, compared to those states that did not expand pre-expansion and 16.9% post-expansion. Adjusting for other factors, the net enrollment increase was 6.6 percentage points. In the expansion states, the increase was greatest among survivors of leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It was also greater among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic survivors compared to non-Hispanic White survivors and among those with lower household incomes or a high school degree or less. These investigators now plan to look at associations between Medicaid access and health care utilization and long-term cancer outcomes, such as chronic health conditions and mortality.

And additionally, a small study from Stanford University reported a partnership with a community-based nonprofit organization [Jacob’s Heart] to improve cancer center-based follow-up for Latinx adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, or AYA survivors. These investigators conducted interviews in the participants' preferred language, with cancer survivors, their parents, and staff from the community organization. They were able to identify important themes around unmet needs for this population, such as challenges with obtaining health care and understanding which providers to see for which health issues, an oncologist or primary care provider, uncertainty about what questions to ask these providers, difficulty adjusting to life after treatment, and understanding the late effects of cancer on the whole family, economically and mentally. For example, issues with parental job loss, financial strain, or impacts on other siblings in the home. However, these investigators also found supportive themes such as gratitude, strength, and support. Addressing these barriers is important for families and communities to promote follow-up after cancer treatment. This study was particularly unique because of its ability to successfully partner with a community organization to reach out and provide opportunities to improve care for Latinx AYA cancer survivors.

The studies highlighted here and presented at this year's ASCO Annual Meeting focused on identifying barriers to equitable care for all children diagnosed with cancer and has laid the groundwork for future investigations to address these issues for children and families during treatment as well as after treatment and during survivorship. Thank you for listening to this brief summary of some of the exciting and novel research in pediatric oncology presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Mulrooney.

You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

In today’s podcast, Dr. Anthony Alberg explains why it’s not too late to quit smoking after a cancer diagnosis, including the immediate and long-term benefits during and after cancer treatment. He also addresses common myths around quitting smoking and provides resources for someone who wants to quit.  

In today’s podcast, Dr. Arti Hurria, Dr. Lee Jones, and Dr. Hyman Muss will discuss their article “Cancer Treatment as an Accelerated Aging Process: Assessment, Biomarkers, and Interventions.” They discuss research on why aging-related problems—such as physical conditions or cognitive decline—occur more frequently in cancer survivors, and how these aging-related problems can be prevented or minimized.  

In today’s podcast, Dr. Howard Bailey will discuss human papillomavirus, or HPV, and explain why it’s associated with certain types of cancer. He also discusses HPV vaccines, and how they can help lower the risk of these cancers. 

In this podcast, Dr. Michael Fisch, Dr. Melissa Accordino, and Dr. Arlene Chung discuss their article, “Using Technology to Improve Cancer Care: Social Media, Wearables, and Electronic Health Records,” and explain how doctors are using digital technology to communicate with their patients, and each other.

Cancer care has become increasingly complex, so someone with cancer will be treated by a collaborative team of health care providers that includes doctors, nurses, and a wide range of additional specialists. In today’s podcast, Wendy Vogel discusses the role of oncology advanced practitioners, or APs, as a part of this multidisciplinary team. 

In today’s podcast, Lillie Shockney discusses her article, “The Value of Patient Navigators as Members of the Multidisciplinary Oncology Care Team.” Nurse navigators, also known as patient navigators, help a person with cancer “navigate” the hospital and human services bureaucracies. This includes assisting with decision making, coordinating services, and advocating for the patient with the other members of the health care team. 

In today’s podcast, we will discuss direct-to-consumer genetic testing. You may have seen these at-home genetic testing kits advertised on television or the internet. Genetic testing can be used to estimate a person's risk of developing specific diseases, such as cancer. However, direct-to-consumer genetic testing may have significant limitations, and the decision to be tested for cancer risk is complex. This podcast will be led by Dr. Nadine Tung, the Director of the Cancer Risk and Prevention Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. 

Patient-reported outcomes, or PROs, are anything reported directly by the patient, such as symptoms or emotions. In today’s podcast, Dr. Lee Schwartzberg discusses his article, “Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: The Time Is Ripe for Integration Into Patient Care and Clinical Research,” and explains how electronic PRO systems can help improve communication between patients and their health care team. 

To fast is to partially or completely reduce one’s food intake for a period of time. In today’s podcast, Suzanne Dixon and Annette Goldberg discuss the history of fasting, different types of diets, and why some scientists are researching the effects of fasting during or after cancer treatment. They also provide tips for someone considering fasting during treatment.  

