Explore every episode of the podcast ASCO Daily News
| Title | Pub. Date | Duration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key Takeaways From 2024 ASCO Breakthrough | 22 Aug 2024 | 00:14:26 | |
Dr. Lillian Siu and Dr. Melvin Chua discuss the new technologies and novel therapeutics that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Breakthrough meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Lillian Siu: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Lillian Siu, a medical oncologist and director of the Phase 1 Trials Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Canada, and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. On today's episode, we'll be discussing key takeaways from the 2024 ASCO Breakthrough meeting in Yokohama, Japan. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Melvin Chua, who served as the chair of Breakthrough's Program Committee. Dr. Chua is the head of the Department for Head, Neck and Thoracic Cancers in the Division of Radiation Oncology at the National Cancer Center in Singapore. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Chua, it's great to be speaking with you today and congratulations on a very successful Breakthrough meeting. Dr. Melvin Chua: Thanks Dr. Siu. It was really inspiring to come together again to showcase the innovative work of world-renowned experts, clinicians, researchers, med-tech pioneers, and drug developers from around the globe. Our theme this year was inclusivity and thus it was important to bring people together again in the Asia Pacific region and to foster international collaborations that are so important in advancing cancer care. This year, we invited 65 international faculty, of which 55% were from Asia. Also, importantly, we achieved approximately a 50-50 split for male to female representation. These are remarkable statistics for the meeting, and we really hope to retain this for future Breakthrough [meetings]. Dr. Lillian Siu: The meeting featured renowned keynote speakers who shared great insights on new technologies and therapies that are shaping the future of drug development and care delivery. Let's first talk about artificial intelligence and the keynote address by Dr. Andrew Trister. He gave a very interesting talk titled, "Plaiting the Golden Braid: How Artificial Intelligence Informs the Learning Health System." What are the key messages from his talk? Dr. Melvin Chua: Couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Siu. Dr. Trister is the chief medical and scientific officer of Verily, a precision health company. He previously worked in digital health and AI at The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and worked at Apple where he led clinical research and machine learning with Apple partners. But perhaps it was really his background and training as a radiation oncologist that was most pertinent as he was able to weave both the components of new AI models and the applications and pitfalls in the clinic to the audience. Dr. Trister provided a very high-level view through the history of AI and showcased the progression of the different AI models and he basically explained between deep and shallow methods as well as deductive logic versus inductive probabilistic methods. He then provided several clinical examples where these models have shown their utility in the clinic, for example, pathology and so forth. At the same time, he illustrated several pitfalls with these models. So overall, I think Dr. Trister's talk was very well received by the audience with several key messages, including the importance of [using] high-quality data as the basis of a good AI model. AI was also addressed in an Education Session that looked at Artificial Intelligence in the Cancer Clinic. And we had a panel of experts that highlighted current progress and successes with AI in the clinic, advances with AI assisted pathology for clinical research and precision medicine, large language models (LLMs) for applications in the clinic, and how we could leverage AI in precision oncology. And from this session, I had several key takeaways. Dr. Alexander Pearson [of the University of Chicago] gave a very illustrative talk on how multimodal information across clinical omics, radiological information and multi omics could be used to improve diagnostic tasks and clinical prediction across different cancers. And Dr. Joe Yeong [of Singapore General Hospital] gave a very good talk on how AI can be applied in digital pathology to accelerate research in immunology and help in the development of immunotherapies. Dr. Danielle Bitterman [of Brigham and Women's Hospital] shared very good examples of how LLMs could be used in a clinic. And I think the example that really stood out for me was how LLMs could be deployed to create responses to patient queries. And of course, the big question in the room was: How could AI eventually encapsulate compassion in their response? I think this again showcased how LLMs could really help to accelerate our clinical work going forward. And ultimately circling back to data, Dr. Caroline Chung [of MD Anderson] gave a very poignant description on the importance of data quality and how poor-quality data could eventually lead to underperforming AI models. So all in all, I think this was a great session. And what do you think, Dr. Siu? Dr. Lillian Siu: Melvin, I totally agree with you. I like all your comments and I really enjoyed the keynote as well as the session on AI in the cancer clinic chaired by Dr. Pearson. I think all these sessions were really informative. Discussions on the latest AI and machine learning, algorithms and technologies on digital pathology, LLMs and big data, as you said, really enables the attendees, especially clinicians like me, to gain a deep understanding of how AI can be translated to practical applications. Dr. Melvin Chua: Great. So, Dr. Siu, let's talk about some of the novel therapeutics that were featured at the meeting. Again, this was an important session for Breakthrough, and it's always been there. So could you share some highlights from the sessions on novel drug development from your perspective? Dr. Lillian Siu: Yes, indeed. Drug development is such an exciting aspect of this meeting. On Day 3 of the meeting, we had a keynote by Dr. Shimon Sakaguchi of Osaka University, who discussed "Targeting Regulatory T cells (Tregs) in Cancer: The Science, Trials, and Future." And he talked about T cells, especially Treg biology, the role of Tregs in immune regulation, new developments in Treg immuno-oncology drugs, and how we can actually target Tregs to treat early cancers, etc. This talk is particularly exciting because there are now anti CCR8 antibodies in the clinic that specifically target Tregs, and some early signals of anti-tumor activities are already being observed. Dr. Sakaguchi also emphasized the importance of combination sequence and timing of drugs for the successful use of cancer immunotherapeutic agents. I also want to emphasize the Education Session that followed, titled, "The Future of Immunotherapy, New Drugs and New Ideas." In that particular session, we heard about engineering T-cell immunity to eradicate tumors. We heard about CAR T-cell therapy in GI cancers, novel immunotherapeutic combinations, and T-cell engagers, which are bispecifics in cancer. While success with some of these immunotherapeutic modalities, such as cell therapies and T-cell engagers have been largely seen in hematological malignancies, we are beginning to observe efficacy signals in solid tumors. For example, the CAR T targeting Claudin18.2 in gastrointestinal cancers and the recently approved FDA-approved DLL3/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, tarlatamab, in small cell lung cancer are really exciting examples. We also heard from investigators who are exploring neoadjuvant therapies in the neoadjuvant therapy session, and the key takeaway from that session is that we have growing interest in using neoadjuvant therapy or perioperative therapy. In other words, neoadjuvant plus adjuvant therapy in different cancers. In the neoadjuvant session, there were updates provided by different experts on the roles of neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma, liver cancer, bladder cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer. Increasingly, there is randomized trial evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant therapy or perioperative immunotherapy in several cancer types with survival-based endpoints. Very exciting indeed. Dr. Melvin Chua: Indeed, I couldn't agree with you more. I think one of the things that went into designing the case-based discussions this year was that we wanted to talk about cancers that were relevant to this part of the world and hence we again showcased lung cancers, gastric cancers and melanomas, and whereby we have again perspectives from an expert from the West coupled to an expert from the East, thereby showcasing the diversity of practice around the world. The other thing that we did this year was we decided to pair the case-based discussions with the keynotes and the Education Sessions as well. For example, on Day 3, we had Dr. Sakaguchi speak on Tregs, as you mentioned. And this was followed by an in-depth session on new immunotherapies, and then followed by a case-based discussion on different melanoma cases on the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this disease, and the strikingly relevance of response to prognostication. This is an important trait that we're seeing now that seems to pan out across different cancers, where we find that neoadjuvant response to combination systemic therapies and/or radiotherapy is a strong prognosticator. Dr. Lillian Siu: So, Dr. Chua, we've discussed some breakthrough treatments and promising advances in cancer care, and we've touched upon some barriers to success in cancer treatment. I would like to ask you about the keynote address by Dr. Raffaella Casolino of the World Health Organization, who spoke passionately about efforts by the WHO and its partners to build equity in cancer care. Can you share some highlights with us? Dr. Melvin Chua: Absolutely, Dr. Siu. In spite of the tremendous advances we've seen in recent years in oncology, there are still major disparities in cancer care, such as cost and access, which affect patients worldwide. I think Dr. Casolino's talk was a very nice overview whereby she showed, first of all, the WHO's impact in terms of the WHO Cancer Resolution initiative that was implemented in 2017, where through this initiative, WHO has impacted 100 countries, invested $1 billion in funds, and that has led to millions of lives saved. But she then really drilled down to some of the key examples of the focus of the WHO in terms of equalizing care in cancer. I think one which struck me was the appreciation of the disparities in the clinical trials landscape. I think it is clear that there's still a huge barrier to clinical trials between the high- and middle-income countries and the low- and middle-income countries, and the majority of clinical trials these days are industry sponsored and we really need to look at leveling the playing field in this regard. Then she highlighted the WHO's work on trying to lower the barriers to precision oncology. And I think there are several issues in that sense, but I think what the WHO has really worked hard on is promoting education for genomic medicine, where they've done several reviews with experts around the world to educate the field across the world on how we interpret and apply genomics in the clinic. So all in all, it was very interesting to hear Dr. Casolino's insights from a policy perspective, and again, this emphasizes that there's so much work to be done at the end of the day and the dialogue needs to continue. We also heard about policy, academic and industry perspectives in the context of clinical trials, and that led to a discussion on real-world evidence generation for regulatory approvals. It was very nice that we had a session on that at the end of Breakthrough 2024 (Real-World Evidence and Clinical Trials: Beyond the Ivory Tower). And in that session, we heard from Dr. Shaalan Beg [of the NIH], and Dr. Janet Dancey [of Queen's University] who represented views from academia and Dr. Hidetoshi Hayashi [of Kindai University Hospital] shared perspectives on decentralized trials. I'd like to encourage our listeners to watch these sessions if they were unable to attend. The content is very rich, and I'm sure they'll learn from it. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much, Dr. Chua. Is there anything else you would like to cover before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Melvin Chua: Thank you, Dr. Siu. The thing I really want to emphasize is, apart from all these Educational Sessions and having very eminent keynote speakers, one of the key points that we really want to bring out for Breakthrough is to showcase the high-quality research. This year we had 300 abstracts submitted and they were all high quality, cutting across trials, omics research, AI and technology, and eventually we selected 235 of them and we were able to showcase some of them across three oral sessions over three days. I think this is an important component of Breakthrough that we really wish to continue building upon where people are now excited to use this forum to present their work. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much, Dr. Chua. I really enjoyed our discussions today. I look forward to seeing how the Breakthrough meeting will continue to grow in future years. Dr. Melvin Chua: Thank you again, Dr. Siu. Thank you for all your leadership and efforts in making Breakthrough a successful meeting series the past few years. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the session discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: @lillian_siu @DrMLChua
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Lillian Siu: Leadership (Immediate family member): Treadwell Therapeutics Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate family member): Agios Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Voronoi Inc., Oncorus, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Arvinas, Navire, Janpix, Relay Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Janssen, Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Shattuck Labs, Symphogen, Avid, Mirati Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Amgen Dr. Melvin Chua: Leadership, Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Digital Life Line Honoraria: Janssen Oncology, Varian Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ImmunoSCAPE, Telix Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, BeiGene Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen Research Funding: PVmed, Decipher Biosciences, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: High Sensitivity Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Detection of Analyte in Samples (10202107837T), Singapore. (Danny Jian Hang Tng, Chua Lee Kiang Melvin, Zhang Yong, Jenny Low, Ooi Eng Eong, Soo Khee Chee)
| |||
| How AI Can Improve Patient Identification and Recruitment for Clinical Trials | 15 Aug 2024 | 00:18:20 | |
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla discuss the potential of artificial intelligence to assist with patient recruitment and clinical trial matching using real-world data and next-generation sequencing results. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host for the podcast today. I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas and senior advisor for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute. On today's episode, we will be discussing the promise of artificial intelligence to improve patient recruitment in clinical trials and advanced clinical research. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, the medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in Philadelphia. He's also the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, an AI-driven platform that matches patients with clinical trials and novel therapies. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Arturo, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Thanks so much, Shaalan. It's great to be here and talking to you today. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So we're all familiar with the limitations and inefficiencies in patient recruitment for clinical trials, but there are exciting new technologies that are addressing these challenges. Your group developed a first-in-class, AI-enabled matching system that's designed to automate and expedite processes using real-world data and integrating next-generation sequencing results into the algorithm. You presented work at the ASCO Annual Meeting this year where you showed the benefits of AI and NGS in clinical trial matching and you reported about a twofold increase in potential patient eligibility for trials. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Absolutely. And this is just part of the work that we have seen over the last several years, trying to overcome challenges that are coming because of all these, as you mentioned, inefficiencies and limitations, particularly in the manual patient trial matching. This is very time consuming, as all of us know; many of those in the audience as well experience it on a daily basis, and it's resource intensive. It takes specialized folks who are able to understand the nuances in oncology, and it takes, on average, even for the most experienced research coordinator or principal investigator oncologist, 25 minutes per trial. Not only on top of that, but in compound there's a lack of comprehensive genomic testing, NGS, and that complicates the process in terms of inability to know what patients are eligible for, and it can delay also the process even further. So, to address those issues, we at Massive Bio are working with other institutions, and we're part of this … called the Precision Cancer Consortium, which is a combination of 7 of the top 20 top pharma companies in oncology, and we got them together. And let's say, okay, the only way to show something that is going to work at scale is people have to remove their silos and barriers and work as a collaborative approach. If we're going to be able to get folks tested more often and in more patients, assess for clinical trials, at least as an option, we need to understand further the data. And after a bunch of efforts that happened, and you're also seeing those efforts in CancerX and other things that we're working on together, but what we realize here is using an AI-enabled matching system to basically automate and expedite the process using what we call real-world data, which is basically data from patients that are actually currently being treated, and integrating any NGS results and comparing that to what we can potentially do manually. The idea was to do multi-trial matching, because if we do it for one study, yeah, it will be interesting, but it will not show the potential applicability in the real world. So with all that background, the tool itself, just to give you the punchline of it, was proven highly effective in terms of efficiency. We were able to increase the number of potential matches, and not only that, but reducing the time to the matching. So basically, instead of spending 25 minutes, it could be done in a matter of seconds. And when you compound all that across multiple clinical trials, in this case, it was several sponsors coming together, we were able to reduce the manual effort of seeing patients and testing for clinical trials to basically 1 hour when it would have otherwise taken a ridiculous amount of time. And it was quantified as 19,500 hours of manual work, compared to 1 hour done by the system to uniquely match a cohort of about 5,600 patients that came into the platform. And this was across 23 trials. Now imagine if we can do it for the 14,000 clinical trials currently in clinicaltrials.gov. So for us, this kind of was an eye-opening situation that if we can increase not only the efficiency but find even more trials by integrating comprehensive genomic testing, which in this case was a twofold increase in eligibility for clinical trials, that gives us not only the opportunity for optimized processes using AI but also a call to action that there is still a lot of under-genotyping. And I know American Cancer Society and ASCO and many others are working hard on getting that into fruition, but we need to have systems that remind us that certain patients are not tested yet and that can improve not only real patients, but the R&D and the process of innovation in the future. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, it's always an important reminder that even some of the highest impact IT solutions or AI solutions are most effective if they can be integrated into our normal clinical processes and into the normal workflow that we have in our clinics to help clinicians do their work quickly and more efficiently. Can you talk about how, over the last few years, the availability of NGS data in our electronic medical record (EMR) has evolved and whether that's evolving for the better? And what are some next steps in terms of making that data available at EMR so that such solutions can then pull that data out and do clinical trial matching? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes. So one of the things that we have seen over the last couple of years is because of the applicability of the 21st Century Cures Act, there is less "information blocking," which is patients not being able to access their information in real time. Now, with the appearance of health exchanges, with patient-centric approaches, which is something that many innovators, including ours, are trying to apply, it's really becoming more relevant. So it's not only helping us to find the patients when they really need to get tested, but also is giving us the opportunity to put those patients into the right treatment pathway when found. Something that's still a challenge and I think we can work by being more collaborative once again – is my dream – is having these pre-screening hubs where no matter where you are in your cancer journey, you just go into that funnel and then are able to see, "Okay, you are in the second-line setting for non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR-mutated. Now, do you have a meta amplification, then you go for this study or this trial. Oh, you haven't been tested yet. You should get tested. You're a pancreas cancer patient who is KRAS wild type; well, there is a significant chance that you may have a biomarker because that's where most patients are enriched for." So having that opportunity to at scale, just for the whole country, to get those patients access to that information, I think is crucial for the future of oncology. And I think you working at the NCI, more than most, know how the impact of that can help for those underrepresented patients to get more access to better treatment options and whatnot. And we can activate clinical trials as well in new models, decentralized models, adjusting time models, all those things can be leveraged by using biomarker testing in real time. Identification when the patient really needs a trial option or a medication option, because the data is telling us when to activate that in real time. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And identifying the patient for a potential clinical trial is one challenge. In oncology, given a lot of our trials, we are looking to enroll people at a specific time in their disease journey. So we call it first-line or second-line or third-line, becomes the next challenge. So just knowing someone has mutation number 1, 2, or 3 isn't enough to say they would be eligible for a second-line BRAF X, Y and Z mutation at a given trial. I've heard you talk a lot about this last-mile navigation for people once you've identified that they may be a soft match for a clinical trial. Can you talk about what you've seen in the ecosystem being developed on how AI is helping both clinics and patients navigate this last mile from the time they're identified for a clinical trial to the time they actually receive cycle 1, day 1? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yeah, absolutely. And that is such a critical point because, as you know, we have helped tons of patients getting trial options in thousands of cases. But even my own patients, I give them a report for trial options and they're like, "Okay, I still need help." And we have been talking with ASCO, with the American Cancer Society, and many other very good teams, and what we see as an opportunity in technology here is leveraging those cancer journeys to know when the patient really has the opportunity to enroll in a trial, because this is a very dynamic environment. Not only the patient's condition changes because their cancer progresses, the hemoglobin changes, the cancer moves from one place to the other, and there's nuances in between, but also new medications are coming up, studies open and close, sites open and close. So having this information as a hub, as what we call a command center, is the key to make this happen. And we can use the same tools that we use for Uber or for Instacart or whichever thing you want to do; it's already the same concept. When you need groceries, you don't need groceries every day. But Amazon gives you a ding that's like, "Well, I think you may be running out of milk," because they already know how often you buy it, or just having the data behind the scenes of how typically these, in this case, patient journeys, may manifest based on the biomarker. So let's say a smoldering multiple myeloma is not the same across. One patient with biomarkers that make them very high risk, the risk of progressing to a multiple myeloma, first-line treatment-eligible patient is going to be much different than someone who has better risk cytogenetics. So using that tool to optimize the cancer journeys of those patients and being able to notify them in real time of new trial options, and also knowing when the patient really has that disease progression so there's a time of activation for trial matching again, the same way you get a credit score for buying a house, then you know exactly what options are in front of you at that very moment. And that is the last-mile component, which is going to be key. What we have seen that we feel is important to invest on, and we have invested heavily on it, is that until the patient doesn't sign the consent form for the clinical trial, that patient is completely unknown to most people. The site doesn't know them because they haven't been there, and they may be there, but they don't know about the options sometimes. But no one's going to invest in getting that patient to the finish line. There's a lot of support for patients on trials, but not before they enroll on trials. And we feel that this is a big opportunity to really exponentially grow the chances of patients enrolling in trials if we support them all the way from the very time they get diagnosed with cancer in any setting. And we can help that patient on a very unique journey to find the trial options using technology. So it's very feasible. We see it once again in many other equally complex tasks, so why not do it in oncology when we have all the bonafides across wanting to do this. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Can you give examples of where you are seeing it done outside of oncology that's a model that one can replicate? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: I mean, oncology is the toughest use case to crack. You have experiences with DCTs in the past and all that. So the big opportunities are for patients, for example, in psychiatry, when they need certain counseling and help. We see that also in medical devices, when people have diabetes and they really need a device specifically for that unique situation, or also for patients with cardiovascular risk that they can in real time get access to novel therapeutics. And that's how they have been able to enroll so quickly. And all these GLP-1 inhibitors, all those models are really almost completely decentralized nowadays in something that we can extrapolate for oncology once we have aligned the ecosystem to make it see them. This is something that we can really revolutionize care while we manage all the complex variables that typically come with oncology uses. Dr. Shaalan Beg: I would imagine while you translate those learnings from outside of oncology into oncology, a lot of those processes will be human and AI combination activities. And as you learn more and more, the human component becomes a smaller fraction, and the technology and the AI becomes more of a component. Are you seeing a similar transition in the clinical trial matching space as well? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes. So that's why people say humans are going to be replaced. They're not. Patients still want to see a human face that they recognize, they trust. Even family members of mine want to hear from me, even if they are in the top place in the world. What we can change with technology are those things that are typically just friction points. In this case, information gathering, collecting records, getting the data structured in a way that we can use it for matching effectively, knowing in real time when the patient progresses, so we can really give them the chances of knowing what's available in real time. And collecting the information from all these other stakeholders. Like, is the site open? Is the budget approved for that place? Is the insurance allowing the specific … do they have e-consent? Those things can be fully automated because they're just burdensome. They're not helping anyone. And we can really make it decentralized for e-consent, for just getting a screening. They don't need to be screened at the site for something that they're going to receive standard of care. We can really change that, and that's something that we're seeing in the space that is changing, and hopefully we can translate it fully in oncology once we are getting the word out. And I think this is a good opportunity to do so. Dr. Shaalan Beg: You talked about your dream scenario for clinical trial matching. When you think about your dream scenario as a practicing oncologist, what are the AI tools that you are most excited about making their way into the clinic, either wishful thinking or practically? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: I typically get feedback from all over the place on doing this, and I also have my own thoughts. But I always come to this for a reason. We all became physicians and oncologists because we like being physicians. We like to talk to patients. We want to spend the time. I tell folks in my clinic, I will see a thousand patients all the time as long as I don't have to do notes, as long as I don't have to place orders. But of course, they will have to hire 1,000 people ancillary to do all the stuff that we do. If we can go back and spend all that time that we use on alert fatigue, on clicking, on gathering things, fighting insurance, and really helping align those incentives with clinical trials and biomarker testing and really making it a mankind or a humankind situation where we're all in this really together to solve the problem, which is cancer, that will be my dream come true. So I don't have to do anything that is clerical, that is not really helping me, but I want to use that AI to liberate me from that and also use the data that is generated for better insights. I think that I know my subject of expertise, but there's so many things happening all the time that it is hard to keep up, no matter how smart you are. If the tool can give me insights that I didn't even know, then leverage that as a CME or a board certification, that would be a dream come true. Of course, I'm just dreaming here, but it's feasible. Many of these ideas, as I mentioned, they're not new. The key thing is getting them done. The innovative part is getting stuff done, because I'm sure there's a gazillion people who have the same ideas as I did, but they just don't know whom to talk to or who is going to make it happen in reality. And that's my call to action to people: Let's work together and make this happen. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Well, Arturo, thanks a lot for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Well, thank you so much for the time and looking forward to having more exchanges and conversations and seeing everyone in the field. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find a link to the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Leadership: Massive Bio Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Massive Bio Consulting or Advisory Role: Massive Bio, Bayer, PSI, BrightInsight, Cardinal Health, Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Verily, Medscape Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health, Bayer, Amgen, Ipsen, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Natera
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune | |||
| ASCO24: Transforming the Lung Cancer Treatment Landscape | 21 Jun 2024 | 00:33:17 | |
Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss novel approaches and key studies in lung cancer that were showcased at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the Plenary abstracts LAURA and ADRIATIC.
TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm joined by Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center in Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we will be discussing practice-changing abstracts and the exciting advances in lung cancer that were featured at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode. Nate, we're delighted to have you back on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. It was an exciting Annual Meeting with a lot of important updates in lung cancer. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. I'm glad to be back. And yes, it was a huge year for lung. So I'm glad that we got a chance to discuss all of these late-breaking abstracts that we didn't get to talk about during the prelim podcast. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's dive in. Nate, it was wonderful to see all the exciting data, and one of the abstracts in the Plenary Session caught my attention, LBA3. In this study, the investigators did a comparative large-scale effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in-person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. And the study is very promising. Could you tell us a little bit more about the study and your take-home messages? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yes, I think this was a very important study. So just to put things in perspective, it's now been more than a decade since Dr. Jennifer Temel and her group at Massachusetts General Hospital did a randomized study that showed that early interventions with palliative medicine consultation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer significantly improves quality of life and in her initial study, perhaps even overall survival. And since then, there have been numerous studies that have basically reproduced this effect, showing that getting palliative medicine involved in people with advanced cancer, multiple different cancer types, really, has benefits. The difficulty in applying this has been that palliative care-trained specialists are few and far between, and many people simply don't have easy access to palliative medicine-trained physicians and providers. So with that in mind, Dr. Temel and her group designed a randomized study called the REACH PC trial, where 1,250 patients were randomized with advanced non-small cell lung cancer to either in-person palliative medicine visits which is sort of the standard, or one in-person assessment followed by monthly telemedicine video visits with palliative medicine. Primary endpoint was essentially to show that it was equivalent in terms of quality of life and patient satisfaction. And what was exciting about this was that it absolutely was. I mean, pretty much across the board in all the metrics that were measured, the quality-of-life, the patient satisfaction, the anxiety and depression scores, all were equivalent between doing telemedicine visits and in-person visits. And this hopefully will now extend the ability to get this kind of benefit to a much larger group of people who don't have to geographically be located near a palliative medicine program. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's a great abstract, Nate and I actually was very impressed by the ASCO committee for selecting this for the Plenary. We typically don't see supportive care studies highlighted in such a way at ASCO. This really highlights the need for true interdisciplinary care for our patients. And as you said, this study will clearly address that unmet need in terms of providing access to palliative care for a lot of patients who otherwise wouldn't have access. I'm really glad to see those results. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. And that really went along with Dr. Schuchter's theme this year of bringing care to patients incorporating supportive care. So I agree with you. Now, moving to some of the other exciting abstracts in the Plenary Session. So we were talking about how this was a big year for lung cancer. There were actually 3 lung cancer studies in the Plenary Session at the Annual Meeting. And let's move on to the second one, LBA4, the LAURA study. This was the first phase 3 study to assess osimertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR mutant, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. What are your takeaways from this study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: This is certainly an exciting study, and all of us in the lung community have been kind of eagerly awaiting the results of the study. As you know, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients who are unresectable, the standard of care has been really established by the PACIFIC study with the consolidation durvalumab after definitive concurrent chemoradiation. The problem with that study is it doesn't really answer the question of the role of immunotherapy in patients who are never-smokers, and especially in patients who are EGFR positive tumors, where the role of immunotherapy in a metastatic setting has always been questioned. And in fact, there have been several studies as you know, in patients with EGFR mutation positive metastatic lung cancer where immunotherapy has not been that effective. In fact, in the subgroup analysis in the PACIFIC study, patients with EGFR mutation did not really benefit from adding immunotherapy. So this is an interesting study where they looked at patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III patients and they randomized the patients 2:1 to osimertinib versus placebo following concurrent or sequential tumor radiation. The primary endpoint for the study was progression free survival, and a total of 216 patients were enrolled and 143 patients received a study treatment, which is osimertinib, and 73 received placebo. And 80% of the patients on the placebo arm crossed over to getting treatment at the time of progression. So most of us in the lung cancer community were kind of suspecting this would be a positive trial for PFS. But however, I think the magnitude of the difference was truly remarkable. The median PFS in the osimertinib arm was 39.1 months and placebo was 5.6 months and the hazard ratio of 0.16. So it was a pretty striking difference in terms of DFS benefit with the osimertinib consolidation following chemoradiation. So it was truly a positive study for the primary endpoint and the benefit was seen across all the subgroups and the safety was no unexpected safety signals other than a slight increase in the radiation pneumonitis rates in patients receiving osimertinib and other GI and skin tox were kind of as expected. In my opinion, it's truly practice changing and I think patients with EGFR mutation should not be getting immunotherapy consolidation post chemoradiation. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think that this really just continues the understanding of the use of osimertinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer in earlier stages of disease. We know from the ADAURA trial, presented twice in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, that for IB, stage II and resectable IIIA, that you prolong progression free or disease free survival. So this is a very similar, comparable situation, but at an even higher risk population or the unresectable stage III patients. I think that the most discussion about this was the fact that the osimertinib is indefinite and that it is distinct from the adjuvant setting where it's being given for three years and then stopped. But I think all of us had some pause when we saw that after three years, especially in the stage III patients from ADAURA, that there were clearly an increase in recurrences after stopping the drug, suggesting that there are patients who are not cured with a time limited treatment, or at least with 3 years of treatment. The other thing that is sobering from the study, and was pointed out by the discussant, Dr. Lecia Sequist, is if you look at the two-year disease-free survival in the placebo arm, it was only 13%, meaning almost no one was really cured with chemo radiation alone. And that really suggests that this is not that different from a very early stage IV population where indefinite treatment really is the standard of care. I wonder whether you think that's a reasonable approach. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree with you, Nate, and I don't think we cure a majority of our patients with stage III, and less so in patients who have EGFR-mutant, stage III locally advanced. As you just pointed out, I think very few patients actually make it that far along. And I think there's a very high rate of CNS micrometastatic disease or just systemic micrometastatic disease in this population that an effective systemic therapy of osimertinib can potentially have long term outcomes. But again, we perhaps don't cure a vast majority of them. I think that the next wave of studies should incorporate ctDNA and MRD-based assays to potentially identify those patients who could potentially go off osimertinib at some point. But, again, outside of a trial, I would not be doing that. But I think it's definitely an important question to ask to identify de-escalation strategies with osimertinib. And even immunotherapy for that matter, I think we all know that not all patients really require years and years of immunotherapy. They're still trying to figure out how to use immunotherapy in these post-surgical settings, using the MRD to de-escalate adjuvant therapies. So I think we have to have some sort of strategy here. But outside of a clinical trial, I will not be using those assays here to cite treatments, but certainly an important question to ask. Moving on to the other exciting late-breaking abstracts, LBA5, the ADRIATIC study. This is another study which was also in the plenary session. This study was designed to address this question of consolidation immunotherapy, post chemo radiation for limited-stage small cell cancer, the treatment arms being durvalumab tremelimumab, and durvalumab observation. So what do you think about the study? This study also received a lot of applause and a lot of attention at the ASCO meeting. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. It was remarkable to be there and actually watch this study as well as the LAURA study live, because when the disease free survival curves and in the ADRIATIC study, the overall survival curves were shown, the speakers were both interrupted by standing ovation of applause just because there was a recognition that the treatment was changing kind of before our eyes. I thought that was really neat. So in this case, I think this is truly a historic study, not necessarily because it's going to necessarily be an earth shakingly positive study. I mean, it was clearly a positive study, but more simply because of the disease in which it was done, and that is limited-stage small cell lung cancer. We really have not had a change in the way we've treated limited-stage small cell lung cancer, probably 25 years. Maybe the last significant advances in that were the advent of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation and then the use of PCI with a very modest improvement in survival. Both of those, I would say, are still relatively modest advances. In this case, the addition of immunotherapy, which we know helps patients with small cell lung cancer - it's of course the standard of care in combination chemotherapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer - in this case, patients who completed concurrent chemo radiation were then randomized to either placebo or durvalumab, as well as the third arm of durvalumab tremelimumab, which is not yet been recorded, and co primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. And extraordinarily, there was an improvement in overall survival seen at the first analysis, with a median overall survival of 55.9 months compared to 33.4 months, hazard ratio of 0.73. So highly clinically and statistically significant, that translates at three years to a difference in overall survival of 56.5%, compared to 47.6%, or almost 10% improvement in survival at three years. There was also a nearly identical improvement in progression-free survival, also with a hazard ratio of 0.76, suggesting that there's a modest number of patients who benefit. But it seems to be a clear improvement with the curves plateauing out. In my opinion, this is very comparable to what we saw with the PACIFIC study in stage III, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, which immediately changed practice back when that first was reported. And I expect that this will change practice pretty much immediately for small cell as well. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think it's an exciting advance in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. For sure, it's practice-changing, and I think the results were exciting. So one thing that really intrigued me was in the extensive-stage setting, the benefit was very mediocre with one-to-two month overall survival benefit in both the PACIFIC and in IMpower trial. Here we are seeing almost two-year of median OS benefit. I was kind of puzzled by that, and I thought it may have to do with patients receiving radiation. And we've seen that with the PACIFIC, and makes you wonder if both the CASPIAN and the IMpower studies actually did not allow consolidation thoracic radiation. Hypothetically, if they had allowed consolidation thoracic radiation, perhaps we would have seen better outcomes. Any thoughts on that? Dr. Nate Pennell: We've been trying to prove that radiation and immunotherapy somehow go together better for a long time. Going back to the first description of the abscopal effect, and I'm not sure if I necessarily believe that to be the case, but in this setting where we truly are trying to cure people rather than merely prolong their survival, maybe this is the situation where it truly is more beneficial. I think what we're seeing is something very similar to what we're seen in PACIFIC, where in the stage IV setting, some people have long term survival with immunotherapy, but it's relatively modest. But perhaps in the curative setting, you're seeing more of an impact. Certainly, looking at these curves, we'll have to see with another couple of years to follow up. But a three-year survival of 56% is pretty extraordinary, and I look forward to seeing if this really maintains over the next couple of years follow up. Moving beyond the Plenary, there were actually lots of really exciting presentations, even outside the Plenary section. One that I think probably got at least as much attention as the ones that we've already discussed today was actually an update of an old trial that's been presented for several prior years. And I'm curious to get your take on why you thought this was such a remarkable study. And we're talking about the LBA8503, which was the 5-year update from the CROWN study, which looked at previously untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small cell in cancer patients randomly assigned to lorlatinib, the third generation ALK inhibitor, versus crizotinib, the first generation ALK inhibitor. What was so exciting about this study, and why were people talking about it? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree, Nate. We've seen the data in the past, right? Like on the CROWN data, just first like a quick recap. This is the CROWN study, like the phase 3 study of third generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib. So global randomized phase 3 study in patients with metastatic disease randomized to lorlatinib versus crizotinib, which is a controller. So the primary endpoint was PFS, and we've seen the results in the past of the CROWN readout quoted, with a positive study and the lorlatinib received FDA approval in the frontline setting. But the current study that was presented at the ASCO annual meeting is a kind of a postdoc analysis of five years. The endpoint for the study with central review stopped at three years, and this is actually a follow up beyond that last readout. Interestingly, in this study, when they looked at the median PFS at five years, the lorlatinib arm did not reach a median PFS even at five years and the hazard ratio is 0.19, which is kind of phenomenal in some ways. At 5 years, the majority of the patients were still on the drug. So that's quite incredible. And the benefit was more profound in patients with brain mets with a hazard ratio of 0.08. And again, speaking to the importance of brain penetrant, small molecule inhibitors, and target therapy, the safety profile, there were no additional safety signals noted in the study. We kind of know about the side effects of lorlatinib already from previous studies readouts. No unusual long-term toxicities. I should note though, about 40% of patients did have CNS, AEs grade 1, 2 CNS toxicities on the lorlatinib arm. And the other interesting thing that was also reported in the trial was dose reduction of lorlatinib did not have an impact on the PFS, which is interesting in my opinion. They also did some subgroup analysis, biomarker testing, biomarker populations. Patients who had P53 cooperation did much better with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. So overall, the other thing that they also had shown on the trial was the resistance mechanisms that were seen with lorlatinib were very different than what we are used to seeing with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors. The majority of the patients who develop resistance have bypass mechanisms and alterations in MAP kinase pathway PI3K/MTOR/PTEN pathway, suggesting that lorlatinib is a very potent ALK inhibitor and on target ALK mutations don't happen as frequently as we see with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors. So I think this really begs the question, should we offer lorlatinib to all our patients with metastatic ALK-positive tumors? I think looking at the long-term data, it's quite tempting to say 'yes', but I think at the same time we have to take into consideration patient safety tolerability. And again, the competitor arm here is crizotinib. So lorlatinib suddenly seems to be, again, cross trial comparisons, but I think the long-term outcomes here are really phenomenal. But at the same time, I think we've got to kind of think about patient because these patients are on these drugs for years, they have to live with all the toxicities. And I think the patient preferences and safety profile matters in terms of what drug we recommend to patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think the right answer, is that this has to be an individual discussion with patients. The results are incredibly exciting. I mean, the two-year progression free survival was 70%, and the five-year, three years later is still 60%. Only 10% of people are failing over the subsequent three years. And the line is pretty flat. And as you said, even with brain metastases, the median survival is in reach. It's really extraordinary. Moreover, while we do talk about the significant toxicities of lorlatinib, I thought it was really interesting that only 5% of people were supposedly discontinued the drug because of treatment related AEs, which meant that with dose reduction and management, it seems as though most patients were able to continue on the drug, even though they, as you mentioned, were taking it for several years. That being said, all of us who've had experience with the second-generation drugs like alectinib and brigatinib, compared to the third-generation drug lorlatinib, can speak to the challenges of some of the unique toxicities that go along with it. I don't think this is going to be a drug for everyone, but I do think it is now worth bringing it up and discussing it with the patients most of the time now. And I do think that there will be many people for whom this is going to be a good choice, which is exciting. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, completely agree. And I think there are newer ALK inhibitors in clinical development which have cleaner and better safety profiles. So we'll have to kind of wait and see how those pan out. Moving on to the other exciting abstract, LBA8509, the KRYSTAL-12 study. LBA8509 is a phase 3 study looking at adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced metastatic non-small cell cancer with KRASG12C mutation. Nate, there's been a lot of hype around this trial. You've seen the data. Do you think it's practice-changing? How does it differentiate with the other drug that's already FDA approved, sotorasib? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this is an interesting one. I think we've all been very excited in recent years about the identification of KRASG12C mutations as targetable mutations. We know that this represents about half of KRAS mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and there are two FDA-approved drugs. Sotorasib was the first and adagrasib shortly thereafter. We already had seen the CodeBreaK 200 study, which was a phase 3 study of sotorasib versus docetaxel that did modestly prolong progression free survival compared to docetaxel, although did not seem to necessarily translate to an improvement in overall survival. And so now, coming on the heels of that study, the KRYSTAL-12 study compared adagrasib, also the KRASG12C inhibitor versus docetaxel and those with previously treated non-small cell with KRASG12C. And it did significantly improve progression free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. Although when you look at the median numbers, the median PFS was only 5.5 months with the adagrasib arm compared to 3.8 months with docetaxel. So while it is a significant and potentially clinically significant difference, it is still, I would say a modest improvement. And there were some pretty broad improvements across all the different subgroups, including those with brain metastases. It did improve response rate significantly. So 32% response rate without adagrasib, compared to only 9% with docetaxel. It's about what you would expect with chemotherapy. And very importantly, in this patient population, there was activity in the brain with an intracranial overall response rate among those who had measurable brain metastases of 40%. So certainly important and probably that would distinguish it from drugs like docetaxel, which we don't expect to have a lot of intracranial toxicity. There is certainly a pattern of side effects that go along with that adagrasib, so it does cause especially GI toxicity, like diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, transaminitis. All of these were actually, at least numerically, somewhat higher in the adagrasib arm than in docetaxel, a lot more hematologic toxicity with the docetaxel. But overall, the number of serious adverse events were actually pretty well matched between the two groups. So it wasn't really a home run in terms of favorable toxicity with that adagrasib. So the question is: "In the absence of any data yet on overall survival, should this change practice?" And I'm not sure it's going to change practice, because I do think that based on the accelerated approval, most physicians are already offering the G12C inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, probably more often than chemotherapy, I think based on perceived improvement in side effects and higher response rates, modestly longer progression-free survival, so I think most people think that represents a modest improvement over chemotherapy. And so I think that will continue. It will be very interesting, however, when the overall survival report is out, if it is not significantly better, what the FDA is going to do when they look at these drugs. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks so much. Very well summarized. And I do agree they look more similar than dissimilar. I think CodeBreaK-200 and the KRYSTAL-12, they kind of are very identical. I should say, though I was a little surprised with the toxicity profile of adagrasib. It seemed, I mean, not significantly, but definitely seemed worse than the earlier readouts that we've seen. The GI tox especially seems much worse on this trial. I'm kind of curious why, but if I recall correctly, I think 5% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea. A significant proportion of patients had grade 3 nausea and vomiting. And the other complicating thing here is you can't use a lot of the antiemetics because of the QT issues. So that's another problem. But I think it's more comparable to sotorasib, in my opinion. Dr. Nate Pennell: While this is exciting, I like to think of this as the early days of EGFR, when we were using gefitinib and erlotinib. They were certainly advances, but we now have drugs that are much more effective and long lasting in these patients. And I think that the first-generation inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, while they certainly benefit patients, now is just the beginning. There's a lot of research going on, and we're not going to talk about some of the other abstracts presented, but some of the next generation G12C inhibitors, for example, olomorasib, which did have also in the same session, a presentation in combination with pembrolizumab that had a very impressive response rate with potentially fewer side effects, may end up replacing the first generation drugs when they get a little bit farther along. And then moving on to another one, which I think potentially could change practice. I am curious to hear your take on it, was the LBA8505, which was the PALOMA-3 study. This was interesting in that it compared two different versions of the same drug. So amivantamab, the bispecific, EGFR and MET, which is already approved for EGFR exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer, in this case, in more typical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in combination with osimertinib with the intravenous amivantamab, compared to the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab. Why would this be an important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I found this study really interesting as well, Nate. And as you know, amivantamab has been FDA approved for patients with exon 20 mutation. And also, we've had, like two positive readouts in patients with classical EGFR mutations. One, the MARIPOSA study in the frontline setting and the MARIPOSA-2, in the second-line post osimertinib setting. For those studies, the intravenous amivantamab was used as a treatment arm, and the intravenous amivantamab had a lot of baggage to go along with it, like the infusion reactions and VTEs and other classic EGFR related toxicity, skin toxicities. So the idea behind developing the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab was mainly to reduce the burden of infusion, infusion time and most importantly, the infusion related reactions associated with IV formulation. In a smaller phase 2 study, the PALOMA study, they had looked at various dosing schemas like, subcutaneous formulation, and they found that the infusion related reactions were very, very low with the subcutaneous formulation. So that led to the design of this current study that was presented, the PALOMA-3 study. This was for patients who had classical EGFR mutations like exon 19, L858R. The patients were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous amivantamab with lazertinib versus IV amivantamab plus lazertinib. The endpoints for the study, it's a non-inferiority study with co primary endpoints of C trough and C2 AUC, Cycle 2 AUC. They were looking at those pharmacological endpoints to kind of demonstrate comparability to the IV formulation. So in this study, they looked at these pharmacokinetic endpoints and they were essentially identical. Both subcutaneous and IV formulations were compatible. And in terms of clinical efficacy as well, the response rate was identical, no significant differences. Duration of response was also identical. The PFS also was comparable to the IV formulation. In fact, numerically, the subcutaneous arm was a little better, though not significant. But it appears like, you know, the overall clinical and pharmacological profile of the subcutaneous amivantamab was comparable. And most interestingly, the AE profile, the skin toxicity was not much different. However, the infusion reactions were substantially lower, 13% with the subcutaneous amivantamab and 66% with IV amivantamab. And also, interestingly, the VTE rates were lower with the subcutaneous version of amivantamab. There was still a substantial proportion of patients, especially those who didn't have prophylactic anticoagulation. 17% of the patients with the subcutaneous amivantamab had VTE versus 26% with IV amivantamab. With prophylaxis, which is lower in both IV and subcutaneous, but still subcutaneous formulation at a lower 7% versus 12% with the IV amivantamab. So overall, I think this is an interesting study, and also the authors had actually presented some interesting data on administration time. I've never seen this before. Patients reported convenience using a modified score of patient convenience, essentially like patients having to spend a lot of time in the infusion site and convenience of the patient getting the treatment. And it turns out, and no surprise, that subcutaneous amivantamab was found to be more convenient for patients. So, Nate, I want to ask you your take on this. In a lot of our busy infusion centers, the time it takes for those patients to get the infusion does matter, right? And I think in our clinic where we are kind of fully booked for the infusion, I think having the patients come in and leave in 15, 20 minutes, I think it adds a lot of value to the cancer center operation. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, I completely agree. I think the efficacy results were reassuring. I think the infusion related reaction difference, I think is a huge difference. I mean, I have given a fair amount of amivantamab, and I would say the published IRR rate of 66%, 67% I would say, is maybe even underestimates how many patients get some kind of reaction from that, although it really is a first dose phenomenon. And I think that taking that down to 13% is a tremendous advance. I think fusion share time is not trivial as we get busier and busier. I know our cancer center is also very full and it becomes challenging to schedule people, and being able to do a five-minute treatment versus a five-hour treatment makes a big difference for patients. It's interesting, there was one slide that was presented from an efficacy standpoint. I'm curious about your take on this. They showed that the overall survival was actually better in the subcu amivantamab arm, hazard ratio of 0.62. Now, this was only an exploratory endpoint. They sort of talk about perhaps some rationale for why this might be the case. But at the very least, I think we can be reassured that it's not less effective to give it and does seem to be more tolerable and so I would expect that this hopefully will be fairly widely adopted. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. I think this is a welcome change. Like, I think the infusion reactions and the resources it takes to get patients through treatments. I think it's definitely a win-win for patients and also the providers. And with that, we come to the conclusion of the podcast. Nate, thank you so much for the fantastic insights today. Our listeners will find all the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of the episode. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Pennell. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thanks for inviting me. It's always fun to talk about all these exciting advances for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline Dr. Nathan Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi | |||
| ESOPEC and Other Key GI Studies at ASCO24 | 20 Jun 2024 | 00:17:39 | |
Dr. Shaalan Beg highlights practice-changing studies in GI cancers featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the ESOPEC trial in esophageal adenocarcinoma and durable responses to PD-1 blockade alone in mismatch repair-deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. TRANSCRIPT Geraldine Carroll: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. My guest today is Dr. Shaalan Beg, an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Beg will be discussing practice- changing abstracts and other key advances in GI oncology that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. His full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Beg, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you for having me. Geraldine Carroll: Let's begin with LBA1, the ESOPEC trial. This was featured in the Plenary Session, and this study compared two treatment strategies for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma that could be treated with surgery. The strategies include the CROSS protocol, which consisted of chemoradiotherapy before surgery, and the FLOT protocol of chemotherapy before and after surgery. Can you tell us about this practice-changing study, Dr. Beg? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yes. According to this study, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT was better than neoadjuvant therapy with chemoradiation and carbo-taxol for people with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. There were 438 patients enrolled on this phase 3 study. R0 resection rates were fairly similar across both groups. The PCR rates were a little higher on the FLOT group. But when you look at the median overall survival difference, 66 months in the FLOT group versus 37 months in the CROSS group, 3-year survival was 57% versus 50% favoring FLOT therapy as well. So a couple of caveats on this clinical trial, because the first thing to note is that the standard treatment for this disease has evolved because we now don't only give CROSS chemoradiation, we also give immunotherapy after the completion of chemoradiation for this group of patients. And in this study, since it predated that standard of care, patients did not receive immunotherapy. But having said that, the take home for me here is that chemotherapy is better than chemoradiation for this group of patients, recognizing the fact that 1) they only enrolled adenocarcinoma patients, and 2) patients with high T stage were not included. So the folks with high T stage would be those who we would expect would benefit from the radiation aspect. So my take home here is that more chemotherapy is better in the perioperative space. Radiation should be considered for individuals who need more local control. But in general, I think we're going to see us moving more towards chemotherapy-based regimens with FLOT for this group of patients. Geraldine Carroll: Great. So moving on to rectal cancer, in LBA3512, investigators reported durable, complete responses to PD-1 blockade alone in mismatch repair deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. Can you tell us more about the promising durable responses that occurred in this trial? Dr. Shaalan Beg: On first glance, seeing that immunotherapy has good activity in patients with mismatched repair deficient rectal cancer isn't really headline breaking news anymore. We've known about this activity for this group of patients for many years. Earlier at ASCO, the investigators presented early results of this compound for people receiving six months of dostarlimab therapy for people with mismatched repair deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer, and showed that they had a very high complete response rate. At that time, it generated a lot of interest and there was a lot of curiosity on whether these outcomes will be sustained. We don't know other characteristics of their biologic status and whether this was some sort of reflection of the patients who are selected or not. So here in this presentation at ASCO 2024, they did come back to present follow-up data for people with mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, having received 6 months of dostarlimab. Forty-seven patients had been enrolled, and the 41 patients who had achieved a clinical complete response continued to have disease control with no distant metastases. So that's very compelling information. There were no additional serious adverse events greater than grade 2 that they saw, and they did follow circulating tumor DNA, and those did normalize even before they had their colonoscopy to examine their tumors. So, again, we're continuing to see very encouraging data of immunotherapy, and the response rate with dostarlimab seems to be very interesting for this disease, and it will be interesting to see how this pans out in larger studies and how this translates into the use of dostarlimab across other diseases where other checkpoint inhibitors are currently being used. Geraldine Carroll: Absolutely. So, moving on to LBA3501. The COLLISION trial looked at surgery versus thermal ablation for small cell colorectal liver metastases. This was an international, multicenter, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial. How will this study change clinical practice? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Kudos to the investigators here. They looked to understand the difference in outcome in treating people with colorectal cancer with liver only metastases. These clinical trials are extremely difficult to design. They're very difficult to enroll on because of the multidisciplinary aspect of the interventions and patient and provider biases as well. So on this clinical trial, the investigators enrolled people with resectable colorectal cancer, liver metastases so they did not have any metastases outside the liver. Patients were required to have 10 or less known metastases that were less than 3 cm in size. There were other allowances for larger tumors as well. And after an expert panel review, patients were randomized to either resection or ablation. It was up to the physicians whether they performed these laparoscopically or openly or percutaneously, depending on the biology of the patient and the anatomical presentation. There was a predefined stopping rule at the half-time for this clinical trial, which showed a benefit in the experimental arm of ablation compared to standard of care. The overall survival was not compromised. Progression-free survival was not compromised with local therapy. But there were differences in morbidity and mortality, as we would expect, one being a surgical procedure and the other being ablation, where, according to this study, of the 140 or so patients who received either treatment, 2.1% of people who underwent resection died within 90 days of surgery. The AE rate was 56% in the resection sample compared to 19% in ablation, and the 90-day mortality for ablation was 0.7%. So less morbidity, improved mortality, reduced adverse events with ablation versus surgical resection without compromising local control and overall survival. And I think for practice here in the United States, this does provide very interesting data for us to take back to the clinic for lesions that are relatively small and could generally be addressed by both surgery and ablation. Historically, there are various non biologic factors that could go into deciding whether someone should have surgery or ablation, and it could be based on who the physician is, who's seeing the patient, what the practice patterns in a specific organization are, and where their expertise lie. But here we're seeing that ablation for the small lesions is a very effective tool with very good local control rates, and again, in this selected group of patients with liver only metastases. And I think it is going to make tumor board discussions very interesting with data backing ablation for these lesions. Geraldine Carroll: Well, let's move onto the MOUNTAINER study. This study created some buzz in the colorectal cancer space. That's Abstract 3509. Can you tell us about the final results of this phase 2 study of tucatinib and trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic CRC? What are your thoughts on this treatment option, which seems to be well tolerated? Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, HER2 overexpression or amplification occurs in about 3 to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and up to 10% of people who have a RAS/RAF wild type disease. On the previous episodes of the podcast we have covered precision targeted therapy in colorectal cancer, focusing on c-MET, focusing on BRAF, and here we have updated results targeting HER2 for colorectal cancer. And the results of the MOUNTAINEER study have been out for a while. This is a phase 2 study looking at combining tucatinib which is a highly selective HER2 directed TKI with trastuzumab, the monoclonal antibody for HER2 targeting. And what they found on this study is the confirmed overall response rate was 38%. Duration of response was 12 months, overall survival was 24 months and these are the results that have been already released and now we have an additional 16 months of follow up and these results continue to hold on. PFS and overall survival gains were held, which makes it a very interesting option for people with colorectal cancer. You mentioned the tolerability aspect and side effects. I think it's important to know the spectrum of side effects for this disease may be a little different than other TKIs. There's hypertension, but there's also the risk of diarrhea, back pain and pyrexia, with the most common grade 3 treatment related adverse event was an increase in AST level seen in 10% of people of grade 3 and above. So where does that really leave us? There is a confirmatory randomized first-line trial of tucatinib and trastuzumab in the first line setting, which is currently ongoing. So we'll stay tuned to see where that leads us. And with the HER2 space right now for colorectal cancer with the development of antibody drug conjugates, we may have more than one option for this group of patients once those trials read out. Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, moving on to LBA4008, that's the CheckMate-9DW trial. This trial reported first results looking at nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Can you tell us about this trial? Will there be a potential new standard of care in advanced HCC? Dr. Shaalan Beg: When we think about patients with advanced HCC, the only treatment option that they had for about a decade and a half were just oral track tyrosine kinase inhibitors that had modest to moderate clinical activity. Since then, we've seen that combination therapy is better than TKI therapy, and the combination therapy has taken two different forms. One is a combination of checkpoint inhibitor and antiangiogenic therapy, such as in the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. The other is a combination of dual checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Here we are talking about the results of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Previously, we've talked about the combination of durva and tremi for the treatment of patients with HCC. So in this study, nivo was given for the first 4 cycles, nivo and ipi were given together, nivo 1 mg per kg, and IPI 3 mgs per kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. And then the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab was stopped. And this was followed by monotherapy nivolumab every 4 weeks until disease progression or up to 2 years. And it was compared to dealers' choice, lenvatinib or sorafenib. The median overall survival of nivo-ipi was 23 months versus 20 months with lenvatinib-sorafenib. The 24-month overall survival was 49% with ipi-nivo versus 39%. And the overall response rate with nivo-ipi was 36% compared to 13%. So again, significantly improved clinical activity. And when we talk about immunotherapy combinations, the question that comes to mind is how well is this tolerated? There's a lot of work and iteration that took place in figuring out what the right combination strategy of ipi and nivo should be, because some of the earlier studies did demonstrate fairly high adverse events in this group of patients. So on this study, we saw that grade 3 or 4 treatment related adverse events were seen in 41% of people who received nivo-ipi and 42% if they received lenvatinib or sorafenib. So, certainly a high proportion of treatment related adverse events, but probably also reflective of the disease population, which is being tested, because those numbers were fairly similar in the control arm as well. So we've known that nivo-ipi is active in HCC. There is an approval in the second-line space, so it remains to be seen if this data helps propel nivo-ipi to the first-line space so we end up with another combination regimen for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, before we wrap up the podcast, I'd like to ask you about LBA3511. In this study, investigators looked at total neoadjuvant treatment with long course radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in local advanced rectal cancer with high risk factors. So this was a multicenter, randomized, open label, phase 3 trial. What are your key takeaways here? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Key takeaway here is that total neoadjuvant therapy was better than the conventional chemoradiation followed by chemo. So this clinical trial enrolled people with T4a/b resectable disease with clinical N2 stage, and they were randomized, as you mentioned, to receiving chemoradiation with radiation capecitabine followed by surgery, and then CAPOX or capecitabine versus chemo, short-course radiation, and additional chemotherapy followed by surgery. And when we compare both arms, the total neoadjuvant therapy led to improved disease-free survival, improved PCR rates compared to standard concurrent neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy in this group of patients. The two arms were fairly well-balanced. The number of T4 lesions was a little higher in the chemoradiation group. There were 49% in the chemo radiation group versus 46% had clinically T4 disease, but the nodal status was fairly similar. We should keep in mind that the other baseline characteristics were fairly well balanced. And when we look at the outcomes, the disease-free survival probability at 36 months was 76% in the total neoadjuvant group compared to 67% with chemoradiation. And the metastasis free survival in total neoadjuvant therapy was 81% versus 73%. So a fairly compelling difference between the two arms, which did translate into an overall survival of 89% versus 88% in the two groups. So definitely higher disease-free survival and metastasis free survival, no difference on the overall survival with these groups. And it talks about the importance of intensifying chemotherapy upfront in this group of patients who can have a fairly high burden of disease and may struggle with receiving chemotherapy postoperatively. Geraldine Carroll: Excellent. Well, thank you, Dr. Beg, for sharing your fantastic insights with us on these key studies from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. It's certainly a very exciting time in GI oncology. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing these studies out, because I think a lot of these are practice-changing and can start impacting the clinical care that we're giving our patients right now. Geraldine Carroll: Thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune | |||
| Immunotherapy at ASCO24: NADINA and Other Key Studies | 19 Jun 2024 | 00:34:51 | |
Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss advances in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy space that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including promising outcomes in high-risk melanoma from the NADINA trial, as well as other new treatment options for patients with advanced cancers.
TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I am an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I am delighted to have my colleague and friend Dr. Jason Luke on the podcast today to discuss key late-breaking abstracts and advances in immunotherapy that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the associate director of clinical research, and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Jason, it's always a pleasure to hear your insights on the key trials in these spaces and to have you back as a guest on this podcast that highlights some of the work, especially advances, that were just presented. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks very much for the invitation. I always love joining the podcast. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We'll start very quickly by talking about some advances and really interesting things that happened both in the context of melanoma but also in immunotherapy in general. And we'll start with what I think was certainly one highlight for me, which was LBA2, the late-breaking abstract on the NADINA trial. It was featured in the Plenary Session, and in this abstract, Dr. Christian Blank and colleagues reported on the results of this phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant ipi-nivo. This is the flipped dose of ipi1/nivo3 versus adjuvant nivolumab in PD-1 naive, macroscopic, resectable, high-risk stage 3 melanoma. By way of background, neoadjuvant immunotherapy for those listening is an area of increasing interest for drug developers and development for both approved and novel agents. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been studied with multiple approved agents, including PD-1 monotherapy, PD-1 LAG-3, PD-1 CTLA-4, T-VEC, as well as investigational agents and multiple randomized and non-randomized studies. The benchmark pathologic response rates with these agents range from 17% PCR with PD-1 monotherapy, 45% to 55% PCR with PD-1 CTLA-4 combination therapy, and slightly higher 57% PCR with PD-1 LAG-3 has recently reported by Dr. Rodabe Amaria from MD Anderson. However, as we embark on phase 3 comparisons for various neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant immunotherapy trials and combinations, we're increasingly moving towards event-free survival as the primary endpoint for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant studies. And this was most recently studied in the context of SWOG S1801, a study that was led by Dr. Sapna Patel. So, Jason, before we start on NADINA, can you briefly summarize the SWOG S1801 trial and the event-free survival statistic reported by Dr. Patel and her colleagues? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, absolutely. And these data were reported at ESMO about two years ago and then in the New England Journal last year. The S1801 study answered a very simple question: What would happen if you took three of the doses of standard adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab and moved them prior to surgery? And on a high level, the study is as simple as that. And many of us were somewhat skeptical of this trial design because we thought that just moving the doses earlier may not actually have a major impact. In the study, you alluded to the event-free survival statistic, and that alludes to what was considered an event. And so, without reading all of it, there were several different aspects that were included in terms of time, based on the date of randomization until the first of a series of events, such as disease progression, toxicity from treatment, if the patient was unable to go to surgery or had surgical complications, or if they had delay in starting the adjuvant therapy due to toxicity, and obviously, recurrence of melanoma or death from any cause. In that context, merely moving the 3 doses of pembrolizumab to the neoadjuvant setting saw an improvement in this two-year event free survival to 72% for the neoadjuvant therapy compared to 49% for the adjuvant therapy. That was quite an outstanding change. And again, noting the power of neoadjuvant treatment, really dictating the impact of anti PD-1, again, just with 3 doses moving from adjuvant into the neoadjuvant setting, and I think all of us were somewhat surprised to see that magnitude of a benefit. But it set up the current study very well, where we now look at combination therapy. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's move on to the phase 3 NADINA trial. Do you want to perhaps discuss the study design, particularly focusing on the EFS primary endpoint and maybe also touching on the different schedules? So, SWOG S1801 was a neoadjuvant study of 3 cycles of pembrolizumab and how did that compare and contrast to the neoadjuvant combination that was studied in NADINA? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, as you alluded to, NADINA investigated the regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and compared that against adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone. So, in the study, as you alluded, the dose and schedule of the two drugs used was nivolumab at 3 milligrams per kilogram, and ipilimumab with 1 milligram per kilogram. That was based on a series of signal finding and safety studies that had been previously done by the same group of authors identifying that as the optimal treatment regimen. And it's worth noting that's slightly different than the labeled indication that's generally used for those same drugs for metastatic melanoma, albeit that the NCCN also endorses this schedule. So, in the trial, 423 patients were randomized, 1:1 to receive either neoadjuvant therapy with those 2 doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with standard adjuvant therapy with nivolumab following surgery. Now, one interesting tweak was that there was an adaptive nature to the study, meaning that patients had a fiducial placed at the index lymph node, and after the neoadjuvant therapy in that arm, that lymph node was removed. And if the patient had a major pathological response, they did not go on to receive the adjuvant portion of the treatment. So it was adaptive because those patients who did very well to the neoadjuvant did not require the adjuvant portion. And in those patients who did not achieve a major pathological response, they could go on to have the adjuvant therapy. And that also included the BRAF therapy for those whose tumors were BRAF mutants. It's also worth pointing out that the definition of event free survival was slightly different than in the S1801 study that was alluded to just a second ago. And here, EFS was defined from the date of randomization until progression due to melanoma or due to treatment. So that's slightly different than the definition in the S1801 trial. So, a somewhat complicated study, but I really applaud the authors because I think this study does mirror what we would likely be doing in actual clinical practice. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, just to briefly summarize the efficacy, and then to get your comments on this, the path response, the PCR rate was 47%. The major pathologic response rate, which is the proportion of patients with between 0% to 1/10% of residual viable tumors, was about 12%. And for a major pathologic response rate of 0% to 10% of 59%. And then the rest of the patients had either pathologic partial response, which was 10% to 50%, or pathologic non response or 50% or greater residual viable tumor, all assessed using central pathology grades. The one year RFS was 95% in the FDR patient population versus 76% in the pathologic partial response patient population, 57% in the pathologic non response patient population. So how do you view these results? Can you context the FDR rates and the EFS rates from NADINA relative to nivo-rela and also potentially SWOG 1801? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think these are very exciting results. I think that for those of us that have been following the field closely, they're actually not especially surprising because they mirror several studies that have come before them. When we put them in context with other studies, we see that these rates of major pathological response are consistent with what we've seen in phase 2 studies. They're relatively similar. Or I should say that the results from nivolumab and relatlimab, which was also pursued in a phase 2 study of somewhat similar design, are somewhat similar to this. So, combination immunotherapy does look to deliver a higher major pathological response than pembrolizumab alone, as was known in S1801. Which of course, the caveat being is these are cross control comparisons that we need to be careful about. So I think all of these are active regimens, and I think adding a second agent does appear to enhance the major pathologic response rates. When we look at the event free survival, we see something similar, which is that numerically it looks to be that combination immunotherapy delivers a higher event free survival rate. And that looks to be rather meaningful given the difference in the hazard ratios that were observed between these various studies. And here in the NADINA study, we see that 0.3 hazard ratio for EFS is just extremely impressive. So the abstract then, from ourselves, out of these specific studies, what does this mean more broadly in the real world, where patients exist and the rest of the landscape for clinical trials? I think we can't take enough time to stop for a second and just think about what a revolution we've come forward in with immune checkpoint blockade and melanoma. When I started my career, now, more than 15 years ago, melanoma was the cancer that made cancer bad. And now here we say, in the highest risk of perioperative patients, we can deliver 2 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and essentially half of the patients then don't need to go on, and more than half the patients don't need to go on to have a full surgery and don't need adjuvant therapy. And from what we could tell of a very, very low risk of every heavy recurrence of melanoma. Of course, there's the other half of patients where we still need to do better, but these are just fantastic results and I think highly meaningful for patients. In the context of ongoing clinical trials, another abstract that was presented during the meeting was the update to the individualized neoantigen therapy, or V940 with pembrolizumab or against pembrolizumab alone. That's the KEYNOTE-942 study. In that study, they presented updated data at two and a half years for relapse free survival, noting a 75% rate without relapse. So those results are also highly intriguing. And these are in a similar population of very high risk patients. And so I think most of us believe that neoadjuvant therapy with this study in NADINA is now confirmed as the priority approach for patients who present with high-risk stage 3 disease. So that would be bulky disease picked up on a scan or palpable in a clinic. I think essentially all of us now believe patients should get preoperative immunotherapy. We can debate which approach to take, and it may vary by an individual patient's ability to tolerate toxicity, because, of course, multi agent immunotherapy does have increased toxicity relative to anti PD-1 alone. But we'll have to wait now for the full phase 3 results from the V940 individualized neoantigen therapy. And if those come forward, that will be an extremely attractive approach to think about for patients who did not achieve a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy, as well as of course to the other populations of patients with melanoma where we otherwise currently give adjuvant therapy stage 2B all the way through stage 4 resected. It's an amazing time to think about perioperative therapy in melanoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So this is clearly outstanding data, outstanding news. Congratulations to the investigators for really doing what is an investigative initiated trial conducted across multiple continents with a huge sample size. So this clearly appears to be, at this point in time at least, a de facto standard. But is this going to be FDA-approved, guideline-approved, or is it possible in your mind? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, that's an interesting question. This study was not designed with the intent to necessarily try to register this treatment regimen with the FDA. One would have to take a step back and say, with how powerful these data appear, it sort of seemed like it would be too bad if that doesn't happen. But all the same, I think the community and those of us who participate in guideline recommendations are fully supportive of this. So, I think we will see this move into compendium listings that support insurance approval, I think, very, very quickly. So, whether or not this actually becomes formally FDA approved or is in the guidelines, I think this should become the standard approach that is considered for patients, again presenting with high-risk stage 3 disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So now we're going to go in and talk about a slightly different drug, but also from the melanoma context, and that is the safety and efficacy of RP1 with nivolumab in the context of patients with melanoma who are PD-1 failures. So, this is Abstract 9517. And in this abstract, our academic colleagues essentially talked about these data, and we'll start by describing what RP1 is. RP1 essentially is a HSV-1 based oncolytic immunotherapy. And RP1 expresses GM-CSF as well as a fusogenic protein, GALV-GP-R-. And in this abstract, Dr. Michael Wong from MD Anderson and colleagues are reporting the results of IGNYTE, which is a phase I trial of intratumoral RP1 co-administered with systemic nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic treatment refractory cutaneous melanoma. And the data presented in this abstract represents data from a registration directed, abbreviated as RD, registration directed cohort of RP1 plus nivolumab in PD-1 refractory melanoma. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So, in this study, there were a total of 156 patients who were presented, and that included an initial safety and dose finding group of 16, as well as the RD cohort, as you noted, of 140 patients. And it's important to point out that this was a cohort that was selected for a very strict definition of progression on anti PD-1, or a combination immunotherapy as their immediately prior treatment. So, all of the patients in the cohort had exposure to anti PD-1, and 46% of them had anti PD-1 plus anti CTLA4, nivolumab and ipilimumab as their immediately prior therapy. This was also a group of relatively high-risk patients when one considers stage. So, within the stage 4 population, the entry here included 51% who had stage M1B, C, and D melanoma. And that is worth pointing out because this is an injectable therapy. So, trials like this in the past have tended to be biased towards earlier stage, unresectable or metastatic melanoma, meaning stage 3B, 3C, 3D and then stage 4m1a. Again, to emphasize the point here, these were pretreated patients who had a strict definition of anti PD-1 resistance, and over half of them, in fact, had high-risk visceral metastatic disease. In that context, it's very interesting to observe that the overall response rate was described in the total population, as 31%, and that included 12% who achieved complete response. And so, again, to make sure it's clear, we're talking about a treatment where the oncolytic virus is injected into one or multiple sites of recurrent disease, and then the patients administer nivolumab as per standard. And so, I think these data are quite intriguing. Again, such a high- risk population and their maturity now, with a follow-up of over a year, I think, makes this look to be a very interesting treatment option. Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess on that topic of mature follow-up, it probably would be important for us to inform our audience that the top line data for the primary analysis was actually just released, I think, earlier today, and wherein the central confirmed objective response rate was 34% by modified RECIST and 33% by RECIST, clearly indicating that these responses, as you noted, very treatment refractory patient population, these responses were clearly very durable. So, you mentioned that there were responses seen in uninjected visceral lesions, responses seen in both PD-1 and PD-1 CTLA-4 refractory patients. Can you talk a little bit about the response rate in these high-risk subgroups, the uninjected visceral lesions, the patients who had both combination checkpoint and epidural refractory response rate by primary PD-1 resistance. Dr. Jason Luke: Sure. You know, I think, again, to emphasize this point in the study, we saw that there were responses in the non-injected lesions, and I think it's really important to emphasize that. Some have referred to this as a putative abscopal like effect, similar to what is described in radiation. But it implies that local treatment with the oncolytic virus is triggering a systemic immune response. In the higher risk patient population, we'll note that whereas the overall response rate in PD-1 refractory patients was 34%, in the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 refractory patients, the response rate was 26%. So, [this is] still very good. And when we looked at that split by stage, as I alluded to before, in the population of patients that had, what you might call earlier unresectable diseases, so 3B through 4A, the response rate was 38%, and in the stage 4 M1b through M1d, it was 25%. So slightly lower, but still very good. And that would be as expected, because, of course, the patients with visceral metastatic disease have more advanced disease, but those response rates look quite good. Again, looking at the combination refractory population as well as the more high-risk disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, clearly, these are very promising data and exciting times for multiple investigators in the field and the company, Replimune, as well. So, what are the next steps? I believe that a registration trial is planned, essentially, looking at this with the goal of trying to get this combination registered. Can you tell us a little bit about IGNYTE-3, the trial design, the control arm, and what you foresee this trial doing over the next couple of years? Dr. Jason Luke: So, as this agent has been maturing, it's worth pointing out that the company that makes this molecule, called RP1, but I guess now we'll have to get used to this name vusolimogene oderparepvec as the actual scientific term, they have been having ongoing discussions with the FDA, and there is the potential that this agent could come forward on an accelerated path prior to the results being released from a phase 3 trial. That being said, the phase 3 confirmatory study, which is called the IGNYTE-3 study, is in the process of being launched now. And that's a study investigating this molecule in combination with nivolumab, as was alluded to earlier, and a randomized phase 3 design, where that combination is compared with a physician's choice, essentially a chemotherapy-based option. In that study, it will be 400 patients with stage 3B through stage 4; patients will have progressed on anti PD-1, either as a combination or in sequence, and then come on the study to be randomized to either vusolimogene oderparepvec plus nivolumab versus that physician's choice. And the physician's choice includes chemotherapy agents, but also nivolumab plus relatlimab as another option, or an anti PD-1 monotherapy, if that's deemed to be a reasonable option by the treating investigator. And the primary endpoint of that study is overall survival. And unfortunately, in this highly refractory patient population, that's something that may not take long to identify with key secondary endpoints of progression free survival, as well as overall response rate. I'm quite enthusiastic about this study, given these data, which have now been centrally confirmed as you alluded to before. I think this is a very exciting area of investigation and really crossing my fingers that this may be perhaps the first locally administered therapy which does appear to have a systemic impact that can hold up in phase 3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Very, very, very exciting results. And I guess it's worthwhile pointing out that this company also has got, I think, multiple studies planned with both RP1 and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a solid organ transplant patient population where single agent activity has already been reported by Dr. Migden at prior meetings, as well as a novel trial of potentially RP2 metastatic uveal melanoma. So we'll now pivot to Abstract 6014. So, 6014 is a drug by a company known as Merus. Essentially, it's a very novel agent. Merus essentially is a company that is specialized in making bicyclics and tricyclics. And these are not bicycles or tricycles, but rather drugs that essentially are bispecific antibodies. And Merus essentially has come up with petosemtamab. I think we're going to have to figure out better names for all of these drugs at some point. But petosemtamab, or MCLA-158, essentially is a bicyclic, targeting both EGFR as well as LGR-5. So EGR-5, of course, is a known oncogenic driver in multiple tumor types, squamous, including non small cell lung cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, but also head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And LGR-5 essentially is leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 5, but it's a receptor in cancer stem cells and certainly highly expressed in head neck squam. And MCLA-158, or petosemtamab is a IgG one bispecific with ADCC-activity because of IgG1 backbone co-targeting EGFR and LGR5. Merus had earlier results that evaluated petosemtamab monotherapy. They defined the RP2D and second- and third-line head and neck blastoma patients with a respectable response rate of 37% investigator-assessed ORR with six months median DoR, and this was published by Ezra Cohen about a year or so ago. In this abstract, Dr. Fayette and colleagues report on the results of the MCLA-158-CL01 trial, which is a trial of pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab in one front line head and neck squamous cell population. So maybe let's start with the description of the cohort. And it is a small trial, but we'll be able, I think, to dig into a little bit about why this might be exciting. Dr. Jason Luke: Yes. So, as alluded to, it's not the biggest trial as yet, but there were 26 patients with anti PD-1 treatment naive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And all the patients in the study did receive, as you alluded to, pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab. Based on the label for pembrolizumab, all the patients in this study were PDL-1 positive. So that's one point that it's worth pointing out to make sure that that's understood. This is the population of patients who would be expected to benefit from pembrolizumab in the first place. Now, in the abstract, they reported out only 10 response evaluable patients, but they updated that in the actual slides of presentation at the meeting. So among 24 patients that were alluded to, 67% were described as having had a response, although some of those were yet to be confirmed responses. And when it was evaluated by PDL-1 status, there didn't seem to be a clear enrichment of response in the PD-1 positive more than 20% group, as compared to the 1-19% group. That isn't especially surprising because that was a trend that one would see, presumably with pembrolizumab alone. But overall, I think these data are pretty exciting in terms of a preliminary study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: You know, you mentioned that the objective response rate was high, almost 60-something%. The prognosis of these patients is generally poor. The OS is typically thought of as between 6-15 months. And based on KEYNOTE-048, which was led by Dr. Burtness and colleagues, the standard of care in the setting is pembrolizumab +/- platinum based chemotherapy regimens. Allowing for the fact that we only have 10 patients here, how do you think these results stack up against KEYNOTE-048? And you made a very important point earlier, which was, by definition, pembro is on label only for the CPS. So PDL-1 score, at least in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma CPS and not TPS. But in the CPS 1% or greater patient population, where pembro is on label, how do these results stack up against the KEYNOTE-048 results. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. KEYNOTE-048 is considered the seminal study that dictates frontline treatment in head and neck cancer. And before we dive into this too far, we do want to acknowledge that here we're comparing 26 patients versus a phase 3 trial. So, we're not trying to get too far ahead of ourselves, but this is just a preliminary comparison. But in KEYNOTE-048, as you alluded to, two regimens were superior to chemotherapy. One was the pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. So again, the study overall survival, of course, was much higher, the PDL-1 positive subgroup, which is what dictated the unlabeled use of this. But response to pembro monotherapy in that population of patients is still modest. We're talking about upwards of 20-30%. So, if you compare that to, again, preliminary evidence here from this trial of only 24 patients, that response rate of 60% seems extremely high. And so even if that were to come down somewhat in a larger data series of patients, that still looks to be quite promising as a treatment regimen, that might eventually even be chemotherapy sparing for this population of patients. I think this raises a lot of eyebrows that perhaps this dual targeting approach, EGFR and LDR-5, may bring something really important to the field that evolves it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what are the next steps for petosemtamab? You mentioned that the activity was interesting. Are we going to see a larger trial? Any thoughts on where things are going to go? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, based on the phase 2 data of petosemtamab alone, even without pembrolizumab, the molecule had already been given fast track designation by FDA, which means allowing for greater communication between the drug sponsor in the FDA and designing a seminal study design. One would assume that this trial will be rapidly expanded quite greatly, perhaps to 100 or 200 patients, to try to flush out what the real response rate is in a more meaningful number of patients. But I think these data will probably also trigger the design and probably near-term evaluation or expedited acceleration of a phase III clinical trial design that would potentially validate this against the current standard of care. So, I'm pretty excited. I think we'll see a lot more about this agent in the relatively near future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, finally, we'll pivot to the last abstract that we're going to talk about, which is Abstract 2504. It's a relatively interesting target, CCR8 monoclonal antibody. But this is the efficacy and safety of LM-108, and LM-108 is an anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that is being developed by LaNova Medicine. And the results that are described, actually a pool set of results of combinations of LM-108 with anti PD-1, two separate anti PD-1, in patients with gastric cancer, mostly done ex-U.S., which is interesting because of this patient population, and it's a pool result of several, 3 phase 1 and 2 studies. LM-108 is an Fc-optimized anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes tumor infiltrating Tregs. The abstract reported a pooled analysis of three phase 1, 2 trials with 3 different NCT numbers that all evaluated the efficacy of LM-108 and anti PD-1 in patients with gastric cancer. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Maybe, Jason, you can tell us a little bit about before you start, as you describe the cohort, sort of what we know, editorially speaking, about the difficulty with which Tregs depletion has been tried and obviously failed up until now in the tumor microenvironment. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. I think that's a really interesting comment. And so, for decades, in fact, targeting regulatory T-cell to alleviate immune exclusion in the tumor microenvironment has been of interest in immuno-oncology. And in preclinical mouse models, it seems quite clear that such an approach can deliver therapeutic efficacy. However, by contrast, in human clinical trials, various different Treg depleting strategies have been attempted, and there's really little to no evidence that depleting Tregs from human tumors actually can deliver therapeutic responses. And by that we're referring to CD-25 antibodies. The drug ipilimumab, the CTLA-4 antibody, was punitively described as a Tregs depleter preclinically, but that doesn't seem to be the case in patients. And so, in that background, this is quite an eye raiser that an anti CCR8 antibody could be driving this effect. Now, before we talk about the results of this trial, I will point out, however, that given the Fc-optimization, it's entirely possible that the Tregs are being depleted by this mechanism, but that more could also be going on. Because Fc gamma RII binding by this antibody that could be nonspecific also has the potential to trigger immune responses in the tumor microenvironment, probably mediated by myeloid cells. So I think more to come on this. If this turns out to be the first meaningful Tregs depletor that leads to therapeutic efficacy, that would be very interesting. But it's also possible this drug could have multiple mechanisms. So, having said all of that, in the clinical trial, which was a pooled analysis, like you mentioned, of LM-108 in combination with anti PD-1 of a couple different flavors, there were 48 patients treated either with LM-108, with pembrolizumab, or with toripalimab, which is another anti PD-1 antibody. On the drug combination was, generally speaking, pretty well tolerated, noting grade 3 treatment related adverse events in the range of 38%, which is somewhat expected given combination immunotherapy. We talked about nivolumab and ipilimumab before, which, of course, gives even higher rates of immune-related adverse events, with the most common toxicities being anemia, lipase elevations, rash, ALC decrease; albeit, quite manageable. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what about the objective response rate? Can you contextualize the efficacy? And as you do that, maybe we'll think about what you'd expect in the context of, say, gastric cancer, especially in patients who've never really had a prior checkpoint inhibitor before. What do you think about the ORR? What do you think about the relative efficacy of this combination? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so, in the study, they described overall response rate in the 36 patients as 36% and described immediate progression for survival of about 6.5 months. And so that was among patients who were treatment naive. And in second-line patients, they actually described an even higher response rate, although it was only 11 patients, but they're at 64%. And so, I think those data look to be somewhat interesting. When I was actually scrutinizing the actual data presented, it was of some interest to note that the quality of responses seemed to be about as good on the lower dose of LM-108, so 3 milligrams per kilogram as compared to 10 milligrams per kilogram. I think there's definitely more to learn here to try to optimize the dose and to fully understand what the overall efficacy of this treatment combination would be. I would emphasize that in this disease, I think novel treatment strategies are certainly warranted. While anti PD-1 with chemotherapy has moved the needle in terms of standard of care treatment, it's really only a minor subset of patients who derive durable long-term benefit like we normally associate with immune checkpoint blockade. I think these are preliminary data. They're very intriguing. You alluded to earlier that this population of patients was an Asian data set, and it is well known that the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy does appear to be somewhat enhanced in Asian populations, and that goes to distributions of metastasis and tumor microenvironment effects, etc. Very difficult to try to tease any of that out in this abstract, other than to look at these data and suggest that this is pretty interesting, both from a novel therapeutic approach, we talked about the Tregs consideration, but also straight up on the efficacy because I think if these data could hold up in a larger number of patients, and particularly in a western population of patients, I think it would be very intriguing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Certainly, ASCO 2024 had a lot of interesting data, including data from targeted agents, the LAURA trial, ADCs. But just focusing on the immune therapy subset, we certainly saw a lot of great advances in patients who were treated with neoadjuvant as well as relapse refractory disease in the context of RP1 and then a couple of newer agents such as this petosemtamab as well as LM-108. And of course, we cannot forget to highlight the extended DMFS data from the pembro vaccine study from KEYNOTE-942. Jason, as always, thank you for taking a little bit of time out of your extremely busy schedule to come and give us insights as to how these agents are impacting the landscape. We really value your input and so thank you very much. Dr. Jason Luke: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to all the abstracts that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thank you.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Diwakar Davar: Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy
Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio | |||
| Day 4: Top Takeaways From ASCO24 | 03 Jun 2024 | 00:10:57 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including exciting new data from the IMROZ trial in multiple myeloma, adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer in A-BRAVE, and the front-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in JAVELIN Renal-101. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features 3 randomized prospective trials in the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma, adjuvant therapy for triple negative breast cancer, and the frontline treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, all of which provide important new data. My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first of today's abstracts is number 7500. This abstract, presented by Dr. Thierry Facon from the Department of Hematology at the University of Lille in France, describes the results of the IMROZ study. This was a multicenter phase 3 study comparing a current standard first-line regimen for transplant ineligible patients with myeloma VRd with the same combination plus an additional agent, isatuximab. The combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, known as VRd, is currently a standard first-line regimen for patients with multiple myeloma, both transplant eligible and ineligible. Previous phase 3 studies have shown that the addition of an anti-CD38 antibody to triplet regimens improves outcomes in newly diagnosed patients. Based on early phase clinical trial data showing promising response rates with isatuximab, the IMROZ study was conducted to compare isatuximab VRd with VRd alone in patients who were either ineligible for transplant or had no immediate indication for transplant. IMROZ was a global study conducted in 21 countries that involved 446 patients randomly assigned 3:2 to induction therapy with Isa-VRd followed by continuous Isa-Rd or induction therapy with VRd followed by Rd alone. The rate of complete response or better was approximately 75% with Isa-VRd compared with 64% with VRd alone. Very good partial response or better was achieved in 89% of patients with Isa-VRd, compared with around 83% of those with VRd alone. With a median follow-up at 5 years, Isa-VRd followed by Isa-Rd had reduced the risk of progression or death by 40.4% compared with VRd alone. The 60-month progression-free survival rate was 63% for Isa-VRd compared with around 45% with VRd alone, and the progression-free survival benefit was maintained in most of the analyzed subgroups. Minimal residual disease negativity was also measured in this study in both the intent to treat population and those patients who achieved a complete response. For example, in the intent to treat population, the MRD negative rate was 58% with Isa-VRd compared with around 43% with VRd alone. There were also higher rates of sustained MRD negativity for 12 months or longer among patients assigned to Isa-VRd compared with VRd alone, reflecting deeper responses in the Isa-VRd arm. Although overall survival data is still immature, data from an interim analysis showed a favorable trend in the Isa-VRd arm with 22.4% risk reduction compared with VRd alone. There was little additional toxicity from the inclusion of isatuximab with the VRd regimen and the quality-of-life data were comparable and stable in both arms of the study. The investigators concluded that although overall survival data are immature, there is a trend in favor of Isa-VRd and this, combined with the favorable response, toxicity and progression-free survival data, establish isatuximab VRd as a potential new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplant. There was some discussion regarding the potential use of this regimen in patients over 80 years of age since the upper age limit was capped in IMROZ at 80 years. Although there are concerns for tolerance of the 4-drug regimen in the older patient group, it seems likely that this will be adopted, especially for those with good performance status and without major comorbidities. Next up is LBA500. This abstract reports results of the A-BRAVE trial. This trial, presented by Dr. Pier Franco Conte from the University of Padova, Italy, was a phase 3 randomized trial to assess the efficacy of the immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab in 2 groups of patients: those with early triple negative breast cancer, with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and those at high risk after primary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. As Dr. Conte explained in the introduction to this trial, there is a fairly compelling rationale for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in triple negative breast cancer. The disease has been shown to be more immunogenic than the other breast cancer types with immune biomarkers such as TILs and PDL-1 expression associated with better prognosis, added to which, data in metastatic breast cancer show a correlation between PDL-1 expression and checkpoint inhibitor response. In the A-BRAVE study, 477 high risk patients who had completed local, regional, and systemic treatment with curative intent were stratified according to adjuvant or post neoadjuvant status and randomized 1:1 to receive avelumab at 2-week intervals for 52 weeks or to observation only. Results of the study showed a non-statistically significant improvement in three-year disease-free survival in the overall intent to treat population at 5.1% and in the post neoadjuvant patients at 6.2%. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint in this trial. The results show a significant improvement in overall survival of 8.1% in the intent-to-treat population and a very similar improvement in the post-neoadjuvant patients. The authors reported good tolerance of avelumab, although in total almost 30% discontinued treatment at some point. In their conclusion, the investigators state that the 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests a potential role for avelumab in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk after primary surgery or with invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Correlative studies are planned on tumor plasma and feces in this study. These are interesting and somewhat tantalizing results, suggesting a real effect from avelumab. Although confounded somewhat by the sample size, it will be important to see how these results mature with further follow-up. Today's third selected abstract is number 4508 reporting the final analysis of the JAVELIN Renal 101 phase 3 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. This study compared the combination of axitinib plus avelumab with sunitinib in this patient group. The trial included 886 patients, of whom around 61% of those in the combination group and around 65% of those in the monotherapy group were PDL-1 positive. In the initial analysis from the JAVELIN Renal 101 study, after at least 6 months of follow-up, avelumab and axitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over sunitinib in patients with PDL-1 positive tumors and in the overall population with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In the fall cohort, the median progression-free survival with the combination was 13.8 months compared with only 8.4 months with sunitinib, and based on those results, the combination received FDA approval as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in May of 2019. The progression-free survival observed in the initial analysis was confirmed with a new long-term analysis in the overall population. Median progression-free survival with avelumab and axitinib was 13.9 months compared with only 8.5 months with sunitinib and the median duration of response with the combination was 19.4 months versus 14.5 months with sunitinib. However, no difference in overall survival was seen. At 60 months, the overall survival in the combination group was 38.8% and 36.2% with sunitinib. In patients who were PDL-1 positive at 60 months, overall survival with a combination was 37.1% compared with 33.4% with sunitinib. Despite the sustained difference in progression-free survival seen with this combination, the discussant at this session pointed out that most oncologists are unlikely to recommend a combination which has not been shown to improve overall survival when published studies have reported on 4 combinations which do positively impact overall survival in this patient group. Despite the good tolerance of this regimen, it seems unlikely to be a preferred frontline regimen in advanced renal carcinoma moving forward. That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness | |||
| Day 3: Top Takeaways From ASCO24 | 02 Jun 2024 | 00:11:57 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including selected studies on the treatment of cancer cachexia, surgical approaches in advanced ovarian cancer, and advanced colorectal cancer with liver metastases. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of cancer cachexia and 2 studies of surgical approaches to the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer and of advanced colorectal cancer with liver metastases. My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Cachexia affects up to 80% of patients with advanced cancer and is thought to be directly responsible for 30% of cancer deaths, according to the National Cancer Institute. Despite these statistics, the condition remains understudied and there is no standard treatment. Current guidelines recommend dietary counseling and low-dose olanzapine or short courses of corticosteroids or progesterone analogues can be used to promote weight gain. However, the guidelines mainly point to evidence gaps. No drug therapy could be strongly endorsed to improve patient outcomes and no recommendations could be made regarding exercise. Dr. Tora Solheim from the Cancer Clinic at St. Olavs Hospital in Trondheim, Norway, today reported results from the MENAC trial in LBA12007, which tested an intervention that combined treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication ibuprofen, home-based exercise to improve endurance and muscle strength, nutritional counseling, and supplements containing omega-3 fatty acids, which, based on previous research, may enhance muscle mass in patients with cancer cachexia. This trial enrolled 212 patients with stage III or IV lung or pancreatic cancer from 17 sites in 5 countries. All patients were receiving palliative chemotherapy and either had cachexia or were at high risk of developing it. Half were randomly assigned to the intervention and half to standard care. For the exercise components of the intervention, patients were encouraged to engage in aerobic activity such as walking, swimming, or even household chores at least twice a week. They were also encouraged to perform strengthening exercises such as half squats, bicep curls, and knee lifts 3 times per week. Over 6 weeks, the trial found average body weight stabilized in the intervention group compared with a loss of 1 kg in the standard care group, but there were no differences between the two groups and the secondary endpoints of muscle mass and daily step count as measured by ActiGraph. Dr. Solheim pointed out that 6 to 8 weeks may be too early to observe any anabolic effects on muscle mass or function, but that this timeframe was chosen, she said, because previous studies, including her team's own feasibility study had encountered high dropout rates among similar patient groups after 6 to 8 weeks. Although these are interesting data, I think they also pose many questions: Is maintaining 1 kg of body weight a meaningful endpoint? Did the patients report any improvement in other symptoms? How was at-home exercise monitored for compliance? Did we know whether the patients were fulfilling adequate amounts of exercise? And there are many more questions. I think the investigators should be congratulated for demonstrating the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial in this challenging patient group, and this will hopefully provide a basis for future studies exploring new interventions. In LBA5505, Dr. Jean-Marc Classe presented data from the CARACO study, a randomized trial evaluating the use of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients undergoing primary surgery or interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. To provide some context, an earlier study, the phase 3 LION trial, assessed the role of RPLD in patients with advanced ovarian cancer with complete resection and normal lymph nodes after primary surgery. In this trial, RPLD provided no significant improvement in overall or progression-free survival and was associated with a significant increase in serious postoperative complications and 60-day mortality. In recent years, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery has increased significantly in the U.S. and Europe, and it was unknown whether RPLD could have a benefit among these patients. The CARACO trial was undertaken to answer this question, enrolling patients treated with either primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery to reflect a real-world population. The multicenter trial enrolled 379 patients with FIGO stage III-IVA epithelial ovarian cancer with no suspicious retroperitoneal lymph nodes in whom optimal surgery was achievable with primary surgery or with interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with residual tumor at less than 1 cm. Patients were randomly assigned to surgery with or without retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Patients receiving primary surgery accounted for about 26% of the no RPL arm and 21% of the RPL arm. The primary endpoint was progression free survival, and secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, surgical outcomes, and quality of life. Although the trial initially planned to enroll 450 patients, enrollment slowed after the presentation of the results of the Lyon trial, leading to a premature closing of this trial to enrollment with 379 patients. The median age of enrolled patients was 64 - 65 years and 87% had serous or endometrioid carcinoma. Surgery was performed with no residual tumor in around 86% of the patients in the no RPL arm and 88% of patients in the RPL arm. Importantly, the median duration of surgery was 240 minutes in those with no RPL versus 300 minutes in the RPL arm, representing an additional hour for those who underwent retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Severe morbidity within 30 days of surgery was significantly improved in the no RPL arm compared with the RPL arm as assessed by rates of transfusion or blood loss, re-intervention, and urinary injury. In an intent to treat analysis, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients who did or did not receive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. The respective median progression-free survivals were 14.8 and 18.6 months. Median overall survival was 48.9 months and 58.8 months, respectively, and on subgroup analysis, no benefit for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was observed. Although the results of this study are slightly confounded by the failure to reach their target accrual, the data shows strong evidence that these patients can be spared the additional surgery and subsequent surgical complications without compromising progression free or overall survival. Dr. Classe and his colleagues hope to determine whether retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is useful in patients with suspicious nodes. The third selected abstract today is 3500, which describes a remarkable prospective study of chemotherapy plus liver transplantation versus chemotherapy alone in patients with unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. The results of the so-called TRANSMET study were presented by Dr. Adam from Villejuif, France, on behalf of a study group including centers from France, Belgium, and Italy. In the introduction to the study, the presenter pointed out that liver resection is currently the optimal treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer and offers the potential for long-term survival and even cure. But resection is only possible in 10% to 20% of patients. And although cytoreductive chemotherapy may convert some patients to a resectable status, this is relatively rare. The current standard of care is the use of chemotherapy, which may prolong survival but is not curative. Liver transplantation has been used in this context since the 2000s with apparent improvements in outcome, but TRANSMET is the first randomized trial to assess the benefit of adding liver transplantation to chemotherapy in this patient group. The TRANSMET study evenly randomized 94 patients to either undergo chemotherapy and liver transplantation or only chemotherapy. The patients were highly selective in terms of age, performance status, resection of primary tumor, months of tumor control, previous line of therapy, and tumor markers. It's noteworthy that of the 157 patients eventually considered, 63 failed to meet the demanding eligibility criteria on the review of the trial committee. The 5-year overall survival rate in the intent to treat analysis was 57% in the chemotherapy plus liver transplant cohort and 13% in the chemotherapy-alone arm. Progression-free survival was 17.4 versus 6.4 months, respectively. 28 of the 38 transplanted patients suffered relapses, 15 of which were in the lungs. Surgical resection and/or radio ablation were used in many of these patients. The authors concluded that liver transplantation is an option which should be considered in this highly selective patient group and that the outcomes reported here are comparable to outcomes for liver transplantation and other conditions. Understandably, this is a small study in a highly selective group, and it's difficult to know where this will gain traction. With a shortage of organs for donation, prioritization of this small patient group may be challenging. That concludes today's report. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness | |||
| Day 2: Top Takeaways From ASCO24 | 01 Jun 2024 | 00:10:15 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including potentially practice-changing results in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, intriguing data on the effect of metformin on active surveillance for prostate cancer, and the potential of AI to improve patient outreach and adherence to medical appointments. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my top takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features potentially practice-changing results for patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma, results from a large trial testing the effects of metformin in patients on active surveillance for their prostate cancer, and early results giving insights into the benefits that artificial intelligence may bring to address disparities in cancer care. My full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first of today's abstracts is LBA7000, which reports the results from a large international randomized trial in patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, presented by Dr. Peter Borchmann from the German Hodgkin Study Group. Since Hodgkin lymphoma typically affects adults in their 20s and 30s, the focus of clinical trials in recent years has been on achieving high rates of disease control while at the same time reducing the potential for short-term and long-term toxicities associated with classical chemotherapy and radiation therapy regimens. Particular emphasis has been given to reducing risk for secondary malignancy and impaired reproductive function in long-term survivors. Building on the back of previous studies from this group, the escalated BEACOPP regimen was modified to reduce the overall duration of treatment and the potential for toxicity by incorporating novel agents, including brentuximab vedotin. This novel regimen, known as BrECADD, was compared with escalated BEACOPP in a randomized trial, HD21. Patients received 4 or 6 cycles of therapy based on the response of their disease to the first 2 cycles assessed by interim PET scan. 1,482 patients were randomized, 740 to escalated BEACOPP and 742 to BrECADD, with median follow-up at 48 months. The 4-year progression-free survival was 94.3% with BrECADD, compared with 90.9% for escalated BEACOPP, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. These results are particularly noteworthy since 64% of patients on the BrECADD arm had a negative PET scan after 2 cycles of therapy and therefore received a total of just 4 cycles, reducing their risk of toxicity. On that note, lower rates of treatment related toxicity were observed with BrECADD. Specifically, hematologic toxicity and peripheral sensory neuropathy were less frequently seen. Female reproductive toxicity was lower with BrECADD, with more than 95% of women having normal FSH levels after 1 year on BrECADD, compared with 73% on escalated BEACOPP. Dr. Borchmann also noted that recovery of male reproductive function was improved with BrECADD, although details were not provided. These are impressive data, although no overall survival difference was observed. This is not surprising in view of the effective salvage therapies available to patients whose disease relapses after first-line therapy. The authors conclude that these results are unprecedented for the first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma and that the BrECADD regimen should be considered as a new standard of care option. Although these results are likely to change practice in some parts of the world, particularly in Europe, it's less clear whether they will impact current treatments in the United States, where modifications to the ABVD regimen, including the addition of brentuximab vedotin and more recently nivolumab, have been the subject of recent randomized trials. That said, these data add to the increasing evidence that cure of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma is possible in most patients, and that concerns over short- and long-term toxicities of therapy for this young group of patients are being addressed using several strategies. The next abstract, LBA5002 reports the results of a Canadian study investigating the use of metformin to slow or prevent progression in patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. Professor Anthony Joshua pointed out in his presentation that there are extensive epidemiologic, biologic, and clinical data suggesting that metformin may affect the progression of low-risk prostate cancer, but this has not previously been evaluated in the context of a randomized controlled trial. The MAST study – or Metformin Active Surveillance Trial – was designed to prospectively evaluate the use of metformin in patients with low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Patients were eligible for the trial if they had been diagnosed within the previous 12 months, had low-risk prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of less than 6 in less than one-third of cores involved and less than 50% of any 1 core plus having a PSA of less than 10. These patients were randomized to either active surveillance plus placebo or active surveillance plus metformin at an initial dose of 850 milligrams daily for 1 month, followed by 850 milligrams twice daily for 35 months. Evaluations including prostate biopsies were performed at baseline, then at 18 and 36 months. 405 patients were randomized 1:1 and were well matched for patient characteristics and risk factors. Pathologic and therapeutic progression were the major endpoints of the study. The overall results of the study showed that the use of metformin in this population had no effect on pathologic or treatment progression. Although not a planned analysis, there was a signal that the use of metformin may accelerate progression in certain patients, including those with a high BMI. This study shows definitively that metformin should not be used in low-risk, localized prostate cancer patients who are eligible for active surveillance. There are many unanswered questions about its use in other situations in prostate cancer and in low-risk patients who also have diabetes. The final selection for today is Abstract 100. In this presentation, Dr. Alyson Moadel from Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Centre in New York City described an artificial intelligence platform which showed potential to improve patient outreach and adherence to medical appointments. In underserved communities of color, barriers to colorectal cancer screening can contribute to disparities due to late-stage diagnosis and poor outcomes. Despite active outreach by skilled patient navigators at this center, which serves an ethnically minoritized and disadvantaged population, 59% of patients either canceled or did not show for their colonoscopy appointments in 2022. While patient navigator reengagement efforts led to 21% eventually completing colonoscopy, 1,500 patients did not undergo potentially lifesaving colon cancer screening that year. The study used MyEleanor, a virtual patient navigator that engages in personalized AI conversation, to target 2,400 patients who had not attended their colonoscopy appointment in 2022 to 2023. MyEleanor called patients to discuss rescheduling, assessed barriers to uptake, offered live transfers to clinical staff to reschedule, and provided procedure preparation reminder calls. During the study, 57% of patients engaged with MyEleanor, with 58% of this group or 33% overall accepting the live transfer. The rate of completed colonoscopies for patients who did not show for their initial appointment nearly doubled from 10% to 19% after the initiation of MyEleanor. Overall patient volume increased by 36%. Nearly one-third of the patients reported at least 2 barriers to screening. Top barriers included lack of perceived need, time, medical mistrust, concerns about findings, and cost. The investigators plan to extend these studies to explore the impact of this tool on patient preparation adherence, staff burden, and revenue. As data emerge on the potential applications of AI in the cancer care ecosystem, it's exciting to see how tools such as this have the potential to improve rates of prevention and early detection and address cancer care disparities. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness | |||