In today’s podcast, we will discuss new recommendations developed jointly by ASCO and the Society for Gyncologic Oncology on when women with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer should receive  neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is chemotherapy given before surgery. These recommendations are intended to help guide doctors and their patients in making treatment decisions based on current research. 

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

The theme of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was “Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research.” From June 2 to 6 in Chicago, Illinois, and online, cancer researchers and clinicians from around the world gathered to discuss the latest cancer research and how to ensure that all people receive the cancer care they need.

In the Research Round Up series, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss the most exciting and practice-changing research in their field presented at the meeting and explain what it means for people with cancer. In today’s episode, our guests will discuss new research in melanoma and health equity.

First, Dr. Katy Tsai discusses new research in melanoma.

Dr. Tsai is a medical oncologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of California, San Francisco. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Melanoma & Skin Cancer.

You can view Dr. Tsai’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Tsai: Hello. Welcome to the ASCO Cancer.Net Research Round Up. I'm Katy Tsai, an associate professor of medicine and the clinical medical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco. I'm happy to be here today to discuss research on melanoma and skin cancers presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. I do not have any disclosures relevant to the studies to be discussed.

So, it's always exciting to see the latest research presented at ASCO. One theme in particular that I'd like to highlight in this podcast is recent advances in the field of adjuvant therapy. For the listeners who may not be familiar with this terminology, adjuvant therapy refers to drugs given after surgery to try to decrease the risk of cancer recurrence. Specifically, late-breaking abstract 9505 presented updates from KEYNOTE-716, an adjuvant study of pembrolizumab, or pembro, in patients with resected high-risk stage II melanoma. Late-breaking abstract 9503, which I'll also discuss, presented data from KEYNOTE-942, a pivotal study of a personalized cancer vaccine plus pembrolizumab in patients with resected high-risk stage III and stage IV melanoma.

So, let's start with KEYNOTE-716. We've known for some time in our field now that adjuvant pembrolizumab or nivolumab can help decrease the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III or IV melanoma. What may not be as well-known, however, is that patients with stage IIB or IIC melanomas, in other words, thicker, ulcerated primary melanomas, even without lymph node spread, actually have a comparable risk of melanoma recurrence compared to patients with early stage III melanomas. KEYNOTE-716 was a large, international phase 3 study that randomized patients with stages IIB and C melanoma to receive either pembro or placebo. The positive results showing improvement in relapse-free survival led to approval of adjuvant pembro in December 2021, but what was presented at ASCO was an update on distant metastasis-free survival. This is obviously an important endpoint for us because ultimately, if someone is going to develop widely metastatic disease, unfortunately, it is a development of these distant metastases that we are concerned about. So what we saw here is that with landmark 36-month follow-up, there was a 41% reduction in the risk of developing distant metastasis in patients who were treated with pembro compared to those who received the placebo. In addition, there was a consistent maintained benefit in relapse-free survival, and importantly, no changes in the side effect profile. These are important data because I believe it is practice-changing in the sense that this is a population of patients who historically might not ever have been referred to medical oncology, maybe just monitored serially with their dermatologists. And this is an option that should be discussed.

Ultimately, the risk versus benefit about whether to pursue a year of therapy versus maybe consider treatment only at the time of recurrence is a very personalized discussion between a patient and their treating oncologist, but it is an option that should definitely be offered. So let's move on to KEYNOTE-942. The novel drug being tested in this trial is very exciting. We're calling it “individualized neoantigen therapy.” So this is basically a platform that allows us to develop individualized treatment for someone based on characteristics of their own cancer. This involves taking the actual tumor specimen, genomic sequencing, specifically whole-exome sequencing is performed to try to identify any changes in the DNA. And then through a bioinformatic pipeline, the mutations in the DNA that are thought to be most likely to generate proteins that can be bound within presenting molecules are then identified in the computer program, then synthesized within mRNA. So very similar to the way that COVID vaccines have been made. So this actually becomes the actual drug product. So in this study, patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab by itself for a year, which is, as we alluded to earlier, standard adjuvant therapy, but then with the addition of this individualized neoantigen therapy starting with dose 3 and then throughout the rest of the year.

So the recurrence-free survival data were actually presented earlier this year at another major conference, AACR [American Association for Cancer Research], and were highly positive. At ASCO 2023, I think what was most impressive about the presented data is that distant metastasis-free survival, so again, a similar important endpoint that we discussed with the other trial, is that the distant metastasis-free survival here was quite impressively maintained. There was a hazard ratio of .35, meaning really a 65% reduction in the risk of recurrence for patients who received the personalized neoantigen therapy plus pembrolizumab. So this is a huge advantage for distant metastasis-free survival in this particular population of patients. What was even more intriguing is that usually when we combine therapies, we tend to see additive toxicity, more side effects. And what was really exciting about this particular trial is that the additive toxicity really wasn't as much as you would expect for giving 2 immunotherapies at the same time. I'll also highlight that even though these results are really exciting within melanoma, that part of the reason this data is so exciting is that it represents a really promising platform for therapeutic development and application in other tumors besides melanoma.

So this is definitely super exciting. While perhaps not practice-changing in this moment, it’s potentially practice-changing. And I look forward to seeing additional data coming in from planned trials using this particular combination in the metastatic setting in addition to the adjuvant setting.

So on the whole, I do think that updates in adjuvant therapy for melanoma were super exciting to see at ASCO 2023. As I mentioned earlier, it's a very large conference. A lot of exciting data being presented. So I do think that other themes to pay attention to as we continue to sort through existing data and look forward to incoming data from forthcoming trials is looking at neoadjuvant therapy. For example, drug given before surgery to try to improve long-term outcomes. For example, at ASCO this year, there was interesting neoadjuvant immunotherapy data presented not for melanoma, but for a different type of skin cancer called squamous cell carcinoma. So that would definitely be another theme to pay attention to in the coming months and years.

Thinking about novel combinations, for example, what's new in immune checkpoint inhibitors, we've been used to for a long time referring only to anti-PD1 antibodies, anti-CTLA4 antibodies. What was interesting to see this year were updates in novel combinations, for example, PD1 antibodies combined with LAG3 antibodies. Antibodies against TIGIT. So I think this will be another exciting space to pay attention to both in the metastatic skin cancer setting and in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings.

Thank you for your time and attention. That concludes my research roundup for melanoma and skin cancers. Thank you.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Tsai.

Next, Dr. Manali Patel discusses new research in health equity. Dr. Patel is a medical oncologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Health Equity.

You can view Dr. Patel’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Patel: Hi, my name is Manali Patel. I'm the Associate Editor for Health Equity for Cancer.Net, and I'm so incredibly excited to present some really amazing work that was presented at our ASCO Annual Meeting this past June in Chicago. Before I start, I do have one disclosure. I will be talking about studies that were presented relating to patient navigation and one study in particular that my group presented looking at community health workers. And so that is a little bit of a disclosure that I would like to address upfront.

And now, just to get right started. I thought what was really interesting was the amount of work this year that was presented on disparities in health equity. As in past years, we actually saw quite an influx, probably more so this year than previously, on studies that looked at differing outcomes, inequities in cancer care delivery, describing disparities in terms of receipt of treatment, so if people were receiving treatment. There tended to be a lot of studies that focused on looking at and describing a lot of these disparities. But what I was really impressed by came out from the pediatric colleagues, individuals who are taking care of younger patients, children who are less than the age of 18, and how many of those particular studies were focused on moving from description to actually intervening and making a difference in health equity. And so I want to highlight a couple.

There was one that was done out of Dana-Farber, and actually, a multi-site group of authors. So lots of authors from all over the place, but Emily Jones was the lead author. And they described and actually evaluated how they could collect, in the context of clinical trials for children, which is called Children's Oncology Group Trial-- how they could collect social determinants of health data, meaning data that evaluates people's income, transportation, where people live, what kind of work they may do, if they have food and housing insecurity. And what they were able to show is that, by embedding a lot of these data points-- they actually made these data points optional for patients when they came into the clinical trial. And they found high feasibility, meaning lots of people that were signing up to do clinical trials for the Children's Oncology Group Trial were able to complete this extra data, which is extremely important and is a remarkable willingness of individuals to participate in providing this data which is important for their treatment.

Along those same lines, Amy Newman from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia really did a very nice study looking at the feasibility of what they called PediCARE. And it was this intervention that was focused on trying to ensure that people-- again, children less than the age of 18 across 2 different clinics. They evaluated whether PediCARE would help people to receive necessary and important resources as it relates to social and economic needs. And so they screened for food insecurity, for housing insecurity, for people that had difficulties paying for utilities, and transportation security. And then they randomized individuals to either PediCARE or to just usual cancer care. And what they found was that 100% of the people that were randomized to PediCARE successfully received grocery and transportation resources. They felt that it was easier to buy food for their family, and they reported it was easier to get to and from the hospital and that they would be very likely to report and to recommend this intervention to other individuals. And so it really shows how these interventions can move from just describing that housing, food insecurity or problems-- number 1, it starts with the collection of the data, right? What's really important is making sure that we collect this data because we don't currently do that in cancer care. And then number 2, when we actually do collect the data, what are we going to do about it? And it shows that these interventions really do help people to move past their housing and social and economic issues that they may experience into actually receiving care that's important and necessary to improve outcomes.