| Day 1: Top Takeaways From ASCO24 | 31 May 2024 | 00:10:35 | |
In the first episode of a special daily series during the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 1, including exciting data on the CROWN trial in NSCLC, the ASC4First study in chronic myeloid leukemia, and the effects of high-deductible health plans on cancer survivorship. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm delighted to bring you a special series of daily episodes from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting and to share my top takeaways on selected abstracts. Today, I'll be reviewing exciting new data in chronic myeloid leukemia, remarkable outcomes for patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer, and a compelling study on the effects of high deductible health plans on cancer survivorship. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. LBA6500, the ASC4FIRST trial, is a phase 3 combination of asciminib with the current standard of care tyrosine kinase inhibitors, those being imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib and bosutinib for the first line treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. The data from this large multinational study, conducted in 29 countries, were presented by Dr. Timothy Hughes from the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia. Some patients with chronic phase CML respond well to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and about one-third may eventually be able to stop therapy and will remain in remission, the so-called treatment free remission or TFR. Unfortunately, almost half of patients eventually need to change therapy due to resistance and intolerance, and most patients will need to remain on therapy for many years, possibly for life. Asciminib is the first BCR-ABL1 inhibitor to specifically target the ABL myristate pocket or STAMP and was designed to be highly potent but also highly specific, thus minimizing side effects and toxicity. In this large trial, which is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of asciminib with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 405 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either asciminib at a dose of 80 milligrams daily or another investigator-selected TKI. The groups were well balanced for all patient characteristics, including ELTS risk. The primary objectives of the study were to compare the major molecular response rate at 48 weeks with an additional analysis for the patients who received imatinib as the investigator-selected TKI. With median follow-up at 16.3 months for patients receiving asciminib and 15.7 months for those receiving the other TKIs, the 48-week MMR rates were 68% for asciminib compared with 49% for the other investigators-selected TKIs. The rates of MR4 after 48 weeks, a deep molecular response which is a prerequisite to be considered for treatment free remission, were 39% for asciminib compared to 21% for the investigator-selected TKI. Tolerability and safety were excellent for asciminib, with only 5% discontinued due to toxicity compared to 10% for the other TKI arm. Frequently observed toxicities with asciminib included thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. The investigators concluded that asciminib is the only agent to show a statistically significant improvement in efficacy and toxicity in this patient group when compared with all other TKIs, and that asciminib has the potential to become the preferred standard of care for the first line treatment of CML. Follow-up on the study continues, but there is no question that these are exciting and probably practice-changing results. The next exciting study, LBA8503, was presented by Dr. Benjamin Solomon from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. This presentation was an update of the CROWN study for patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Lorlatinib is a third-generation brain-penetrating ALK inhibitor which was compared with crizotinib in the CROWN-3 study. This phase 3 study enrolled 296 patients randomly assigned to lorlatinib 100 milligrams once daily or crizotinib 250 milligrams twice daily. The interim results showed a 72% reduction in the risk for progression or death with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib and formed the basis for the March 2021 FDA approval of the drug for metastatic ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer. A subsequent post hoc analysis at three years showed continued progression free survival benefit with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib. Earlier today, Dr. Solomon presented a further post hoc analysis of the study at 60.2 months of median follow-up. Among the entire patient population, the median PFS was not reached with lorlatinib compared with 9.1 months with crizotinib. At 60 months, the PFS rate was 60% with lorlatinib compared with only 8% with crizotinib. The PSF benefits with lorlatinib were seen across all patient subgroups. The improved control of central nervous system metastatic disease, which was observed in the earlier reports, has been confirmed in this recent analysis. Among those patients with baseline brain metastases, the median PFS with lorlatinib was not yet reached compared with six months with crizotinib. More than half of patients with baseline brain metastases were progression free at 60 months. But the benefit of lorlatinib is certainly not confined to patients with brain metastases. Lorlatinib also significantly improved progression-free survival among patients without metastases. At 60 months, 63% of patients without baseline brain metastases assigned to lorlatinib were progression free, compared with only 10% of those assigned crizotinib. These are remarkable results. As Dr. Solomon stated in his conclusion, 60% of patients on lorlatinib are still progression free and 92% are progression free in the brain. No new safety signals were seen and the improved efficacy over crizotinib was seen across all risk groups. These results are unprecedented in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Concerning data were presented today by Dr. Justin Barnes from Washington University. Dr. Barnes presented results from a retrospective study in Abstract 11005 which showed whether a patient with cancer has high-deductible health insurance can play a role in their survival. Although previous studies have shown care disparities for those with high-deductible plans, this report focuses specifically on effects on survival and concludes that cancer survivors with high-deductible health plans had a greater risk of mortality both overall and from cancer. High-deductible insurance was defined as costing between $1,200 and $1,350 annually for individual insurance, or between $2,400 and $2,700 annually for a family plan. Investigators used data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics National Health Interview Survey and linked them to files from the National Death Index to determine mortality rates. Included were more than 147,000 respondents aged between 18 and 84 years who did not have Medicaid. Among these individuals, 5.9% were cancer survivors. The concern for cancer survivors with these plans is that in addition to recurrence that could require costly treatments, there might be issues related to survivorship. Investigators found that overall survival was worse for those with a cancer diagnosis coupled with high-deductible health insurance, with a hazard ratio of nearly 1.5. But when the researchers reviewed data from the general population without a history of cancer, they didn't find any association between high-deductible health insurance and outcomes. According to Dr. Barnes, the leading hypothesis is that patients with cancer who have a high-deductible plan delay workup for a potential new or recurrent cancer diagnosis or postpone or avoid other care. The results also indicated that survival among certain subgroups, such as non-Hispanic white patients, patients with higher incomes, and patients with at least a college or high school education, was worse for those with a high-deductible health plan, not the groups who are typically impacted by care disparities. It is possible that these individuals are more likely to select high-deductible health plans and that having these plans might counteract what might otherwise be adequate access to care. A key take-home from this analysis is that cancer patients and survivors, whatever their racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic status, should have access to health plans with low deductibles and should be informed of the potential risks of their long-term health and survival when covered by high-deductible plans. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO24. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness | |||
| Key Abstracts in GU Cancers at ASCO24 | 25 May 2024 | 00:26:04 | |
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss promising combination therapies and other compelling advances in genitourinary cancers in advance of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News. I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of genitourinary cancers at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Jeanny, it's great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Dr. Agarwal. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Jeanny, let's start with some bladder cancer abstracts. Could you tell us about the Abstract 4509 titled, "Characterization of Complete Responders to Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine Cisplatin versus Gemcitabine Cisplatin Alone in Patients with Lymph Node Only Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma from the CheckMate 901 Trial." Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Of course, Neeraj, I would be delighted to. First, I would like to remind our listeners that the CheckMate 901 trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study, in which this particular sub-study looked at cisplatin-eligible patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were assigned to receive the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin, followed by up to 2 years of nivolumab or placebo. Based on the data presented at ESMO 2023 and subsequently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which shows significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving the combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nivolumab, this regimen was approved in March 2024 as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In the abstract that will be featured at ASCO this year, Dr. Matt Galsky and colleagues present a post-hoc analysis that aims to characterize a subset of patients with complete response as well as those with lymph node-only metastatic disease. In patients receiving the experimental treatment, 21.7% achieved a complete response, while 11.8% of the patients in the control arm achieved a complete response. Among these complete responders, around 52% had lymph- node-only disease in both arms. Furthermore, when characterizing the subgroup of patients with lymph-node-only disease, those receiving the combination of gemcitabine-cisplatin plus nivolumab had a 62% reduction in the risk of progression or death and a 42% reduction in the risk of death compared to those treated with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median overall survival in the experimental arm in this subgroup was around 46.3 months, while it was only 24.9 months in the control arm. The ORR in patients with lymph-node-only disease receiving gem-cis plus nivo was about 81.5% compared to 64.3% in those treated with gem-cis alone. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny, for the excellent summary of this abstract. We can say that nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin induced durable disease control and clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS compared to gem-cis alone in patients with lymph- node-only metastasis, and deserves to be considered as one of the options for these patients. In a similar first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma setting, Abstract 4502, also reported data on a recently approved combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, as quick reminder to our audience, this regimen was tested in the EV-302 phase 3 trial, where patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were randomized to receive enfortumab vedotin, plus pembrolizumab or gemcitabine plus either cisplatin or carboplatin. These data were also first presented at ESMO 2023 and subsequently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that this immune based combination significantly improved both progression free survival and overall survival, which were the primary endpoints compared to chemotherapy. In this abstract, Dr. Shilpa Gupta from the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues present the results of patient reported outcomes based on quality-of-life questionnaires in this trial. Time to pain progression and time to confirm deterioration were numerically longer in patients treated with EV plus pembro, and patients with moderate to severe pain at baseline receiving this combination had a meaningful improvement in the Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form worst pain from week 3 through 26. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. This means that patients treated with EV plus pembro did not only have improved survival compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, but also improvement in their quality-of-life and functioning, further supporting the value of this combination for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. This is terrific news for all of our patients. Before we wrap up the bladder cancer section, would you like to tell our listeners about Abstract 4565, which provides the data on the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with bladder cancer? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj; this is timely given the recent FDA approval, which we will talk about. The abstract is titled, "Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients with HER2 Expressing Solid Tumors: Results from the Bladder Cohort of the DESTINY-PanTumor02 Study." And as a quick reminder, the DESTINY-PanTumor02 was a phase 2 open-label study where trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting HER2 expression on cancer cells, was evaluated in patients with HER2-expressing locally advanced or metastatic disease who previously received systemic treatment or who had no other treatment options. The expression of HER2 was evaluated on immunohistochemistry by local or central testing. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by investigator assessment. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression free survival, disease control rate, and safety. The primary analysis, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed an ORR of 37.1% and responses across all cohorts and the median duration of response was 11.3 months. Based on these results, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki was just granted accelerated FDA approval for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive solid tumors in April 2024. So, back to this abstract; Dr. Wysocki and colleagues report the results of the bladder cancer cohort. This study included 41 patients with urothelial cancer and at a median follow up of around 12.6 months, the objective response rate among these patients was 39%, the median PFS was 7 months, and the duration of response median was 8.7 months. The disease control rate at 12 weeks was around 71%. Regarding the safety profile, 41.5% of patients experienced grade ≥3 drug related adverse events and interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis did occur in about 4 patients. Although there was no statistical comparison between different groups, the ORR was numerically highest among the HER2 3+ group with 56.3%. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data support consideration of trastuzumab deruxtecan as a salvage therapy option for pre-treated patients with HER2 expressing urothelial cancers and show that we are extending our treatment options to include therapies with novel mechanisms of action. This is definitely exciting news for patients with bladder cancer. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, absolutely, Neeraj. Now, let's switch gears a bit to prostate cancer. Could you tell us about Abstract 5005 which is titled, "EMBARK Post Hoc Analysis of Impact of Treatment Suspension on Health Quality-of-Life?" Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course, I'd be happy to. So, enzalutamide was recently granted FDA approval for the treatment of patients with non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence at high-risk of metastasis, based on the results of the EMBARK trial, which was a phase 3 study where patients with high-risk biochemical recurrence were randomized to receive either enzalutamide with leuprolide, enzalutamide monotherapy, or placebo plus leuprolide. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival with secondary endpoints including overall survival and safety. Results showed that patients receiving enzalutamide alone or enzalutamide plus leuprolide had significantly improved metastasis-free survival compared to those treated with leuprolide alone while preserving health-related quality-of-life. One important aspect in the design of the trial was that patients who achieved undetectable PSA at week 37 underwent treatment suspension. The treatment was resumed if PSA rose to more than 2 ng/ml for patients who underwent radical proctectomy or when PSA rose to more than 5 ng/ml for those who did not undergo surgery. In this abstract, Dr. Stephen Freedland and colleagues present a post-hoc analysis of health-related quality-of-life outcomes after treatment suspension between weeks 37 and 205. They found that treatment was suspended in 90.9% of patients receiving enzalutamide plus leuprolide, 85.9% of those receiving enzalutamide monotherapy, and 67.8% of those receiving leuprolide monotherapy. Among those patients who stayed on treatment suspension, a trend toward numerical improvement in health-related quality-of-life after week 37 was seen in all 3 arms and this reached clinically meaningful threshold at week 205 in pain questionnaires, physical well-being, urinary and bowel symptoms. For hormonal treatment side effects, all arms reached clinically meaningful improvement at the subsequent assessments of week 49 to week 97. However, patients slowly deteriorated, with clinically meaningful deterioration at week 205 relative to week 37 in patients receiving the combination of enzalutamide and leuprolide and those treated with leuprolide. Concerning sexual activity, a clinically meaningful improvement was reported only in patients receiving enzalutamide plus leuprolide, possibly because sexual function was better preserved prior to suspension in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm and thus there was less opportunity for "improvement" while on suspension. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj, for this great summary. This analysis confirms that treatment suspension in good responders might lead to a clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality-of-life. Now, moving on to patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, what can you tell us, about Abstract 5008 titled, "Baseline ctDNA analyses and associations with outcomes in taxane-naive patients with mCRPC treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus change of ARPI in PSMAfore"? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. The PSMAfore trial was a phase 3 study that compared the efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus an ARPI switch in patients with mCRPC and prior progression on a first ARPI, and not previously exposed to docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was rPFS and OS was an important secondary endpoint. The primary analysis presented at ESMO 2023 showed a significantly prolonged rPFS in patients receiving lutetium. In the abstract that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. Johann De Bono and colleagues present an exploratory analysis regarding the associations between baseline circulating tumor DNA and outcomes. ctDNA fraction was evaluated in all samples as well as alterations in key prostate cancer drivers prevalent in more than 10% of participants. The investigators sought to interrogate the association of ctDNA fraction or alterations with rPFS, PSA response, and RECIST response at data cutoff. They showed that median rPFS was significantly shorter in patients with a ctDNA fraction >1% compared to those with a fraction < 1% regardless of the treatment arm. Furthermore, ctDNA fraction >1% was also associated with worst RECIST response and PSA50 response. Regarding prostate cancer drivers, median rPFS was significantly shorter in patients with alterations in the AR, TP53 or PTEN in both treatment arms. There was no significant association between ctDNA alterations and PSA or objective responses. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So, these results show that the presence of a ctDNA fraction >1% or alterations in AR, P53 and PTEN were all associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment with lutetium or change in the ARPI. These data are definitely important for counseling and prognostication of patients in the clinic and may guide the design of future clinical trials. Let's move on to kidney cancer. Neeraj, do you have any updates for us? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. In Abstract 4512 titled, "A Multi-institution Analysis of Outcomes with First-Line Therapy for 99 Patients with Metastatic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma," Dr. Sahil Doshi and colleagues present a retrospective, multi-institutional study comparing survival outcomes, including time-to-treatment failure and overall survival, between different first-line treatment options in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, where limited clinical trial data exists to guide systemic therapy. They categorized patients into 4 treatment groups: and immune checkpoint inhibitors + targeted therapy doublets (such as ICI VEGF TKI); pure immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy and doublets (such as ipilimumab plus nivolumab); targeted therapy doublets (such as lenvatinib plus everolimus), and targeted monotherapy (such as sunitinib). They identified 99 patients, of whom 54 patients received targeted monotherapy, 17 received ICI VEGF-TKI, 14 received targeted doublet, and 14 patients received only ICI therapies. So the patients treated with any doublet containing a targeted agent had a 52% decrease in the risk of treatment failure and a 44% decrease in the risk of death compared to those treated with targeted monotherapy. The median time to treatment failure was 15 months with IO-targeted doublet, and the median overall survival was 56 months. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So, these results show that targeted doublet regimens resulted in a longer time to treatment failure and overall survival compared to any monotherapy in patients with chromophobe metastatic RCC and definitely provides valuable insights on treatment selection, albeit I would say there's still a small number of patients that were included in this retrospective analysis. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I completely agree this is a relatively small number of patients, but I decided to highlight the abstract given how rare the cancer is, and it is highly unlikely that we'll see large randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. So, before we wrap up the podcast, what would you like to tell us about Abstract 5009 which is titled, "A Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab Platinum Based Chemotherapy as First Line Systemic Therapy in Advanced Penile Cancer: HERCULES (LACOG 0218) Trial." Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I'm glad you brought this up, Neeraj. As our listeners may know, advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma has a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. From this perspective, the results of the LACOG 0218 trial are very important. As you mentioned, this was a phase 2 single-arm study evaluating the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic or locally advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma not amenable to curative therapy. Patients enrolled received chemotherapy, namely 5-Fluorouracil with cisplatin or carboplatin and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks up to 34 cycles. The primary endpoint was confirmed overall response rate by investigator assessment. In the 33 patients eligible for the efficacy analysis, the confirmed ORR by investigator assessment was 39.4% and included one complete response and 12 partial responses. The confirmed ORR was 75% in patients with high TMB and 55.6% in patients positive for HPV16, making TMB and HPV16 potential predictive biomarkers for efficacy in this study. Concerning the toxicity profile, any grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in around 92% of patients, and grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% of patients. 10.8% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. I would like to add that HERCULES is the first trial to demonstrate the efficacy of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma with a manageable safety profile. Thus, the combination of ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy is a promising treatment for advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma and warrants further investigation. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, I really want to thank you for your participation and valuable insights. Your contributions are always appreciated, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to join us today. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. It was a pleasure. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: As we bring this podcast to an end, I would like to acknowledge the significant advances happening in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers. During our upcoming 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, there will be an array of different studies featuring practice-changing data presented by researchers and physicians from around the globe. I urge our listeners to not only participate in this event to celebrate these achievements, but to also play a role in sharing these cutting-edge data with healthcare professionals worldwide. Through our collective efforts, we can surely optimize the benefits of patients on a global scale. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas
Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis, Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics. | |||
| Exploring CAR T Cells in GI Cancers at ASCO24 | 25 May 2024 | 00:17:58 | |
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr.Mohamed Salem discuss key abstracts that will be presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including hypoxia-response CAR T- cell therapy for solid tumors, GPC3-specific CAR T- cell therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma, and the promising efficacy of targeted therapies in GI cancers. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. In today's episode, we'll be discussing some key abstracts in GI cancers that will be presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Mohammed Salem, a GI medical oncologist at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health, for this discussion. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Mohammed, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Thank you, Dr. Beg. It's always a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So we're seeing more and more exciting data emerge on the role of ctDNA in GI cancers. And that's a topic that we've covered fairly extensively on the podcast. This year, in Abstract 3513, investigators used a novel, highly sensitive HPV ctDNA assay to evaluate the clinical outcomes of HPV ctDNA status in people with localized anal cancer treated with chemoradiation. And we know that prior HPV infection is associated with 90% of anal cancers. Can you give us a summary of the study and why it's so important to the clinical care we're giving our patients today? Dr. Mohamed Salem: Sure. So, as you already alluded to, in the current era of precision oncology or precision medicine in general, there is an effort to try to maximize treatment efficacy and minimize the side effects. We're trying to understand how to do that by developing more biomarkers. I think this was a very interesting study that was led by Dr. Morris of MD Anderson. As you mentioned, he tried to determine the correlation between that circulating tumor DNA at different timelines and also associated that with the relapse. Obviously, as we all know, HPV infection is linked to about over 90% of anal cancers, and anal cancer is increasingly common in the U.S. The study design includes patients from stage 1, 2, and 3 anal cancer treated with curative intent concurrent chemo radiation and the plot sample to collect circulating DNA was taken at five weeks of treatment and then at various intervals, including 3months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months, to detect the HPV circulating DNA. And the analysis was done to correlate detection of circulating DNA with a relapse. So what they observed is after collecting the samples at the end of the treatment, which is 5 weeks, followed by 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months following treatment using the correlation between the detection of circulating tumor DNA as well as the recurrence rate, they were able to identify that about 22% was seen at 5 weeks, 13% was seen at three months, then 10% was seen at 6 months, and 0% actually was seen at 12 months. In the final analysis, they concluded that detection of circulating DNA at 3 months was significantly associated with a relapse rate of those patients. And also, they looked at the baseline stage, T stage, end stage, age and other perhaps prognostic factors. But the clinical implication of that trial is this finding supports the potential of integrating now the circulating DNA analysis and routine post-treatment surveillance, which hopefully will help us identify those patients with high risk of relapse and whether they can be treated with adjuvant therapy in context-free drug trial or even like more close surveillance. Obviously, this is a very novel study, so it needs validation. Also, we need to understand more about the platform used because with the immersion technology and how fast this field is moving, I think it's important to look at this platform or other platforms. I think as a concept it's very interesting and hopefully will help us to identify patients with higher risk. So, I'm looking forward to hearing the full presentation. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving on to colorectal cancer, Abstract 3514 is a trial of hypoxia-responsive CEA CAR T-cell therapy for people with heavily pretreated solid tumors where this was administered intraperitoneally or intravenously. And you know, as a solid tumor oncologist or GI oncologist, we've been watching the hematologic space evolve so dramatically in the last five years with cellular therapies that it's exciting to see these CAR T-cell approaches being applied in solid tumors with some results. So can you talk about this study and whether you think it will influence clinical practice? Dr. Mohamed Salem: Of course, I'm actually very excited to see this study because as you mentioned, CAR T-cell therapy has been utilized in hematological malignancies for the last several years and in fact it's becoming a center of care. As you know, it's very effective in certain tumors. Unfortunately, we did not see a similar result in solid tumors thus far. I know we are trying to make progress, but we are definitely not seeing the same efficacy in solid tumors. And also, of course, in CRC and many other tumors, we need more target options, so I was very excited to see this abstract. And I want to give a little bit of background why this abstract is important. Many solid tumors have a low oxygen level environment, hypoxia obviously, which can impact the effectiveness of CAR T therapy. So hypoxia can suppress the immune response, leading to poor performance of the immune cells like the T cell within the tumor. The investigators, to overcome that challenge, meaning hypoxia impacting the efficacy of the T cell, they were actually able to engineer a CAR T cell to be hypoxia responsive. And what does that mean? That the cells are designed to become more active in low oxygen conditions, which is more difficult in many of the solid tumors. The reason that's very interesting is because, one, it reduces exhaustion of the T cell, meaning like when you have the T cell active all the time, they get exhausted. So when you have the T cell in the resting state, until they reach the tumor environment and they get activated by the hypoxia status, now you reduce the expulsion of the T cell. But also that one overcomes the resistance. So once activated in the tumor hypoxic environment, this CAR T cell shows increased efficacy in targeting and killing the cancer cell. Based on that concept, the investigators conducted a phase 1 dose escalation study in solid tumors. So this was a phase 1 open label group escalation study involving patients with tumor suppressed CEA and also had relapsed refractory second line treatment. The trial actually included 2 routes of administration, which I think was very interesting – IV versus intraperitoneal, IP, way of administration. And they enrolled about 40 patients between June of 2022 and January 2023. And 35 patients had colorectal cancer, 3 patients had gastric cancer, and 2 patients had non-small cell lung cancer. Overall, there was no surprising safety data. In terms of side effects, it was largely macrocystis, colitis. Unfortunately, they had 1 treatment that did not finish. But the interesting feature was the efficacy of that concept was demonstrated and in fact they were able to see more disease response and control at this rate with IP infusion, which I think is a very novel approach. I would look forward to trying and looking into this kind of delivery, especially in CRC and other tumors. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Because we've known that historically managing disease intraperitoneally has been challenging with cytotoxic chemotherapies and even surgical approaches that have been deployed can be fairly morbid as well. So looking at novel delivery mechanisms can help us understand, maybe be able to manage side effects of treatments in different ways and open doors for treatment in diseases that otherwise we couldn't manage. So definitely a very novel and exciting approach on this study. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I agree. I think the idea of administering an IP route is a very interesting idea. Well, Shaalan, there is another study in CRC, Abstract 3515. This is the first human study of ABBV-400, cMET–targeting antibody-drug conjugate in advanced solid tumors. Can you tell us about this promising data? Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, so we've known that cMET is a very relevant biomarker across many cancers, particularly colorectal cancer, and it is overexpressed in a fairly large proportion of multiple diseases. But there hasn't been an effective regimen that has been found to be tolerable to target this specific biomarker. In this study, the investigators are evaluating an antibody drug conjugate, which takes the cMET targeting antibody telisotuzumab and conjugates it to a novel topoisomerase one inhibitor payload. And there's a phase one study that enrolled people across multiple different tumor types. This was presented at ASCO 2023. And this year, the investigators are coming in and giving the results of a colorectal cancer cohort within that study. Patients were enrolled in the dose escalation phase, and in the dose expansion phase, there were 122 colorectal cancer cases; so a fairly healthy size colorectal cancer population. And the median number of prior lines of therapy was 4, which is fairly consistent with what we would expect in our clinical population for people with colorectal cancer. So what they found in terms of efficacy is that the response rates, the confirmed overall response rates, were between 15 and 20%, depending on what dose of the medication the patients had received. They enrolled people regardless of cMET expression and then evaluated the response based on a higher or lower cMET expression. And those with higher cMET expression had an overall response rate of >30%, while those with lower cMET expression had a response rate of 10 to 15%. So they still had a response rate, which for fifth-line colorectal cancer is something to be aware of and it could be a marker of more significant clinical activity than other treatments that are out there. And with the antibody drug conjugates, it's also important for us to keep an eye on the side effect profiles because a lot of these agents can have distinct side effect profiles that otherwise we wouldn't be familiar with. And in this study, 64% of participants had a grade 3 or above treatment emergent adverse events, and 41% had serious adverse events. So definitely something to think about. And most of these were hematologic toxicities, 30% had grade 3 or worse anemia. Neutropenia was seen, in grade three and above, was seen in 25%, leukopenia or grade three and above was seen in 12%, and thrombocytopenia again around 12%. And the non-hematologic toxicities were nausea, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea. There was some interstitial lung disease, pneumonitis, which was seen in 7% of the total population, of which 2% had grade three or above. So definitely something to think about. From my perspective, I really am excited about this presentation because we're seeing evidence of clinical activity focused on cMET for refractory colorectal cancer compared to other agents that are out in the market. If this pans out in future studies, it could definitely change the way we deliver our treatments. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I totally agree that we actually need more therapy for those patients. And I'm not surprised that the myelosuppression, as you mentioned, was in fifth-line treatment. So this patient had large exposure to cytotoxic agents before. So, looking at CAR T once more, there is a very interesting Abstract 4019, which is a study of C-CAR031, a GPC3-specific TGFβRIIDN armored autologous CAR T, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). What are your key takeaways from this study, Shaalan? Dr. Shaalan Beg: This is a first-in-human study. It enrolled people with advanced HCC who failed on one or more lines of prior therapy and they were given one single infusion of C-CAR031 after standard lymphodepletion and they enrolled 24 patients across 4 dose levels. If we look at the overall response rate, 50% of the 22 people who were eligible for response assessments had a partial response. This response rate varies based on the dose level itself and the investigators claim a 90% disease control rate. So definitely when we think about standard treatments for hepatocellular cancer after first line therapy, this is something which will catch a lot of people's attention. Again, with CAR T-cell therapy, we need to be aware of the risk of potential toxicities. There were no dose limiting toxicities and CRS or cytokine release syndrome was observed in 91% of patients, while a very small proportion, about less than 5%, had grade three CRS. Most of the side effects here were, again, lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and some transaminitis in 16% of patients. They did see tumor reduction in 90%, not only in the intrahepatic disease, but also in the extrahepatic disease. And again, these are people who had BCLC stage C disease. So this included people with hepatic and extrahepatic metastases. And in terms of prior lines of therapy, 96% of patients had either received immune checkpoint inhibitors and TKIs. If we think about how some other immune therapy regimens are being developed in the GI cancer space, there is some indication that liver lesions may respond differently compared to extra hepatic disease. So in this case, they saw responses in both scenarios, which makes it very exciting, because even though we've seen many approvals of TKIs and immunotherapy, anti-androgenic therapy in hepatocellular cancer, the treatment of these patients is still extremely difficult because of their underlying hepatic dysfunction. And it'll be very interesting to see how this treatment unfolds. Dr. Mohamed Salem: You summarized it very well, Shaalan. I echo your thoughts. What is also interesting about that study, it's actually targeted at the GPC strain, which is prevalent in HCC but not normal tissue, which goes back to your comment about the toxicity, and hopefully we can also manage treatment in the context of underlying liver disease. Dr. Shaalan Beg: I guess it's fair to say that we're both very excited to see what's ahead in GI cancers at the Annual Meeting. Mohamed, thanks as always for sharing your great insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Thank you all for having me, and I'm looking forward to meeting you and all our colleagues in Chicago in a couple of weeks. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of this episode. I'll be back to cover late breaking abstracts and other key advances in GI oncology after the annual meeting, so please join me for more key insights from ASCO24 and on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune
Dr. Mohamed Salem: Consulting or Advisory Role: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca Speakers' Bureau: Genentech/Roche, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, BMS, Merck | |||
| ASCO24: The Future of Personalized Immunotherapy | 24 May 2024 | 00:34:42 | |
Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss key abstracts from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that explore triplet therapy in advanced melanoma, TIL cell therapy in immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive patients, and other novel approaches that could shape the future of immunotherapy in melanoma and beyond. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I'm delighted to have my friend and colleague, Dr. Jason Luke, on the podcast today to discuss key abstracts in melanoma and immunotherapy that will be featured and highlighted at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center, as well as the associate director for clinical research at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Jason, as always, it's a pleasure to have you on this podcast to hear your key insights on trials in the immunotherapy space and melanoma development paradigm, and to have you back on this podcast to highlight some of this work. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate. I always enjoy this heading into ASCO. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We're going to go ahead and talk about three abstracts in the melanoma space, and we will be starting with Abstract 9504. Abstract 9504 essentially is the RELATIVITY-048 study. It describes the efficacy and safety of the triplet nivolumab, relatlimab, and ipilimumab regimen in advanced PD-1 naive melanoma. So in this abstract highlighted by Dr. Ascierto and colleagues, they report on the results of this phase 2 trial in this setting. By way of background, PD-1 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors starting in PD-1 and CTLA-4, as well as PD-1 and LAG-3, are all FDA-approved on the basis of several pivotal phase 3 trials, including KEYNOTE-006, CheckMate-066, CheckMate-067, and most recently, RELATIVITY-047. Jason, can you briefly summarize for this audience what we know about each of these drugs, at least the two combinations that we have at this time? Dr. Jason Luke: For sure. And of course, these anti PD-1 agents, became a backbone in oncology and in melanoma dating back to more than 10 years ago now, that response rates in the treatment-naive setting to anti PD-1 with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab are roughly in the range of mid-30s to high-40s. And we've seen clinical trials adding on second agents. You alluded to them with the seminal study being CheckMate-067, where we combined a PD-1 antibody and CTLA-4 antibody or nivo + ipi. And there the response rate was increased to approximately 56%. And more recently, we have data combining PD-1 inhibitors with anti-LAG-3. So that's nivolumab and relatlimab. Now, in that trial, RELATIVITY-047, the overall response rate was described as 43%. And so that sounds, on a first pass, like a lower number, of course, than what we heard for nivolumab and ipilimumab. We have to be cautious, however, that the cross-trial comparison between those studies is somewhat fraught due to different patient populations and different study design. So I think most of us think that the response rate or the long-term outcomes between PD-1, CTLA-4, and PD-1 LAG-3 are probably roughly similar, albeit that, of course, we have much better or much longer follow up for the nivo + ipi combo. The one other caveat to this, of course then, is that the side effect profile of these two combinations is distinct, where the incidence of high-grade immune-related adverse events is going to be roughly half with nivolumab and relatlimab, a combination of what you would see with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So that has caused a lot of us to try to think about where we would use these different combinations. But we do see that all of these treatments can land a durable long-term response in the subset of patients that do have an initial treatment benefit. The landmark, I think, for the field has been the 7-and-a-half-year median overall survival that we've seen with PD-1 plus CTLA-4, nivo + ipi; of course, we don't have such long-term follow up for PD-1 and LAG-3. But I think that's the setting for thinking about the rationale for combining a triplet regimen of PD-1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, Jason, in your mind, given the difference in the disparity and durability of the responses for the 067 regimen of nivo-ipi, and the RELATIVITY-047 regiment of nivo-rela, what is the standard of care in the U.S., and how does it change in the rest of the world, knowing that nivo-rela is not necessarily approved in all jurisdictions? Dr. Jason Luke: So this is a major complication in our field, is that there is perhaps not complete agreement across the world in terms of what the frontline standard of care should be. I think most United States investigators, or those of us that really treat melanoma most of the time, would suggest that a combination regimen, given the enhanced response rate and longer-term outcomes, should be the consideration for the majority of patients. In fact, in my practice, it's hard to think of who I would treat with a monotherapy PD-1 approach in the PD-1 naive setting. So either nivo + ipi or nivo + rela. As you alluded to however, in other regulatory settings throughout the world, combinations might not actually even be approved at this point. So PD-1 monotherapy would be the backbone of that setting. It does set up some complications when you think about a comparator arm; say you were going to look at various combinations, probably PD-1 monotherapy would be the worldwide comparator. You have to understand though, in the United States, I think that that's a less attractive option. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So in RELATIVITY-047, Dr. Ascierto and his colleagues are looking at generating a triplet. And in this case, they looked at this in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, 46 patients. Very interestingly, the dose of ipilimumab studied here was 1 mg/kg through 8 weeks, not the 3 mg/kg every three weeks times four doses using 067, or even the low dose ipilimumab regimen that you studied in the second line setting, which was 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. So let's talk about the results and specifically the implications of potentially studying lower doses of ipi. Dr. Jason Luke: I appreciate you raising that point. I think it's really important as we think about this dataset because this triplet regimen is not by any means the only version of a triplet that could be developed using these agents. So just to give the high-level numbers from the abstract, we see from these data that the overall response rate is described as 59% and 78%, a disease control rate with patients having an unreached link. So duration of response of unreached, and then the progression-free survival at about 5 months. So those are really interesting data. But as was alluded to, it's not totally clear to me that that's the best that we could do with this regimen. Now, you alluded to this low-dose ipilimumab schedule at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks, and it's really important to note that we have no benchmark for that regimen in melanoma oncology. And in fact, the one study that used that regimen, which was the adjuvant study of nivolumab and ipilimumab, known as CheckMate915, is in fact the only immune checkpoint inhibitor study in melanoma oncology that was actually negative. That study noted no benefit to adding ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks on top of nivolumab, again, the adjuvant setting. So it's a little bit curious to then understand what it means in this study to have that amount of ipilimumab added to the rela-nivo backbone. And that manifests in a few different ways. We see the response rate here at 59%. Again, if you compare that just against the standard nivo + ipi dosing schedule, it's about the same. So is that really an advantage to having the triplet as compared to just doing standard nivo + ipi? We do see that it manifests in a slightly lower rate of grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events, at 39%. That's a little bit lower than what we'd expect for standard nivo + ipi. But again, I think that that emphasizes to me the possibility that some efficacy was left on the table by using this very low dose ipilimumab regimen. I think that's really a concern. It's not clear to me that these triplet data really differentiate from what we'd expect with the already approved regimen of nivo + ipi. Therefore, it makes it difficult to think about how would we really want to move this regimen forward, or should there be more work done about dose and schedule to optimize how we might want to do this? Dr. Diwakar Davar: As far as triplet therapy in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, meaning triplet immune therapy, because there are at least several targeted therapy triplets that are FDA-approved, [but] not necessarily widely utilized. How would you summarize the future for triplet therapy? Do you think it's potentially attractive? Do you think it's very attractive with some caveats? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think it's attractive, and we have 3 independently active agents. And so I do think it's a priority for the field to try to figure out how we could optimize the therapy. We've had such a revolution in melanoma oncology, talking about 7.5-year median survival from CheckMate-067, but that still implies that 7.5 years, half the patients have passed away. There's more to do here. And so I do think it should be a priority to sort this out. I guess I would be cautious, though, about advancing this regimen directly to a phase 3 trial because it doesn't seem clear to me that this is optimized in terms of what the outcome could be. If we're willing to tolerate higher rates of toxicity from other dose schedules of nivo-ipi alone, then I think we should do a little bit more here to potentially explore the space that might be possible to increase that overall response rate a little more without getting into a completely exaggerated toxicity profile that would be unacceptable. So, I do think it's exciting, but there's possibly more to do before really think about going big time with this. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So now we'll switch gears and move from frontline metastatic melanoma to the second line and beyond looking at a new agent and contextualizing the effects of that actually in the frontline settings. So Abstract 9505 describes the efficacy and safety of lifileucel, which is essentially autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapies, also known as TIL, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with ICI naive, so not necessarily pretreated, but ICI naive metastatic or unresectable melanoma. This is data from the IOV-COM-202 Cohort 1A oral abstract presented by Dr. Thomas and colleagues. In this abstract, Dr. Thomas and colleagues are presenting data from the 1A cohort, which is the phase 2 portion of the frontline trial that is evaluating autologous TIL with pembro in checkpoint inhibited naive metastatic melanoma. By way of background, TIL is FDA approved on the basis of several cohorts from a phase 2 trial. The data has been presented multiple times now by Drs. Sarli, Chesney, and multiple colleagues of ours. And essentially autologous TIL, which is generated from a surgical procedure in which a patient undergoes a surgery to extract a tumor from which T cells are then grown after ex vivo expansion and rapid expansion protocol. The entire procedure was essentially pioneered by several colleagues at the NCI, primarily Dr. Steve Rosenberg, and this approach produces objective response rates of approximately 31% to 36%. And the most recent publication demonstrated that at median follow up of approximately 2 years, the median duration of response was not reached. The median OS was about 14 months and PFS was about 4 months or so. So, can you contextualize the results of the abstract in the frontline setting? And then we'll talk a little bit about where we think this is going to go. Dr. Jason Luke: So I think this is a timely study given the recent approval. And in the abstract presented here, we see an early data cut from the PD-1 naive study, as you alluded to. So here we had 22 patients and distributed across various states of advanced melanoma. Ten out of the 22 had M1C, but there also were smatterings of earlier M1A and M1B at 18.2% and 9.1%. So this is important, as we think who the treatment population is that's going to be optimized with a TIL procedure. The median sum of diameters, meaning how much tumor burden the patients have, was about 5.5cm, and I'll note that that's a relatively modest amount of tumor burden, albeit not that unusual for an early-stage trial. So of the patients that participated, 8 had BRAF mutations so that's 36%. That's not that high, but it's reasonable. And I think the important overlying number, the response rate so far in the study, with about 17 months of follow up, was 63.6%, and that includes 22% or 23% having complete response. So those are interesting data. And another point that was made in the abstract, which we've all seen, is that responses to TIL, all of immunotherapy but especially TIL, do seem to mature over time, meaning they deepen over time. So it's possible the response rate could go up some extent as we watch this study advance. So I think these are exciting data on some level. Also, a 63.6% response rate sounds pretty impressive, but we do have to put that in the context of a double checkpoint blockade, which we just got done discussing, gives you almost a 60% response rate, 59% response rate. So then the question really is: Is it worth the amount of effort that we could go into generating a TIL product in a treatment naive patient, and put them through the lymphodepletion that is associated with TIL and the high dose interleukin 2 treatment that accompanies the reinfusion of the TIL, if you're going to get a response rate that's roughly the same as what you would get if you gave them off the shelf nivo plus ipilimumab? At this point it's a little bit hard to know the answer to that question. I think it could be possible that the answer is yes, because we don't know exactly which populations or patients are most likely to benefit from each of these therapies. And if it could be teased out who's not going to benefit to nivo + ipi from the get-go, then of course, we would want to offer them a therapy that has that frontline potential, durable, long-term response. But I have to say, on a one-to-one with TIL therapy, you get a lot of toxicity initially with the treatment; with nivo + ipi on the back end, you get a fair amount of toxicity with the treatment. How are we going to judge those two things? And I think we probably need a larger dataset to really have a good handle on that. So these are interesting early data, but it's not totally clear to me that even if this holds up all the way through the trial, and we're going to talk about the design of the registration trial here in a second, a 60% response rate on its own without further biomarker stratification is a little bit hard for me to see in clinical practice why we would want to do that, given we can already just go off the shelf and give checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So that brings us to TILVANCE-301. So TILVANCE is a phase 3 trial. It's a registration intent trial by our Iovance colleagues evaluating the pembro-TIL regimen versus pembrolizumab alone. So in this phase 3 trial, approximately 670 patients will be randomized to either arm A, which is lifileucel + pembro. And in this arm A, patients are going to be getting lifileucel with the tumor resection, non-myeloablative lymphoid depletion, the lifileucel and abbreviated course of high-dose IL-2, and thereafter, continued pembro for the study mandated duration versus arm B, where patients will be getting just pembrolizumab monotherapy per label. Arm B patients, per the design, may cross over to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of central-blinded, radiology-confirmed disease progression. The study design otherwise is fairly routine and, per most of our registration trials these days, patients have actually been permitted to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, including checkpoint inhibitors, as long as the receipt of the therapy was more than 6 months prior to the inclusion of the patient in that registration trial. The dual primary efficacy endpoints as stated are BICR-assessed objective response rate as well as PFS, and the key secondary endpoint is overall survival. So Jason, what are your thoughts on the study design and potentially the regulatory implications, particularly given, one, the control arm of pembro monotherapy, and two, the role of TIL crossover to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of BICR mandated progression for arm B? Dr. Jason Luke: So this goes to a few points that we've touched on already in the discussion here. When we think about the primary endpoints for this study, with one of them being overall response rate, one has to assume that that's a given that they would get that. I feel like that's a low bar. And we go back to that cross-trial comparison. If their results end up being that the response rates are about 60%, I don't know that that differentiates necessarily from what's already available in the field with combination immune checkpoint blockade. For the purposes of the study that would mean it's a positive study, so I think that would probably be good. But again, the comparator to pembrolizumab monotherapy, I think some of us would argue, isn't really consistent with what we would do with a patient in our clinic. So it's not that it's bad per se, but I think there's going to be a whole lot of cross-trial comparison. So if the study is positive, that would be good for getting the drug available. It's still a bit hard though, based on the preliminary data that I've seen, to imagine how this would have uptake in terms of utilization as a frontline therapy. You alluded to the crossover, and I think there, the assumption is that patients who get TIL therapy as a second line perhaps would have an attenuated benefit. But I'm not sure that's really true. It certainly looks from the data that we have, like the patients who benefit most from TIL are going to be those who didn't respond to anti PD-1 in the front line. So I'm not sure how much difference there's going to be between first- and second-line TIL therapy, but those data will kind of wait to be seen. So I think it's an important study. Of course, the accelerated approval of TIL as a later line therapy is dependent on this trial being positive. So there is some risk that if this trial ended up not being positive, that that could have regulatory implications on the utility or availability of TILs, a subsequent line therapy. But all of these, I guess we'll have to wait to see the results. We do hope for a positive trial here, although I think it'll be nuanced to sort of interpret those data given that pembrolizumab monotherapy control arm. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So we've learned a lot about TIL, both its use in the second-line setting and this very exciting but potentially risky frontline trial that is ongoing at some centers in the United States and certainly a lot of ex-U.S. enrollment. So we'll now pivot to a related product which actually belongs to a much larger class of agents that are antigen specific T-cell therapies in a variety of different formats. And that is Abstract 9507, which is the "Phase 1 safety and efficacy of IMC-F106C, a PRAME × CD3 ImmTAC bispecific, in post-checkpoint cutaneous melanoma (CM)." Now, in this abstract, Dr. Omid Hamid and colleagues reported the results of this phase 1 trial. As a disclosure, I'm an investigator and the last author on this manuscript. Jason, it would be important for our audience, for us to maybe firstly, outline the PRAME as a target, and then the ImmTAC as a platform prior to discussing these results. So let's start with the target PRAME, which I think is a target that you know well. So why don't you start with the target and we'll talk a little bit about that and then the platform? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so I think for the audience, being aware of PRAME, or the Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma, is going to be quite important moving into the future. So PRAME as a therapeutic target is a cancer testis antigen that's overexpressed in tumor tissues. And of course the name has melanoma in it, but it's not uniquely present in melanoma. So the expression patterns of PRAME as a target are very high in melanoma. So in cutaneous disease, this is upwards of almost 100%, somewhere between 95% and 100%, in metastatic melanoma tissues. And PRAME has several different roles on a molecular level, although I don't think for our purposes here, it's so much important to be aware of them, but rather that this is a very highly expressed target, which then can make it attractive for using T cell receptor-based therapies. And so in the case we're talking about here on the ImmTAC platform, that's a CD3 PRAME×CD3 bispecific approach. But of course there are other approaches that can also be taken, such as TCR T cells that directly go after PRAME itself. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's now talk about the platform and how it differs from some of the other antigen targeting platforms that you have just alluded to. I think the Immtac platform is basically a fusion protein comprising engineered TCRs with a CD3 specific short chain variable fragment. And then the engineered TCR therefore binds antigens in an HLA dependent fashion. But you know quite a lot about some of these alternative platforms, and I think it'll be important to contextualize for the audience the difference between ImmTAC, which is a prototype drug that is already approved in the context of tebentafusp. But how does this differ from some of the other more nuanced platforms, such as the Immatics TCR or TCR platform and TScan TCRT nanoplasmonic platform. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So the ImmTAC platform as alluded to is already approved on the market with tebentafusp, which is the gp100-CD3 bispecific molecule. And the advantage of that approach is infusion off the shelf of a drug. The downside of it is that it is a weekly dosing strategy as it stands now. And there are some complicated disease kinetics associated with treatment response, which we'll come back to in the context of the PRAME bispecific. Those are, in contrast with T-cell receptor-transduced T cells, as an alternative strategy, which is a form of adopted cell transfer. So we just got done talking about TIL therapy, which of course, is trying to take lymphocytes out of the tumor and grow them up and then give them back. Here with TCR-transduced T cells, we're talking about taking leukopak from the blood and then using different transfection approaches to try to insert into the lymphocytes of the patient a T cell receptor that recognizes to a certain cancer antigen, in this case, PRAME. So you alluded to a couple of different companies that have different platforms to do this. Immatics has a molecule called IMA 203, for which there have been data disclosed in the past year, again showing some very interesting responses in patients who have highly refractory melanoma. That process, though, again, does require lymphodepletion before you reinfuse the cells. Again, in contrast, the ImmTAC, which is an off the shelf revenue administer, there you have to make the product and then bring the patient back, lymphodeplete, and give the cells back. Immatics platform uses a viral transfection vector. The T scan approach that you alluded to before uses an approach of a mixed system on multiple HLA backgrounds to try to get past HLA-A*02:01 only, and in this case, uses a plasmid-based transfection syndrome that perhaps can be more broadly utilized given the lack of a lentiviral vector. So this is a complicated area of technology that starts to get into immune engineering, and I think for the purposes of this discussion, we don't want to belabor it. But both of these technologies, talking about the CD3 bispecific with the off the shelf aspect of it and the adoptive cell transfer, each of these using a T cell receptor-based therapy to try to go after PRAME, I think have very high upsides, and I think we'll initially see it in melanoma over the next year or so. But this is likely to be relevant to multiple tumor types beyond melanoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's discuss the results of this phase 1 trial. IMC-F106C, like all other ImmTAC, is administered intravenously and does require step-up dosing. You alluded to the fact that the tebentafusp was approved, and it's one of those drugs that is fortunately otherwise administered weekly, which can be difficult for the patient and requires at least the patient spend the first 3 doses overnight under some kind of monitoring, whether it's in the hospital or extended outpatient monitoring, for at least 23 hours. The efficacy of this agent and this platform appears to be surprising in that you tend to see a relatively low RECIST response rate. We'll have you comment a little bit on why that is the case and what may be the role of ctDNA, as opposed to conventional RECIST in assessing response. At least in this trial, they mandated pre-testing, but did not require it for study enrollment. And pre-positivity was defined using immunohistochemistry with a relatively low H-score of 1%. And the molecular response definition was a 0.5 log or a 68% ctDNA reduction just prior to the first imaging assessment. So how do you contextualize the results? But maybe before you talk a little bit about the results, the ctDNA aspect, that was a recent publication by Drs. Rich Carvajal, Alex Shoushtari, and I think you are also involved in that. Dr. Jason Luke: So, I think an interesting observation around tebentafusp has been that ctDNA may be a better predictor of long-term outcomes. And how you define ctDNA response is still something that the field is grappling with, albeit that I think is going to be an important consideration as we think about these novel therapies, these ImmTACs and other CD3 engagers moving into the future. But for the purposes of the abstract here, we see that in the population of patients treated, there were 46 patients with cutaneous melanoma. The majority got monotherapy with IMC-F106C, and that's the PRAME bispecific. So 40 patients that got monotherapy and six who got a combination with checkpoint inhibitor. All these patients had prior treatment with immunotherapy, and most of them had PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibody with a small spanner that also had BRAF inhibitors. In terms of that PRAME testing that you alluded to, based on the immunohistochemistry H-score greater than 1%, 35 out of 40 patients were positive, so they defined 5 as negative. And we could come back if we have time, but there are other ways to do PRAME testing as well that I think may become unique for different agents, maybe an important biomarker. In the data, 31 out of the 46 patients were RECIST evaluable. The outcomes of those patients were to note that the response rate was 13%, which was four partial responses. But 35% of patients had tumor regression with a disease control rate at 65%. It was clear that there was an enrichment by PRAME positivity for both progression free and overall survival. So those patients who had obvious positivity essentially had a doubling of the PFS and more than the doubling of the OS, 2.1 to 4.1 months for TFS and landmark OS, 40% to 94%. So I think these are quite intriguing data. It does suggest that for the vast majority of patients, we do see some induction of the antitumor effect, albeit that RECIST might undercall the effect. And so this may become another area where the ctDNA monitoring might be able to help us to understand who is likely to have really long-term benefit from this therapy. And given the number of emerging treatments that we have for melanoma, we might be able to really focus in on that group of patients in terms of optimizing how we would use this drug moving into the future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So you talked about a response rate, and at first glance, this response rate is a little underwhelming. We're talking about 4 out of 31 RECIST evaluable patients, 13%. So it's in the double digits, but barely. So how enthusiastic are you about the results? How does it contrast with at least the publicly known data from other brain targeting approaches, such as the IMA203 agent, understanding that while they may be all targeting somewhat the same target, they are actually extraordinarily different platforms. One's off the shelf, one's highly customized. How do you contextualize the results? How would it contrast with other cellular approaches? Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's important, again, to emphasize the point you made, which is that they're very different kinds of treatments. So even though they both target PRAME, they're going to be differently useful, and they could be quite useful for different groups of patients. And so here we see that there is a subfraction of patients who are deriving long-term benefit. And we commonly have an argument in our field about, is overall response rate really a useful monitor that describes a patient-centric outcome? While, of course, patients like to know their tumors are shrinking, what they want the most is for the tumors not to get worse and for them not to pass away from cancer. So I think I'm enthusiastic about these results, but emphasizing the point that we need to better understand who is going to benefit the most from this CD3 bispecific PRAME approach and how we're going to be able to harness that into long term benefit for patients because there's no doubt that an off the shelf therapy has a high degree of value relative to adoptive cell transfer, which sort of requires a big wind up. So when you say, what does it contrast with? Well, the data for IMA203 has shown more than a 50% response rate in patients with more than 5 lines of therapy for metastatic disease. That really looks quite exciting. And several of those patients are now out for quite an extended period, meaning 2 years or more given only a single dose of IMA203. But again, the caveat being, you have to make the cell product for the patient, and that takes time. You lymphodeplete the patient, not all patients can tolerate that in the refractory disease setting, and then they have to be able to tolerate the reinfusion of the cells. And so this drug, IMC-F106C, looks very promising. Moving into the earlier phase trial that we'll talk about, I think the TCR T cell program has a lot of upsides for patients, especially with refractory disease. And so I think these two different approaches are really on parallel tracks. They both target PRAME, but I don't think they necessarily need to be compared one to one, as if they're going to go head-to-head with each other. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So now we'll talk a little bit about the frontline setting, because on the basis of some of these results, Immunocore is now exploring IMC-F106C frontline melanoma. This trial is actually being presented as a trial in progress at this meeting by Georgina Long and colleagues. Some of us are co-authors in that abstract. And in this study, HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with advanced unresectable melanoma will be randomized one to one to the combination of IMC-F106C, which actually, I think after this meeting will be known as bre-ni in combination with nivolumab versus nivolumab regimens, which will either be nivo or nivo-rela, investigators choice and likely dependent on region. So what do you think of the challenge of this trial? We talked about some of the challenges of the TILVANCE trial earlier. But what is going to be the challenge of this trial and in this setting, particularly given the response rates that we've seen so far? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so, similar to comments we had before, thinking about what the optimal control arm is for a study like this is difficult, and so that'll be important as we think about interpreting the results. One has to assume for the purpose of this conversation that it is a positive trial, and that adding the PRAME bispecific theory does lead to an improvement in progression free survival relative to those in checkpoint alone approaches. And I think the magnitude of that difference is going to be of some relevance. And then I think importantly, also figure out who needs this treatment and who's going to benefit long term are going to be really important considerations. We alluded to how this drug requires an intensive dosing period at the get go, and so telling patients that they need to come in weekly or bi-weekly initially for some number of weeks before they switch to a longer-term intermittent regimen, that comes with real world considerations for patients, their families, their finances, etc. So the benefit has to be clearly obvious that makes it worthwhile doing that, again, because a default could be giving drugs that we've had for 10 years with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So there's going to be a lot of cross-trial comparison that is going to necessarily have to take place here to think about what these results really mean in the context of other available therapies. I think the study is reasonable to do. I think this is a very active agent. There's no doubt there's a subset of patients who seem to benefit a lot from it. And I would just emphasize the point that that's probably going to be the most important thing to really drill down on is under the assumption there's a positive trial, we need to know who those people are so we could optimize giving this kind of a treatment to them. Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess one important point to underscore what Jason said about potential predictive biomarkers, I think as part of the presentation, Dr. Hamid and colleagues will be talking about a candidate predictive biomarker of this agent, which is potentially class specific and not necessarily agent specific of a T cell signature that potentially could define patients who are more likely to benefit from this agent. So, Jason, as always, thank you for sharing your expertise and insights with the team today. We certainly look forward to catching up again for our wrap up episode after the annual meeting where we'll talk about some of the data that we could not talk about, particularly the late breaking abstracts and other key advances that will shape the future of, certainly the field of immunotherapy and melanoma, potentially the field of cancer immunotherapy at large. Dr. Jason Luke: Oh, thanks very much for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners today. You'll find the links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. So thank you, and we'll see you soon.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Diwakar Davar: Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy
Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio
| |||
| DESTINY-Breast06 and A-BRAVE: Advances in Breast Cancer Research | 08 Aug 2024 | 00:15:12 | |
Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss the results of the DESTINY-Breast06 trial in HR+, HER2-low and HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer and the A-BRAVE trial in early triple-negative breast cancer, the results of which were both presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello, I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Jefferson Health in Philadelphia. My guest today is Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute. We'll be discussing the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, which showed a progression-free advantage with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared to chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer. We'll address the implications of this study for the community, including the importance of expanding pathology assessments to include all established subgroups with HER2 expression, and the promise of expanding eligibility for antibody-drug conjugates. We'll also highlight advances in triple-negative breast cancer, focusing on the A-BRAVE trial, the first study reporting data on an immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Erika, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much, Allison. Happy to join. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Antibody-drug conjugates are rapidly changing the treatment landscape in breast cancer. The data from the DESTINY-Breast06 trial suggests that trastuzumab deruxtecan may become a preferred first-line treatment option for most patients with HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer after progression on endocrine therapy. First, could you remind our listeners, what's the definition of HER2-ultralow and what were the findings of this trial? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are fantastic questions. Ultralow really has never been talked about before. Ultralow is part of a subset of the IHC zeros. So it's those patients that have HER2-tumor staining that's less than 10% and incomplete but isn't absolutely zero. It's even below that +1 or +2 IHC that we have classified as HER2-low. Now, I think what's important to remember about D-B06, if you recall, D-B04 (DESTINY-Breast04) was our trial looking at HER2-low, is that D-B06 now included HER2-low as well as this HER2-ultralow category that you asked about. And it also moved trastuzumab deruxtecan up into the frontline. If you recall, D-B04 was after 1 line of cytotoxic therapy. So now this is really after exhausting endocrine therapy before patients have received other chemotherapy. And what we saw was an improvement in progression-free survival that was pretty significant: 13.2 months versus 8.1 months, it was a hazard ratio of 0.62. And you can ask yourself, "well, was it mainly those HER2-low patients that kind of drove that benefit? What about the ultralow category?" And when we look at ultralow, it was no different: 13.2 months versus 8.3 months, hazard ratio, again, highly significant. So I think it's really encouraging data and gives us some information about using this drug earlier for our patients with hormone receptor-positive but HER2-negative disease. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I thought this study was really interesting because it's a patient population that I find very difficult to treat, the hormone receptor-positive metastatic patient that's not responding to endocrine therapy anymore. But it's important to mention that T-DXd resulted in more serious toxicities compared to traditional chemotherapy in this study. So how do you choose which patients to offer this to? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are both great points. So you're right, this is after endocrine therapy. And in fact, about 85% of these patients had received at least 2 prior lines of endocrine therapy. So I have some people kind of asking, "Well, if endocrine therapy really isn't benefiting everyone in the second-line setting post-CDK, should we just move to the ADCs?" And, no, probably we should really make sure that we're exhausting endocrine therapies for those patients that are going to benefit. And once we determine somebody has endocrine-resistant disease, that's when we would think about switching. In terms of the side effects, I think you're right. It's mainly ILD that's probably the more serious side effect that we worry about a little bit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. The good news is, through multiple trials, we've gotten a little bit better at managing this. We've pretty much all but eliminated any fatal cases of ILD, definitely less than 1% now. ILD rates, depending on what study you look for, kind of ranges in that 10% to 15% range. Any grade ILD on D-B06 was 11.3%. So really kind of making sure that we look for ILD at scans, making sure that patients are educated to tell us about any new pulmonary symptoms: cough, exertional dyspnea, shortness of breath at rest, etc. But I think the most common side effects that we really deal with on a daily basis with trastuzumab deruxtecan, luckily, is nausea, which we've gotten better at managing with the 2- or 3-drug antiemetic regimen, and probably a little bit of fatigue as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you. So, I think for most people in the community, the sticking point here will be expanding pathology assessments to include all of the subgroups, including the ultralow. Most patients in the community are not testing for HER2-low and HER2-ultralow now. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Historically, we kind of all did HER2 IHC, right? And then as FISH became available, there were a lot of institutions that moved to FISH and maybe didn't have IHC anymore. And now, at least in my institution, we do both. But I think it's a very important point that you made that IHC was really designed to pick out those patients that have HER2-high, the 3 pluses or the FISH amplified cases. It was not to tell the difference between a 1+ or a 2+ or a 0 that's not quite a 0 and a 1+. So I think you're right. I think this is tough. I probably have a little bit more of an interesting take on this than some people will. But data from ASCO, not this year but in 2023, there was actually a pretty eloquent study presented where they looked at serial biopsies in patients, and essentially, if you got up to 4 or 5 biopsies, you were guaranteed to have a HER2-low result. Now, this didn't even include ultralow, which is even easier. If we know we include ultralow, we're really talking about probably 85% to 90% of our patients now that have some HER2 expression. But if we biopsy enough, we're guaranteed to get a HER2 low. And so I think the question really is, if we know IHC wasn't really designed to pick out these ultralows, and we know kind of greater than 90% of patients are going to have some expression, did we kind of develop this drug a little bit backwards? Because we thought we understood HER2, and the reality is this drug is a little bit more like a sacituzumab govitecan, where we don't test for the TROP2. Should we really be kind of serial biopsying these patients or should maybe most patients have access to at least trying this drug? Dr. Allison Zibelli: So I don't think that most of my patients will really be happy to sign up for serial biopsies. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Agreed. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Do we have any emerging technologies for detecting low levels of HER2? You talked about how the IHC test isn't really designed to detect low levels of HER2. Do you think newer detection techniques such as immunofluorescence will make a difference, or will we have liquid biopsy testing for this? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think liquid biopsy may be a little bit hard, just because some of those circulating tumor cells are more of a mesenchymal-type phenotype and don't necessarily express all of the same receptors. Normally, if they're cytokeratin-positive, they do, but certainly there is a lot out there looking at more sensitive measures. You mentioned immunofluorescence, there are some even more quantitative measures looking at lower levels of HER2. I definitely think there will be. I guess, ultimately, with even the IHC zeros that are the less than 10% incomplete staining, having a PFS that was absolutely no different than the HER2 low, I guess the question is, how low can we really go? We know that even the IHC zeros doesn't mean that there's no HER2 expression on the cell surface. It just means that maybe there's a couple of thousand as opposed to 10,000 or 100,000 copies of HER2. And so it really appears that perhaps this drug really is wedded to having a lot of HER2 expression. So ultimately, I wonder how much we're going to have to use those tests, especially with what we know about tumor heterogeneity. We know that if we biopsy 1 lesion in the liver, biopsy a lymph node, or even another lesion in the liver, that the HER2 results can have some heterogeneity. And so ultimately, my guess is that most people have some HER2 expression on their breast cancer cells. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So maybe we're going to be using this for everybody in the future. Dr. Erika Hamilton: It certainly seems like we keep peeling back the onion and including more and more patients into the category that are eligible to receive this. I agree. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Let's move on to triple-negative breast cancer, namely the A-BRAVE trial. This was an interesting trial for patients that did not get neoadjuvant immunotherapy and testing 2 groups. The first group was those with residual disease after neoadjuvant conventional chemotherapy. The second group was people with high-risk disease identified upfront that had upfront surgery. The study found that adjuvant avelumab did not improve disease-free survival versus observation, which was the study's primary endpoint. But interestingly, there was a significant improvement in 3-year overall survival and distant disease-free survival. Can you give us your thoughts on that? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think this study was really interesting. Right now, the standard for our patients with larger or node-positive triple-negative cancers is KEYNOTE-522. It's a pretty tough regimen. It's kind of 2 sequential uses of 2 chemotherapies, so 4 chemotherapy agents total with pembrolizumab. But you're right, this study looked at those that had residual disease after neoadjuvant that didn't include immunotherapy, or those patients that didn't get neoadjuvant therapy, went to surgery, and then were receiving chemotherapy on the back end. I'm going to give you the numbers, because you're right. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were not statistically significant. It was 68.3% among those that had avelumab, 63.2% with those that had observation only. So the difference was 5.1% in favor of avelumab, but it wasn't statistically significant. A p value of 0.1, essentially. But when we looked at the 3-year overall survival rates, we saw the same pattern, those patients with the avelumab doing better, but it was 84.8% overall survival and not, unfortunately, dying, versus 76.3%. So the magnitude of benefit there was 8.5%, so about 3% higher than we saw for disease-free survival, and this was statistically significant. So is this going to change practice for most patients? I probably don't think so. I think for our patients that have larger tumors that's recognized upfront or have node positivity, we're probably going to want to use neoadjuvant chemo. Being able to get a PCR is very prognostic for our patients and enables us to offer things on the back end, such as PARP inhibitors or further chemotherapy of a different type of chemotherapy. But for our patients that go to surgery and maybe the extent of their disease just isn't recognized initially, this could be an option. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I agree. I think this will be a really useful regimen for patients where we get the surprise lymph node that we weren't expecting, or somebody who comes to us, maybe without seeing the medical oncologist, who got upfront surgery. So I thought this was really interesting. What kind of translational studies do you think we're going to do to try and understand which patients would benefit from avelumab? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think that's a great question, and honestly, it's a question that we haven't really answered in the neoadjuvant setting either. Immunotherapy in breast cancer is just a little bit different than it is in some other diseases. We have a benefit for those patients that are PD-L1 positive in the first line. We really haven't seen benefit for metastatic outside of first line. And then in neoadjuvant, it was among all comers. We don't have to test for PD-L1. And now we have this avelumab data from A-BRAVE. I think the question is, is there's probably a subset of patients that are really getting benefit and a subset that aren't. And I don't know that PD-L1 testing is the right test. We know a lot of people are looking at TILs, so kind of lymphocytes that are infiltrating the tumor, a variety of other kind of immunologic markers. But my guess is that eventually we're going to get smart enough to tease out who actually needs the immunotherapy versus who isn't going to benefit. But we're not quite there yet. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you, Erika, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you value our insights, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people to find us. So thank you very much for listening today.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: None Disclosed
Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson
Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics | |||
| Novel Approaches in Hematologic Malignancies at ASCO24 | 24 May 2024 | 00:22:33 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Marc Braunstein look ahead at key abstracts across the spectrum of hematologic malignancies that will be presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the OPTIC trial in chronic myeloid leukemia, treatment options for transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma, and the 7-year analysis of the ECHELON-1 trial in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm delighted to be joined again this year by Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York. We're going to be discussing some of the key abstracts in hematologic malignancies that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Marc, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Marc Braunstein: It's a pleasure to be back, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: There are some exciting abstracts to be presented at this year's meeting, and I would like to begin, if we can, with Abstract 6501. As you know, this reports the four-year results from the OPTIC trial of ponatinib in patients with chronic-phase CML and the T315I mutation. Can you tell us about the trial and about these latest follow-up results? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Sure. Well, we've made tremendous progress in managing patients with CML in the past two decades using these oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ponatinib. Ponatinib is a third-generation TKI that has activity in both Philadelphia-positive ALL as well as CML, and can overcome the resistance mutation you mentioned, called the T315I mutation, which is sometimes found following prior TKI therapy. The OPTIC study is a multicenter phase 2 randomized study of various doses of ponatinib in 283 chronic phase CML patients who had received 2 or more prior lines of therapy or those who had the presence of a T315I mutation, with the current analysis examining the major remission at 48 months, PFS, as well as OS. Of note, in this study, after patients have achieved a major remission with a transcript level of 1% or less, the study allowed for dose reduction of ponatinib from the original dose of either 45 milligrams or 30 milligrams to a reduced dose of 15 milligrams. So, when we look at the results, we find that the patients who had the highest overall response rates and higher rates of molecular remission were those who received the 45-milligram dose. And remember, these patients were allowed to be dose-reduced to the 15-milligram dose once they achieved a molecular remission of 1% or less. In addition, the rates of overall survival were highest in the 45-milligram dose as well. When looking at the T315I subgroup, the rates of molecular remission, the depth of remission, and the rates of progression-free survival, in general, were lower in that subgroup, but still higher in the 45-milligram dose than the 35- milligram dose. Furthermore, when looking at the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, they were 8% in the 45-milligram dose compared to 14% in the 30-milligram dose and 5% in the patients who only received the 15-milligram dose. The authors have concluded that the 45-milligram dose, with the potential to be reduced to 15 milligrams after achieving 1% or less of the BCR-ABL transcript level, seems to be the right balance between efficacy and safety. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. In the longer term, do you think that this study will, in any way, affect the position of ponatinib in the treatment algorithm for CML? Is it going to remain as a second or third-line option, or do you think there's any chance it will be moved up? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, that's a great question. There are other TKIs, such as asciminib, that also target the T315I mutation, and that mutation tends to develop after prior first-line or second-line TKI therapy. But given its activity in both ALL and CML, I think it's certainly reasonable to expect that ponatinib will be used in earlier lines of therapy given its efficacy in later lines. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's change gears and move the focus to acute myeloid leukemia. There has been a lot of discussion around frailty in many different malignancies, but the impact of frailty on outcomes in AML is maybe something that hasn't been quite so well studied. In Abstract 6506, investigators did a population-based study in Ontario, Canada, that assessed the patient's frailty risk and the impact that might have on outcomes. What are your takeaways from this study, and how do you think these data will help optimize treatment decisions? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, I'm glad we're talking about this abstract John, because frailty scores are increasingly being used in hematologic malignancies to help guide goals and intensity of care. And as opposed to using age or performance status alone, these composite frailty assessment tools, such as the MFI tool that they used in this particular study, take into account multiple variables that are both physiologic, such as the patient's comorbidities, as well as social, and what kind of support system do they have, and things of that nature. And that accounts for their overall fitness. So, in this retrospective cohort study that was a population-based study in Ontario between 2006 and 2021, they looked at 5,450 patients retrospectively with acute leukemia and grouped those patients into 3 categories based on this frailty index. Patients who are either fit, somewhere in the middle between fit or frail, which they call pre-frail, or frail. And they looked at outcomes such as overall survival, comparing patients who got intensive chemotherapy regimens for induction or those who got non-intensive therapy for induction. Patients in either group could have been assigned to either fit, pre-frail, or frail although there are much more fit patients than those who got intensive induction. And so, looking at their findings, it was noted that patients who were in the frail category, not entirely unexpectedly, had lower overall survival when compared to those who were fit or pre-frail. I think the value of a study like this is not just to highlight the benefit of frailty scores to help predict which patients may ultimately have a shorter survival, but also to help potentially guide which patients may be more suitable for intensive versus less intensive induction. I will note that this study was conducted in an era where we didn't have the same sorts of less intensive induction that are very effective in less fit patients, such as the combination of azacytidine and venetoclax, which is commonly used in less fit patients nowadays. So, the study may encompass patients who didn't have access to that therapy because it wasn't available during that time. But I think it still, overall, does highlight the fact that assessing fitness or frailty in acute myeloid leukemia is important for predictive value. Dr. John Sweetenham: I agree. Marc, I don't know what your thoughts are on this, but it goes either way. I mean, I think that, if I remember the numbers correctly, 25% of fit patients received non-intensive therapy. So, is there a missed opportunity there for that group of patients who actually may have tolerated the intensive therapy but it was never offered? Dr. Marc Braunstein: That's an excellent point, John, and I think that highlights the importance of frailty indices because they take into account much more than one particular factor, or even just a subjective assessment of the patient in real time when they're first presenting. And they may have disease-specific features that are decreasing, say one element of their assessment such as their performance status. So, really taking these composite fitness scores into account may actually allow you to escalate therapy in a patient who may actually be fit but maybe perceived as less fit when they present. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. So, I think, as you mentioned, there are better treatment options out there now maybe than there were at the time this study was conducted. Nevertheless, there may still be that opportunity for more intensive therapy for some of these patients when they are more holistically assessed. Let's move on and switch gears once again and talk about a study in multiple myeloma, the so-called IMROZ study, which is Abstract 7500. So, this is a study looking at treatment options for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Some of these patients may not have a chance for subsequent therapy if they are not eligible for transplant. What are your thoughts on this study? Do you think we're closer to a new standard of care for patients who are not going to proceed to an autologous stem cell transplant? Dr. Marc Braunstein: It seems like every year there's a new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma because there's so much data emerging, which is just wonderful. So, I think as background, at the 2023 ASH meeting, the IsKia study was presented, which is a randomized phase 3 study in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible patients. And that was using isatuximab with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone upfront and that study did show a benefit in terms of reducing minimal residual disease compared to carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone. But that study was looking at fit newly diagnosed patients who were going on to stem cell transplant. Right now, the standard of care for patients who are not eligible for transplant is generally to use a 2 or 3-drug regimen, such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, based on the phase 3 MAYA study. But this study is really unique in that it looks at using a quadruplet regimen in patients who are transplant ineligible or not intended to go for transplant. So, the phase 3 IMROZ study was a randomized study of 446 patients that compared isatuximab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone to bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone. So, a quad versus a triplet regimen. The primary endpoint in this study was progression-free survival, but they also looked at secondary endpoints, such as complete response rate and minimal residual disease negativity. Just to quickly highlight the results and then discuss the standard of care, the median duration of treatment in this study was 53 months in the quad regimen and 31 months in the control arm. At a median follow-up of about 60 months, the progression-free survival was not reached with the quad regimen versus 54 months in the triplet, and that was a significant difference. In addition, the safety profile was pretty much consistent with the class, there were a bit more grade three or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with the ESA-containing regimen, 92% versus 84%, but no difference in adverse events leading to discontinuation in either arm. So, this study is certainly compelling in terms of using quadruplet-based regimens that contain an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody for newly diagnosed patients who are not intended to undergo transplant. I think at the meeting, I will be interested to see the patient population that was included. Patients who are over the age of 80, for example, are excluded. So, I would like to know more about their fitness level and performance status. But I think it's clear, John, that using quad regimens over triplet regimens is just consistently superior in terms of efficacy outcomes. Dr. John Sweetenham: Right. I guess that, even though maybe we can't focus on the specific agents right now, it looks as if quad regimens are going to be the standard of care regimens for the future in this group. Do you think that is fair? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Very likely. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, that's a pretty challenging group of patients. And so to move on again, let's talk about another, perhaps equally challenging group - patients with mantle cell lymphoma, particularly those who carry certain mutations. The so-called SYMPATICO study, which is reported in Abstract 7007, presents data on the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who carry a TP53 mutation. We know that this mutation confers a high risk of early progressive disease and poorer outcomes when these patients are treated with standard chemoimmunotherapy for mantle cell. Trials to date have been limited to small single-arm studies. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and the outcomes and what you think it means for the future? Dr. Marc Braunstein: As a background, although BTK inhibitors such as ibrutinib have yet to be approved for newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, which are second-generation BTK inhibitors, are FDA-approved for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma. Ibrutinib was withdrawn from the market. The lead author of this abstract, Dr. Michael Wang, had presented a late-breaking data from the phase 3 SYMPATICO trial at ASH last year, in which 267 patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma after one to five prior lines of therapy were randomized to receive the combination of ibrutinib plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax or ibrutinib plus placebo. That study showed there was a 32 versus 22-month progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.65 at a median follow-up of 51 months, indicating the PFS benefit of the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax compared to ibrutinib with placebo. So that leads us to this subgroup analysis in the current study being presented at ASCO, in which they looked at a subgroup of patients with mantle cell lymphoma who are at very high risk for treatment failure and early relapse - those are patients who have a mutation in TP53, which again is high risk for treatment failure. This abstract examined an open-label cohort of 44 first-line patients, as well as 75 patients who were in the relapse/refractory cohort, and compared to patients who either did or did not have the P53 mutation. When we look at the progression-free survival outcomes, the median progression-free survival in the first-line cohort of patients who did not have a P53 mutation was not reached, whereas those with the P53 mutation had a median progression-free survival of 22 months, which is still meaningful but still less than those who did not have a P53 mutation. Which again is not entirely unexpected. But the overall response rate of the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax was very high at 90%, and the median duration of response was about 21 months. Now comparing this to the relapse/refractory cohort, in those without a P53 mutation, the progression-free survival of the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax was about 47 months versus those who don't have the P53 mutation was about 21 months with an overall response rate of 80%. I think one takeaway looking at this comparison of the first-line and relapse/refractory setting is that patients seem to do very similar in terms of overall response rate and progression-free survival, whether they were in the first line or in the later lines of treatment if they had the P53 mutation, which says that the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax is effective no matter which phase of the disease the patient might be in, indicating its overall activity and being strong. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I thought that was an interesting observation, actually, how similar the outcomes were in those two groups. Dr. Marc Braunstein: No, I agree. And I think although patients with TP53 mutations did comparatively worse than those without the mutation according to progression-free survival, overall response rate, or complete remission rates, they did seem to be similar whether a patient was in first-line or relapsed refractory if they were P53 mutant and were treated with this combination. So, I think we need further data in the first line, such as the data that's awaiting publication from the TRIANGLE study, which is examining upfront ibrutinib. But certainly, BTK inhibitors have significant activity in either the first line or the relapse setting of mantle cell lymphoma. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. Thanks, Marc. Let's wind up with one more abstract, and this is Abstract 7053. It's a 7-year analysis of the so-called ECHELON-1 study. This was a study comparing the standard of care, ABVD, with the same regimen with bleomycin substituted by brentuximab vedotin for patients with previously untreated advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The study at the time it was originally reported, resulted in a significant practice change in the first-line therapy of Hodgkin's lymphoma. We now have mature follow-up. What are your take-homes from this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: The ECHELON-1 study has certainly been a practice-changing clinical trial where, as you said, brentuximab with the backbone of AVD was compared to ABVD, which was the prior standard. And this was examined in newly diagnosed patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma who were at advanced-stage, stage 3 or 4. The publication, first of the progression-free survival, and more recently, in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2022, where we saw the 6-year overall survival was 94% with the brentuximab-containing arm versus 89% in the control arm, established the brentuximab AVD, or otherwise called AAVD, as the standard of care in advanced stage newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The current study is now reporting 7-year follow-up on about 1,300 randomized patients who were enrolled in this impressive study. Though at a median follow-up of 89 months now, the 7-year overall survival was quite similar, 94% versus 89%, again favoring the brentuximab-containing arm. In particular, this was driven by patients who had stage 4 disease or those patients who were aged less than 60 in subgroup analyses. So, what I take away from this abstract in the 7-year follow-up of the ECHELON-1 is that brentuximab with AVD remains the standard of care for previously untreated advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. It is worth noting that the SWOG S1826 study that was presented at ASCO last year compared nivolumab with AVD compared to brentuximab AVD and did show a slight PFS advantage of 94% versus 86% with nivolumab AVD. Obviously, these were different studies with different patient populations enrolled, so we're really just cross-comparing different studies. But I think brentuximab AVD, given the survival benefit that is retained now at seven years in the current abstract, still remains the standard of care for advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors like nivolumab is making headway in terms of treating newly diagnosed patients as well. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks, Marc. I mean, one of the observations that I thought was of interest in this study was the outcome for patients who were PET-2 positive, when you compare AAVD and ABVD. It does seem as if even in those patients who are PET-2 positive, having had AAVD, they still apparently have a better outcome than those who received ABVD in that situation who were PET-2 positive. So, I think that's another interesting observation. I'm not quite sure what it means, except speaking to the overall superior efficacy of that regimen. Dr. Marc Braunstein: You make a great point, John, because it's worth noting that in ECHELON-1, a PET scan was done after cycle 2, but the study was not PET-adapted. So even if you had a positive PET, you continued for the full six cycles of treatment. But PET-2 status is often used in various studies of Hodgkin lymphoma to guide whether to give additional cycles or escalate therapy. So, I think the benefit of presenting those subgroups is that even if you were PET-2 positive, you still did better by continuing on the brentuximab-containing regimen. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, exactly. I mean, the other important takeaway message, I think, is that the outcome for patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma seems to continue to steadily improve, which is great news and also really remarkable. And I'm excited to see there may be some additional data presented at one of the late-breaking abstracts in this year's meeting, so it will truly be interesting to see what that shows us as well. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Incredible. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, Marc, as always, thank you for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. We look forward very much to hearing the updated data from these abstracts at the meeting. Dr. Marc Braunstein: As do I and thank you so much for inviting me again. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's guest:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness
Dr. Marc Braunstein: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS | |||
| ASCO24: The Era of the ADCs in NSCLC | 23 May 2024 | 00:26:07 | |
Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss key lung cancer abstracts from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from LUMINOSITY and ADAURA, novel therapies in KRASG12C-mutant advanced NSCLC, and the need for effective adjuvant therapies for patients with rare mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Nathan Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Dr. Pennell is sharing his valuable insights today on key abstracts in lung cancer that will be presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode. Nate, it's great to have you here on the podcast. Thank you for being here. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi, for inviting me. I'm always excited for the ASCO Annual Meeting, and we have a tremendous amount of exciting lung cancer abstracts. I know we're not going to discuss all of them on this podcast, but even exciting Plenary presentations coming up. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, one of the abstracts that caught my attention was Abstract 103, the LUMINOSITY trial, which will be presenting the primary analysis at the meeting. So, there's a lot of buzz and excitement around ADCs. Can you comment on this abstract, Nate, and what are your thoughts on key takeaways from this abstract? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely, I agree. This is really an exciting new potential target for lung cancer. So historically, when we think about MET and lung cancer, we think about the MET exon 14 skipping mutations which are present in 3% or 4% of adenocarcinoma patients. And we have approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors, small molecule inhibitors that can be very effective for those. What we're talking about here is actually an antibody drug conjugate or ADC telisotuzumab vedotin, which is targeting the MET protein over expression in non-squamous EGFR wild type advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The LUMINOSITY was a single arm, phase 2 study of teliso, and first of all, I think we have to define the patient population. So, these were MET over expressing non-small cell lung cancer by immunohistochemical staining. So, it included both what they considered MET high expression and MET intermediate expression, both of which had to be 3+ IHC positive on 25% to 50% of cells in the intermediate and 50% or higher in the high expressing group. They were treated with the ADC and had pretty promising results, a response rate of 35% in the MET high group and 23% in the intermediate group. Duration of response at nine months and 7.2 months in those two groups, and the PFS was five and a half and six months. So I would say in a previously treated population, this was relatively promising and potentially defines a completely new and unique subgroup of biomarker defined patients. So, Vamsi, I'm curious, though, if this ends up moving forward to further development, what your thoughts are on adding yet another biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's certainly exciting. I think for this population, we really don't have a lot of options beyond the second line, and even in the second line, docetaxels are low bar. So,I think having more options for our patients is certainly outcome development. And I think MET IHC is relatively easy to deploy in a clinical setting. I think we already test for MET PD-L1 IHC routinely, and now recently, as you know, HER2 IHC given approval for ADCs, HER2 ADCs there in that space. So, I think from a technical standpoint, I don't see a big barrier in terms of adding an additional IHC marker. And usually, the IHC testing is pretty quick. And I think if you have a therapeutic approval based on IHC positivity, I think certainly from an operational standpoint, it shouldn't be a very complicated issue. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. This is cheap. It's something that can be done everywhere in the world. And as you said, in addition to diagnostic IHC, we're already looking at PD-L1, and probably moving towards doing that for HER2. This is really wonderful that we're moving into kind of the era of the ADCs, which is opening up a whole new therapeutic group of options for patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, the other abstract that caught my attention was like, the Abstract 8005. This is the molecular residual disease MRD analysis from the ADAURA trial. The ADAURA trial, as you all know, is the trial that led to the FDA approval of adjuvant use of osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutant stage 1B through 3A non-small cell lung cancer. And in this trial, osimertinib demonstrated significant improvements in DFS and OS. And in this particular study, Abstract 8005, the authors looked at the role of MRD in predicting DFS in the study. And after 682 patients who were randomized, 36% of the patients had samples to look at MRD post- surgery. And in the trial the MRD status predicted DFS or event free survival at 36 months with a hazard ratio of 0.23. And the MRD status had a median lead time of 4.7 months across both the arms, both osimertinib and the placebo arm. So, suggesting that MRD could potentially identify high risk subgroups of patients post-surgery to tailor personalized approaches potentially in this population. So, Nate, in your practice, of course, we don't have a clinically validated approach yet to kind of use MRD in this setting, but if we have an option to use an MRD based assay, do you think that would potentially be an opportunity to perhaps escalate or de-escalate adjuvant strategies with TKIs in the adjuvant setting? Do you see value in using MRI assays post- surgery? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I think this is a really important study because this is such an important topic around adjuvant targeted treatment. So, of course, ADAURA really changed how we treated people with EGFR mutant lung cancer who underwent surgical resection, because we know that the three years of osimertinib significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival. But there's still a lot of questions being asked about, is that affordable? Obviously, we're putting a lot of resources into three years of treatment, and not everyone necessarily needs it. There may well be people who are cured with surgery alone and adjuvant chemotherapy. And then what about duration? Is three years enough? Do we need even longer treatment, or do we need shorter treatment? And up to date, we haven't really been able to tell people at risk of recurrence other than the pure odds-based risk based on their stage.