We did see a lot of data reflecting the importance of health insurance and big policies, what I call Big P, which are these national policies, like the Affordable Care Act. And now we've seen, just year after year and including this year, plethora of studies showing how beneficial the Affordable Care Act has been on reducing disparities and improving cancer outcomes overall.

We also saw other studies, such as one presented by Dr. Gladys Rodriguez from Northwestern, which looked at disparities in the intensity of care at the end of life amongst patients with gastrointestinal cancers. And the team revealed, across almost 20 years of data in California, that patients were receiving higher rates of what would be considered low-quality care. Now, this is lower hospice use, which we know helps to actually improve survival, lower rates of palliative care use, and greater rates of burdensome hospitalizations. And now, why I think this is particularly important is because this study evaluated what we know is a problem, that there is low-quality care amongst patients from particular racial and ethnic populations, such as Black and Hispanic patient populations, that aren't receiving the right care when they're diagnosed. And then what this reveals is that, even at the end of life, they're perhaps still receiving low-quality care.

Another study looked at screening, which I thought was really impressive. It was by Nicole Anne Gay from the UM Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami. And what they evaluated was essentially a quality improvement program to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening. As a lung cancer doctor myself, it's still shocking that fewer than 6% of people that should receive lung cancer screening, meaning a screening test to help us identify and to treat patients with lung cancer-- they aren't receiving lung cancer screening. And so we know that this is a problem overall. They put into place what's called a multi-level, meaning that there were improvements in the electronic health record that they embedded. They also provided patients with navigation, and they also helped clinicians in the primary care clinics obtain information about who should be eligible and which patients should be receiving screening. And what they found was that they were able to move screening rates from 25% improvement completed during the project period from their baseline, which is actually quite impressive.

We also saw an interesting study, and actually, just an interesting evaluation, of childhood leukemia survival on the U.S.-Mexico border. And it was a description of how to implement changes by strengthening care partnerships. And so they evaluated and they described the implementation of this program to achieve what they called sustainable high-quality care for children with leukemia. It was done by Paula Aristizabal and was really in a unique border health setting. It was in partnership between the North American and Mexican institutions. And they used what was called the strengthening model developed by the World Health Organization to evaluate specific domains and to try to improve a sustainable program for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at a public referral hospital right on the border region. And I thought that that study was particularly interesting because it shows how to be able to use an approach to improve the staffing of a leukemia service, to implement a sustainable training program as well for other clinicians to learn how to provide leukemia care, and then also to try to improve clinical outcomes and funding for patients to receive medications through local partnerships. I thought it was a really fantastic description of how to begin to do this work that is extremely necessary in low- and middle-income nations but also even on our own U.S.-Mexico border.

There were also a lot of studies that evaluated the importance of social and economic factors. We know that financial toxicity, which is an unfortunate side effect of cancer treatment and cancer care and a cancer diagnosis overall, is associated with worse outcomes. Financial toxicity means the burdens and costs that arise with having a cancer diagnosis. And now we've seen studies that were presented at ASCO this past year by Dr. Khan, who showed that, within 2 years of diagnosis, are at higher risk for dying after adjusting for many social and also clinical factors. And Dr. Hu also presented data looking at the implications of having a lot of medical debt and death. And what both of these studies showed is that medical debt is associated with having perhaps a lower likelihood of surviving. It does make sense for Dr. Hu's study that one would have a lot of medical debt if they also have a lot of other conditions, but it does begin to shed some light on the fact that there are worse clinical outcomes, meaning people aren't doing as well, depending on how much other medical care expenses they may have.

And then finally, one important piece, which I think is really crucial for what's happening now in the way that oncologists may perhaps be able to advocate for payment for services that are important, is looking at navigation studies. Now, this is patient navigators, and that is a very broad topic. And so there were lots and lots of studies that came out at ASCO that evaluated the importance of navigation, including our own work that looked at what happens to veterans after receiving a lay health worker or a navigator to assist with advanced care planning, meaning helping veterans to understand their goals and preferences. And what these studies have shown is that there's actually not only clinical benefit but also, in our own study, that perhaps there may be a survival benefit even 10 years later. It was very wonderful to be at ASCO this past year, and I really hope that you all can look at some of these studies or take away the important and amazing work that's going on in the health equity space. And I thank you for listening to our podcast.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Patel.

You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

[music]

In today’s podcast, ASCO’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Richard Schilsky, discusses ASCO’s first-ever clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry, or TAPUR Study. The TAPUR Study is a clinical trial for people with later-stage cancer, focused on whether specific targeted therapies can benefit more patients and lead to more personalized treatments.  Dr. Schilsky explains the objectives of the study, and provides information about who might be eligible to participate, as well as what is involved.

n today’s podcast, Suzanne Dixon and Annette Goldberg discuss and dispel several common myths about nutrition and cancer.  Suzanne Dixon is a Registered Dietitian and Epidemiologist, with a nutrition and research consulting business in Portland, Oregon. Annette Goldberg is an Outpatient Dietitian at the Boston Medical Center Cancer Care Center.

Over 60% of people who have cancer are 65 or older. In today’s podcast, we will discuss some of the unique challenges older adults with cancer may face, including special considerations for preparing for and recovering from surgery. 

In today’s podcast, Peggy Burhenn, a nurse and professional practice leader in Geriatric Oncology at City of Hope National Medical Center discusses several strategies for getting a better night’s sleep.  

In today’s podcast, Cancer.Net Advisory Panelist Dr. Arash Asher talks to Dr. An Ngo-Huang about prehabilitation and why it is becoming a more common element of cancer treatment. 

In today’s podcast, Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation co-founders Peter Brown and Vicki Sardi-Brown tell the story of their son Mattie’s journey with cancer, and explain how it inspired them to advocate for the development of evidence-based psychosocial standards of care for children with cancer and their families. 

Palliative care focuses on preventing, managing, and relieving the symptoms of cancer and the side effects of cancer treatment. In this podcast, Dr. Kavitha Ramchandran discusses the basics of palliative care, including when a person with cancer should consider palliative care and the role of a multidisciplinary palliative care team. 

Some side effects of cancer treatment—such as taste changes and appetite loss—can prevent a person receiving cancer treatment from eating and drinking enough. In this podcast, oncology dietitians Maureen Gardner and Annette Goldberg will discuss how they work with people with cancer and their families to address these and other common nutrition concerns.

In this podcast, Dr. Heidi Klepin, Dr. Miriam Rodin, and Dr. Arti Hurria, will discuss their 2015 ASCO Educational Book article “Treating Older Adults with Cancer: Geriatric Perspectives,” which explores some of the unique concerns that should be considered when older adults are being treated for cancer.

In this podcast, Dr. Michael Thompson discusses his article, “Using Social Media to Learn and Communicate: It Is Not About the Tweet” with Dr. Nathan Pennell.

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals.

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. Guests’ 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses.

The theme of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was “Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research.” From June 2 to 6 in Chicago, Illinois, and online, cancer researchers and clinicians from around the world gathered to discuss the latest cancer research and how to ensure that all people receive the cancer care they need.

In the Research Round Up series, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss the most exciting and practice-changing research in their field presented at the meeting and explain what it means for people with cancer. In today’s episode, our guests will discuss new research in gynecologic cancers [2:06], multiple myeloma [9:15], and head and neck cancer [16:03].

First, Dr. Lan Coffman discusses new research in ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and cervical cancer. Dr. Coffman is a physician-scientist and gynecologic oncologist at the Magee-Womens Research Institute and Foundation, and assistant professor in Hematology-Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Gynecologic Cancers.

You can view Dr. Coffman’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Coffman: Hi, my name is Lan Coffman. I'm a physician-scientist at the University of Pittsburgh. I'm a medical oncologist that specializes in gynecologic cancers, and I'm happy to discuss research that was presented on gynecologic cancers at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. I do have a relevant disclosure. I participated in one of the trials I'm going to discuss, a trial called MIRASOL. I was the site principal investigator at University of Pittsburgh.

I think there were a lot of interesting studies to highlight, and I wanted to focus on studies involving ovary cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervix cancers as the main sites that we study in the gynecologic oncology world. So when we talk about ovary cancer, I think there was one really impactful study that was presented at ASCO this year, and it was called MIRASOL. And again, this is the study that I also participated in at our hospital at University of Pittsburgh. So it was a large study, so a randomized phase 3 study looking at a drug called mirvetuximab, which is an antibody-drug conjugate.