And the assay that was used in the ADAURA study was a personalized tumor informed assay based on the resected tumor. It's unclear to me whether this was just a subgroup of people that had this done or whether they tried to do it in all 600 patients and only, it looks like they were successful in about 32% of people. Maybe about a third were able to successfully have a tumor informed assay. So, the first question is, "Can you use this to help guide who needs treatment or not?" And I think what they showed was only about 4% of people in osimertinib arm in 12% had MRD positive at baseline after surgery. So probably, upfront testing is not really going to be all that helpful at determining who's at high risk and needs to be treated.
Interestingly, of those who were positive, though, most of them, or 80% of them, did go MRD negative on osimertinib. And what I found really interesting is that of those who did have a recurrence, 65% of them did have the MRD test turn positive. And as you mentioned, that was about five months prior to being picked up radiographically, and so you can pick them up sooner. And it also looks like about two thirds of recurrences can be identified with the blood test. So that potentially could identify people who are recurring earlier that might be eligible for a more intensive treatment. The other thing that was really interesting is of those who recurred in the osimertinib arm, 68% of them happened after stopping the osimertinib, suggesting that for the majority of patients, even those not necessarily cured, they seem to have disease control while on the osimertinib, suggesting that maybe a longer duration of treatment for those patients could be helpful. The problem is it still isn't necessarily helpful at identifying who those people are who need the longer duration of treatment. So, definitely an important study. I think it could be useful in practice if this was available clinically, especially at monitoring those after completion of treatment. I think as the sensitivity of these MRD assays gets better, these will become more and more important. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's a little bit of a challenge in terms of standardizing these assays, and they're like multiple assays, which are currently commercially available. And I think the field is getting really complicated in terms of how you incorporate different assays and different therapeutics in the adjuvant space, especially if you're kind of looking at de-escalating immunotherapeutic strategies at the adjuvant setting, I think, makes it even more challenging. I think exciting times. We definitely need more thoughtful and better studies to really define the role of MRD in the adjuvant space. So, I guess more to come in this space. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Vamsi, I wanted to ask you about another really interesting Abstract 8011. This is a subgroup of the AEGEAN perioperative study for early-stage resected non-small cell lung cancer. This abstract is specifically looking at baseline N2 lymph node involvement in stage 2A-3B with N2 positive patients in an exploratory subgroup analysis. What are your key takeaways from the study?
Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I felt this was a very interesting abstract for a couple of reasons. As you know, this is the AEGEAN trial, the phase 3 trial that was reported earlier last year. This is a perioperative study of durvalumab plus new adjuvant chemotherapy versus new adjuvant chemotherapy alone and adjuvant durvalumab plus placebo. The study obviously met its primary endpoint, as we all saw, like the event-free survival. And here in this abstract, the authors present an exploratory subgroup analysis of patients who had N2 lymph node involvement prior to study enrollment. So, in this study, they were focusing on perioperative outcomes. And one of the issues that has come up multiple times, as you know, in a lot of these preoperative studies, is the impact of neoadjuvant chemo immunotherapy on surgery or surgical outcomes. And consistently, across a lot of these trials, including the CheckMate 816, about 20% of patients don't end up making it to surgery. So in that light, I think this study and the findings are very interesting. In this study, they looked at patients who had N2 nodal involvement and of the patients with N2 nodal involvement, the surgical operability or the number of patients who completed surgery was similar in both the groups. So, there was no significant difference between patients who received durva versus chemotherapy and also among patients who had N2 subgroup who had surgery, similar proportions of durvalumab and placebo arms had open versus minimally invasive versus pneumonectomy. So durvalumab didn't have a negative impact on the type of surgery that the patients had at the time of surgery. So overall, the findings were consistent with other trials, perioperative trials that we have seen. So, the surgical outcomes were not negatively impacted by adding immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant perioperative space. So, this is consistent with other trials that we have seen. And also, the other issue, Nate, I'd like to get your opinion on is, across the board, in all the perioperative trials we have seen that about 20% of the patients actually don't end up making it a surgery. And of course, most of these perioperative trials, a lot of these patients are stage 3 patients. And my take on this was that there's probably a little bit of a patient selection issue. We generally tend to err on the side of operability when we have a stage 3 patient discussed in the tumor board, sometimes feel like the patient may downstage and could potentially go to surgery. But even in the real world, in stage 3 operable patients, what proportion of patients do you think don't end up going to surgery? Dr. Nathan Pennell: That is such an important question that I don't think we have the best answer to. You're right. All of these perioperative studies have a relatively high- sort of 20% to 30% of people who enroll on the studies don't necessarily go to surgery. And I don't think that they've done as great a job as they could in all of these trials describing exactly what happens to these patients. So in the real world, obviously not everyone would be fit enough to go to surgery or might progress in the time between when they were diagnosed and the time as planned for surgery. But probably more of them would go to surgery if they weren't getting neoadjuvant treatment, because that would be their initial treatment. The question is, of course, is that the right choice? If someone gets 12 weeks or nine weeks of neoadjuvant treatment and then a restaging scan shows that they've had progression with metastatic disease, are those really the people that would have been optimally treated with surgery upfront, or would they just have had recurrence on their first postoperative scan? So, it's really an important question to answer. I think the bigger one is, is the treatment preventing them through toxicity from going to treatment? And I think the studies have generally felt that few patients are missing out on the option of surgery because of toxicity being caused by the IO. And in the AEGEAN study, for example, in this subgroup, a slightly numerically higher percentage of patients in the durvalumab arm actually underwent surgery compared to those who got neoadjuvant chemo. So, it doesn't seem like we're necessarily harming people with the neoadjuvant treatment. But I know that this is a concern for patients and doctors who are undergoing this approach. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, I think having multiple data sets from perioperative trials, looking at the relative impact of IO on the safety and the nature of the surgery is going to be important, and this is a very important study for that reason. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Can I ask you another thing that I thought really interesting about this particular one is they looked at the difference between those with single station N2 and multi station N2. And I know this is one of those, should we be operating on people who have multi station N2 disease? And the AEGEAN study did include people who had multiple N2 stations where perhaps in the pre-IO era, these would have been treated with definitive chemoradiation and not surgery at all. But the disease-free survival hazard ratio was essentially the same for multi station N2 as it was in the overall population. So, has that changed the way we're approaching these patients in these multidisciplinary discussions? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, Nate. I think surgical operability is in the eye of the beholder. I think it depends on which surgeon sees the patient or how the discussion goes in the tumor boards, as you know. Certainly, I think with this optionality of having a chemo IO option and potential for downstaging, kind of pushes, at least in our practice, more of these patients who are multistation, who would have otherwise gone down the chemoradiation route are now actually going through neo adjuvant chemo IO and with the hope that they would make it to surgery. So, I think it's an interesting change in paradigm in managing our locally advanced patients. So, I think it's certainly interesting, but I guess to your point, there clearly are some patients who probably should just have chemoradiation upfront, and we may be kind of like delaying that definitive chemoradiation approach for at least a subset of patients. So, at the end of the day, I think it's a lot of clinical decision-making and I think there's going to be a little bit of art to managing these patients and it's going to be really hard to define that population for a clinical trial. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, clearly, multidisciplinary discussion, still very important for earliest age non-small cell lung cancer patients. If we move back to metastatic lung cancer, let's talk about Abstract 8510 looking at one of our newer, exciting biomarkers, which are the KRASG12Cmutant non-small cell lung cancer. So this is a study of a second generation KRASG12Cinhibitor, olomorasib, which was combined with pembrolizumab, the anti PD-1 antibody, in patients with advanced KRASG12C mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This is something that has been tried before with first generation G12C inhibitors, with some concerns about how safe it was to do that. So, Vamsi, what did you learn from this abstract? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, I think one of the concerns that we've had in other trials is like the cumulative toxicity of adding checkpoint inhibition to G12C inhibitors, especially the sotorasib CodeBreaK trial, where we see increased rates of grade 3, 4 transaminitis. So, it is encouraging to see that some of the newer agents have less of those issues when it comes to combining the checkpoint inhibition. So especially with KRASG12C, as you know, these are patients who are smokers, and often these are patients who have high PDL-1 could potentially also benefit from immunotherapy. In order for these KRASG12C inhibitors, in order to move these targeted therapy options for these patients to the front line, I do think we need to have substantial comfort in combining the checkpoint inhibitors, which is a standard treatment approach for patients in the frontline setting. I think this is exciting, and I think they're also like, as you know, there are other KRASG12C inhibitors also looking to combine with checkpoint inhibition in the frontline settings. So, we'll have to kind of wait and see how the other agents will perform in the setting. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I completely agree. I think this is such an important area to explore specifically because unlike our other targeted oncogenes like EGFR and ALK, we have multiple options for these patients, both immunotherapy and targeted treatments. And if we could think about sequencing them or even combining them and if it could be done safely, I think that would be well worth investigating. There still was significant toxicity in this trial; 30% of people had diarrhea, even at the reduced dose, and there was transaminitis at sort of about 20% or so, although probably at a manageable level. But the response rate was really quite promising. And these are all previously IO and mostly G12C TKI pre-treated patients still had a response rate of 63%. And in those who were naive to IO and TKIs, it was 78% response rate. So, if it could be done safely, I think it's definitely worth pursuing this in further trials. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also, there's some data, preclinical data, like looking at G12C inhibition. And also we have known with MET inhibition for a long time that it could potentially augment immune responses and could be having some synergistic effect with IO. So, we'll have to wait and see, I think. But safety is really the top in mind when it comes to combining these agents with checkpoint inhibitors. So, it's really encouraging to see that some of the newer agents may be more combinable IO. Now moving on to the next abstract, and moving on to, again, the early-stage setting. So, Abstract 8052 from our colleagues in Princess Margaret reported outcomes in early-stage non- small cell lung cancer in patients with rare targetable mutation. This is actually becoming increasingly more relevant because we are seeing at least, like with the ALINA data, with the ALK and EGFR, now with ADAURA, we know that these patients don't benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, especially some of these rare oncogene living mutations, other than like G12C. So I always struggle with this. When you have early-stage patients, with, let's say, a ROS or a RET, where we just don't have data, and we know that those are poor actors because biologically these are aggressive tumors. So, there's a really odd clinical question to ask in terms of, what is the role of adjuvant immunotherapy? Of course, this trial and this abstract are not really addressing that. But what is your take on this abstract? If you could just summarize the abstract for us. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Sure. Well, I think this is incredibly important, and this is an area near and dear to my own heart. And that is, of course, the whole landscape of how we manage early-stage patients has changed with both ADAURA, because we now have effective treatment in the adjuvant setting for EGFR mutant patients, and now more recently with the ALINA trial for adjuvant alectinib for ALK positive patients now being FDA-approved. So, what that means is we actually have to be testing people at diagnosis even before they would be getting adjuvant treatment, and potentially before even surgery to look for these targets. We need the PD-L1 status, we need EGFR and ALK. And if you're going to be looking at these biomarkers, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that you should be doing broad testing for all of the targetable oncogenes in these patients. There are some studies suggesting that there's value to this and identifying them for treatment at the time of recurrence. But we also know that these patients are at high risk of recurrence and probably need to be investigated, at least in trials for the adjuvant setting. So, this particular study looked at 201 resected, mostly adenocarcinoma patients, and then they basically sequenced them for all of the targeted oncogenes. And they were quite common, perhaps even more common than you might expect in an advanced population. So, 43% of them had KRASG12C mutations, 13% had EGFR Exon 20 mutation, ERBB2 or HER2 mutations found in 11%, MET mutations in 10%, ALK in 7%, ROS1 in 6%, BRAF in 5%, and RET in 2%. So quite common to find these targetable oncogenes in this particular population, perhaps a somewhat biased population at Princess Margaret Hospital, but very common. And then they looked at the outcomes of these patients without targeted adjuvant treatment. And what they found was there was a very high rate of recurrence. So, relapse-free survival was pretty high in these patients across different stages, and generally their prognosis was worse than the more common KRASG12C patients. Most of these, in particular the HER2 mutant patients, seem to have a significantly worse relapse free survival. Interestingly enough, though, that did not carry over to overall survival. Overall survival was better in those who had targetable oncogenes. And my guess is that that probably had to do with the availability of targeted treatments at the time of recurrence that may have impacted overall survival. But I do think that this particularly highlights the need, the unmet need for effective adjuvant treatment in these patients. And most of them, with the exception of KRAS and perhaps BRAF, perhaps MET unlikely to benefit from adjuvant immunotherapy, as you mentioned. And so, I think we really need to be investing in trials of adjuvant targeted treatments in these populations. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this is an area that we really don't have a lot of data. But Nate, a question for you. So tomorrow you have a patient with RET fusion, stage 2, N1 disease. What would you do? Would you offer them an adjuvant RET inhibitor? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think I would search really hard for a trial to give them access. But if you really want to know what I think, and I'm usually willing to tell people what I think, I think the proof of concept is there. I think we know that in the setting of highly effective and very tolerable adjuvant targeted treatment in the EGFR space with osimertinib, in the ALK space with alectinib, if anything, drugs like selpercatinib and pralsetinib in RET fusion positive lung cancer in the advanced setting are just as well tolerated and easily as effective and long lasting. And so, I think if you did a trial and they are doing trials looking at these drugs in the adjuvant space, almost certainly you're going to see the same really dramatic disease-free survival benefit from these treatments, which, at least in the EGFR space, seems to have translated into an improvement in overall survival. And so if I had a stage II or a resected stage 3, especially a RET fusion positive patient today, I would definitely talk to them about off-label use of a RET inhibitor if I could not find a trial. Now, I understand that there are going to be reimbursement issues and whatnot associated with that, but I think the extrapolation is worth discussing. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's really challenging because some of these fusions are so rare and it's hard to really do large adjuvant trials for some of these rarer subgroups. Nate, fascinating insights. Our listeners will find links to the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of the episode. And Nate, I look forward to catching up with you at the Annual Meeting, and again after the meeting for our wrap up podcast to discuss the practice-changing lung cancer abstracts and highlights from the Plenary Session. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks for inviting me. Vamsi. I look forward to touching base after we get to see all the late-breaking abstracts. Like I said, this is, I think, a year for lung cancer with a lot of exciting data, and I know we'll have a lot to talk about. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti And thank you so much to all our listeners for your time. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate and review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline
Dr. Nathan Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi | |||
| Spotlight on Breast Cancer at ASCO24 | 23 May 2024 | 00:20:16 | |
Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Megan Kruse discuss the potential benefit of endocrine therapy in ER-low breast cancer; the efficacy and tolerability of triplet therapy in PIK3CA-mutated, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer; and more key research that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello, I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Jefferson Health in Philadelphia. My guest today is Dr. Megan Kruse, a breast medical oncologist and director of breast cancer research at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. We'll be discussing key abstracts in breast cancer that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Megan, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Megan Kruse: Thanks, Alison. Happy to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's begin with Abstract 505. This was another analysis of the SWOG S1007 (RxPONDER) trial, which was the trial that was looking at premenopausal women with intermediate risk oncotype scores. And do they benefit from chemotherapy? If you analyze the whole group, they do benefit from chemotherapy, but what this study questions is whether we can pull out the subset of these patients that actually benefit from chemotherapy? And what they tried doing was measuring various endocrine reproductive hormones and found that anti-mullerian hormone over 10 was the only one that predicted for chemotherapy benefit. What are your key takeaways from this study? Will it help us figure out who is truly postmenopausal biochemically? Dr. Megan Kruse: I think this is really promising. This is one of the toughest situations in clinic, honestly, when you have a premenopausal woman who has an intermediate oncotype risk. We know that chemotherapy is not going to make a huge difference potentially in their breast cancer outcomes, but it may add to some small differential benefit. I think that many of our patients are really afraid about leaving any impactful therapy on the table. And so, it'd be nice to have another marker to help sort out who in this group will really benefit. And the AMH levels, I think, are something that are very accessible for most practices, easily orderable. And it seems like this cutoff of 10 is a very well-known cut point in the AMH interpretation, and a pretty clear-cut point. So, I think it gives a little bit more objective view of who may actually benefit or not. When you look at the results shown in this abstract, for the women in the recurrence score less than 25 receiving chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy, they had a benefit in five-year invasive disease-free survival of 7.8%. When you look at those oncotype reports and they suggest how much benefit you might get, that's right around the same number you see. So, I think that's supporting that this is the subgroup that's benefiting. When you look at those patients with AMH less than 10, they actually had a negative 1.7% difference in overall survival. So, you wonder, are we harming these patients by giving them chemotherapy? I think that's too far of a stretch to say. I wouldn't be worried about harm. But hopefully, we can stop giving chemotherapy to patients who truly are not going to benefit if we have an additional biomarker of response. That's what the promise is for this. So again, another potentially actionable abstract that we can put into practice pretty quickly. It's going to be hard to know how to use this, also in the context of the upcoming OFSET study or BR009, which is of course the study in the same group of premenopausal patients with node-negative or 1-3 lymph nodes involved, and intermediate oncotype scores, randomizing them to endocrine therapy with ovarian suppression versus chemoendocrine therapy. It would be kind of nice to see the AMH levels incorporated into that model to see if the same trend holds true. But I think we go back to the TAILORx and RxPONDER studies many times as good quality data, and the trend here is really striking. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I really like this study because one of the things I often struggle with in the clinic as a practicing breast oncologist is who's really in menopause. And we end up having these fights with the gynecologists where sometimes our opinions differ. And it would be really nice to have something this clear cut to say, "You're in biochemical menopause or you're not." So, I look forward to seeing this used in a lot of different ways in the future. Dr. Megan Kruse: Yeah, I agree. And I think it's based on the other markers we have with estrogen levels, with FSH levels. If you're checking those sequentially in patients, we know they go up and down, and it's really hard to tell what we are capturing at this single point in time. And maybe that's what we're seeing in this analysis is that the AMH is a little bit more stable and reliable marker. So, I really love that. And I don't know about you, but in clinical practice it can be really hard. A lot of our patients have had uterine ablations or hysterectomies but have intact ovaries. And so, figuring out ovarian function status is actually much, much harder than it may seem superficially. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Okay, so let's focus on Abstract 513. I thought this was really interesting. It's a group of patients that we don't have much data for, and that's women that are ER-low, with an ER of 1% to 10% in early-stage breast cancer. Right now, national guidelines are sort of on the fence about whether these women benefit from endocrine therapy. So that's what this study tried to focus on. How will this study change how we approach this group of patients? Dr. Megan Kruse: This study really gave me pause and made me rethink what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis, because here, what the authors found in a very large NCDB analysis was that for women with ER-low status, so ER 1% to 10% positive, they actually did have benefit receiving endocrine therapy, it seems. What they found, after you adjust for many other confounding factors like age, comorbidity, and PR status, is that patients with ER-low breast cancer when they did not receive endocrine therapy actually had worse overall survival outcomes with a hazard ratio of around 1.2 to 1.3. This is a group where I have typically not pushed endocrine therapy very strongly. I think the patients, especially now, are receiving such intense therapy with chemoimmunotherapy in the preoperative setting, by the time they reach their adjuvant phase with immunotherapy, maybe with capecitabine, maybe with a PARP inhibitor, endocrine therapy seems, "Oh, why bother after we've done all of this?" And we know that the toxicities of endocrine therapy are real and can be very problematic. And so, I have often felt like it's the least important part of therapy and questioned whether we should even bother. But I think this analysis really challenges that and makes us think twice. And I think it speaks to a theme that we're seeing more and more about the heterogeneity of these breast cancer subtypes. And again, talking about clear-cut points in analysis, nothing is truly black and white. So maybe that little bit of expression does mean something. It does kind of stand in contrast to what we see in studies of ER-low behaving a bit more triple-negative like, but maybe they're their own category, and maybe it gives us a place to look for other therapy synergy in the future. But it certainly will make me stop and think again when I see a ER 4% patient. Should I talk to them about endocrine therapy? Dr. Allison Zibelli: Yeah, I totally agree with everything you said there. And we know that this is a biologically different group of patients than the ER strongly positive group, but maybe not as different as we once thought. Dr. Megan Kruse: Yeah. And I think there's still a lot of unknowns here about what if they're ER truly negative and PR a little bit positive. So, these clinical situations don't come up that frequently, but when they do, they're humbling, because I think we really, as much data as we have in breast cancer, it's pretty limited for these types of patients. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to Abstract 1003, which was a new combination in the INAVO120 trial. It was palbociclib plus fulvestrant with either inavolisib or placebo in patients with PIK3CA-mutated hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced metastatic breast cancer in the second line, who relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy completion. This is a big group of patients for us. Can you tell us about the study? And does this triple therapy, in your mind, represent a new standard of care? Dr. Megan Kruse: Yeah, this study was initially presented at our 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, and there I felt like it was a little bit of a surprise. There's been so much talk about PI3K-AKT-PTEN pathway impactful drugs and targetable mutations. We've heard a lot about alpelisib and capivasertib, and how these drugs are fitting into our practice. Then all of a sudden, we have this data with inavolisib that I wasn't really expecting to see. And perhaps I think one of the reasons that this study came about so suddenly, seemingly, and so quickly is because it looks at a really high-risk patient population. And so, these are those patients that are having relapses of their breast cancer within their initial, while on adjuvant AI therapy or within 12 months of stopping. And so, having a marker of this patient group that is developing, I think, early endocrine resistance and it's another space where it's kind of hard to identify who these patients are upfront. And so their response to therapy tends to be one of the best markers of risk moving forward. So, when this trial was originally presented, what was quite striking is that the progression-free survival was more than doubled for the triplet combination compared to the control arm. And those numbers were PFS of 15 months versus 7.3 months for the triplet versus the control. The response rate was also significantly improved, with the triplet going above 50%, versus a response rate in the control of about 25%. So, the results were really striking. But they clearly come with some caveats, which are that this is a very defined patient population of risk. Of course, they have to have the biomarker of a PIK3CA mutation, and in the control arm here, there was no PIK3-targeted medication. And so you wonder, are we just getting better results by including that more specific targeted therapy earlier on? It's hard to know, but I think that could certainly be a big part of this. And the other caveat, when I'm looking at the data, is how might we think about this in our real population? Because as we know, drugs that impact this pathway tend to have a lot of toxicity concerns, primarily hyperglycemia, diarrhea, and rash. And with this particular agent, there was also notable stomatitis, which is something we've seen with everolimus, of course, in this pathway, but not maybe as much with alpelisib and capivasertib. When you're thinking about all of those toxicities, keep in mind that this trial population included patients with a pretty tight fasting blood sugar requirement, A1c of less than 8, and not requiring insulin. So all of that being said, I think this combination seems really intriguing for efficacy. This is a patient population I'm worried about, because we know that these patients are likely not going to get the same upfront benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapy, like maybe we see for a patient with long disease-free survival or de novo metastatic breast cancer. But I think it's going to have some meaningful issues in clinic regarding tolerability. And then, of course, the regimen is more complex. We're talking about two different oral agents and an intramuscular injection, which could be hard for some patients, and it's going to have some decent financial toxicity associated with it. So, I think it's really, really exciting and has the potential to make an impact in first-line therapy. But I don't envision it being the standard of care first-line therapy for everyone, particularly in light of some of the other data we have in the first line questioning, like from the SONIA trial, how important is CDK for everyone? Again, this is I think where we're starting to get subsets within subsets of this first-line patient population of who needs escalation of therapy and who may benefit from more de-intensified therapy. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I agree, these agents have significant toxicity, and especially financial toxicity is something that we at the academic setting frequently forget about because a lot of our patients are on trials. So, it will be interesting to figure out how we're going to use these agents in real life. So, for our final abstract, I wanted to discuss Abstract 10508, which was a prevention trial. I think pretty much everybody's patients are going to be asking them about this because it's about GLP-1 inhibitors. We know that bariatric surgery does prevent obesity-associated cancers. This study explored whether the GLP-1 agonists could offer a similar result to bariatric surgery in patients with BMIs over 35. What do you think about this study? Dr. Megan Kruse: I thought this was such an interesting and timely study and question. These drugs are out there – Ozempic, Mounjaros, and Wegovy – and our patients ask about them. And I think there has been a lot of interest for years now about the impact of lifestyle factors on cancer incidence, particularly in breast cancer, where we know that obesity does seem to be related to cancer incidence. And with all of our concerns about hormonal exposure and extra weight, extra adipose tissue being a source of potential extra estrogen, this is a really key topic. Talking about financial toxicity, again, I think that is honestly probably the bigger hurdle because this study does reinforce that patients who are receiving GLP-1 receptor antagonists and those who have had bariatric surgery do benefit in terms of cancer-related survival and all-cause related survival. So, I think the impact on metabolic factors is making a difference in cancer incidence and outcomes. But access and equity will be the big issue here, right? Dr. Allison Zibelli: Yes. Dr. Megan Kruse: Can we get patients on these drugs? I certainly have had patients with a history of breast cancer who have been on these medications, and they have done great with them in terms of weight loss. We know that our therapies, many times, do have the side effect of weight gain. So, I wonder if there is a part of weight management that maybe we haven't talked about so much as oncologists that we need to talk about moving forward and would be very welcome by our patients. But it'll have its own caveats, of course. Not only the financial issue but there's the durability issue. And I think when you look at the degree of impact of these medications versus bariatric surgery, you do see a greater impact from bariatric surgery, in not only the degree of weight loss but also the sustainability of that weight loss. So, I think for the right patient at the right time, bariatric surgery may still be the better option, but that's not going to be an option for a lot of patients. It is a huge shift in lifestyle and medications and many ways might be easier, so more to come. I also wonder about looking at this data through the lens of different cancer types. What will we find out? Is the trend for colon cancer going to be different from the trend for breast cancer? Will the trend within breast cancer be different for breast cancer subtypes? I would very much welcome more data in this space, and it is nice to see a first step forward. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I thought the most interesting thing about this study was that while bariatric surgery patients lost more weight, GLP-1 patients had a higher decrease in obesity-related cancer risk. So, it shows to me that there is something beyond just weight. It is something in metabolism that is driving these cancers. Dr. Megan Kruse: Yes, and I think that that goes back to some things we have thought about for a long time with insulin levels and insulin-like growth factor, and all of these things that I think when our patients look at more metabolic approaches to cancer control, this is probably what we are trying to get at. We have just never had great ways to measure it or influence it, and perhaps now we finally do. I would love to see some partnering work here in the future with oncologists and endocrinologists and digging into these patients who have great responses to see what we are actually seeing at the hormone level. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Well, thank you so much, Megan, for your great insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. We really appreciate you coming to talk with us again. Dr. Megan Kruse: Thank you. It has been a great conversation. Thank you for opening my eyes to these abstracts, and I am happy to see what else ASCO brings. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people find us. Thank you for listening.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. The guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: None Disclosed
Dr. Megan Kruse: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, Lilly | |||
| Optimizing Novel Therapies and Surgery in Early-Stage NSCLC | 25 Apr 2024 | 00:31:31 | |
Doctors Vamsi Velcheti, Sandip Patel, and Michael Zervos discuss recent updates on the management of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including the optimization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options for patients and the role of surgery in the era of targeted therapy and immuno-oncology in lung cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. On today's episode, we'll be discussing recent updates on the management of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including the optimization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options for our patients, and the evolving role of surgery in the era of targeted therapy and immuno-oncology in lung cancer. Today, I am delighted to be joined by two renowned experts in this space, Dr. Sandip Patel and Dr. Michael Zervos. Dr. Patel is a professor of medicine and a medical oncologist specializing in lung cancer at UCSD. Dr. Mike Zervos is the clinical chief of the Division of Robotic Thoracic Surgery and Director of General Thoracic Surgery at NYU Langone. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Patel and Dr. Zervos, it's a great honor to have you on the podcast today. Welcome aboard. Dr. Sandip Patel: Great to be joining you. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's get started with Dr. Patel. As you know, over the last decade we've had dramatic advances in systemic therapy options for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, in both the realms of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. These have significantly improved outcomes for our patients with metastatic lung cancer. What's exciting is that more recently, we've seen the incorporation of these agents, both targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Dr. Patel, can you tell our listeners about these exciting recent advances and why do you think it's so important to incorporate these personalized systemic therapy options for our early-stage patients? Dr. Sandip Patel: I think it's a great point and a great question. And so, I think one thing to understand is that non-small cell lung cancer is actually multiple diseases. We give it one name based on how it looks under the microscope, but the vast majority of our advances to improve outcomes for patients have come from our ability to understand specific subgroups. Many of our therapies have had activity in the advanced setting. We have our patients with metastatic or more widespread disease, which naturally led to the thought that could we utilize these therapies in earlier stage disease and potentially increase the rate of cure for many of our patients, lung cancer being the most common cancer killer worldwide. And so to your point, trying to understand how to best treat a patient really involves personalized medicine, typically driven by understanding the genomic profile of their tumor and two of the genes that have graduated from being tested for in the metastatic setting and now in the localized setting are EGFR and ALK. And these in particular are mutations that confer sensitivity to small molecule inhibitors, EGFR with osimertinib, ALK in the localized setting with alectinib based on the data that we've seen. And so, one of the areas that's been particularly exciting is our ability to maximize a patient's chance for durable remissions by integrating these therapies after surgery, after chemotherapy when appropriate, and continuing generally for a finite amount of time, two to three years depending on the agent in the study we're discussing for these patients. Additionally, immunotherapy, which has revolutionized our treatment of patients with metastatic disease, may be particularly well-suited for the localized setting of non-small cell lung cancer as well. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Excellent points, Sandip. You're absolutely right, in the metastatic setting, we've all come to accept molecular testing, sequencing, and biomarker profiling as a standard, but unfortunately, that hasn't quite yet percolated into the early-stage setting. Can you talk about some of the challenges that we face as we have these therapeutic options available now for more early-stage patients? Dr. Sandip Patel: So, I think there are 3 flavors of localized therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. One is the advanced, unresectable stage 3, for which the approach is often concurrent chemo-radiation followed by some form of consolidated therapy. We're about to hear the results of LAURA, which is the study looking at EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. For other patients, historically, the treatment has been durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 directed immunotherapy. The other two are operative treatment of localized cancer: adjuvant treatment after surgery, or neoadjuvant or perioperative, in which chemoimmunotherapy begins before surgery. And testing depends on the settings. For the stage 3 patient who's likely getting concurrent chemo-radiation, they may have a very small amount of tissue, and so often these are done by pulmonary EBUS biopsies and that's how we pathologically confirm that advanced stage 3B. There may not be a lot of tissue available for molecular testing. In fact, if you look at the PACIFIC analysis, just looking at PD-L1, which is just an IHC off a single slide, a third of patients weren't able to even get a PD-L1, let alone a genomic result. And so, I think that's one of the areas of LAURA that's going to be particularly interesting to see as we try to implement it into our practice after seeing the full data. I think in the adjuvant setting, we're lucky because our surgeons, Dr. Mike Zervos here, will get us a large amount of tissue in the surgical resection specimen, so we tend to get enough tissue to do genomics while they're under chemotherapy, there tends to be time to wait for their genomic result. Where this really gets complicated is in the neoadjuvant or perioperative setting, where time is everything. The most important thing we can do for a patient in the localized space is get them to the operating room, get them started on radiation, their curative local modality, and that's where we have a time pressure but also a sample pressure because that is a diagnostic biopsy. It's a very small piece of tissue. Initially, there are multiple stains that have to be done to identify this lung cancer as opposed to another tumor. And so that's an area that I think we're going to need additional approaches given that cell-free DNA tends to have lower yield in lower stage disease in giving us a result. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Great points, Sandip. How do you deal with this issue in San Diego? The challenge is now we have a lot of trials, we'll talk about those neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, but we know that immunotherapy may not be as effective in all patients, especially those with EGFR or ALK or some of these non-smoker, oncogene-driven tumors. So, we don't want to be giving patients treatments that may not necessarily be effective in the neoadjuvant space, especially when there is a time crunch, and we want to get them to surgery and all the complications that come with giving them targeted therapy post-IO with potential risk for adverse events. Dr. Sandip Patel: Absolutely. It is a great point. And so, the multidisciplinary team approach is key, and having a close relationship with the interventional pulmonary oncs, interventional radiology surgery, and radiation oncology to ensure that we get the best treatment for our patients. With the molecularly guided therapies, they are currently more on the adjuvant setting in terms of actually treating. But as you mentioned, when we're making a decision around neoadjuvant or perioperative chemo IO, it's actually the absence of EGFR now that we're looking for because our intervention at the current time is to give chemoimmunotherapy. Going back to the future, we used to use single gene EGFR within 24 hours, which was insufficient for a metastatic panel, but it often required five slides of tissue input. ALK can be done by IHC, and so some of these 'oldie but goodie' pathologic techniques, and that pathologists, if I haven't emphasized, understanding what we're trying to do at a different context is so key because they are the ones who really hold the result. In the neoadjuvant and perioperative setting, which many of us favor, especially for stage 3A and stage 2B disease, understanding how we can get that result so that we can get the patient to the operating room in an expeditious way is so important. There is a time pressure that we always had in the metastatic setting, but I think we feel much more acutely in the neoadjuvant and perioperative setting in my opinion. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Fascinating insights, Dr. Patel. Turning to Dr. Zervos, from a surgical perspective, there has been an evolution in terms of minimally invasive techniques, robotic approaches, and enhanced recovery protocols, significantly improving outcomes in our patients post-surgery. How do you see the role of surgery evolving, especially with the increasing complexity and efficacy of these systemic therapies? How do you envision the role of surgery in managing these early-stage patients, and what are the key considerations for surgeons in this new era? Dr. Michael Zervos: Thanks, Vamsi. Thanks, Sandip. Thank you for having me on the podcast. Obviously, it's an honor to be a part of such a high-level discussion. I have to say, from a surgeon's perspective, we often listen to you guys talk and realize that there's been a lot of change in this landscape. And I think the thing that I've seen is that the paradigm here has also changed. If we were having this discussion 10 years ago, a lot of the patients that I am operating on now, I would not be operating on. It really has been amazing. And I think the thing that stands out to me the most is how all of this has changed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy checkpoint inhibition. I think, for us as surgeons, that's really been the key. Whether it's CheckMate 816 or whatever you're following, like PACIFIC, the data supports this. And I think what we're seeing is that we're able to do the surgery, we're able to do it safely, and I think that the resectability rates are definitely high up there in the 90% range. And what we're seeing is pretty significant pathologic responses, which I think is really amazing to me. We're also seeing that this has now shifted over to the oligometastatic realm, and a lot of those patients are also being treated similarly and then getting surgery, which is something that we would not have even thought of ever. When you look at the trials, I think a lot of the surgery, up to this point, has been done more traditionally. There's a specific reason why that happens, specifically, more through thoracotomy, less with VATS, and less with robotic. Sandip, I think you guys have a pretty robust robotic program at UCSD, so I'm sure you're pretty used to seeing that. As you guys have become so much more sophisticated with the treatments, we have also had to modify what we do operatively to be able to step up to the plate and accept that challenge. But what we are seeing is yes, these treatments work, but the surgeries are slightly more complicated. And when I say slightly, I'm minimizing that a little bit. And what's complicated about it is that the treatment effect is that the chemo-immune check inhibition actually has a significant response to the tumor antigen, which is the tumor. So it's going to necrose it, it's going to fibrose it, and wherever there is a tumor, that response on the surgical baseline level is going to be significant. In other words, there are going to be lymph nodes that are stuck to the pulmonary artery, lymph nodes that are stuck to the airway, and we've had to modify our approaches to be able to address that. Now, fortunately, we've been able to innovate and use the existing technology to our advantage. Personally, I think robotics is the way we have progressed with all this, and we are doing these surgeries robotically, mainly because I think it is allowing us, not only to visualize things better, but to have sort of a better understanding of what we're looking at. And for that matter, we are able to do a better lymph node dissection, which is usually the key with a lot of these more complicated surgeries, and then really venturing out into more complicated things, like controlling the pulmonary artery. How do we address all this without having significant complications or injuries during the surgery? Getting these patients through after they've successfully completed their neoadjuvant treatment, getting them to surgery, doing the surgery successfully, and hopefully, with minimal to no morbidity, because at the end, they may be going on to further adjuvant treatment. All of these things I think are super important. I think although it has changed the landscape of how we think of things, it has made it slightly more complicated, but we are up for the challenge. I am definitely excited about all of this. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: For some reason, like medical oncologists, we only get fixated on the drugs and how much better we're doing, but we don't really talk much about the advances in surgery and the advances in terms of outcomes, like post-op mortality has gone down significantly, especially in larger tertiary care centers. So, our way of thinking, traditionally, the whole intergroup trials, the whole paradigm of pneumonectomies being bad and bad outcomes overall, I think we can't judge and decide on current treatment standards based on surgical standards from decades ago. And I think that's really important to recognize. Dr. Michael Zervos: All of this stuff has really changed over the past 10 years, and I think technology has helped us evolve over time. And as the science has evolved for you with the clinical trials, the technology has evolved for us to be able to compensate for that and to be able to deal with that. The data is real for this. Personally, what I'm seeing is that the data is better for this than it was for the old intergroup trials. We're able to do the surgery in a better, more efficient, and safer way. The majority of these surgeries for this are not going to be pneumonectomies, they are going to be mostly lobectomies. I think that makes sense. I think for the surgeons who might be listening, it doesn't really matter how you're actually doing these operations. I think if you don't have a very extensive minimally invasive or robotic experience, doing the surgery as open is fine, as long as you're doing the surgery safely and doing it to the standard that you might expect with complete lymph node clearance, mediastinal lymph node clearance, and intrapulmonary lymph node clearance. Really, I think that's where we have to sort of drive home the point, really less about the actual approach, even though our bias is to do it robotically because we feel it's less morbidity for the patient. The patients will recover faster from the treatment and then be able to go on to the next phase treatments. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: In some of the pre-operative trials, the neoadjuvant trials, there have been some concerns raised about 20% of patients not being able to make it to surgery after induction chemo immunotherapy. Can you comment on that, and why do you think that is the case, Sandip? Dr. Sandip Patel: Well, I think there are multiple reasons. If you look, about half due to progression of disease, which they might not have been great operative candidates to begin with, because they would have early progression afterwards. And some small minority in a given study, maybe 1% to 2%, it's an immune-related adverse event that's severe. So, it's something that we definitely need to think about. The flip side of that coin, only about 2 in 3 patients get adjuvant therapy, whether it be chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy. And so, our goal is to deliver a full multimodal package, where, of course, the local therapy is hugely important, but also many of these other molecular or immunologically guided agents have a substantial impact. And I do think the point around neoadjuvant and perioperative is well taken. I think this is a discussion we have to have with our patients. I think, in particular, when you look at higher stage disease, like stage 3A, for example, the risk-benefit calculus of giving therapy upfront given the really phenomenal outcomes we have seen, really frankly starting with the NADIM study, CheckMate816, now moving on into studies like KEYNOTE-671, AEGEAN, it really opens your eyes in stage 3. Now, for someone who's stage 1/1b, is this a patient who's eager to get a tumor out? Is there as much of an impact when we give neoadjuvant therapy, especially if they're not going to respond and may progress from stage 1 and beyond? I think that's a reasonable concern. How to handle stage II is very heterogeneous. I think two points that kind of happen as you give neoadjuvant therapy, especially chemo-IO that I think is worth for folks to understand and this goes to Mike's earlier point, that is this concept if they do get a scan during your neoadjuvant chemo immunotherapy, there is a chance of that nodal flare, where the lymph nodes actually look worse and look like their disease is progressing. Their primary tumor may be smaller or maybe the same. But when we actually go to the OR, those lymph nodes are chock-full of immune cells. There's actually no cancer in those lymph nodes. And so that's a bit of a red herring to watch out for. And so, I think as we're learning together how to deliver these therapies, because the curative-intent modality is, in my opinion, a local modality. It's what Mike does in the OR, my colleagues here do in the OR. My goal is to maximize the chance of that or really maximize the long-term cure rates. And we know, even as long as the surgery can go, if only 2 or 3 patients are going to get adjuvant therapy then 1 in 10, of which half of those or 1 in 20, are not getting the surgery and that's, of course, a big problem. It's a concern. I think better selecting towards those patients and thinking about how to make these choices is going to be hugely important as we go over. Because in a clinical trial, it's a very selective population. A real-world use of these treatments is different. I think one cautionary tale is that we don't have an approval for the use of neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy for conversion therapy, meaning, someone who's "borderline resectable." At the time at which you meet the patient, they will be resectable at that moment. That's where our best evidence is, at the current time, for neoadjuvant or perioperative approaches. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think the other major issue is like the optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint here. Obviously, at this point, we have multiple different trial readouts, and there are some options that patients can have just neoadjuvant without any adjuvant. Still, we have to figure out how to de-escalate post-surgery immunotherapy interventions. And I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and you're certainly involved in some of those exciting clinical trials. What do you do right now in your current clinical practice when you have patients who have a complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy? What is the discussion you have with your patients at that point? Do they need more immunotherapy, or are you ready to de-escalate? Dr. Sandip Patel: I think MRD-based technologies, cell-free DNA technologies will hopefully help us guide this. Right now, we are flying blind along two axes. One is we don't actually know the contribution of the post-operative component for patients who get preoperative chemo-IO. And so this is actually going to be an ongoing discussion. And for a patient with a pCR, we know the outcomes are really quite good based on CheckMate816, which is a pure neoadjuvant or front-end only approach. Where I actually struggle is where patients who maybe have 50% tumor killing. If a patient has only 10% tumor killing ... the analogy I think in clinic is a traffic light, so the green light if you got a pCR, a yellow light if you have that anywhere from 20%-70% residual viable tumor, and then anything greater than that, you didn't get that much with chemo-IO and you're wondering if getting more chemo-IO, what would that actually do? It's a bit of a red light. And I'm curious, we don't have any data, but my guess would be the benefit of the post-op IO is because patients are in that kind of yellow light zone. So maybe a couple more cycles, we'll get them an even more durable response. But I am curious if we're going to start relying more on MRD-based technologies to define treatment duration. But I think it's a very complicated problem. I think folks want to balance toxicity, both medical and financial, with delivering a curative-intent therapy. And I am curious if this maybe, as we're looking at some of the data, some of the reasons around preferring a perioperative approach where you scale it back, as opposed to a neoadjuvant-only approach where there's not a clean way to add on therapy, if you think that makes sense. But it's probably the most complicated discussions we have in clinic and the discussion around a non-pCR. And frankly, even the tumor board discussions around localized non-small cell lung cancer have gone very complex, for the benefit of our patients, though we just don't have clean data to say this is the right path. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think that the need for a really true multidisciplinary approach and discussing these patients in the tumor board has never been more significant. Large academic centers, we have the luxury of having all the expertise on hand. How do we scale this approach to the broader community is a big challenge, I think, especially in early-stage patients. Of course, not everyone can travel to Dr. Zervos or you for care at a large tertiary cancer centers. So, I think there needs to be a lot of effort in terms of trying to educate community surgeons, community oncologists on managing these patients. I think it's going to be a challenge. Dr. Michael Zervos: If I could just add one thing here, and I completely agree with everything that has been said. I think the challenge is knowing beforehand. Could you predict which patients are going to have a complete response? And for that matter, say, "Okay. Well, this one has a complete response. Do we necessarily need to operate on this patient?" And that's really the big question that I add. I personally have seen some complete response, but what I'm mostly seeing is major pathologic response, not necessarily CR, but we are seeing more and more CR, I do have to say. The question is how are you going to predict that? Is looking for minimal residual disease after treatment going to be the way to do that? If you guys could speak to that, I think that is just tremendously interesting. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think as Sandip said, MRD is looking very promising, but I just want to caution that it's not ready for primetime clinical decision making yet. I am really excited about the MRD approach of selecting patients for de-escalation or escalation and surgery or no surgery. I think this is probably not quite there yet in terms of surgery or no surgery decision. Especially for patients who have early-stage cancer, we talk about curative-intent treatment here and surgery is a curative treatment, and not going to surgery is going to be a heavy lift. And I don't think we're anywhere close to that. Yet, I'm glad that we are having those discussions, but I think it may be too hard at this point based on the available technologies to kind of predict CR. We're not there. Dr. Michael Zervos: Can I ask you guys what your thought process is for evaluating the patient? So, when you're actually thinking about, "Hey, this patient actually had a good response. I'm going to ask the surgeons to come and take a look at this." What imaging studies are you actually using? Are you just using strictly CT or are you looking for the PET? Should we also be thinking about restaging a lot of these patients? Because obviously, one of the things that I hate as a surgeon is getting into the operating room only to find out that I have multiple nodal stations that are positive. Which really, in my opinion, that's sort of a red flag. And for me, if I have that, I'm thinking more along the lines of not completing that surgery because I'm concerned about not being able to provide an R0 resection or even having surgical staple lines within proximity of cancer, which is not going to be good. It's going to be fraught with complications. So, a lot of the things that we as surgeons struggle with have to do with this. Personally, I like to evaluate the patients with an IV intravenous CT scan to get a better idea of the nodal involvement, proximity to major blood vessels, and potentially even a PET scan. And though I think in this day and age, a lot of the patients will get the PET beforehand, not necessarily get it approved afterwards. So that's a challenge. And then the one thing I do have to say that I definitely have found helpful is, if there's any question, doing the restaging or the re-EBUS at that point to be particularly helpful. Dr. Sandip Patel: Yeah, I would concur that having that pathologic nodal assessment is probably one of the most important things we can do for our patients. For a patient with multinodal positive disease, the honest truth is that at our tumor board, that patient is probably going to get definitive chemoradiation followed by their immunotherapy, or potentially soon, if they have an EGFR mutation, osimertinib. For those patients who are clean in the mediastinum and then potentially have nodal flare, oftentimes what our surgeons will do as the first stage of the operation, they'll actually have the EBUS repeated during that same anesthesia session and then go straight into surgery. And so far the vast majority of those patients have proceeded to go to surgery because all we found are immune cells in those lymph nodes. So, I think it's a great point that it's really the pathologic staging that's driving this and having a close relationship with our pathologists is key. But I think one point that I think we all could agree on is the way that we're going to find more of these patients to help and cure with these therapies is through improved utilization of low-dose CT screening in the appropriate population in primary care. And so, getting buy-in from our primary care doctors so that they can do the appropriate low-dose CT screening along with smoking cessation, and find these patients so that we can offer them these therapies, I think is something that we really, as a community, need to advocate on. Because a lot of what we do with next-generation therapies, at least on the medical oncology side, is kind of preaching to the choir. But getting the buy-in so we can find more of these cases at stage 1, 2 or 3, as opposed to stage 4, I think, is one of the ways we can really make a positive impact for patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I just want to go back to Mike's point about the nodal, especially for those with nodal multistation disease. In my opinion, those anatomic unresectability is a moving target, especially with evolving, improving systemic therapy options. The utilization for chemo radiation has actually gone down. I think that's a different clinical subgroup that we need to kind of think differently in terms of how we do the next iteration or generation of clinical trials, are they really benefiting from chemo-IO induction? And maybe we can get a subset of those patients in surgery. I personally think surgery is probably a more optimal, higher yield to potentially cure these patients versus chemo radiation. But I think how we identify those patients is a big challenge. And maybe we should do a sequential approach induction chemo-IO with the intent to kind of restage them for surgery. And if they don't, they go to chemo consolidation radiation, I guess. So, I think we need to rethink our approach to those anatomically unresectable stage 3s. But I think it's fascinating that we're having these discussions. You know, we've come to accept chemo radiation as a gold standard, but now we're kind of challenging those assumptions, and I think that means we're really doing well in terms of systemic therapy options for our patients to drive increased cures for these patients. Dr. Michael Zervos: I think from my perspective as a surgeon, if I'm looking at a CT scan and trying to evaluate whether a patient is resectable or not, one of the things that I'm looking for is the extent of the tumor, proximity to mediastinal invasion, lymph nodes size. But if that particular patient is resectable upfront, then usually, that patient that receives induction chemo checkpoint inhibition is going to be resectable afterwards. The ones that are harder are the ones that are borderline resectable upfront or not resectable. And then you're trying to figure out on the back end whether you can actually do the surgery. Fortunately, we're not really taking many patients to the operating room under those circumstances to find that they're not resectable. Having said that, I did have one of those cases recently where I got in there and there were multiple lymph node stations that were positive. And I have to say that the CT really underestimated the extent of disease that I saw in the operating room. So, there are some challenges surrounding all of these things. Dr. Sandip Patel: Absolutely. And I think for those patients, if upfront identification by EBUS showed multi nodal involvement, we've had excellent outcomes by working with radiation oncologists using modern radiotherapy techniques, with concurrent chemo radiation, followed by their immunotherapy, more targeted therapy, at least it looks like soon. I think finding the right path for the patient is so key, and I think getting that mediastinal pathologic assessment, as opposed to just guessing based on what the PET CT looks like, is so important. If you look at some of the series, 8% to 10% of patients will get a false-positive PET on their mediastinal lymph nodes due to coccidioidomycosis or sarcoidosis or various other things. And the flip side is there's a false-negative rate as well. I think Mike summarized that as well, so I think imaging is helpful, but for me, imaging is really just pointing the target at where we need to get pathologic sampling, most commonly by EBUS. And getting our interventional pulmonary colleagues to help us do that, I think is so important because we have really nice therapeutic options, whether it's curative-intent surgery, curative-intent chemo radiation, where we as medical oncologists can really contribute to that curative-intent local therapy, in my opinion. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you so much Sandip and Mike, it's been an amazing and insightful discussion, with a really dynamic interplay between systemic therapy and surgical innovations. These are really exciting times for our patients and for us. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise and insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I want to also thank our listeners today for your time. If you value the insights that you hear today, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to the podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you so much. [FH1] Dr. Sandip Patel: Thank you. Dr. Michael Zervos: Thank you.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti: Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline
Dr. Sandip Patel: Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Nektar, Compugen, Illumina, Amgen, Certis, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, Tempus, Iovance Biotherapeutics. Speakers' Bureau: Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim Research Funding (Inst.):Rubius, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Amgen AstraZenece/MedImmune, Fate, Merck, Iovance, Takeda
Dr. Michael Zervos: No relationships to disclose | |||
| A Revolution in Immunotherapy for Cervical and Endometrial Cancers | 18 Apr 2024 | 00:26:18 | |
Doctors James Ferriss, Linda Duska, and Jayanthi Lea discuss the promise and the challenges of targeting the immune system with immune checkpoint inhibitors, or ICIs, in cervical and endometrial cancers. They also examine emerging data that support the use of ICIs in recurrent cervical cancer, the potential for curing some patients with advanced endometrial cancer, and molecular factors that make cervical cancer a good target for immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. James Stuart Ferriss, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm an associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics and the Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Johns Hopkins Medicine. In today's episode, we'll be discussing the use of immunotherapy in cervical and endometrial cancers to advance the treatment of these malignancies. I'm delighted to be joined by two acclaimed experts in this space, Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Jaya Lea. Dr. Duska is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serves as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Dr. Lea is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and chief of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Drs. Duska and Dr. Lea, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Linda Duska: Thanks, Dr. Ferriss. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Thanks, Dr. Ferriss. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, let's get started. In recent years, we've had a revolution in the treatment of advanced endometrial and cervical cancers with improved outcomes for patients treated with immunotherapy. And when we say immunotherapy, we're specifically talking about immune checkpoint inhibitors today. A few of these agents have actually been approved in the United States for the management of these diseases. In our discussion, I'd like to review the promise and challenges of targeting the immune system in patients with advanced endometrial and cervical cancers, as well as review the most recent evidence we have in these spaces. Let's start with cervix. We've had a lot of improvements in outcomes here, Dr. Lea, and with cervical cancer, we've seen improved overall survival with the incorporation of immunotherapy along with chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy for advanced and recurrent disease. Can you remind us why cervical cancer is a good target for immunotherapy? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Yes, Dr. Ferriss. Immunotherapy for cervical cancer is supported by several molecular factors. And I think first and foremost, it's so important to remember that the majority of cervical cancers are HPV-positive. And HPV-positive cancers can induce a high level of inflammation, but this high level of inflammation actually contributes to evasion of immune surveillance. What it also does is that it's responsible for the induction of PD-L1. And we've seen several studies that have shown that cervical cancers express PD-L1 anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of cases. Other pertinent factors to consider are that cervical cancer can be considered a tumor with a high tumor mutational burden. So, the number of somatic mutations that we see in the DNA can be considered as a proxy for neoantigens. And so the higher the level of neoantigens, the more immunogenic the tumor. And then lastly, about 1 in 10 cervical cancers present with microsatellite instability, which is an already established key biomarker for the response team in care. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, thinking about targeting PD-L1, what clinical evidence do we have that supports the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in recurrent cervical cancer? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: We now have several studies that have shown a benefit for immune checkpoint inhibitors. For example, KEYNOTE-158 was a phase 2 basket [trial] that investigated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, in multiple cancer types. And specifically for patients with previously treated advanced cervical cancer, we were able to see an overall response rate of about 15% in those patients who had PD-L1 positive. And similarly, the EMPOWER CERVICAL-1 study, which was a phase 3 randomized trial that investigated the efficacy of cemiplimab, which is another PD-1 inhibitor, versus investigator's choice of single agent chemotherapy, showed a significant difference in median overall survival and progression-free survival in the cemiplimab group. There are several other studies that have investigated the efficacy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in cervical cancer. One specific PD-1 inhibitor is nivolumab. In CHECKMATE-358, nivolumab was associated with an overall response rate of 26% in women who had recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Duska, do you have any thoughts? Dr. Linda Duska: I'm really interested in PD-L1 as a biomarker because in the KEYNOTE-A18 study, which we're going to get to, 95% of patients were PD-L1 positive by CPS, which is the scoring system that we use in cervix cancer. And some of the studies that you already mentioned, including BEATcc, which we're also going to talk about, reported results where PD-L1 wasn't even considered. And so it begs the question, since PD-L1 is actually – again, depending on when in the course of disease you look at it, but more recent studies suggest 95% of cervical cancers express PD-L1, and – agnostic is the word I was looking for – it seems at least in BEATcc and similar trials that PD-L1 is agnostic, but I wonder if PD-L1 is really a good biomarker for response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy and I wonder what your thoughts are. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I think that's an excellent question. To your point, that's correct that we saw in KEYNOTE-A18 that more than 90% of the patients had PD-L1 positivity and the result is sort of generalizable to all comers. That's still a matter of debate as to how we see PD-L1 as a biomarker to incorporate checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of patients. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, let's talk about the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the frontline setting. Until recently, we haven't seen much improvement in overall survival since the introduction of anti-angiogenic therapy to the chemotherapy backbone, and that was in GOG 240. Let's talk about the changes that have recently occurred in this space. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: So, we've had some very exciting data specifically from initially KEYNOTE-826 and its primary metastatic or first line salvage settings. So, KEYNOTE-826, which was a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial was very practice-changing for us because it showed that incorporation of pembrolizumab to the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer, really changed the landscape for treatment in this group of patients. So, keep in mind that prior to the study, the standard of care was carboplatin, or cisplatin with paclitaxel plus or minus bevacizumab, which yielded a median overall survival range in anywhere from 13 to 17 months depending on whether you use bevacizumab or not. And then adding pembrolizumab to that regimen, increase the median overall survival to 24 months, which is very promising. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: If I remember correctly, KEYNOTE-826 allowed investigators choice, use of bevacizumab, and initially we were unsure about which regimen was best. Has there been additional data since? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: There has been additional data since. And another study that was done in the same vein was the BEATcc trial, which also looked at the different checkpoint inhibitors, atezolizumab in combination now with bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy. And the control arm for this study was the GOG 240 regimen, which included bevacizumab. And this study showed both a progression-free and overall survival difference. The median overall survival in this study was 32 months with the incorporation of the checkpoint inhibitor to the bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy. So, the way that I look at it is that the BEATcc trial basically confirmed the findings of KEYNOTE-826 and highlights that it is important for us to incorporate checkpoint inhibition with immunotherapy along with bevacizumab when we're treating patients with a recurrence. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Also, folks with primary advanced treatment for cervical cancer, this would be a great regimen, is that right? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Absolutely. Primary advance, we would want to use the same regimen for that. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Okay. What about locally advanced in primary treatment? What advances have we seen? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: So we've had some major changes in that field as well, especially with the recent KEYNOTE-A18 data where pembrolizumab was administered in combination with external beam radiation and concurrent chemotherapy. And this study showed that there was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemoradiation alone. Specifically, the progression-free survival at 24 months using pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was 68%, and 57% when in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for disease progression was 0.7 and no new safety signals were observed, which is fantastic, especially given the 0.7 hazard ratio that received PFS. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Yeah, absolutely. These patients with locally advanced cervical cancer often are quite symptomatic, and the prospect of adding chemo, radiation, and now immunotherapy on top of that is really encouraging to see that it was such a well-tolerated regimen. I believe that there were patient-reported outcomes recently reported at SGO. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Absolutely. So, the safety profile of pembrolizumab and chemoradiation was consistent with the known profile of the individual treatment components. And no new safety signals emerged in the pembrolizumab chemoradiation arm. So, you're right. It was very well tolerated. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: What would you say are the takeaways for folks who are seeing these patients in the community? These locally advanced cervical cancer patients that are now adding immunotherapy in a space that we have not used routinely in the past in terms of combining it with chemo radiation in gynecologic cancer. What are some things they should be looking out for? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Well, I think that with the hazard ratio of 0.7 and the patient-reported outcomes showing no new signal, I think we can say that there is a positive benefit-to-risk profile of adding pembrolizumab in combination with chemoradiation, and that we should feel comfortable using this regimen. Now, of course, we have individualized patient care, and be able to know when to use bevacizumab, when to use immunotherapy. So, taking the whole patient into consideration becomes important. But for those individuals who are able to receive these drugs who don't have concrete issues to not receive these drugs [then I'd say we could] incorporate them since the safety profile is set. Dr. Linda Duska: I would add to that, Dr. Ferriss, that right now we only have FDA approval in the U.S. for stage 3-4A disease, and that's 2014 staging. Mind you, we are now in 2018, so we should be very careful in and follow the correct FIGO staging. But the FDA only gave approval for stage 3-4A disease, even though the study included patients with earlier stage disease and positive nodes. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: That's a great point, thank you. So, Dr. Duska, thinking about endometrial cancer and advanced endometrial cancer, we have seen a similar revolution in the care of patients over the past few years, with major shifts in our approach. Can you remind us how we got here? Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, I would say in the '90s and before, and maybe even in the early 2000s, we used a lot of radiation for endometrial cancer as adjuvant therapy following surgery. The general consensus and what we were all taught was that this was a chemotherapy-resistant disease. And then we learned from a variety of GOG at the time, Gynecologic Oncology Group trials, that this disease is actually chemosensitive. And we went through a series of chemotherapy drugs, ranging from adriamycin cisplatin to taxel adriamycin cisplatin, and finally to taxel and carboplatin, demonstrating that this disease is actually quite chemosensitive. With this realization came the idea that maybe it would be important to combine chemotherapy and radiation particularly in high-risk endometrial cancer cases, so those with positive nodes or patients with high-risk histology such as clear cell or serous cancers. So two very important trials were done, one of them was PORTEC-3 and the other was GOG-258, which looked at combining chemo and radiation together to see if we could do better than one or the other alone. And they were very different trials, and they looked at different populations of patients and they looked at different things. For example, PORTEC-3 randomized patients to receive chemotherapy and radiation versus radiation alone, while 258 looked at chemotherapy and radiation versus chemotherapy alone. Without going into a great amount of detail, I think what we learned from both of those studies, and I think surprised many of us, that the arms that included chemotherapy, those patients did better. In fact, the results of GOG-258 can be interpreted – and this is somewhat controversial – but can be interpreted that many of these high-risk patients don't need radiation at all, or perhaps need tumor-directed radiation. For example, chemotherapy followed by tumor-directed radiation either to the vaginal cuff, because the vaginal cuff is at risk for recurrence, or perhaps to an area of concern, maybe the cervix if there were cervical involvement or if there is a particular concern for local recurrence in a particular patient. So, I think the pendulum has swung from almost always using radiation alone to, in more modern day, using chemotherapy and using radiation much more sparingly, and then comes immunotherapy. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, update us on the results of NRG-GY018 and RUBY? Dr. Linda Duska: So, we've already talked about the KEYNOTE basket trials, which really contributed a lot to our understanding of the importance of MMR deficiency and microsatellite unstable disease. The KEYNOTE-158 study and the GARNET study showed us how important it was for women with MMRd and MSI endometrial cancer to receive checkpoint inhibition, and actually with remarkable response rates to women who had already been pretreated. But we also learned from the GARNET trial, which included MMRp patients, that the response rates in MMRp were not that great. And that led to KEYNOTE-775, which looked to combine pembrolizumab with a VEGF inhibitor, lenvantinib, to see if we could make the cold tumor hot. And indeed, we could. And not only could we improve the response rate in patients with MMRp tumors, but we could also improve the response rate in patients with MMRd tumors. They did better with the combination than they did with pembro alone. That led to the idea of combining checkpoint inhibitors with chemo upfront. The idea there was we were going to take paclitaxel and carboplatin, which were our backbone for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, and add immunotherapy to that. And to your point, GY018 and RUBY trials did just that. And they allowed MMRd and MMRp patients and combined paclitaxel and carboplatin, either with dostarlimab in the case of RUBY, or pembrolizumab in the case of GY018. These studies, both of which were reported and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, showed remarkable findings in the upfront setting and potentially in the curable setting. And the OS data for RUBY were presented at SGO this year and were remarkable for MMRd patients. In the whole population, in the whole group in RUBY, there was a 16.4-month improvement in overall survival with the addition of dostarlimab which is just huge. When you look at the MMRd group, I think Dr. Powell described the overall survival improvement as unprecedented. I believe that was the word that he used. Also, he called it very robust, with a hazard ratio of 0.32 for the group that got dostarlimab, and a median OS that was not reached. So really remarkable. In addition, in the MMRp group, there was a seven-month improvement in OS that was significant. So that's really amazing in the RUBY trial. It's also of note that the RUBY trial allowed carcinosarcomas, whereas the GY018 study did not. So, I think it's fair to say that these results apply to carcinosarcomas. It's also really important to note that many of the patients in the immunotherapy group who received placebo, 41% of them got IO in a later treatment line, and these OS data still stand. So that's really interesting and hypothesis-generating. For GY018, we don't have mature OS data yet, so we can't talk about OS. But we saw a similar improvement in PFS in both arms, in the d and the pMMR, with an OS trend in both arms that was also reported at SGO. GY018 was a little bit different though, because they unblinded at the time of the PFS reporting last year, and so those patients were unblinded a lot earlier than the RUBY patients were. So, to interpret the data in that vein, the OS data is not mature, but we anticipate looking at the PFS curves and the preliminary OS curves, that the OS data will also be statistically significantly improved in core pembrolizumab in GY018. What's also really interesting, and we haven't talked about molecular subtypes, is that when we look at the molecular subtypes in RUBY, and I'm sure we're going to see data on the molecular subtypes in GY018 coming up, different molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer respond differently to IO. And so, there's going to be lots of really interesting data coming our way soon that we're really excited to see, and that will help us triage patients appropriately into treatment regimens. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Lea, did you have a thought? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Yeah, I just wanted to comment that looking at the dMMR survival curve in the file that was presented recently, one thing that really strikes me is the importance of adding the IO at the time of initial treatment. The separation of the curves persists. And, like you just mentioned, Dr. Duska, I mean, some of those patients who received placebo then later on went to get an IO treatment, but at the same time, we still see a vast separation of those curves. So, I think it's really important to note that immunotherapy should be used upfront, especially in dMMR. Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I completely agree with that. And I think that might be– I mean, this is just a hypothesis, but I think that that might be why we saw a difference with the addition of immunotherapy in the MMRp group, because it's possible that the chemotherapy created an immune environment that made the checkpoint inhibitor work more successfully than it would have otherwise. So, a really good point. You definitely need to include dostarlimab or pembrolizumab with the chemotherapy and then as maintenance therapy after. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, you mentioned, we're increasingly thinking about endometrial cancer in smaller and smaller buckets of patients with very prescribed molecular profiles. We don't yet have enough information to specifically tailor treatment. How are you approaching that today in patients that you see in clinic? Dr. Linda Duska: Well, the MMR, and I'm interested in what you both are doing also, it's easy with the MMRd and MSI high patients. Those patients all should receive a checkpoint inhibitor, no question. The patients that are p53 mut, I test them for HER2, because we do have data to suggest that atezolizumab or TDX-d might be useful in those individuals, HER2 positive. And then the remaining patients, also called the NSMPs. That's a difficult group. I'm interested to know how you all manage them. I think that's the group where more clinical research is really needed to determine what the best treatment regimen for them is. But I'm interested in both of your thoughts on that. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Lea? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I would have to say that I do exactly like you do, Dr. Duska. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: And I would say our approach is very similar. And we have a robust discussion always about the use of immunotherapy with chemotherapy and in patients who are proficient MMR. But I think that most of us believe that the PFS data is certainly compelling. And now the OS data from RUBY, very compelling in both groups. And so, we are routinely recommending the use of immunotherapy along with chemotherapy in these advanced patients. Dr. Linda Duska: I've heard the argument made that GY018 required measurable disease, and so does not necessarily apply to patients without measurable disease. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think there were clinical trial reasons why that was a requirement rather than biologic reasons. In addition, as we already discussed, RUBY included carcinosarcomas and GY018 did not. I don't think there's a reason to only use dostarlimab for carcinosarcomas, but that said, I don't know that pembrolizumab has an indication for carcinosarcomas. The devil's in the details, don't get too lost in the weeds. I think the take-home message here is that it's really important to use IO, particularly for the MMRd patients with endometrial cancer, upfront. And based on the OS that we saw in both RUBY and preliminarily in GY018, we may be curing some people with this regimen, and I think we should focus on that. The overall survival for advanced endometrial cancer is not great, and if we can improve that and potentially cure some people, that's a huge advance for our patients. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Do you envision a day that we might even ask the question, "Do we need to do surgery?" Dr. Linda Duska: So, the rectal data would support that assertion. I'm not sure that endometrial cancer and rectal cancer are the same thing. And I think that taking out a postmenopausal woman's uterus is a lot less morbid than potentially radiating or taking out somebody's rectum. I think a different question would be, is there a day when we would stop doing no dissection? We could definitely debate that, but I don't see that happening. Do you see that happening anytime soon? A stopping of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I don't see that happening anytime soon. And I think, as you said, taking out the uterus, tubes, and ovaries, it does provide us with some information about whether you're even dealing with a secondary primary. But also, it's from a quality-of-life standpoint. If a woman has a large uterus, that's uncomfortable. Postmenopausal bleeding, avoiding bleeding during the course of treatment, so many reasons why I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to want to not do surgery for these patients. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, we'll put a plug in for our fellow gynecologic oncologists that we still have a role to play in the incorporation of treatment regimens for patients with advanced uterine cancer. So it's not just medicine, there's still a role for surgery. Dr. Linda Duska: I think that's very fair, yeah. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Okay. I think that's all the time we have for today. I want to thank our listeners for their time, and you'll find the links to all the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Dr. Linda Duska: Thank you. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Honoraria: National Board of Medical Examiners Dr. Linda Duska: Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma Researching Funding (Inst): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Syndax, Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Cerulean Pharma, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche | |||
| How ctDNA Is Advancing Care for Patients With GI Cancers | 04 Apr 2024 | 00:17:21 | |
Drs. Shaalan Beg and Aparna Parikh discuss the role of ctDNA as a powerful prognostic biomarker for GI cancers, along with its impact on risk stratification and the detection of recurrence. They highlight key studies in ctDNA that were featured at the 2024 ASCO GI Cancers Symposium, including COBRA, GALAXY, and BESPOKE in CRC, as well as the promise of ctDNA testing in the preoperative detection of iCCA. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Harold Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas. On today's episode, we will be discussing the emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) technology in GI cancers. I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Aparna Parikh, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard University and the director for colorectal medical oncology at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, where she also serves as the medical director of the Young Adult Colorectal Cancer Center. Dr. Parikh will share her insights on key research on this hot topic in GI oncology that was featured at the recent ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. Our full disclosures are available in the transcripts of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Parikh, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Aparna Parikh: Thanks so much, Dr. Beg. Dr. Shaalan Beg: In recent years, it has become evident that liquid biopsy and other emerging ctDNA technologies are changing how we treat GI cancers, and colorectal cancer (CRC) is in the forefront of this space. Before we dive into key studies, can you briefly highlight for our listeners how ctDNA is advancing the field and how it can influence the care that we deliver to our patients in the future? Dr. Aparna Parikh: Absolutely, ctDNA is certainly a hot topic. What we have learned over the years is that ctDNA has emerged across many solid tumor types as one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, prognostic biomarker we have to date. ctDNA has improved risk stratification. We have learned a lot about the role in what is called minimal or molecular residual disease in patients with early-stage disease, and ctDNA being a biomarker of recurrence for those patients, with ctDNA, we have a better understanding of tumoral heterogeneity, both spatially and temporally, getting a better glimpse of what is happening in a given patient with multiple metastases, as well as genomic evolution of tumors over time. So certainly many, many roles and areas where ctDNA is emerging. Dr. Shaalan Beg: This was a hot topic at the 2024 ASCO GI Cancers Symposium, and we're going to take a deep dive into some of the abstracts that were presented. Let's start with the COBRA study, which is the NRG-GI005. That was Abstract 5 at the ASCO GI Cancers Symposium, and the GALAXY study, which was Abstract 6 at the symposium. So, the COBRA study reported results of ctDNA as a predictive biomarker in adjuvant chemotherapy for people with colon cancer. At a high level, it was a negative study, but there are some important lessons for us to learn. Similarly, in the GALAXY study, investigators from Japan presented an updated analysis on the correlation of ctDNA dynamics with outcomes in colorectal cancer with minimal residual disease. How do you synthesize all this information and help the listeners understand our current state for ctDNA applications in colorectal cancer? Dr. Aparna Parikh: Yeah. Let's take the COBRA study first. Let's talk a little bit about the design of COBRA. COBRA was intended to look at patients that were resected, stage 2 colorectal cancer patients, or colon cancer patients who were 2A. These are patients where the treating physician would, at the outset, decide that there was no adjuvant chemotherapy indicated. These are patients where active surveillance would be entirely appropriate as the standard of care. Patients were randomized to arm 1, which was active surveillance, or randomized to arm 2, which was assay-directed therapy. If there were ctDNA positive in arm 2, then they were given chemotherapy, FOLFOX or CAPOX. And if they were "ctDNA not detected," then they would also go on to active surveillance. And so, the plan was that nearly 1,500 patients are to be recruited, and at the time of this data cut, they had around 630-some patients. The primary objective was to look at the clearance rates of ctDNA between the ctDNA-positive cohorts, remember, the chemotherapy and the active surveillance cohorts at 6 months. They had around a 5% detection rate of ctDNA patients. Ultimately, that was around 16 patients. The reason that the study shut down was that what they found was that in the surveillance arm, the arm that was not getting any treatment, they had a ctDNA clearance of 43% versus 11% in the chemotherapy arm. They had an interim analysis to look at the clearance rate between the 2 arms, and what was surprising to the investigators and the community was what was happening in terms of clearance. Why do we have a 43% clearance rate in patients that were not getting anything? And so, because of that, the study was shut down as it did not meet its prespecified interim look at clearance in those 2 arms. Many things came up in terms of learnings from COBRA. Number one was the characteristics of the assay. And so, you take an assay in a low-risk patient population that has a fixed specificity, and when your baseline prevalence of recurrence is so low, for example, in low-risk stage 2 patients, your composite predictive value is very susceptible to small changes in that specificity. And so, your PPV is going to be a lot lower in a low-risk patient population than a higher-risk patient population. The COBRA study used an older version of a tumor-uninformed assay, so it definitely called into question some characteristics of the assay. Is one-time-point clearance sufficient, and is that the right endpoint? We have seen now, including the GALAXY study that we'll talk about here, previously reported just spontaneous clearance happening in 5%, 10% of patients. The question with that spontaneous clearance is: Was it actually clearance, or was chemotherapy just perhaps in a low ctDNA shedding state? Are you just suppressing the ctDNA below the level of limited detection? And then in this study, the clearance draw was actually done in the chemotherapy arm right before the last cycle of chemotherapy, again to that point of, are you just suppressing the ctDNA with chemotherapy? There is also stochastic sampling error that can happen in patients with very low residual tumor volume. So, I think this is a disappointing study in the sense that it is still a really important question. There are still 2A patients that recur, but maybe [this was] not the right test, or maybe single-time-point testing wasn't enough. And so, lots of lessons to be learned from this study in terms of test and design, but hopefully more to come. I think certainly stage 2 patients remain an area where I think, hopefully, ctDNA still plays a factor for those patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And how was the patient population for the GALAXY study? That was Abstract 6, compared to the COBRA study. Could you summarize those findings for us? Dr. Aparna Parikh: Yeah, so GALAXY was part of a large study in Japan that includes an observational cohort plus therapeutic cohorts as well. And so, GALAXY was just further reporting of the observational cohort. So unlike COBRA, which is a low-risk, stage 2 study that was actually asking that interventional question: Can you use it to guide therapy? The GALAXY and the updated GALAXY just continues to show more clinical validity data rather than clinical utility data. And it was nearly 3,000 patients, pan stages. Again, the lion's share were stage 2 and 3 patients, but there were also stage 1 and stage 4 patients as well. And what they showed was that ctDNA is undoubtedly prognostic. They showed very consistent Kaplan-Meier curves, which we've seen time and time again, where if you're ctDNA-positive, you don't do as well. What they showed was, not surprisingly, with longer-term follow-up – this is 24-month follow up, so longer-term follow up than was published in their paper last year – was that when you test at one time point, so landmark testing, the sensitivity of detecting recurrence was around 48%, and that fell from the publication last year which was around 58%, 59%, which is not surprising as you follow more people. I think single time point testing soon after surgery may miss those late recurrences, but it's still prognostic and showed a specificity of around 94%. They also continued to show that if you continued to test with serial testing, your sensitivity improves, but what was really interesting and new, what they presented this time, was a clearance analysis. And showing, again, comparable to COBRA, in many ways, in the sense that clearance can be a little bit finicky, especially at one time point, is what they showed is that patients who had sustained clearance, and these are patients that had at least two time points with their ctDNA remained to be negative, they did very well. But if you had transient clearance, and again, the definition was a little bit broad, at least having one negative and then one positive, those patients ultimately, at 24 months, the curves came together with the no clearance curve. So initially, they did better than the people that didn't have any clearance. But if you transiently cleared at two years, the curves came back together. And what was interesting is that in those patients that sort of transiently clear by 9 to 12 months, 80% of those are actually having a rapid return of ctDNA. And so this begs the question of was chemotherapy just suppressing that ctDNA or maybe if you have a better test you could have actually improved it. These were some of the updated, interesting learnings from GALAXY, which remains incredibly prognostic. And then the concept of clearance, which I think we have to look into a little bit more as a field, and understanding that maybe just one time point clearance isn't sufficient. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and one of the most important applications for ctDNA can be its ability to inform adjuvant chemotherapy. Its ability to not only identify more people who may benefit from chemotherapy, but maybe even identify people who don't need chemotherapy. And along those lines, Abstract 9, the BESPOKE study, looked to understand the role of ctDNA-based detection of molecular residual disease to inform adjuvant therapy for stage 2 and 3 colorectal cancer. And they presented interim data at the GI ASCO this year. What were your takeaways from this study? Dr. Aparna Parikh: Exactly. Beyond the prognostic implications, I think what was really interesting was that there was the initial data looking at the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. So, what they did was they said, "Okay. We're going to take the MRD-positive patients and look at the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy and then the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in the MRD-negative patients." And again, remember, this is a prospective observational study, so it's not looking at negative and positive to guide therapy, but it's just looking prospectively and observationally at how those patients are doing. But what they showed again is that indeed, in the adjuvant chemotherapy group, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy again with the follow-up to date on the study was different in the MRD-positive patients. First of all, I guess taking a step back, the DFS in the ctDNA-negative patients at 2 years was very good. So negative patients had over 98% 2-year DFS in both the adjuvant chemotherapy and observational group. And there was no real difference between adjuvant or not. But in the positive patients, not surprisingly, the DFS was worse. But what was reassuring to see is that you can make an impact with adjuvant chemotherapy in the positive patients. And the difference in DFS between the positive and negative patients, with adjuvant or not, was 42% versus 12.5%, in the observational patients. So, it is benefitting the patients who are positive so it does give us more data that, again, at least in the positive patients, you may be able to reverse the recurrences there with adjuvant chemotherapy. And maybe if you're negative, eventually, we'll get to a point of de-escalation of care. Again, keeping in mind the kinds of sensitivity limitations as well. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Wonderful. And one of the other malignancies in the GI space where precision therapies and molecular biomarkers are making a huge difference are intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Genomic profiling using ctDNA is increasingly being used in this population to inform precision oncology approaches and determine mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies as well. In Abstract 528, investigators looked at the role of preoperative ctDNA testing for resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. What are your thoughts on that study? Dr. Aparna Parikh: Yeah, it's such an important area, as you mentioned, in the metastatic space – FGFR, IDH1, all these alterations that are emerging in intrahepatic cholangios. This was a very small study, it was preoperative, and so the tumor was intact, and around 14 patients. They used a tumor-informed approach just for detection and quantification of ctDNA. So this was not a study that was looking at a next-generation sequencing approach where you're going to actually be able to detect the alterations, but it's actually looking for the detection and quantification of ctDNA rather than genomic characterizations. And patients had about a month or so where they had their baseline blood detected. And I think what was reassuring to say was that ctDNA was actually detected in all the patients with the primary tumor intact, except for one patient who was a very low-risk stage 1A patient. There was some correlation, against a small number of patients, between the concentration of ctDNA in patients that had the lower stage and then the higher stage groups. Small numbers were actually hard to characterize and correlate with recurrence or mortality, but at least, some correlation with pathologic tumor size, they were able to because it was a bespoke panel and you're sampling the tissue and then looking in the blood, IDH1 and 2 were mutations that were tracked based on the genomic profiling and a couple of the patients were able to have their IDH mutations tracked. So it gives us a sense, a little bit, that ctDNA, we know has a lot of variable shedding across disease states and tumor locations, but gives us some promise that it is reliably detected with the tumor-informed approach, at least preoperatively in cholangios. So may again open some more opportunities for MRD testing in cholangiocarcinoma as well. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you. That's a wonderful review of ctDNA applications in gastrointestinal cancers from the 2024 ASCO GI Cancers Symposium. Thank you, Dr. Parikh, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the podcast today. Dr. Aparna Parikh: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Employment: Science 37 Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Aparna Parikh: Consulting or Advisory Role (An Immediate Family Member): PMV Consulting or Advisory Role: Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, Abbvie, Value Analytics Labs, Bayer, Taiho Oncology, Delcath, Seagen, CVS, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Illumina, UpToDate, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Kahr, Xilio Therapeutics, Sirtex Research Funding: PMV Pharma, Erasca, Inc, Syndax Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Guardant Health, Array, Eli Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd., PureTech, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Karkinos Other Relationship: C2i Genomics, Xgenomes, Parithera, Cadex | |||
| New Machine Learning Framework Uses EHR Data to Assess ICI Effectiveness, Toxicity | 21 Mar 2024 | 00:15:44 | |
Drs. Shaalan Beg and Travis Osterman discuss a machine learning model, recently featured in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, that uses electronic health record data to accurately predict the effectiveness and toxicity of treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The new AI model can be used to provide a personalized risk-benefit profile, inform therapeutic decision-making, and improve clinical trial cohort selection.
TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host for today. I am an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cancer immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape by providing new and effective treatment options for many solid and hematologic malignancies. But while many patients experience a remarkable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, other patients can suffer life-threatening immune checkpoint toxicities. Today, we will be discussing a machine learning solution that can assess a patient's immune checkpoint inhibitor risk-benefit profile based primarily on routinely collected structured electronic health record data. This novel AI solution was recently featured in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, and I am delighted to welcome one of the report's authors, Dr. Travis Osterman. He is an associate vice president for research informatics and associate professor in the Department of Biomedical Informatics and the Division of Hematology Oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Osterman also serves as the director of cancer clinical informatics at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Osterman, it's great to have you on the podcast today.
Dr. Travis Osterman: Thanks, Shaalan. It's great to be here. Thank you for the invitation.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Congratulations on your recently published article in the JCO CCI titled "Prediction of Effectiveness and Toxicities of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using Real World Patient Data." Why did you decide to address this specific problem?
Dr. Travis Osterman: I am a practicing medical oncologist at Vanderbilt, I specialize in thoracic malignancies. Immunotherapy has been a significant part of my practice from the beginning. And I think for all of us, we have patients in our practices that are tremendous responders. I have stories of my patients, a few of which, at least, are able to get years of benefit even after stopping therapy, and potentially some even stage 4 patients that are amazingly seemingly cured after their treatments. But I also have patients that experience severe toxicities, some of those are life-threatening or life ending, but many of those carry morbidity. In my population, I see a lot of pneumonitis, and that really alters patients' quality of life. And the biggest conversation I have with patients is: "How do I know which of these outcomes I'm going to have, if I'm going to get benefits from these therapies or am I going to get one of these side effects or toxicities?" And we set out to try to answer that question with data.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: When electronic medical records started to make their way into the clinic, I remember all of us thinking about the wonderful applications where we could use the data to help guide the clinical care, assign the right treatment for the right patient at the right time, and learn from other patients' experiences to improve the care of the person who's in front of us. And my personal opinion is that we haven't realized our electronic medical records' potential to that extent. And efforts like the one you published in JCO CCI is the culmination of one of the efforts, and I can only imagine how much time and effort it must have taken to develop that and we're hoping is the first of many more to come. For our listeners, can you talk us through the steps required to develop such a tool, and why now is the right time, and why we're starting to see these evolve?
Dr. Travis Osterman: This project would not have been possible 20 years ago. It relies on having what we would call structured data available for our patients that are receiving cancer care, so that's vital signs, laboratory values, and diagnoses, all of the things that we routinely collect in the electronic health record. So that is step 1. This project required that those systems be not just in place at academic centers but be widely available because our goal is to set up systems that will be able to transform cancer care, not just at academic institutions, but for the entire practice of oncology. The second piece is you need enough data to be able to train these models. And so, we needed to be practicing with checkpoint inhibitors long enough to see patients that had toxicities, to see patients that had benefit, and then to jump into the data science of actually trying to learn from them. And so this really was the culmination of systems put in place by a lot of people before us and then really the right time [when] we started to have now enough data to really start to learn from.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: The publication discusses the steps of how you validated your tool. Talk me through how you see this being applied to the point of care for the next time you are about to start an immune checkpoint inhibitor for your lung cancer patient?
Dr. Travis Osterman: I think there are two different primary lanes that these types of models can be applied. In the drug development space, I think many of us are familiar that many assets, many drugs that are in the development pipeline are halted because of adverse events in toxicity profiles, but we also realize that not everyone gets those toxicities. And so we envision a future where before a drug that's in the drug development pipeline is taken out of the development pipeline, potentially, you could screen patients that are at lowest risks of actually having side effects from that immunotherapy and only screen those patients into the trial and that would potentially make more drugs available to more patients going forward. So I think that that's 1 lane. I think the other lane in clinical practice is, let's say that I'm treating a patient who we determine has an increased risk for colitis. Instead of only seeing that patient back in 3 weeks, potentially, now, what if I had one of our nurse navigators, call the patient at weekly check-ins between visits to check in and see whether or not they were having any episodes of diarrhea and trying to intervene earlier. That might allow us to keep patients both out of the hospital, out of the emergency department to treat their symptoms more quickly to decrease the severity of their toxicity and keep them on treatments, especially if they're receiving benefit from it. So, I think there's an opportunity to improve both drug development and making more drugs available to patients and then also to identify patients that are at risk for toxicity, and then to do interventions to help mitigate those risks. Really, the idea of precision risk mitigation.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: One of the problems with electronic medical record-based tools in the past has been that they don't evolve with time. We develop it, we set it, we deploy it, and it almost feels, to the users at least, that it stops evolving after that. With novel therapeutic agents coming into the clinic, we're seeing new ADCs, new novel checkpoint inhibitors entering the market. How do you envision tools such as yours to be refreshed so they can stay relevant with the modern armamentarium of medications which are being used?
Dr. Travis Osterman: So, if you ask any data scientist, the most requested item they will ask for is more data. And so, this initial set of models that we've described in this publication were trained exclusively on a single institution's data at Vanderbilt University Medical Center as we continue both to see more patients here, and then ideally look forward to collaborations with other centers. We expect that these models will continue to be refined and that the performance will improve as we increase the amount of training data, and we hope that that will do 2 things. One, it will counteract the kind of model drift that you described. But then two, it will allow us to ask some more specific questions that honestly, we weren't really powered to answer in our study here. For instance, we didn't look at cardiac toxicity, which is a concern if you're giving a CTLA-4 along with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor more so than single agent immunotherapy. We just don't have enough events to be able to train models on that. But with future collaborations, that would be a question we would love to tackle as well. One of the things that's interesting about the implementation of these models is that we found many of the features that I would have expected to find as a practicing oncologist. For instance, when we're trying to predict the toxicity of pneumonitis inflammation of the lung, I as an oncologist would think that many of my patients that have COPD or interstitial lung disease at baseline seem to be at a higher risk. And so that's one of the features that I was looking to come out in the model. And that's exactly what we found. That was one of the contributing features that helps us predict a higher risk of pneumonitis. But what's interesting is that's certainly not the only feature; there end up being about a dozen features that are in that space that help predict that toxicity. Similarly, for colitis, we found that the combination of receiving a CTLA-4 inhibitor in addition to a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor, that combination together, which would increase risk for colitis, which is well-documented in our literature. So these models are not entirely black boxes. We've published the top features of these models that contribute to our predictions. And I think clinically the challenge for me has always been if I have a patient who has COPD, but it's pretty well-controlled and their O2 sat is normal, how does that patient's risk bring pneumonitis compared to someone who has poorly controlled COPD with low O2 sat at baseline, etc.? And so these models are really designed to help tease out some of those nuances.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: There are so many wonderful applications to use preexisting data that can improve the lives of our patients and frankly that can improve the work experience for clinicians. They can be used for risk stratification using these preexisting data. Can you talk a little bit about what are the barriers that people face or that your team faced in developing these tools, and what has changed or what's expected to change in the coming years to allow people to continue developing tools such as what was described?