So basically, it's an antibody against a protein that is expressed on ovarian cancer cells and the protein’s called folate receptor-alpha. And that antibody basically carries a little poison. And so it's kind of like a Trojan horse. This antibody goes, finds that protein on the tumor cells, and then delivers that poison. And so this drug has been studied and actually was presented last year in a different trial called SORAYA, which showed that it had activity, meaning the drug helped to kill ovarian cancer cells, and actually led to the first approval of this drug in ovary cancer. So this trial was the confirmatory trial, so enrolling more patients to see, actually, is it better than standard-of-care chemotherapy? So this was in women with ovarian cancer that had come back and was platinum resistant, meaning the cancer started to grow within 6 months from the last platinum-based therapy. Women were eligible if they had high expression of this folate receptor-alpha, and they had to have a couple of prior lines of therapy.

And then they were randomized, so kind of chosen out of a hat to either be treated with mirvetuximab or with investigator's choice chemotherapy. So one of the chemotherapies we'd use standardly. And so that would be something like taxol, or liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. And basically, this study was comparing how well does mirvetuximab work compared to chemotherapy. And importantly, it showed that it improved survival, both progression-free survival, so how long it took before the disease started to grow again, but probably more importantly, actually improved overall survival, so how long a woman lived. And actually changed overall survival from about 16 and a half months compared to 12 months with chemotherapy. And so this was really important and demonstrated that mirvetuximab does actually impact women with ovarian cancer and actually helps women live longer. And that's really hard to do in this setting.

And the other nice thing about this trial was that not only did it work well, but there are actually lower side effects with it, and so less women actually had to discontinue their treatment, and they had less what we call adverse events, or basically bad things that had happened from the treatment themselves. So just telling us that this drug is actually well tolerated. Women feel well on it, even when their cancer is shrinking. So I think that was one of the most impactful studies in ovary cancer. Moving on to endometrial cancer. We recently had 2 studies, one called RUBY and one called GY018 that looked at using immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy in endometrial cancer. And what was presented at ASCO was some follow-up from this RUBY trial, which was basically validating that this combination of adding immunotherapy actually helped. To give you a background, traditionally, women that have endometrial cancer that is advanced staged, meaning spread outside of the uterus itself or has come back, we treat it with chemotherapy.

But this study added an immunotherapy called dostarlimab in combination with our standard chemotherapy and actually showed that women were living longer with this, at least in that progression-free survival. We're still waiting on final evaluation. But at ASCO, what they reported was another independent blinded review of the data to show that even when we're really carefully looking at this data, it looks like immunotherapy helps women with endometrial cancer live longer. They also presented quality-of-life data showing that women actually feel better with the addition of the immunotherapy. So I think this is practice changing. And again, this data has been coming out over the last year or so, but I do think this will change the way in which endometrial cancer is treated.

And then the final thing I wanted to discuss would be in cervix cancer. And while there wasn't a lot of new data presented here in terms of kind of paradigm shifts or large changes, we did have final survival [data] from the KEYNOTE-826 presented, which is also using immunotherapy along with chemotherapy in cervix cancer. And so this was in women that, again, had advanced-stage cervix cancer. So it was a cervix cancer that had moved beyond the cervix itself or cervix cancer that had come back and was treated with chemotherapy along with another immunotherapy called pembrolizumab. And this was the final survival data that confirmed that the immunotherapy did help women live longer. The survival data was impressive with about a 10-month improvement in overall survival. So how long a woman lived. And so that was really confirmatory of the previous trials. So again, that emphasizes that immunotherapy is moved towards the standard of care in cervix cancer as well. I can't hit all the highlights of the impressive research coming out of ASCO 2023, this is a brief summary of some of the critical studies in gynecologic cancers.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Coffman.

Next, Dr. Sagar Lonial discusses new research in multiple myeloma. Dr. Lonial is a professor of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, where he also serves as Department Chair. He is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Myeloma.

You can view Dr. Lonial’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Lonial: Hello, I'm Dr. Sagar Lonial from the Emory School of Medicine and the Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. And today I'm going to discuss some of the really exciting research in the context of multiple myeloma that was presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. In terms of my conflicts of interest, I have enrolled patients on many CAR T trials as well as bispecific trials from all of the different companies involved here. So, I do have some engagement with those trials. And one of the studies that I may talk about at the end came from our institution. So I was an investigator on that study as well.

When I think about some of the really exciting work that was presented at ASCO this year, there are really 2 big categories of trials that I think were most exciting. And the first is CAR T-cells and moving them earlier and earlier in the disease state. And what we saw at ASCO this year was the CARTITUDE-4 study, which was a randomized phase 3 trial comparing CAR T-cells versus standard treatment in the context of first or second relapsed multiple myeloma. And this was a really important study for us to hear because we know that CAR T-cells are highly effective in the later lines of therapy. A big question at this point is, "Does their efficacy hold up in earlier lines of therapy? And how does it compare in a randomized setting against what we might normally use in that clinical context?"

And what I think we were really excited to see at ASCO this year was that CAR T-cells appear to be superior to standard treatment in the context of that randomized phase 3 trial. Now, there were a few patients who were randomized to CAR T-cells who didn't get to the CAR T-cell infusion because their disease progressed in that interval. And that is a challenge that many of us deal with on a regular basis when we think about using a CAR T in a patient. But in general, the treatment was available for almost all patients. And the analysis of benefit as measured by a longer remission duration for the patients who received CAR T cells versus those who didn't was really done on what we call an intent to treat basis. And what that means is if you were randomized to the CAR T arm, even if you didn't get the CAR T, which again was a very small number of patients, you were still evaluated as if you got a CAR. And what I think that tells us is that even taking into account some of those patients who may not get there, there still was significant clinical benefit.

And this is really important data for us to have insight into. We've seen this with cilta-cel in CARTITUDE-4. We'd seen similar kinds of findings in KarMMa using ide-cel as the CAR T-cell, although it does appear that the remission duration, at least when you're comparing across trials, appears to be a little bit longer for cilta-cel than what we've seen with ide-cel. But nonetheless, it suggests that even in the context of early relapse, there may be some benefit for CARs over standard therapy. Now, does this mean that CARs are going to replace standard therapy in terms of early relapse? I don't think we know the answer to that right now. I think there's a lot of information that we need to look at to really feel comfortable making that step.

The other big set of data I think that we were all very excited about to see at ASCO this year were the T-cell engagers or the bispecifics. And what we saw from a number of different bispecifics was that the efficacy data looks like it continues to hold up. But what to me was really quite exciting was the idea that the T-cell engager could be highly effective even if a patient had seen prior BCMA-directed therapy. And what this means to me is that perhaps if you're progressing on a CAR T-cell, you still may have a pretty reasonable chance at a response, again, to a BCMA-directed therapy with a bispecific. The other way around may not necessarily be the same. And so I think what we learned at this meeting is that the bispecific or T-cell engagers clearly could have activity in the context of prior BCMA-exposed therapy. And I think, as a field, we need to think more about how we define what it means to be resistant to a BCMA-directed therapy. So that I think was really important and exciting and will have relevance in our daily clinical practice.

We also saw updates on a different non-BCMA-directed target. So we saw updates on GPRC5D-targeted bispecifics, also known as talquetamab. What I think was really exciting here is we saw a very high overall response rate, modest infectious complications compared to what we've seen with BCMA-directed therapy.  

Finally, what I want to wrap up with was a very small study addressing what I think is a pretty significant unmet medical need. And that was a trial from Dr. Nooka at my institution, where we evaluated a combination of carfilzomib with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, or KPD. And we used that specifically as maintenance in the high-risk group. And what we learned from that evaluation is that it appears for patients with high-risk disease that KPD maintenance is better than either carfilzomib and len [lenalidomide] or even bortezomib and lenalidomide, which historically has been what we're using.

But there remains an unmet medical need patient population, particularly the double-hit patient population, that even with KPD still didn't have a great outcome overall. So more work for us to do down the road. But certainly, food for thought for many of those other patients that perhaps don't fit into that double-hit classic category. So I think what I've given you is a nice sort of overview of many of the exciting data that were presented at ASCO 2023. Again, go to the website to see additional ones. And thank you again for listening to this brief summary of research in myeloma updates from the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Lonial.

Finally, Dr. Cristina Rodriguez discusses new research in treating head and neck cancer. Dr. Rodriguez is a medical oncologist at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, an Associate Professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington, and an Associate Member for solid tumor clinical research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Head and Neck Cancers.

You can view Dr. Rodriguez’s disclosures at Cancer.Net.

Dr. Rodriguez: Hello, my name is Cristina Rodriguez, and today I'm going to discuss some new research focusing on head and neck cancer that was presented at our annual ASCO 2023 meeting. As part of my disclosures, my institution receives research funding from CGEN. My takeaway from this meeting was there were a few major themes represented by the research. One of them was research on uncommon cancer types, such as nasopharyngeal cancer and salivary gland cancer. The other major theme and what was exciting for me was research on groups that were typically not represented in clinical trials in head and neck cancer. These include elderly or frail patients with many other comorbid illnesses that might have excluded them from clinical trials. Another theme was research in areas outside the developed world. In other words, resource-restricted countries. There was some exciting research coming out of that. And finally, a few new agents, novel agents that looked to have activity in patients with head and neck cancer that are going to be studied further.

So with that, I'm going to start with talking about research that came out of France, presented by Dr. Fayette. This was a clinical trial that focused primarily on the frail elderly population. A group that might make very difficult for one to enter clinical trial because of many different illnesses or not being fit enough. And this group, out of France, looked at a combination of immunotherapy and a gentler lower dose chemotherapy called carboplatin and paclitaxel. Interestingly, in this group, there was very encouraging results, including 71% of patients having an objective response or a reduction in the size of their tumor, and very few patients, less than 5% of patients, having toxicity that required permanent discontinuation of the drug. So I thought this study was particularly interesting and gives us physicians and patients who are in this situation some more options to use when we're in the treatment of head and neck cancer.

The next study that I thought was particularly interesting came out of India and was presented by Dr. Kothari. The special thing about this study was that it asked the question of the efficacy of a very low-cost combination for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. It's a combination that we don't tend to use here in the United States, one that involves methotrexate, celecoxib, and erlotinib. This particular clinical trial was carried out in several sites in India, and it randomized patients to this low-cost oral regimen versus physician's choice.

In other words, any type of treatment that might involve immunotherapy or antibody therapy. The main issue here being that sometimes many of these therapies are not easily accessible to patients in low-resourced situations. The investigators observed an overall survival advantage, what that means is more patients lived longer when they use the low-cost oral regimen, which was much more practical, much easier for patients to take, and had more success in improving and prolonging the lives of patients. So I thought that that was a particularly important observation. And we forget a lot of times when we're practicing in the United States that a lot of our practice patterns here may not be applicable to low-resource settings. And I think it's very exciting that research is being carried out to answer questions that are relevant to this area.

The third abstract that I thought was particularly intriguing was one presented by Dr. Glenn Hanna from Dana-Farber. And it looked at a new drug called BCA101. BCA101 is an antibody that has 2 functions. It inhibits EGFR, or epidermal growth factor receptor, very commonly overexpressed in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. And it has a dual function, which is it modulates TGFβ, which is an immunosuppressive cytokine within tumor cells. This drug was combined with pembrolizumab in this small study and offered to patients who have never received treatment for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. There was a lot of enthusiasm for this drug because in the 33 patients enrolled in the trial, 48% of them had an objective response, meaning a reduction in the size of their tumor. Anemia was one of the more common side effects that were noted. But the efficacy of this agent in this population, these patients expressed PD-L1 or had a CPS score of 1, was enough to support further study of this drug and a larger clinical trial is going to be carried out looking to see if this drug will have similar efficacy or better efficacy in a larger population.

Finally, the last abstract is one that was presented by Dr. Swiecicki. And it was an interesting abstract to me because it examined the activity of another novel agent not FDA-approved for head and neck cancer, called enfortumab vedotin. This is a class of drugs that belong to a group called antibody-drug conjugates. This is an antibody that's directed toward the target called Nectin-4 and has a small chemotherapy payload that's attached to the antibody. Unlike Dr. Hanna's study, this study was a small phase 2 trial that focused on patients who've previously been treated in the recurrent or metastatic setting and are now receiving this drug either as their second or third option after they developed recurrent or metastatic disease. 46 patients were enrolled in this trial, and 24% of patients had an objective response or reduction in the size of this tumor. Although that number doesn't seem very high, it is an encouraging signal because in patients who previously received treatment for head and neck cancer, we tend to see very poor response rates. So this is encouraging given the population that was studied. Another 32% of these patients had what's called stable disease or no significant change in the size of their tumor. So that too is quite encouraging. This drug is going to also move on for further study in head and neck cancer.

So I thought that these themes really brought about a lot of excitement for me for the future of treatments in patients with head and neck cancer, not only in developed countries but also in resource-restricted environments. And I look forward to next year and more work being done in these areas. And I'd like to thank you for listening to this brief summary of developments and head and neck cancer presented in the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting.

ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Rodriguez.

You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net.

Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care.

And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology.

Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

In this podcast, Dr. Bernardo Goulart discusses his article, "The Value of Lung Cancer CT Screening."

In this podcast, Dr. Edward Kim discusses his article, “The Future of Molecular Medicine: Biomarkers, BATTLEs, and Big Data.”

In today’s podcast, Dr. Leslie Schover discusses her article, “Sexual Healing in Patients with Prostate Cancer on Hormone Therapy," from the 2015 ASCO Educational Book.