Dr. Travis Osterman: I think it's important to realize that we are not unique in addressing this problem. This is a problem that I think has been a focal point of our cancer informatics community for the better part of the last, probably, decade. I think one of the things that distinguishes the work that we've done here is really this idea of clinical utility. And what I mean is we focused on data that would be collected at any routine oncology visit in the U.S., and I would argue worldwide, to use as features in our model. So, we're not running complex genetic testing that may or may not be paid for. We're not asking for new laboratory values to be sent or for extensive questionnaires that aren't already in clinical practice. We're using pieces that are already being connected into the pipeline of oncology practices, and I think that's one of the differentiators of this project versus many others in this space. Right now, these are only EHR data. We have a part of our project that's looking at imaging data and whether that adds value. But one of the pieces that I always advocate for, if we're going to ask practices for instance to upload these imaging files or to send a CD to a central location to improve the outcome, that's harder to work into an oncologist workflow than if all the data are already there in the health record and you can click a button and calculate this person's risk profile. And so, we've really tried to be pragmatic about our approach as we've entered this realm and that's been a real focus of our team.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Many of the listeners of today's podcast are busy clinicians, and you talked about how the idea for this project came from the problem you witnessed in your clinic. How can clinicians continue to be involved in such initiatives or drive these initiatives at their own institutions, in office situations where they may not have the resources that your team has? Can you speak to national efforts or collaborations in this regard?
Dr. Travis Osterman: Yeah. So, first of all, I would invite really anyone to reach out to our team, if they're in a position where they'll be interested in validating our models at their local institutions. We would be happy to work with them to provide the models to see how they perform on their data sets. I think that that's an important part of the academic review and informatics is to see how these models translate into other health care settings. And we also are interested to make sure that what I said in the prior discussion is correct, that we're only incorporating things that other institutions already have. So I think that that's certainly one. The second is a part of a large National Cancer Data standard project called mCODE, the Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements, I chair that executive committee. And one of the pieces of that is trying to find a way to make all of these kinds of structured data interoperable between health records. And so I would just encourage all of my colleagues to always advocate for interoperability and, when there's an option, to store data in a way that makes that data more easily shared in the same formats between institutions. I think that that will pay many dividends for our field going forward. And I just want to plug all the team at mCODE for their work in this and maybe there'll be an integration and connection between mCODE and our project in the future.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you very much Dr. Osterman for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.
Dr. Travis Osterman: Thanks, Shaalan. Have a great day.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find a link to Dr. Osterman's article in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Employment: Science 37 Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Travis Osterman: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Faculty Coaching Honoraria: Amazon Web Services Consulting or Advisory Role: eHealth, AstraZeneca, Outcomes Insights, Biodesix, MD Outlook, GenomOncology, Cota Healthcare, Flagship Biosciences, Microsoft, Dedham Group, Oncollege Research Funding: GE Healthcare, Microsoft, IBM Watson Health Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GE Healthcare, Amazon Web Services | |||
| Innovations in CAR T-Cell Therapy for Multiple Myeloma | 07 Mar 2024 | 00:20:55 | |
Drs. John Sweetenham and Shaji Kumar discuss the emergence of CAR T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma, its benefits and challenges for patients, and its potential role earlier in the treatment of disease. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematologic malignancy, and the American Cancer Society estimates that there will be more than 35,000 new cases of the disease diagnosed in the United States this year. The emergence of several novel therapies over the last decade has transformed the therapeutic landscape for multiple myeloma, and chimeric antigen receptor – or CAR T-cell therapy – is one of the newest treatments for this disease, which has created a great deal of buzz. Dr. Shaji Kumar is an internationally renowned investigator of novel therapeutics and next-generation treatment options for patients with multiple myeloma, and I'm delighted to welcome him to the podcast today to discuss innovations in CAR T-cell therapy in this space. Dr. Kumar is a professor of medicine and chair of the Myeloma Group, as well as chair of research in the Division of Hematology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. He is also the editor-in-chief of The Hematologist. You'll find our full disclosures available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Shaji, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Shaji Kumar: Thanks, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: Shaji, to begin with, maybe we could ask you for an overview of where CAR T-cell therapy sits in multiple myeloma right now. We know that CAR T-cell therapy has improved the survival for some patients with myeloma in recent years. But of course, relapse still remains a problem. Can you tell us a little about the therapies that are currently approved for multiple myeloma in the CAR T-cell space, and what are the potential benefits and challenges of these products? Dr. Shaji Kumar: Absolutely. It has been a revolution, I think, in terms of therapies for multiple myeloma during the past decade. We have seen so many new treatments approved for myeloma, and consequently, the survival of patients with myeloma has significantly improved. Two decades ago, we used to tell patients a median survival of 3 years, and today we tell patients a median survival of 8 to 10 years, a number that is continuing to go up. And it is all because of the new treatments that have become available for patients, especially over the past decade, and CAR T-cell therapy has been a game changer. Now, the main treatments that we were relying on for the past 2 decades have been the immunomodulatory drugs, the proteasome inhibitors, and more recently, the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. Unfortunately, what we see in the clinic is that patients go through these therapies and various combinations of these agents, and often over the 6 to 10 years after the diagnosis, they often become refractory to these drugs. And then we are left with very few choices, if any, for controlling the disease. And that's where the CAR T cells have really made an impact. Over the past several years, clinical trials have shown that CAR T-cell therapy is highly effective. In fact, when we look at the initial trials that have been done in this space, the majority of these CAR T cells have been targeted towards what we call BCMA, or a B-cell maturation antigen that is present on both normal and abnormal plasma cells. Now, the concept of CAR T cells has been around for a while, and we have already seen success in other hematological malignancies, but it has been a little late compared to the other diseases in terms of its arrival in the myeloma field. But over the past few years, we have seen some dramatic progress. We currently have two different CAR T cells that are approved and available in the clinic. We have idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and also ciltacabtagene which is also called cilta-cel. Both of these CAR T cells are targeted towards BCMA. In the early trials conducted with both of these CAR T cells, we've seen patients who have become refractory to all the available therapies, and now upwards of 90% of these patients are responding to these CAR T cells. We are now seeing responses that we had typically not seen previously in any of the other therapies – not only the high response rates but also the depth of response. What we are seeing is a significant number of these patients – nearly half – of these patients can actually be minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative in the bone marrow after the CAR T-cell therapy. And this is clearly unprecedented in this myeloma space. Now, the approval for both these CAR T cells has been based on the experience in patients who have become refractory to the currently available therapies. And the 'line in the sand' that the FDA has drawn for approval for these drugs has been at least 4 prior therapies. In those patients, when you look at the studies that have been done both for the ide-cel and the cilta-cel, it clearly demonstrates the advantages. And we can look at the data that's available in 3 groups. So we have the single-arm studies, the early phase I and phase 2 trials that have been done with both these CAR T cells. For ide-cel, we have the KarMMa trial, and for the cilta-cel, we have the CARTITUDE trials. In the initial studies, as I previously mentioned, we are seeing responses upwards of 90%, and we are seeing disease control that is lasting at least a year or more with these CAR T cells. Now, of course, the question is, we do need randomized phase 3 trials to demonstrate that this is indeed true. Even before the phase 3 trials came along, there have been multiple case-control studies that have been done where the outcomes of patients getting these CAR T cells were compared to real-world controls or cohorts of patients who did not get these therapies. And these studies demonstrated that the outcomes of patients getting CAR T cells were significantly better than what has been shown in the real-world controlled population. And then finally, we have, of course, the phase 3 trials that have read out in patients with relapsed myeloma, in fact, in a group of patients in an earlier stage of the disease than who were studied in those single-arm studies. Now, based on the results from the single-arm studies, we got the approval from the FDA for the use of CAR T cells in this late stage of the disease. And with the phase 3 trials that have read out, both the KarMMa-3 trial and the CARTITUDE-4 trial again clearly demonstrate that these CAR T cells are much more effective than what we would have seen with the conventional therapies if those patients were assigned to those treatments. Now, clearly, it's not only a question of efficacy. We also know that they do come with some toxicities, and we have a good sense of the toxicities from those initial phase I and phase 2 trials. Now, as we have seen with the other diseases, the 2 major categories of toxicities that we see are the cytokine release syndrome and the neurological toxicity associated with CAR T-cell therapy. In terms of the clinical features and the presentations, they are not different than what we have seen with the CAR T cells used in other hematological malignancies, but we do see different frequencies of these in the myeloma patient population. The cytokine release syndrome is something that is seen in a majority of the patients, at least in the lower grades. And over the time since we have been using CAR T-cell therapy, I think we have all become a lot more familiar with the management of the cytokine release syndrome, and we have very effective therapies to manage, and to some extent, maybe even prevent the onset of the cytokine release syndrome in patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy. The neurological toxicity is another toxicity that is unique to these immunological therapies, known as the ICANS, or the immune cell effector-associated neurological syndromes. And these, again, thankfully, are much less frequent than what we see with the cytokine release syndrome. But even with the ICANS and other neurological toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, we have a better understanding of the biology behind it, and we also have better modalities to monitor the patients for these toxicities and intervene in an appropriate and timely manner to take care of them. In addition to the ICANS and the cytokine release syndrome, we certainly do see other toxicities as well. We do see hematological toxicities, which are common for many of the treatments we use for hematological malignancies. Thankfully, these other toxicities can be easily managed. They often reverse themselves over time and haven't really posed any major hurdles in terms of the utilization of these modalities of therapy for patients with myeloma. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, that's great. Thank you very much, Shaji. I'll return to some of the potential late effects of CAR T-cell therapy in a moment. But before we get to that, as you know, in other hematologic malignancies, there has been a trend in recent years to moving CAR T-cell therapy further up the therapeutic algorithm, as it were. So there is consideration being given to using this as a first-line or second-line therapy. Do you think there is a potential role for CAR T cell earlier in the treatment of multiple myeloma? For example, could you see a time when it may be used as second-line treatment for this disease? Dr. Shaji Kumar: Absolutely. I think that's a very good point. And I think, just as with other cancers and as with myeloma, too, with many of the therapies we use for myeloma in the newly diagnosed setting or the time of first relapse, were all initially tested in these later relapses. We are following the same script even for the CAR T cells. In fact, the 2 phase 3 trials, the KarMMa-3 trial and the CARTITUDE-4 trial, enrolled patients in the earlier lines of therapy, either 1 prior line or 2 prior lines for these trials. And what we have seen with both phase 3 trials is that the outcomes, both the progression-free survival outcomes and the response rates, are significantly better compared to the standard-of-care therapies that these patients would have otherwise received. Now, what is unclear at this point is, does every patient at the time of the first relapse need a CAR T-cell therapy, or can we be more selective in terms of deciding which particular subgroup of patients can benefit more from this CAR T-cell therapy in different lines or different relapses? The bottom line is, I think the data that we have right now clearly points towards the utility of CAR T-cell therapy at earlier lines of treatment. The question now is, which patients do we need to do at which stage? In fact, when you look at the newly diagnosed setting, there are ongoing clinical trials that are looking at replacing autologous stem cell transplant with CAR T-cell therapy. Those phase 3 trials are currently enrolling where patients are being randomized to either the autologous stem cell transplant, which is considered a standard of care for eligible patients, or giving them a CAR T-cell therapy. Similarly, even in transplant-ineligible patients, trials are exploring the possibility of using CAR T-cell therapy instead of giving patients a prolonged course of maintenance and consolidation. One of the beauties with the CAR T-cell therapy right now is that it's a one-time treatment. You get the treatment and you do not get any additional therapies after that. It's a protocol that is being debated – whether we will need maintenance therapies after CAR T-cell therapy, but I think that is something that will have to be explored in the context of clinical trials. But certainly, I think over the next 5 years, we will see the CAR T-cell therapy moving to earlier and earlier lines of therapy. My guess is in 5 years, there will be a subset of patients where we would offer them CAR T-cell as part of the first-line therapy, some others, maybe based on disease and patient characteristics, we might use it at the time of first or second relapse. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just to return to toxicities and some of the potential late effects. As you know, last November, the FDA launched an investigation to determine whether CAR T-cell therapy can, in rare cases, cause secondary cancers. You may remember that this was in response to reports of T-cell malignancies in patients who had received various types of CAR T-cell immunotherapies. The FDA determined that the risk of T-cell malignancies is applicable to all of the currently approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous CAR T-cell immunotherapies. Could you care to comment on this whether you have seen any evidence of this in your own work, and whether the events and the FDA investigation have impacted your clinical research or your clinical practice in any way in terms of patient monitoring or maybe in terms of trial approval? Dr. Shaji Kumar: This has been an important observation. As with all new therapies, whenever the question of long-term toxicities is brought up, especially second malignancies, it is something that needs to be looked into very carefully, and I think the FDA is doing exactly that. There have been reports of second cancers, particularly T-cell cancers. In fact, there were some statements that came out recently from the FDA where they commented on the fact that they had seen 22 cases of T-cell cancers by the end of 2023. And, in fact, in 3 of those cases where genetic sequencing was performed, they did notice that the genetic material or the chimeric antigen receptor was inserted into these cancer cells as part of the process. So I think there is a lot more work that needs to be done in terms of understanding the mechanism and probably also understanding how prevalent these instances are. But I think, based on what we know as of now, these cases form a very tiny fraction of the total number of CAR T-cell therapies that have been used in patients with lymphoma and myeloma. In our own day-to-day practice, this has not really affected how we view this therapy. It clearly has made a significant impact for patients with no other treatment options. So in our daily practice, we continue to use CAR T-cell therapy as we have done before these reports came out. But we do inform patients about the risk and what we know about the risk of these T-cell malignancies. In addition to T-cell malignancies, there have also been reports of myelodysplastic syndromes in patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy. Again, it is important to remember that, at least in the myeloma setting, many of these patients have had multiple lines of therapy, often with drugs that can cause second malignancies, particularly myelodysplastic syndrome. So I think a lot more work needs to be done in terms of understanding what is the direct impact of CAR T-cell therapy versus what was lurking underneath because of the treatments that these patients had previously received. So I think it is important for us to continue to be very diligent, as with any new therapies that we introduce for the treatment of our patients. But at the same time, understand that, in the context of the benefits that these therapies bring to our patients, especially when they have no other treatment options. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, at least for now, and probably in the longer term, the benefits of the therapy certainly appear to outweigh the risks, although it is important not to underestimate or minimize those risks. I wanted to change direction a little bit and talk a little bit in the final question about care disparities and CAR T cell. Of course, CAR T-cell therapy is typically offered at large cancer centers and is very expensive. This means that there are issues of access to treatment. In addition, the literature shows us that non-Hispanic Black individuals are twice as likely to develop multiple myeloma compared to their White counterparts. Furthermore, at least right now, Black patients are less likely to receive these novel CAR T-cell therapies and continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. So, this is a big, complex question, but can you talk a little bit about how outcomes differ between racial and ethnic groups who actually receive CAR T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma? And could you address what you think are the most appropriate strategies for minimizing the disparities in access? Dr. Shaji Kumar: That's a very, very important question, particularly in the context of multiple myeloma, where African American individuals are at a higher risk of getting plasma cell malignancies. I think we need to think about this in the context of what we know about disparities even before the CAR T cell came along. There has been a good amount of literature that has looked at the outcomes based on the types of therapies that could be impacted by this. There have been studies that have looked at cooperative group trials, which often have a good representation of minorities and have shown that if patients have equal access to advanced therapies that we have, their outcomes are comparable or sometimes even better for African American patients compared to Caucasian patients. So I think it's very important that the treatment strategies that we develop are equally accessible to everyone. In terms of CAR T-cell therapy or immunotherapies, I don't think we have any concrete evidence to suggest that there is any difference in outcomes. And I think it's reasonable to assume that if patients are exposed to similar therapies, they will have similar outcomes, even in the context of immunotherapies. But at the same time, I think we must continue to study this diligently, and the only way to do that is to ensure that clinical trials include patients reflective of society in general. This will allow us to understand if any differences exist. In addition, I think there is a serious risk that with these expensive therapies, this gap can only widen. And I think that is one reason that we must be proactive, particularly with therapies like CAR T-cell therapy, which not only are expensive but also require quite a bit of logistical support for patients to go to larger centers to get these therapies, stay around these larger centers for upwards of a couple of months, which means they are living outside of their usual societal structure, and ensure there is access to the resources that are needed to enable them to do that. So I think there is a lot that is still unknown, but I think we really need to be proactive in ensuring equal access to these therapies. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes. Thanks for a very thoughtful response to that question, also for the work that you are obviously doing to help address this extremely important issue. I'd like to thank you for sharing your insights with us today and for the extraordinary work that you're doing and your team are doing to advance care for patients with multiple myeloma. Dr. Shaji Kumar: Thank you, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you also to our listeners for joining us today. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. The guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ASCO. Mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's guest:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness
Dr. Shaji Kumar: Consulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, K36 Research Funding (Inst.): Takeda, Abbvie, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd., Allogene Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Abbvie, Pfizer | |||
| ADCs in Breast Cancer: Sequencing, Resistance, and Managing Toxicity | 15 Feb 2024 | 00:30:14 | |
Drs. Hope Rugo and Sara Tolaney discuss the promise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of breast cancer, highlighting key trials that shed light on matching the right ADC to the right patient in the right setting. They also explore how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, the mechanisms of resistance, and the future potential of biomarkers to predict patient response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California, San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. Antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with breast cancer. ADCs consist of antibodies that target tumor-specific antigens on the cell surface, chemical linkers, and cytotoxic payloads that can act powerfully to kill cancer cells. On today's episode, we'll be discussing advances in research to match the right ADC to the right patients and in the right setting. We'll also talk about the next steps, assessing how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, improve options for patients, and identify biomarkers in the future to predict how patients will respond so that we can match the right treatment to the right patient and their tumor. We need to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of resistance that occur upfront as well as under the pressure of treatment. Joining me for this important discussion is Dr. Sara Tolaney. Dr. Tolaney is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, associate director of the Susan Smith Center for Women's Cancer, and chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Tolaney, we're delighted to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much for having me. I'm looking forward to the discussion. Dr. Hope Rugo: Great! So, we'll move forward, and because we're friends and colleagues, I'm going to refer to you as Sara, and I'm Hope, since we'll dispense with formalities in our discussion. A lot of the talks that we give about ADCs start out with "a revolution in breast cancer therapy." And indeed, this is a really exciting time with ADCs as treatment for breast cancer, and we're rapidly moving these agents into earlier disease settings. Can you tell us a little bit about the possibilities and challenges of using ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer today? Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's interesting that you say antibody-drug conjugates as revolutionizing outcomes of breast cancer, which I think is true. But on the flip side, I think it's also bringing up a lot of questions about how to use them, when to use them, and how to manage side effects. So there are a lot of good strengths for these antibody-drug conjugates, but a lot of unknowns that we're still trying to figure out. We had an older antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1 that we were all very familiar with that for years had been a treatment that we used very commonly in metastatic disease and now even use in early breast cancer, and I think has changed outcomes for patients. But over time, we've been able to develop newer antibody-drug conjugates as the technology has really evolved so that these agents now are able to deliver a lot of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. We're seeing very high drug-to-antibody ratios, and we're also seeing that these drugs can function via bystander effect, whereas T-DM1, for example, was not able to do that. But our newer ADCs, like sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan, are agents that do allow chemotherapy to get into that cancer cell, but also to get into neighboring cells. And I think the technology evolution in being able to build these so-called next-generation ADCs has allowed for really unprecedented efficacy that we've not seen before. And it's also allowed us to develop these drugs in a way that's been different. Originally, we were developing T-DM1 to turn off HER2 signaling and to deliver chemotherapy into a HER2 cell. At least that's what we thought originally. And now we're really evolving so that we can just find a tiny bit of protein on a cancer cell and use it as a target, really in a subtype-agnostic way. And I think it's just a different way of thinking about how to use these agents to really deliver a lot of chemotherapy into cancer cells and have very robust efficacy. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it is fascinating that some of the suppositions that we made with the first ADC don't seem to really hold true as well. And maybe they hold true in varying levels for the different ADCs. For example, this bystander effect is thought to allow us to target cells that have very low expression of the receptor that can be internalized even lower than our ability to detect these receptors by immunohistochemistry. And maybe we'll talk about that in a little bit. But first, you mentioned already sacituzumab and trastuzumab deruxtecan, the ADCs that are currently approved for breast cancer. But can you tell us a little more about those ADCs and the key trials that have led to approval of these targeted agents? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yes, I think when we first saw the data that came out with T-DXd and DESTINY-Breast01, I think my jaw dropped because I had never seen a waterfall plot like that. This was a single-arm study that looked at T-DXd in patients with very heavily pretreated metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and saw very high response rates of over 60% and a clinical benefit rate of almost 98%, meaning that almost every single patient who got the drug and had a median of six prior lines of therapy had reduction in tumor size. And that's unreal. I think it was revolutionary in the sense that we had never seen that kind of activity in such a pretreated population. The agent was studied in other registration trials, DESTINY-Breast03, which looked at T-DXd and compared it head to head with T-DM1 in a predominantly second-line metastatic HER2-positive population, and here, again, unprecedented results. I've never seen a p value like that or a hazard ratio of, again unreal, of a little under 0.3 and seeing a 28-month PFS with T-DXd relative to just a little under 7 months PFS with T-DM1. We have never seen patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer have a PFS that long. Even in CLEOPATRA, it's a little under 19 months in the first-line setting, where people were predominantly naïve to HER2-directed therapies. This, again, is really changing outcomes for patients. But then, I think, when we go to the next step, we studied T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and it had again these unprecedented results. But there was some early data suggesting that it could even work in tumors that weren't truly HER2-positive but what we call HER2-low, meaning that they weren't HER2/3+, they weren't HER2-0 but they were 1+ to 2+ and not FISH amplified. And so even with a little bit of protein there, they were seeing activity in the early phase studies and so it led to DESTINY-Breast04, which compared T-DXd to chemotherapy of physician's choice in people who had had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. It was predominantly geared to look at outcomes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. But there was a small group of 58 patients with triple-negative disease that were also included in that trial. And here again, a very unprecedented outcome seeing a response rate of about 50%, which, again, we never see in pretreated hormone receptor-positive disease. And a PFS of 10 months, and again, these are people who already had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy. So it's, again, really changing outcomes. And so now I think it leads us to a lot of other questions that we are addressing in trials - can this drug work even if the tumor has maybe no HER2 expression, what about HER2-0, what about HER2-ultra low, meaning a little bit of staining but not quite 1+. And so these are questions that I think we will need to address and there are studies that will help us address that. On the flip side, we saw sacituzumab govitecan get developed in breast cancer. Initially, we saw very impressive results from a single arm study of sacituzumab in metastatic triple-negative disease where we saw response rates of a little over 30%. These are patients who were very heavily pretreated with metastatic triple negative breast cancer where, unfortunately, response rates end up being in a 5% range so it was a home run in that setting. So that led to the ASCENT trial, which compared sacituzumab govitecan to treatment of physician's choice therapy and that study really enrolled people who were, in essence, second line and beyond in the metastatic triple-negative setting and showed almost triple progression free survival, in essence, doubled overall survival. So again, very robust efficacy leading to confirming its approval. And then we saw data from TROPiCS-02, which looked at sacituzumab in metastatic hormone receptor-positive disease and also showed improvements in both progression free and overall survival. And this was in pre-treated populations of 2 to 4 prior lines of chemotherapy. These agents, again, have established robust efficacy, and so now the idea is can we move these drugs earlier in development into earlier line settings and can we even move these agents into the early disease setting and potentially cure more patients? So hopefully, we'll figure out ways to make that happen. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of this exciting data. And I think we really got an idea of what waterfall plots could tell us from DESTINY-Breast01 where you could count the number of patients whose cancers grew with therapy on one hand. It's been a huge advance. I think it's where we get this "revolution" even in patients with a median of 4 lines of prior chemo, and, in the ASCENT trial, we were able to see this improvement and survival in the hardest-treated subset of metastatic breast cancer triple negative disease. And then the remarkable data in HER2-positive and HER2-low breast cancer hormone receptor positive disease. We're really covering all of the subset of breast cancers. When we introduce new therapies though, and of course, our interest is moving them earlier as lines of therapy in the metastatic setting, we really have to think about the adverse events and how those are going to affect their patients, and balancing the risk benefit ratio. Obviously when the benefit is so huge, we're more thinking about how do we proactively manage these side effects, educate our patients, use prophylaxis when possible. Can you share with us some of your insights on management strategies for toxicities? Dr. Sara Tolaney: You bring up a very good point, and I will say the ADCs were designed with the idea being that we could deliver a ton of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. So obviously, my hope had been that we weren't going to see a lot of chemotherapy-like side effects because the goal was to try to spare normal cells of these side effects. But unfortunately, we do see that these agents do have real toxicities, and I think that is an important message. So, for example, with sacituzumab, for people who have hair going into it, they will lose their hair during the course of treatment, and so that's important to make patients aware of. It can lower blood counts, and about 50% of patients who are on sacituzumab will end up needing growth factor support while they're on treatment. So, that is again something that needs to be monitored and managed. But usually, we're pretty good at managing neutropenia, and with the growth factor support, I find that it actually works really well. Another thing with sacituzumab is the potential risk of diarrhea, but most of the diarrhea is low-grade diarrhea. It's rare that you get someone who has high-grade diarrhea with sacituzumab. Usually, I find it works to just instruct patients to use loperamide as needed. And again, usually that works well. And certainly when needed, dose modification can also help with these side effects and so it is important to keep in mind that this is another option. With T-DXd, one thing that we do have to keep in mind as an unusual side effect is the potential risk of interstitial lung disease. We see that in about 10% to 15% of patients getting T-DXd. That is something that we do have to be very mindful of. For the most part it is low-grade ILD. But there are rare occasions where there have been deaths from ILD. And we're seeing with some of the newer trials, the death rate is usually under 1%, but it is a real potential risk. And so it is really important to counsel patients when getting T-DXd about this potential side effect, that way they are good about communicating with you if they get any new symptoms, such as shortness of breath or dry cough, to get you aware of it and can work it up and get imaging certainly if that occurs. And then I think the management for ILD is a little unique and a little different truthfully than the way we manage pneumonitis from other drugs. Normally, when I am treating patients who develop pneumonitis, even if it is mildly symptomatic, we often will hold treatment, give steroids, and rechallenge them when it gets better. But with T-DXd, if anyone develops symptomatic pneumonitis, you actually have to permanently discontinue the T-DXd per the guidelines because we just don't know the safety of being able to rechallenge that patient once that pneumonitis resolves. For grade 1 ILD, meaning someone who has, for example, ground glass changes seen on imaging but doesn't have any symptoms, you have to hold the drug and wait until those imaging findings resolve and then you can restart. I usually do treat grade 1 ILD patients with steroids with the hope being that maybe it will allow for the pneumonitis to resolve more quickly, although in truth I don't know if that's the case. I have just taken that approach because I don't like leaving patients off the drug for too long if not needed. Again, I typically treat them with steroids, reimage in three to four weeks, and see if I'm able to restart. If they resolve within 28 days, you can restart at the same dose. If it takes longer to resolve, you need to dose modify. And then I think the other big thing with T-DXd is to know that it is categorized as a highly emetogenic agent. Most of us are using three-drug prophylaxis, which I think works really well. It is also important to realize that there can be some delayed nausea, which is a little unusual with some of our other agents. And so to warn patients about that and I find that use of olanzapine or ondansetron for the delayed nausea tends to work pretty well. Hope, do you have any pearls for us? Obviously, you are very experienced in using these agents; are there any things you would recommend for the management of ADCs? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it's such a great question and an important area because, particularly as we are using these agents earlier, we really need to have strategies for both how long to continue as well as manage the toxicities. I agree with the nausea, olanzapine has been really a great addition, and using a triplet as initial premedication makes a big difference for T-DXd and other deruxtecan ADCs that are in the pipeline. And then I think that the ILD issue, we're really learning more about the risk factors as well as retreatment. And hopefully, we'll have more data this year at ESMO Breast and maybe ASCO on retreatment for grade 1. We certainly now do not have any data on the safety of retreatment for grade 2, so that is really not accepted now. For sacituzumab, I think the interesting area is the metabolism and the impact. So with neutropenia, as we move the drug earlier, it's easier and easier to manage, we see less severe neutropenia. We can give growth factors, which we are all good at in oncology. But I think the question about managing diarrhea and who is at risk still exists. Understanding pharmacogenomics and UGT1A1 is an interesting area where patients who have diarrhea could be tested to see if they are poor metabolizers which affects a little under 10% of the overall population. Because in that group, you could give less drug and get the same benefit with less toxicity. So I think this is all very interesting. It is important for providers and patients to be educated so that we can manage this appropriately. And I think you gave an excellent overview. We have new agents in the pipeline also and maybe we'll talk about those next, and then we'll talk a little bit about sequencing and resistance, as well as the unmet need for brain metastases. So lots of areas to talk about. There are a number of TROP-2 ADCs that are in the pipeline, and one that has presented phase III data, datopotamab deruxtecan. But other studies are being developed with new TROP-2 ADCs as well. But then there are a huge number of ADCs there with new targets, for example, immune effector targets, and new payloads, even immunotherapy and two different payloads or bispecific antibodies. And then there is interest in combining ADCs with immunotherapy and PARP inhibitors. We saw data in bladder cancer, I think it was bladder cancer, with combined 2 different ADCs at ESMO in 2023. So a lot of new approaches. How are we going to manage this moving forward? And where do you think we are going to position some of these next sort of "me-too" drugs? Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's an excellent question, and you're right, the field is exploding with new antibody- drug conjugates. So, it's going to leave us with this conundrum of what to do. And you brought up the really interesting example of the fact that we have an approved TROP-2 ADC, we have as sacituzumab govitecan, and for example, we've recently seen some really exciting data come out from TROPION-Breast01 looking at another TROP-2 ADC, datopotamab deruxtecan or Dato-DXd where that ADC performed better than chemotherapy in a head-to-head trial in terms of progression-free survival in a hormone receptor-positive population. Then there's another TROP-2 ADC, moving forward in development moving to phase III that Merck is developing MK-2870. All three of these ADCs are targeting TROP-2 and have a TOPO 1 payload. So, it leaves you with the question of how do you think about that? Is there going to be a role for using serial TROP-2 ADCs? Could one work after the other, even when they have very similar payloads? How are we going to incorporate them? How do you pick one over the other? So, it is going to be tricky for us as we get more and more of these agents. I think we're all excited about seeing ADCs that may have different targets and different payloads, where maybe we will see that sequential utilization will have robust efficacy if we swap things out. Again, we don't have data here yet, but I think there are other agents in development. For example, you could think of like, disitamab vedotin targets HER2 and has an MMAE payload. So, could it be that someone progresses on T-DXd for HER2-low, but then could go on to disitamab vedotin? How will that work? So, we have a lot to learn, but it's really nice to have so many options. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether or not we select the ADC based on a rational understanding of the tumor and the patient, or whether it's simply what's easier to give and has the right toxicity for that patient. So, that sort of brings us to our next topic, which is how are we going to sequence these agents? How are we going to understand the mechanisms of ADC resistance? At San Antonio in 2023, we saw a presentation where there was a top-alteration, and the patient had a really long response to a top-directed ADC, or an agent that carried a topoisomerase inhibitor. And that really struck me that we're going to see these alterations. There was a fresh autopsy study that suggested that the alterations may be different in different organ sites of disease. How are we going to figure this out? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yeah, I also was really puzzled to see those data from San Antonio where we've sort of simplified ADC resistance in our heads to say, well, maybe someone becomes resistant because they lose target expression, or maybe someone becomes resistant because they've developed resistance to the payload, kind of like the way we think of someone developing resistance to getting chemotherapy. But obviously, it's probably far more complex than that. With these ADCs, they need to be able to internalize the ADC and could there be mechanisms of resistance related to the internalization process? So, I think there are lots of potential areas where resistance could be occurring. I think, we don't understand it very well. We've seen patients, for example, who have responded. This is just anecdotal, but we have data, for example looking at, Dato-DXd in the phase 1 triple-negative study where there were some patients who responded despite having progressed on sacituzumab. Well, why is that? You would think if it's target resistance or payload resistance, it would be the same target and a very similar payload. So, why would those drugs work one after the other? And that's why I think we just don't understand this well enough at this point in time. So, it's clearly an area where more research is needed because it does have significant implications on how we think about using these drugs sequentially. We will need to understand these resistance mechanisms because there do seem to be some rare patients who benefit from these sequencing strategies and then others who don't. So, it would be nice to be able to figure this out and hopefully in the future, we'll be able to test patients and know what drugs to give them. But I think we're far off from that, unfortunately, right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it does seem to be a relatively elusive approach, and I think, in part, it's due to the heterogeneity of cancer. And maybe, as we're better and better at analyzing tumor cells in the blood, which are a rare group, and ctDNA, which, of course, we do now to look for mutations, maybe that'll be an approach that we'll be able to take. And also, of course, moving the drugs earlier into the disease setting with less heterogeneity and mechanisms of resistance might help as well. I was fascinated by the fact that although the PFS to the first ADC seems to be overall much greater than the PFS to the second ADC, when you sequence them, there are a few patients who have a longer PFS with the second, even if these are just sacituzumab T-DXd sequencing in various directions. So, it's clearly very complex. And right now, I think we're just sequencing and we don't really know how to do it. We just choose what we think is best for that patient first and go on to the next one later, which is interesting. And one of the choices might be treating brain metastases, which of course remains a huge unmet need. And if we could find effective treatment for brain metastases, maybe we could also prevent them in some patients more. What do we know about the central nervous system (CNS) penetration of ADCs and the clinical results? Dr. Sara Tolaney: At first, we were not optimistic that these drugs would have activity in the brain because we thought that these were very large agents that probably couldn't penetrate into the blood-brain barrier. But in fact, I think we were all very excited to see that there is actually data suggesting that these drugs can actually have robust efficacy in the CNS in patients who have active brain metastases. And so what we've seen so far is data with trastuzumab deruxtecan or T-DXd, there have been some trials that have been done, including studies like DEBRA and TUXEDO, which have looked at T-DXd in patients who have active brain metastases and are showing very robust response rates within the CNS. So, we're seeing intracranial response rates on the order of 40% to 50%. And clinically, this is what we're seeing as well. These are smaller studies and there's a larger trial, DESTINY-Breast12, which will hopefully validate the robust efficacy in the CNS with T-DXd. So, again, it's really nice to see this. To your point, though, one area that I'm curious about, as you were alluding to, is will these drugs be able to prevent CNS disease? And I think that is a very different question because here the blood-brain barrier is not intact when patients have progressive brain metastases, and so these ADCs are causing robust activity. But if you look, for example, and I'll be curious to see what happens, DESTINY-Breast05 is looking at T-DXd in the post preoperative setting for patients who have residual disease and comparing it to T-DM1. And unfortunately, we saw that T-DM1 was not able to prevent brain metastases when looking at data from KATHERINE, where in fact, rates of CNS as the first site of recurrence were similar with T-DM1 and trastuzumab. So, now we'll be interested to see, will it be any different with T-DXd? Will T-DXd be able to have any role in prevention? I think we haven't seen anything like that with ADCs to date, so that would be a paradigm shift in our way of thinking. Right now, there are strategies being taken from a prevention standpoint of trying to add a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in that early-stage setting, such as what is being done in the COMPASS-RD trying to add tucatinib to T-DM1 to see if that would do it. But again, we really need to understand, again, how these drugs work, particularly when the blood-brain barrier may not be intact. But again, very exciting data with T-DXd in an ongoing trial, actually through SWOG looking at sacituzumab for patients with CNS disease. And we've seen some preliminary data with sacituzumab showing that it actually does penetrate into the brain when they've looked at drug levels in the tumor in the brain, comparing it to plasma, it actually looks similar. So, we know it's getting in there and we'll have more robust efficacy data, hopefully coming soon. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of that data. It's been exciting also to see some responses in patients with leptomeningeal disease as well, where we've really been struggling with anything that works for more than a few weeks or months at the most. So I'm holding out great hope that we're going to see a big difference because even though TDM-1 had some efficacy, it was nothing like what we're seeing with T-DXd. So we'll see. And the same with sacituzumab with triple negative disease, where sometimes brain metastases can be an isolated site of recurrence, even in patients who have a pathologic complete response. So it has been a big challenge. So I think that what we've learned from you is a lot about the mechanisms and the data about these new ADCs, the tremendous hope that these are bringing to our patients, but also the really exciting new approaches with new payloads, new targets of drugs that are in development, as well as potentially some different ADCs that have the same target and similar mechanisms of action of this payload. Really fascinating to hear about this, the future work on sequencing, on mechanisms of resistance, and on brain metastases. We have, of course, 2 prospective trials that we'll be looking at sequencing, one with T-DXd and Dato-DXd, and one registry trial with T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan in the US. So that's also going to, I think, provide us with some important information. We could talk for a long time about this, but I just wonder if you have any closing comments to sum up your thoughts. Dr. Sara Tolaney: I think you did a great job leading us through thinking about ADCs, and I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens in the future. While again, these agents have become a standard for us for patients with metastatic disease, I'm going to be curious to see how everything evolves and to see if we'll be able to substitute chemotherapy with ADCs in early disease settings and change outcomes. Will we be able to have novel combinations? Will we be able to sequence these drugs one after another? Will we actually have biomarker predictors to help us sort out which drug to give when? So, still a lot to learn, but clearly a very exciting field right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Indeed. Sara, thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast on your great work to develop novel therapies for breast cancer. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and even greater to work with you on the future progress of treatment for breast cancer. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much, Hope. Again, really nice to always discuss these data with you. I always learn a lot, so thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to all of the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of a product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo: Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Talho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc, Stemline Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca
Dr. Sara Tolaney: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Bio, Artio Biopharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp, Zetagen, Bayer, Infinity Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Tango Therapeutics, Systimmune, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Sumitovant Biopharma Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Seattle Genetics, OncoPep, Gilead Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences | |||
| Advances in Precision Oncology for GI Cancers at GI24 | 08 Feb 2024 | 00:22:45 | |
Drs. Shaalan Beg and Rachna Shroff discuss key abstracts on GI cancers that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including SKYSCRAPER-08, EMERALD-1, and NEST-1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer, respectively. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice president of oncology at Science 37. Today, we'll be discussing key abstracts and other exciting highlights from the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. Joining me to discuss some key takeaways from the meeting is the chair of this year's Symposium, Dr. Rachna Shroff. Dr. Shroff is the division chief of Hematology Oncology and chief of GI Medical Oncology at the University of Arizona Cancer Center. She also serves as the associate dean for clinical and translational research at the University of Arizona College of Medicine – Tucson. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Shroff, welcome back to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, and congratulations on a great Symposium. The scientific advances and innovative, multidisciplinary approaches that were featured throughout the meeting were really inspiring and reflect the incredible strides we're making in GI cancer research. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much for having me back. I am delighted to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Dr. Shroff, the theme of this year's symposium was "Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level." I'd love to hear your reflections on the sessions that you found most exciting and really resonated with the attendees. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yes, thank you. We were really excited about this theme because we really felt that "Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level" translated to thinking through personalized approaches to patient care, not just in the traditional ways that we think of with precision oncology and genomics driving our care, but also how we can think through multidisciplinary approaches and an individualized care plan. Thinking through how artificial intelligence and novel clinical trial designs can and should be implemented to meet the needs of our individual patients. And so we really highlighted that in what was a somewhat new reboot of a session called "Intersections," which were every day and were really more cross-tumor; they were tumor agnostic but were thematic focused. As I mentioned, those themes were really based on feedback that we had from prior attendees, as well as from the program committee's feeling on what are really the questions that we are dealing with and that are burning in the clinic today and that includes the emerging role of artificial intelligence and machine learning and how we integrate that into our clinical care, approaches to oligometastatic disease, and it's not really just something that we think of in colorectal cancer but haven't fully used that paradigm to really apply it to other GI malignancies. And then the art and science of clinical trial design where, again, traditional randomized phase 3 trials might not be the best and most innovative and most expedient way of bringing novel therapeutics to our patients. And so, I thought that all of those sessions were really highlighting different important topics that we deal with day to day. Additionally, we had a really fantastic keynote lecture from Dr. Kimmie Ng of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She is a world-renowned expert in the early-onset colorectal cancer space, and the timing of her keynote was perfect with the new cancer statistics that came out literally days before GI ASCO that demonstrated this just dramatic rise in early onset GI malignancies as a whole, not just colorectal. And she spoke really in a comprehensive manner not just on clinical approaches, screening approaches, and how to find these patients at an earlier stage, but also kind of gave us a call to action, if you will, in terms of public health initiatives, as well as like I said, clinical care and really thinking outside of the box for how to reach these patients. And then, of course, we always have what I think is one of my favorite aspects of the meeting, which are the networking opportunities that include the Trainee and Early Career Networking Luncheon, the Women's Networking Reception, and the Meet the Experts Luncheon where, especially as junior career investigators, you have an opportunity to meet what we think of as the "big names" in GI cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely, I remember my first couple of GI ASCO meetings and those were probably the most memorable sessions that I attended as junior faculty as well. So let's take a deeper dive into some key abstracts from the meeting. I'd like to begin with Abstract 245. This is the SKYSCRAPER-08 study. It's first-line tiragolumab and atezolizumab with chemotherapy in an Asian patient population with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. What are your key takeaways from this study? Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah. This was an exciting study in my opinion in the sense that thinking through how we can build on immunotherapy backbones is obviously a pressing question across the GI cancer space. So this was a phase 3 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that looked specifically at patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. And the study was enrolled fully with an Asian population. It looked at taking the traditional chemotherapy backbone and adding to it an anti-PD-L1 with atezolizumab and an anti-TIGIT with tiragolumab. Again, that proof of principle of using anti-TIGIT and PD-L1 has been looked at across a lot of different GI cancer spaces and we know that the esophageal squamous cell cancers tend to be very immunotherapy responsive. So this was a really important question. This involved a number of patients, a little over 460 patients, who were randomized one-to-one to receive the tiragolumab with atezolizumab with the standard paclitaxel and cisplatin, that's used for esophageal squamous versus chemotherapy alone with placebo. And the primary endpoint was independent review of progression-free survival, and overall survival. And so, out of the 461 patients randomized, there was at the primary analysis, a median improvement in progression free survival, from 5.4 months in the control arm to 6.2 months with a tira-paclitaxel plus chemo arm with a hazard ratio of 0.56, highly statistically significant. Similarly the median overall survival was also improved from 11.1 months to 15.7 months again with a hazard ratio of 0.7 and some of the other key efficacy endpoints were also improved with the addition of the anti-TIGIT PD-L1 approach. And importantly, there was not really safety signals that jumped out at us. And so, to me, what this means is that, in our patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, we really should be thinking about chemotherapy with immunotherapy as a backbone and how we can build on it. And, you know, I would imagine that it's hard to argue with both the PFS and OS endpoint that adding anti-TIGIT won't necessarily be kind of the new approach to these patients. And importantly, I'll point out that it seems to be a benefit across the subgroups, including PD-1 status, which is always our big question here. I think the only thing to keep in mind is this was an all-Asian population and whether or not that kind of immune profile of the immune responsiveness is different in those patients, but regardless, a positive phase 3 trial. Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's really exciting to see immune checkpoint inhibitors or immunotherapy beyond PD-1 targeted, CTLA-4 targeted treatments making their way into GI Cancers. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Absolutely. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Sticking with the immunotherapy theme, let's focus on hepatocellular carcinoma. So LBA432, the EMERALD-1 study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durva with or without bevacizumab looked at people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for embolization. So really a highly anticipated study, I'm wondering what your thoughts are and whether it'll be practice-changing for this field. Dr. Rachna Shroff: I was excited to see the press release when it showed that the study was positive, and I think it's because now that we're using immunotherapy in the advanced HCC space, our obvious question is, can we integrate it into multimodality approaches? There are a lot of smaller studies looking at neoadjuvant IO approaches, and in this intermediate stage, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. We wanted to know if there was a utility to liver directed therapy with immunotherapy. So, this was a large study. It was a global study looking at unresectable HCC with preserved Child-Pugh function. But it was Child-Pugh A and up to B7, importantly. And there were 616 patients randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion, with the control arm being just TACE alone. But then, there was also an opportunity for durvalumab with TACE, as well as durvalumab plus bevacizumab with TACE. The patients would receive durvalumab during their TACE treatments and could receive up to four TACE treatments and then subsequently were either continued on durvalumab alone, durvalumab plus bevacizumab, or the placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, powered specifically to look at TACE versus durvalumab plus TACE. In this study, the primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in PFS. Median PFS was 15 months versus 8.2 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.77. Most prespecified subgroups demonstrated this benefit. Importantly, there was a secondary endpoint looking at durvalumab plus TACE versus TACE alone, and that actually did not show a statistically significant improvement in median PFS from 8.2 months in the control arm to 10.0 months. The overall response rates were slightly higher with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab approach at 43.6%. And importantly in these patients, who oftentimes have a higher burden of disease in the liver, median time to progression is a really important and clinically meaningful endpoint. That was 22 months with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab and TACE versus 10 months for TACE alone. I would just point out that the overall concern we always have with bevacizumab is the increased risk of bleeding and the treatment-related adverse event profile. Overall, there were no safety signals that emerged from this, with nothing that really, especially in that bleeding risk category, jumped out at us. Of course, we haven't seen the overall survival data yet because we have not seen enough follow-up to really see that number. I do think that this is potentially practice-changing, and I think it just demonstrates that there's probably some synergy between anti-VEGF with anti-PD-1, and then the liver-directed treatments. The obvious question for us in the United States is that the vast majority of people are moving away from TACE and towards more radioembolization and what can we extrapolate from this? Does this really tell us much if people are using more of a Y90-based approach? I think those are a lot of the burning questions that most of us have. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and it's a very interesting direction that the HCC space is taking because we heard in previous meetings, the role of PD-1 inhibition as adjuvant therapy after resection. Now, we have data for local-regionally advanced disease over local-regional treatments. And of course, you already mentioned the data for more advanced disease. So it sounds like immunotherapy may be impacting the management of anyone diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma. Let's talk about the MONET trial, Abstract 249, which compared thoracoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. Do you think this is a study which may influence the treatment of patients with thoracic esophageal cancer? Dr. Rachna Shroff: So, this was, again, I think, a really important question. It was a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial comparing a more minimally invasive approach with TE — thoracoscopic esophagectomy — versus an open approach. This had patients with clinical stage 1-3, excluding T4 thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. They were randomized 1:1 to the open versus the TE approach, with a primary endpoint of overall survival and an important secondary endpoint of relapse-free survival. 300 patients were randomized, and at the second planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was a little over two and a half years. The 3-year overall survival was 82% in the TE group versus 70.9% in the open group. The DSMC of this trial actually recommended early termination based on the non-inferiority, which is what they were specifically looking at. There was a very statistically significant one-sided p-value for non-inferiority. Importantly, the 3-year recurrence-free survival was also markedly better in the TE group versus the open group, with no real notable differences in R0 resection, or a large percentage of patients who needed to be converted from a TE to an open approach, and really not any significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity. I think this just supports the concept that minimally invasive approaches for our patients with GI malignancies can and should be considered. Again, esophageal squamous because they tend to be seen a lot more in Asia, this study was conducted in Japan, but I think that being said, a lot of our surgeons in Europe and in the U.S. are also very amenable to minimally invasive approaches. And I think this just supports the fact that an open approach is not necessary. So, I would think again, that this is something that is implementable and I think will affect the field. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving on to metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, there have been many FGFR inhibitors that have shown activity and promise and are approved for the management of cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR alteration. But at this ASCO GI, we heard the results of the safety and efficacy of an FGFR1, 2, and 3 inhibitor, tinengotinib, as monotherapy for advanced metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (Abstract 434). How do you see this fitting into the broad picture? Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah, so this was highly anticipated data, primarily because at this point, the FGFR space in cholangiocarcinoma is quite crowded. And so a lot of us were getting sick of the "me-too" drugs. What is really unique about tinengotinib is that, not only is it a selective multikinase inhibitor, but it also, in preclinical models as well as in early phase one trials, demonstrated potent inhibition of patients with FGFR2 fusions and rearrangements who had acquired resistance mutations. So, as we better understand the first generation of FGFR inhibitors and note the resistance mechanisms, these drugs are now being developed to try to circumvent or overcome those. This study looked at 4 different cohorts: 1 cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had primary progression who never responded to FGFR inhibitors, a second cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had progression after primary response, so those with acquired resistance, and then there was non-fusion FGFR alterations because we do know that a number of cholangiocarcinoma patients have other FGFR alterations that are not fusions, and then those with FGFR wild-type. The primary endpoint was objective response rate, with a total of 48 patients enrolled across the four cohorts. And so the 40 patients who were evaluable in the group that had primary resistance, which was the first cohort, there was a response rate was 9.1% and that was partial response, and 31% had tumor reduction with tinengotinib. And similarly in those with acquired resistance, 37.5%, 3 out of 8 patients had a partial response and tumor reductions were noted with an overall disease control rate between those patients with FGFR2 fusions of 94.7%, between those with primary and secondary resistance. In the patients who had FGFR alterations, there was 3 out of 9 patients with a partial response and again, tumor reductions were notable across the board and the disease control rate was 88.9%. The FGFR wild-type group, not surprisingly, did not see any partial responses, but interestingly, 75% of these patients had at least disease control, and the median progression-free survival was 5.26 months, again, kind of most notably impressive in the 2 cohorts that included FGFR2 fusions. The toxicity profiles are what we come to expect for FGFR inhibitors and we've gotten better at managing those and mitigating some of those so there was really nothing to jump out there. So there is now an ongoing randomized phase III trial specifically looking at tinengotinib versus physician's choice in patients with FGFR2-altered cholangiocarcinoma after having received prior FGFR inhibitors. So that's where I think it's in is for those of us who know that there are multiple drugs in the space, our big question is can we sequence through that? Can we offer multiple FGFR inhibitors in these patients? And I think we are all eagerly anticipating this data as well as the subsequent data to really justify the use of these novel second generation FGFR inhibitors. Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's been fantastic to see the evolution of these compounds in precision medicine, or precision oncology at its finest, in terms of understanding mechanisms of resistance and treating refractory disease. Let's focus on colorectal cancer. I'll tell you, there has been a lot of discussion, Dr. Shroff, on social media, on insurance companies sometimes rejecting one biologic or the other based on tumor sidedness. We have talked about tumor sidedness predicting response on this podcast based on data from previous studies. But this year in GI ASCO, Abstract 207 explored the role of tumor genomics and tumor sidedness and they said that it's tumor genomics, that tumor genomics better explains the differences on outcomes, and it explains it better than sidedness. What does this mean to the field? Because a lot of professional organizations have guidelines that are asking people to now incorporate sidedness. So how does that change based on these results? Dr. Rachna Shroff: I really commend these authors on leveraging real-world data, and I think we're getting better and better at recognizing that real world data actually informs our clinical decision making, possibly better than sometimes some of these studies that lead to the guidelines and algorithms that we develop. So this is a perfect example of a little bit cart before horse in trying to understand the way that sidedness and genomics may interplay. So this was a study that basically leveraged both the Foundation Medicine and Flatiron Health clinical genomic database and looked at patients with microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer. There were a total of 3,845 patients included in a kind of two-thirds one-third split between left sided and right-sided colorectal cancer. And they found the typical genomic alterations that historically have been thought of more with left-sided colorectal cancer like APC and then more of the RAS BRAF alterations in the right-sided patients. But I think what they really thought and what I think was remarkable is they really looked at the patients and how they received chemotherapy with anti-EGFR or bevacizumab therapies, and they did a multivariate analysis to really see what is driving outcomes. And like you mentioned, what they found was patients in the RAS pathway, those classified as having alterations in the RAS pathway, had less favorable outcomes, while those with APC altered group had more favorable outcomes. And that was regardless of treatment received and sidedness. And so when they did an analysis of what was called a "likelihood ratio test," they found that when genomics was added to the sidedness evaluation, there was an improvement in outcome prediction, but not when sidedness was added to genomics. Like you said, it kind of demonstrates, at least in this mining of real-world data from Flatiron that tumor genomics is probably a better driver and a more important driver in determining outcomes than sidedness. I totally agree with you. I would push for us to really kind of bring a little bit of noise to this and to make insurance companies and other companies that are looking at this to think through this a little bit more and make sure that we're putting all of the data together in a comprehensive passion before making the treatment plans and determinations. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The last abstract I'd like to ask you about is Abstract 117, the NEST-1 trial. This study looked at neoadjuvant botensilimab and balstilimab for resectable mismatch repair proficient and deficient colorectal cancer, both MSS and MSI. What are your key takeaways from this study? Dr. Rachna Shroff: This is another study that is demonstrating that there may potentially be a role for immunotherapy in microsatellite stable patients. I will make the caveat that this was a single-arm study that really was looking at feasibility safety, with efficacy as a secondary endpoint. The combination of bot-bal in the neoadjuvant space for colorectal cancer patients, they received one dose of boten and two fixed doses of bal two weeks apart and then were taken to surgery. They limited the number of patients and out of the 12 patients that were enrolled, they limited the number of mismatch repair deficient patients. So to your point, they allowed both, but they wanted to make sure it was not just MSI-high patients. What they basically found is that it was safe and did not delay surgery or increase risks of adverse events. But importantly, there was significant regression of tumor noted. And some interesting spatial biology analyses demonstrated potentially novel mechanisms of action, especially in the MSS population, and that ctDNA reductions correlated with pathologic response. There were a lot of different things that they were looking at, basically suggesting that bot-bal is safe and can be used in both mismatch repair–deficient and proficient patients with colorectal cancer. And now importantly, they've added some additional cohorts and expanding the study. As I mentioned, this is right now just 12 patients, but does definitely have a provocative result. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thanks so much, Dr. Shroff. Finally, the role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in GI cancers has been an exciting and important development in our field. There's tremendous data that emerged at the GI meeting, and we have decided to do a separate ASCO Daily News Podcast dedicated to ctDNA. So listeners, please look out for our coverage of key studies on ctDNA in GI cancers very soon here on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Many thanks, Dr. Shroff, for sharing your insights with us today and for your great work in building a robust GI meeting this year. Thank you very much. Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Our guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. These statements do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an endorsement by ASCO.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Employment: Science 37 Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Rachna Shroff: Consulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis, Merck, QED Therapeutics, Incyte, Astra Zeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, SERVIER, Genentech, Basilea Research Funding: Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Immunovaccine, Seagen, Novocure, Nucana, Loxo/Lilly, Faeth Therapeutics | |||
| The Risks and Benefits of Taking a Break From Cancer Treatment | 01 Aug 2024 | 00:18:47 | |
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Arjun Gupta discuss the rationale behind treatment breaks and assess the pros and cons based on feedback and data from patients with advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas and senior advisor for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute. I'll be your guest host for the podcast today. On today's episode, we'll be discussing treatment holidays in GI cancers. Treatment holidays, also known as drug holidays, are increasingly being discussed in clinical practice and involve voluntarily halting treatment for a duration determined by a health care provider if believed to be beneficial for a patient's well-being. We'll address the rationale behind treatment holidays and explore their potential risks and benefits. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Arjun Gupta, a GI medical oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Gupta's research on treatment-related time toxicity has explored the benefits of taking a break from treatment. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Arjun, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Thanks, Shaalan. It's a joy to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Your research at the intersection of oncology, supportive care, and care delivery is extremely interesting and important in today's day and age. And you've done extensive work on the concept of time toxicity in cancer treatment. So as we think about these discussions in the clinic on treatment holidays and we talk about risks and benefits, I was hoping that you could help explain the concept of time toxicity in cancer treatment and what our listeners should remember from this. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Sure. So time toxicity is simply the time commitments that cancer care imposes on people with cancer and their loved ones, and the burden that comes along with these commitments. When we specifically think about time toxicity associated with a particular cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, it's the time costs of pursuing, receiving, and recovering from cancer treatment. Now, we have to acknowledge that much of cancer care is essential. We need blood tests to monitor organ function, we need chemo to shrink tumors, and we need a caring oncologist to break bad news. But we have to remember that oncology care is delivered in an imperfect world. Appointments that should take 10 minutes can take 5 hours. People can have uncoordinated appointments, so they're coming to the clinic 3, 4, 5 times a week. And this affects, of course, not only the patient themselves but also their informal care partners and the entire network around them. And this cancer care can completely consume people's lives, leaving no time for rest, recovery, or pursuing joyful activities. We interviewed patients and care partners in some qualitative work, and this was specifically people with advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers. And we asked them what cancer care was like, and some of the words will shock you. People said things like, "It's like being on a leash." "My life is like being on an extended COVID lockdown." "Cancer is a full-time job." A very experienced oncologist said, "It's like being on call. You may or not get called into the hospital, but you need to always be available." And so this concept of time toxicity really applies to all people with cancer, but perhaps most so for people with advanced-stage, incurable cancer, when time is limited and when treatment regimens are perhaps not offering massive survival benefits. And in some cases, the time costs of pursuing the treatment can even overtake the very marginal survival benefit offered by the treatment. Dr. Shaalan Beg: This is particularly relevant for gastrointestinal cancers that, even in the world of advanced cancers, are highly burdensome in terms of their symptoms and the concept of being on call, whether you're a patient or a caregiver, and the burden that it has, I think will resonate with a lot of us, that it's always in the back of our mind on what if X, Y or Z were to happen? In the FOCUS4-N trial, a randomized trial from the UK, investigators assessed whether taking a treatment holiday for maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer would have a detrimental effect on progression free survival, overall survival, tolerability and toxicity. It looks like the study found that these decisions regarding maintenance therapy should be individualized, but there were not major differences in outcome. Can you comment on this and what applications that has for us in the clinic? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Sure. But before diving into the FOCUS4-N clinical trial, I just wanted to share a story from the clinic yesterday. It happened in my clinic yesterday, but I'm sure it happens to thousands of patients across the world every single day. So it was the first visit for a patient with stage 4 colon cancer, and they had polymetastatic disease with disease in the lungs and the liver, no actionable biomarkers, and so very likely to be incurable. And so we discussed the usual port and palliative care appointments and chemotherapy backbone, and doing this every 2 weeks, and then doing scans after 4 to 6 doses of chemo to see how the cancer has responded. And then the patient looks up and asks that question, "Okay. So when does this end? When are we done? Do I need to do this forever and the rest of my life?" These are just such innocent and hopeful questions, because the truth is, there is no established end date. But I shared this story that right off the bat, people are looking for breaks. They've not even started chemo, they've not experienced physical or financial or time toxicity, but just psychologically, being on chemo long-term or forever is a very, very hard adjustment. And so it's in this context that we should look at the FOCUS4-N clinical trial, which was a sub- study of a larger umbrella trial investigating whether continuing on maintenance chemo with oral capecitabine versus taking a treatment break from chemo affected the progression-free survival in people with metastatic colorectal cancer who had disease control after 4 to 6 months of upfront chemotherapy. So they randomized approximately 250 people. These people had largely been treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Most did not receive a biologic, and approximately half had partial response and half had stable disease. And then they did scans on these patients every two months or so. And the primary endpoint was progression free survival. The median PFS was approximately 4 months in the capecitabine arm and 2 months in the no treatment arm. Of course, as expected, side effects were higher in the capecitabine arm. But impressively, the overall survival was not different between these two arms. So what we're seeing here is that after this period of 4 to 6 months of intensive chemo, if we take a chemo break versus we get some oral chemotherapy, it may affect how quickly the cancer grows on scans, but it maybe does not affect how long patients live. Now, how do these data apply for an individual patient? Now, these are incredibly nuanced and personal decisions and patients can and should choose what aligns best with their values. In some work done by Dr. Mike Brundage and colleagues in Canada, they asked 100 people with advanced cancer to consider hypothetical scenarios where a new treatment did not increase the overall survival, but potentially increased the progression free survival at the cost of some physical and other toxicities. And then they asked patients if and what PFS thresholds they would accept for this treatment. And around half of patients said no matter how big the PFS is, we do not want to accept the treatment because it causes some toxicity if I'm not going to live longer. Around a quarter of patients said that if the drug elongated progression free survival by three to six months, I would take it, because that's valuable to me even if I don't live longer. But surprisingly, 1 in 6 patients said that they would accept a treatment with no PFS benefit and no overall survival benefit, even at the cost of side effects. And there was a spectrum of reasons for these preferences that they maybe had the battle narrative that "I want to be a fighter, and I don't want to have any regrets," just showing how complex people's attitudes and values can be. So the point is that continuing on maintenance treatment versus not doing it is not wrong. The point is we often don't even have these data to offer treatment breaks to patients so that they can make decisions that align with their goals. So I think that's the biggest takeaway from the FOCUS4-N trial for me is that we have some hard data now to guide patients [FOCUS4-N Editorial]. Now, strictly speaking, when I'm talking to a patient about these data, doing oral capecitabine in 3-week cycles may not feel like much. It's perhaps a visit every 3 weeks for blood work and for meeting someone from the oncology team. There are no IV drugs given. If one does well, this might literally be one visit every 3 weeks. But we have to consider that things rarely go as smoothly as we plan them to. For someone living 100 miles away and having diarrhea and needing IV fluids, they may require 3 to 4 clinic visits for labs and monitoring. In the FOCUS4-N trial, 50% of patients on capecitabine had at least one treatment delay, denoting some toxicity. In a different but similar CAIRO3 clinical trial that tested capecitabine and bevacizumab, 10% of patients had to discontinue treatment due to toxicity. And so it's important to remember that what might seem a simple and low burden to us may be very burdensome to patients. In some work that we've done ourselves [published in The Oncologist], even a single simple appointment to a clinic, such as a lab test, often ends up taking patients hours and hours. So I think it's all of this that we have to consider when we present these data to patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: You've talked about the FOCUS4-N trial, you mentioned the CAIRO3 study as well. How do you see this playing in the clinic? Somebody may be looking to attend a child's wedding or a notable birthday or a trip with the family, and you have the data from these trials supporting you. What are the patient factors in terms of their disease factors, patient factors that you think of when you recommend such a treatment break to a patient? Or, let me flip that over. Who would be a patient that you would be uncomfortable offering a treatment break for with metastatic colorectal cancer? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Yes, I think disease characteristics are a crucial consideration when we consider who we're even offering these treatment breaks to. I think, number one, is the overall disease burden, and if there's any critical visceral disease and how that's responded and how much it's responded to the upfront chemotherapy induction. I think patients where we're worried about having several sites of bulky disease, some that have not responded as well, I think we have to be very, very careful considering complete chemotherapy breaks. In the FOCUS4-N trial, in subgroup analysis, patients who had stable disease tended to not benefit as much from the chemotherapy break, perhaps indicating that it's really people whose disease is responding, who are doing well, who don't have as much disease burden, who may be better served by these treatment breaks. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Fantastic. I think that provides very good direction for our listeners on how they can apply the results of these trials in their clinic. So we've talked about treatment breaks as a way to give people their time back and to reduce time toxicity. What are other treatment strategies that you have seen deployed to reduce the burden of receiving cancer treatments in general? Dr. Arjun Gupta: You specifically asked about treatment strategies, so I'll start with that before moving to more broad interventions. We actually interviewed patients and care partners to ask them this question, and one of the things that they said was having prospective information from their oncology care team just about what my expected burden was going to be. So I think people recognize that they need oncology care and the clinicians are trying to help them and it's a broken system, but just knowing that 1 in 4 days will be spent with health care contact or not, or you will spend two hours arguing on the phone with a payer, for example, preparing and supporting people for these burdens is very important. There are obviously some alternative treatment schedules. Certain chemotherapies can be given less frequently now. So if you look at cetuximab in GI cancers, for example, when the initial trials were done, it was given every week, but now we more and more use it every two weeks. And it might not seem like much, but it can open up an entire week for a patient when they can think that I don't need to go in this week at all. So these are just some minor adjustments that we can make in the clinic. But patients often highlight things that may perhaps not be in the direct control of the oncologist, but in the direct control of us as an oncology community. And perhaps the most frequently cited suggestion was having more care coordination and navigation services. So patients really requested more flexibility in the site of care: "Can I come closer to home?'' In the timing of their care, ''Can I come in at 2:00 PM after I get childcare instead of coming in at 9:00 AM?" They really requested cluster scheduling or having appointments on the same day, if possible, instead of taking up Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, coming in so many times. And all of this could potentially be achieved by having a designated care coordinator, someone working directly with the patient and their care partner. And then some patients also highlighted the benefits of telemedicine and home-based care, where they were able to be home more. But we have to also recognize that those things are not universally good and often can increase burdens on the patients and care partners. Also, I wanted to highlight some feedback we received from oncology clinicians. We asked a variety of oncology clinicians, including nurses, APPs, physicians, schedulers, and social workers, what they thought were the causes of patients' time burden. You'll be surprised to hear that when they started talking about patients' time burdens, they slowly started to talk about their own time burdens. And they said, ''We really want to help people, but we're just doing prior authorization and spending hours on the electronic medical record. And please fix my own time toxicity, and I will fix the patients' time toxicity," which I thought was very profound because I think everybody who goes into medicine goes into it for the right reasons, and we end up not providing perfect care, not because of us, but because of the system. I take this as a very, very positive sign and as a hope for change. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What inspired you to focus on this topic and your research? Dr. Arjun Gupta: So I personally just hate waiting at the doctor's office. But yes, it's also been wise mentors, including you, Shaalan, during residency and fellowship, who always told me to keep my ear to the ground and listen to patients. And in full disclosure, time toxicity, and what we've done with it recently, it's nothing new. It's been around for decades. And I think our research group has just sort of named it and shamed it, and now more and more people are starting to think about it. But I can point to two specific instances that I think of. One was when I was starting fellowship in 2018, I read a piece by Dr. Karen Daily in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, where she quoted Henry Thoreau and said, "The price of anything is the amount of life, or time, that you exchange for it." And it really struck a chord with me, entering the oncology discipline and seeing what people with cancer go through. And then the second instance is, I remember my granddad, who was perhaps the most formative person in my life. We were very, very close. And when I was about to enter medical school, he was undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma. The image that's imprinted in my head is of him putting ketchup on gulab jamun. And I can see Shaalan salivating. But for the listeners who may not know, gulab jamun is an Indian sweet made out of milk, flour, sugar, ghee, molded into balls, deep fried and then served in sugar syrup. And my granddad could not taste anything. He could not taste gulab jamun. All he could taste was ketchup. And so he would put ketchup on everything. And at his oncologist visits when I would accompany him, they would discuss the good news about the cancer shrinking and there being a response, and he was happy, but he could just not taste his gulab jamuns. And it made me realize very early on that the tumor is not the only target. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a wonderful story. I think those are really hard to measure, quantify, and when patients do bring those stories into the clinic, I think you realize that you have a very special connection with those patients as well, and it does help us as clinicians give personalized advice. So thanks for sharing. Arjun, thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Thanks so much for having me, Shaalan. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Dr. Gupta's Research on Time Toxicity: · The Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment, JCO · Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial, JCO OP · Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer, JCO OP · Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors, JCO OP
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Arjun Gupta: Employment (An Immediate Family Member): Genentech/Roche
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune | |||
| Key Advances in Prostate, Kidney, and Bladder Cancers at GU24 | 06 Feb 2024 | 00:30:06 | |
Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Todd Morgan discuss CONTACT-02, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate-67T, and other notable studies featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, as well as additional key abstracts in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers that will significantly influence clinical practice. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Todd Morgan, the chair of this year's ASCO GU. Dr. Morgan is a urologic surgeon, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, and a professor of urology at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found at asco.org/DNpod. Todd, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here and I'm just thrilled to be able to do this with you. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you. So, the GU meeting showcased significant advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. Can you tell us about the hot topics that captured the headlines this year? What did you find exciting this year at the ASCO GU Symposium? Dr. Todd Morgan: The theme of this year's meeting was "20 Years of Advancing Science and Transforming Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the last 2 decades. We were thrilled to welcome over 5,200 attendees from over 70 countries, and, believe it or not, there were more than 875 abstract submissions, compared to more than 300 in the meeting's first year. Most of the participants were present in person and that was fantastic. It enabled great networking opportunities and opportunities for experts, trainees, and mentees to exchange knowledge and ideas. Without a doubt, ASCO GU remains the annual meeting in our field, and it's amazing to hear the breadth and depth of the state-of-the-art science that's presented at this meeting, and so much of it impacts patient care the second that you return home. Additionally, the meeting's focus on diversity and interactivity, networking, multidisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based care were absolutely phenomenal from my standpoint. We had a lunch session for women's networking that was a huge success—the first time we've done that. The keynote lecture by Dr. Cheryl Lee that talked about ensuring adequate representation in clinical trials was a huge hit, and we had tremendous positive feedback from that lecture. There were also multiple featured sessions on different diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in localized, recurrent, and advanced GU cancers. And, Neeraj, my personal favorite during the symposium is always the Trainee and Early-Career Networking Luncheon on the first day and then the additional networking luncheons on the 2 following days. I had great conversations with a ton of trainees and junior faculty, and I feel so fortunate for the opportunity to get to know the future superstars in our field. So I'd like to kick it back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. A great example is Abstract 17, which was the second oral presentation delivered, and really congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the exciting data from the CONTACT-02 trial which we were eagerly awaiting. And I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Todd, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall, and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So let's talk about the CONTACT-02 trial. It was a phase 3 randomized trial assessing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab versus a second NHT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on one NHT. This patient population had to have extrapelvic soft tissue metastases, which could be liver metastases, lung metastases, or lymph nodal metastases, and about up to a quarter of patients had liver metastases. And overall, this was a high-risk patient population which was randomized to, as I said, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second line NHT. And these patients had received a prior NHT, mostly in the mCRPC setting. The co- or dual primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). And a unique thing was that PFS was assessed only by RECIST 1.1 because, as per our discussions with regulatory authorities, the trial was focused on soft tissue metastases because of questions in the past that cabozantinib can affect bone lesions in an artifactual fashion, possibly concerns. That's why the PCWG 3 criteria were not used as the primary endpoint, but, of course, indeed used as another key endpoint, so we have information on both. Anyway, coming back to the endpoint 1:1 randomization. The randomization was stratified by presence or absence of liver metastases, prior docetaxel chemotherapy, and the setting in which NHT was given (mCSPC or CRPC). The PFS or primary endpoint was significantly improved with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death with the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination versus second NHT. And there was a trend for overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 favoring the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination. Interestingly, all subgroups benefitted, regardless of age, region, site of metastases, but we decided to choose three clinical subgroups of interest such as patients with liver metastases, patients with prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the castration-sensitive setting, and bone metastases, and all these subgroups seemed to be benefitting with the strongest signal in the liver metastasis subgroup, with a 57% reduction in risk of progression or death, which I would argue we have never seen with any combination or any regimen in the metastatic prostate cancer setting yet, barring some targeted therapies in very selected patients. But overall, across the non-biomarker-selected patients, we have never seen this kind of signal. Toxicity — no discussion is complete without discussing toxicity, so I would like to highlight that. Safety signal — there were no new safety signals. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension in 7%, anemia in 6%, which were similar in both arms, and, of course, diarrhea and fatigue in 4% each. And if we look at the secondary endpoints, such as time to chemotherapy and time to symptomatic skeletal events, they tended to favor the cabozantinib-atezolizumab. To sum it up, cabozantinib-atezolizumab showed a significant PFS benefit, with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death, with a trend for overall survival in this patient population with an unmet need. So thank you so much, Todd, for allowing me to summarize the results of this trial. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, wow. That's so impressive, and not surprising that you could so fluidly go right through all that data. Amazing. We heard some discussion of the NHT control arm in this trial. Could you discuss that for a bit? Because it obviously has implications on the similar control arm of other ongoing trials in this setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. Pretty much all trials, every trial which has recently been reported or started in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer have a similar second NHT arm. Whether there were multiple immunotherapy trials which we have just reported, or new trials which are starting or just started enrolling patients. And the reason for that is no randomized trial has ever shown superiority of docetaxel chemotherapy over a second NHT after failure of prior NHT in the mCRPC setting. That's number one. If you look at NHT as a control, it is accepted by health authorities globally with multiple recent trials which are just starting also having NHDR and it would not have been possible without the approval of global regulatory authorities across the world. Then, if you look at the recently reported trial in the mCRPC setting with prior treatment with an NHT, there is an indication that chemotherapy may not be superior to NHT. For example, in the KEYNOTE-641 trial in patients with mCRPC with prior NHT, randomizing patients to enzalutamide plus pembrolizumab versus enzalutamide, the median PFS with enzalutamide was 9 months. This is very similar with docetaxel in patients randomized to docetaxel plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel; the median PFS with docetaxel is 8 months or 8.3 months. And lastly, if you really want to have a comparison of chemotherapy with NHT which has been done after progression on NHT and docetaxel chemotherapy, so later line of mCRPC setting, that is the CARD trial, as you can imagine, cabazitaxel versus NHT, especially in patients with visceral metastasis, which was the point of discussion. For example, people may not feel comfortable randomizing patients to NHT compared to taxane. The hazard ratio for PFS supporting cabazitaxel was 0.79, so almost a 0.80 PFS hazard ratio, which we have never seen turning out to be a clinically significant benefit. So, if you combine all these data together, I think it was absolutely acceptable to us as investigators to have a second NHT as the control arm. And of course, when we are consenting the patient, we have to keep alternatives in mind, and we do talk about those alternatives with the patients. And if alternatives seem more applicable, we should not be talking to patients about those clinical trials or a given clinical trial in the clinic. I'm glad you brought this up, Todd, because this control NHT arm is not an issue with this trial, but all trials which should be presented in GU ASCO in the future meetings in the coming years. So, thank you. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, thank you. It's such an important topic and controversy at some level, but it's a difficult problem to think about and obviously highly relevant to all the trials that we're looking at. Congrats again on that trial, that's tremendous. There was another important randomized phase 3 trial and it covers radiotherapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Can you give us your insights on that one? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yeah, Todd, I think you are referring to LBA259, titled "Long-term Results of Dose Escalation of Radiation Therapy from 70 Gy to 80 Gy Combined with Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk Prostate Cancer: The GETUG-AFU 18 Randomized Trial." As you mentioned, in this randomized phase 3 trial, Dr. Christophe Hennequin and colleagues randomized patients with high-risk prostate cancer, which means they had to have either clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, or PSA ≥20 nanograms per milliliter, or a Gleason score between 8 and 10. These patients were randomized to receive ADT for 3 years combined with either dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy. So, I'd like to highlight, this was in the context of IMRT in the dose of 80 Gy or a conventional dose of 70 Gy. Now, you can argue that more people are using more than 70 Gy nowadays, but across the world, the conventional dose is still considered 70 Gy. So, 80 Gy versus 70 Gy were tested. Patients also had to have negative lymph node status on CT scans and MRI. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival or clinical progression-free survival at 5 years following the ASTRO Phoenix definition. Secondary endpoints – and these are quite important secondary endpoints – include overall survival, acute and late toxicity, and quality of life. The best part is that this trial met its primary endpoint with a 44% reduction in risk of biochemical or clinical progression or death in the dose-escalation radiotherapy arm compared with the conventional radiotherapy arm. Interestingly, a significant 52% improvement in prostate cancer-specific survival and a 39% improvement in overall survival was observed in the dose-escalated arm. So, 80 Gy continued to be superior to 70 Gy IMRT across the primary and secondary endpoints. Now, the best part is, regarding the toxicity profile, there was no significant difference between the 2 arms, with 78% of patients in the higher dose arm and 76% of patients in the conventional arm experiencing grade 2 or more toxicities. Dr. Todd Morgan: Great summary and really important, great news for our patients. Of course, it's a slightly different setting as it's high-risk localized prostate cancer. I checked in with our radiation oncologists at the University of Michigan after that [presentation] because I couldn't remember exactly where we are in terms of dose on these patients. And they were like, "Yeah, we've been doing 80 to 90 Gy for several years," so it's great having this data to support that. And I think, as you said, the field at many centers has already moved that way. And again, the key takeaway from this abstract would be that IMRT, in combination with long-term androgen deprivation therapy, is effective and safe and increases not only the biochemical or clinical PFS rate, but also the cancer-specific survival and overall survival, again, in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. And it does not appear to increase long-term toxicity. So really important. It'd be great to switch gears and discuss kidney cancer, if that's okay, and talk about some key abstracts in that field. What do you think? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: There were so many exciting data in all cancers, which is amazing. So, Todd, could tell us about the LBA359, which I thought was one of the most impactful abstract presentations in the ASCO GU this year. It was titled, "Overall Survival Results from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 Study of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Treatment of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC)."
Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, this was a really big moment in our field, complete with a mid-presentation round of applause that was well deserved. And so this abstract was presented by Dr. Toni Choueiri from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and it included patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence, meaning that they had positive nodal disease or negative nodal disease with PT 2 and grade 4, or sarcomatoid features, or stage PT 3 or 4. These patients underwent nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy less than 12 weeks before randomization and had not received prior systemic therapy for clear cell RCC. Patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 milligrams or placebo IV every three weeks for at least 17 cycles, or until disease recurrence, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Disease-free survival by investigator assessment was the primary endpoint, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. In this abstract, Dr. Choueiri and colleagues report results of the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months in 496 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 498 patients receiving placebo. So, just as a reminder to the audience here, the first interim analysis reported at a median follow-up of 24 months and showed a significant reduction of 32% in the risk to recurrence or death in patients in the pembrolizumab arm. Then subsequently in November of 2021, the FDA approved pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of patients with RCC who are at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence following nephrectomy or following nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. At that time, though, overall survival data were still immature. So, at the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months, pembrolizumab showed, for the first time in an adjuvant RCC setting, improved overall survival with a 38% reduction in the risk of death. The estimated OS rate at 48 months was 91.2% with pembrolizumab and 86% with placebo. Furthermore, the OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with metastatic but no evidence of disease, patients with PDL-1 combined positive score less than or greater than or equal to one, and patients with presence or absence of sarcomatoid features. In each of these subgroups, the forest plot looks really impressive. And the DFS benefit was similar to previously reported interim analyses with a hazard ratio of 0.72. Also, no new safety signals with pembrolizumab were observed so just tremendous data. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Todd, for such a great summary of these very important results. So the key message from this abstract, as you said, is that after a median follow-up of around 57 months, which is a long follow-up, adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrates a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival versus placebo in patients with RCC at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery. And this is, by the way, the first phase 3 study to show improved overall survival with any adjuvant therapy in RCC. Basically, this means we should continue to use adjuvant pembrolizumab or at least bring it up in our discussion with our patients who are in a similar situation with high-risk RCC after surgery. So this is great news overall. Todd, there was another kidney cancer abstract, LBA360, which compared, interestingly, subcutaneous nivolumab with intravenous nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Could you please give us your insight about this abstract?
Dr. Todd Morgan: Sure. Really interesting study. Really interesting data that were presented. So as you mentioned, CheckMate 67T was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase three study led by Dr. Saby George and colleagues that evaluated pharmacokinetics and objective response rate non-inferiority of subcutaneous nivolumab versus IV nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC. So patients with measurable disease that progressed during or after 1 to 2 prior systemic regimens and who did not receive a prior immuno-oncology treatment were randomized 1-1 to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab 1200 milligrams every 4 weeks or IV nivolumab 3 milligrams per kilogram every two weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, completion of two years of treatment, or death. The coprimary pharmacokinetics endpoints for non-inferiority testing were time-average serum concentration over the first 28 days and minimum serum concentration at steady state determined by a population pharmacokinetics analysis. A key secondary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review. So in 248 patients receiving subcutaneous nivolumab and 247 patients receiving IV nivolumab, non-inferiority for the coprimary pharmacokinetics and key-powered secondary objective response rate endpoints were met. The relative risk ratio for objective response rate was 1.33. The median PFS by independent review was 7.23 months in the subcutaneous group and 5.65 months in the IV group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 6.5% of patients in each group, and study drug toxicity led to 3 deaths in the subcutaneous group and 1 death in the IV group. These results could support using subcutaneous nivolumab as a new option to improve healthcare efficiency, especially since the average injection time with subcutaneous nivolumab was less than 5 minutes. I think we all know what issues are going on in infusion beds across the country, including, I'm sure, your center and mine. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, absolutely. I think this is great news for our patients, Todd. Thank you. This shows that we are not only improving therapeutic options and diagnostic tools, but maybe we're also on the right track towards more practical administration routes, assisting in addressing the treatment burden and improving the efficiencies of healthcare systems. We love to have this option available for our patients, especially those who are pressed for time. So, Todd, would you like to move on to bladder cancer now? Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, Neeraj, that'll be fantastic. I'm sure listeners would love to hear more about LBA530. Could you tell us more about this one, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. I think this abstract is titled "Enfortumab Vedotin in Combination with Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Subgroup Analysis Results from EV-302," which was a global phase three study and was presented by Dr. Michiel Van Der Heijden. As our audience may recall, the EV-302 trial was presented at the ESMO 2023 meeting by Dr Tom Powles and the results were very exciting where, for the first time, a combination outperformed traditional gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. In this trial, patients with previously untreated with metastatic advanced urothelial carcinoma were randomized 1-1 to receive a 3-week cycle of a combination of enfortumab vedotin, which, as we know, is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 expressed on the cancer cells and pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, versus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin, which were, until recently, the standard of care in this setting, and continue to be so in many countries in the world. The combination of enfortumab and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 55% and reduced the risk of death by 53% in the overall population. So consistent decrease in the hazard ratios for PFS and OS, and consistent improvement in overall survival and PFS in that previously reported presentation in the ESMO 2023. Now, based on these results, this combination was recently approved by the FDA in December 2023 for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. So now the abstract, which was presented at the ASCO GU 2024 meeting, reported the results of a prespecified subgroup analysis. Select secondary endpoints included objective responses, duration of response, and safety. In 442 patients receiving the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab, and a similar number of patients receiving chemotherapy both PFS and OS were higher for the combination of EV and pembro among prespecified subgroups such as race, platinum eligibility, PDL-1 expression, metastatic site, involvement of the liver or kidney function. Interestingly, the combination of EV and pembro reduced the risk of death by 53% in patients with visceral metastasis and 54% in patients with node-only metastasis. The improvement in PFS seems to be consistent regardless of the site of metastasis. In patients with moderate to severe renal function, the risk of death was reduced by 50% in patients receiving combination therapy. This is one of the best findings of these results because we always face challenges in treating patients with suboptimal kidney function and we cannot use cisplatin. Overall, EV plus pembro continues to show superior efficacy compared to platinum-based regimens across subgroups across the subgroups across the site of metastasis regardless of kidney function and so on. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, just amazing data. I love hearing you spell it out like that. So, thank you again for the opportunity for me to sit here with you and listen to you talk about these data. It's impressive that we have been able to expand our therapeutic arsenal for urothelial carcinoma with an immune-targeting regimen that can spare our patients potential side effects of chemotherapy. What would your final takeaway on this abstract be? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Todd. I would add that the OS benefit was consistently observed across these select prespecified subgroups, including those historically associated with poor prognosis. The results of this new analysis support the finding of primary results, which indicate that EV plus pembro is a potentially new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Before we wrap up the bladder cancer session and the podcast, Todd, could you please give us insights about LBA531? Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, absolutely. I loved getting to hear this abstract presented. This one is titled "Ambassador," known as the AMBASSADOR trial aligns A031501, a phase 3 randomized adjuvant study of pembrolizumab in muscle-invasive and locally advanced urothelial carcinoma versus observation, that was presented by Dr. Andrea Apolo. It's an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial that included patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra. Eligible patients had pathologic tumor stage T2 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or patients with pathologic tumor stage T3 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were cisplatin ineligible or declined adjuvant cisplatin-based therapy. These patients were randomized one to one to either receive pembrolizumab 200 milligrams every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PDL-1 positive and negative patients and assessing safety. A total of 354 patients were enrolled to receive pembrolizumab and 348 to the observation arm, and 21% of the patients in the observation arm received a subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months for DFS, the median disease-free survival in the pembrolizumab arm was 29 months, while it was only 14 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.69. At the interim analysis, OS data showed only a trend toward better outcomes in the pembrolizumab arm, which did not, however, reach statistical significance, with a median of 50.9 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 55.8 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.98. These results could nevertheless have been impacted by the subsequent treatment of patients in the observation arm with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, especially after the FDA approval of nivolumab in 2021 for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, based on results of the CheckMate 274 trial. In terms of the safety profile, grade three or more adverse events occurred in 48.4% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 31.8% of patients in the observation arm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That's great, Todd. This is such a great summary of this trial, and this is exciting news for our patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. I'm hoping that pembrolizumab will be another option for our patients when we are discussing adjuvant immunotherapy in the clinic, moving forward very soon. With that, we have covered several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, significantly influencing our medical practices, at least at the current moment or in the near future. Todd, thank you for sharing your insights today. These are undoubtedly exciting updates for all members of the GU oncology community, and we are grateful for your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks, for having me, Neeraj; this was really fun. I'm just really proud and excited to still be part of this field, to be part of the GU oncology field, and it continues to be exciting for all the folks who are coming up. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Indeed. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas Dr. Todd Morgan: Consulting or Advisory Role: Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth, TerumoBCT Research Funding (Institution): Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defence, GenomeDX Biosciences, Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth
| |||
| What's New in Prostate Cancer, RCC, and mUC at GU24 | 22 Jan 2024 | 00:25:10 | |
Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss several key abstracts to be presented at the 2024 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, including sequencing versus upfront combination therapies for mCRPC in the BRCAAway study, updates on the CheckMate-9ER and CheckMate-214 trials in ccRCC, and a compelling real-world retrospective study in mUC of patients with FGFR2 and FGFR3 mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a genitourinary oncologist and the clinical program director of Genitourinary Cancers at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing key posters and oral abstracts that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancer Symposium, which is celebrating 20 years of evolution in GU oncology this year. You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this podcast, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast at asco.org/DNpod. Jeanny, it's great to have you on the podcast today to highlight some key abstracts for our listeners ahead of the GU meeting. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, as you know, this year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, and judging from this year's abstracts, it's clear that this meeting continues to play a major role in advancing GU cancer research. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Indeed, Neeraj. This year's abstracts reflect the important strides we have made in GU cancers. So, let's start with the prostate cancer abstracts. What is your takeaway from Abstract 19 on BRCAAway, which will be presented by Dr. Maha Hussein, and of which you are a co-author? As our listeners know, several PARP inhibitor combinations with second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, or ARPIs, have recently been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, or metastatic CRPC, and the question of sequencing PARP inhibitors and ARPIs instead of combining them has emerged. From that perspective, the results of the BRCAAway trial are very important. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree with you, Jeanny. The BRCAAway study attempts to answer the crucial questions regarding sequencing versus upfront combination of therapies in the mCRPC setting. It is a phase 2 trial of abiraterone versus olaparib versus abiraterone with olaparib in patients with mCRPC harboring homologous recombination repair mutations. Enrolled patients had mCRPC disease and no prior exposure to PARP inhibitors or ARPIs or chemotherapy in the mCRPC setting and had BRCA1 or BRCA2 or ATM mutations. As previously mentioned, these patients were randomized to 3 arms: abiraterone monotherapy at 1000 milligrams once daily, or olaparib monotherapy at 300 milligrams twice daily, or the combination of abiraterone and olaparib. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-based criteria or clinical assessment or death, so, whichever occurred first was deemed to be progression. Secondary endpoints included measurable disease response rates, PSA response rate, and toxicity. This was a relatively small trial with 21 patients in the combination arm, 19 patients in the abiraterone monotherapy arm, and 21 patients in the olaparib monotherapy arm. It should be noted that 26% of patients had received docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting, and only 3% of patients had any prior exposure to an ARPI, and these were darolutamide or enzalutamide or in the non-metastatic CRPC setting. The results are very interesting. The median progression-free survival was 39 months in the combination arm, while it was 8.4 months in the abiraterone arm and 14 months in the olaparib arm. An important finding that I would like to highlight is that crossover was also allowed in the monotherapy arms. Of the 19 patients receiving abiraterone, 8 crossed over to receive olaparib, and of the 21 patients receiving olaparib, 8 crossed over to the abiraterone arm. The median PFS from randomization was 16 months in both groups of patients who received abiraterone followed by olaparib or those who received olaparib followed by abiraterone. This is striking when compared to 39 months in patients who started therapy with the combination therapy of abiraterone with olaparib. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. So the key message from this abstract is that combining olaparib and abiraterone upfront seems to be associated with improvement in PFS compared to just sequencing those agents. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly, Jeanny. I would like to add that these results are even more important given that in real-world practice, only half of the patients with mCRPC receive a second-line treatment. Based on these results, upfront intensification with a combination of an ARPI plus a PARP inhibitor in the first-line mCRPC setting seems to have superior efficacy compared to sequencing of these agents. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, there were a couple of abstracts assessing transperineal biopsy compared to the conventional transrectal biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. So let's start with Abstract 261. Neeraj, can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, in Abstract 261 titled "Randomized Trial of Transperineal versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infection Complications," Dr. Jim Hugh and colleagues led a multicenter randomized trial comparing these 2 approaches, so, transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis with transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis in patients with suspected prostate cancer. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection. Among the 567 participants included in the intention-to-treat analysis, no infection was reported with the transperineal approach, while 4 were detected with the transrectal approach, with a p-value of 0.059. The rates of other complications, such as urinary retention and significant bleeding, were very low and similar in both groups. The investigators also found that detection of clinically significant cancer was similar between the 2 techniques and concluded that the transperineal approach is more likely to reduce the risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: So the key takeaway from this abstract sounds like office-based transperineal biopsy is well-tolerated and does not compromise cancer detection, along with better antibiotic stewardship and health care cost benefits. Moving on to Abstract 273, also comparing these two approaches, what would be your key takeaway message, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: In this Abstract 273, titled "Difference in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Detection between Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches," Dr. Semko and colleagues found that the transperineal biopsy based on MRI fusion techniques was also characterized by a higher possibility of detecting high-risk prostate cancer and other risk factors as well, such as perineural and lymphovascular invasion or the presence of cribriform pattern, compared to the conventional transrectal method. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So we can see that the transperineal approach is gaining more importance and could be associated with more benefits compared to the conventional methods. Let's now switch gears to kidney cancer, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. Let's start by highlighting Abstract 361, which discusses patient-reported outcomes of the LITESPARK-005 study. So what can you tell us about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So as a reminder to our listeners, based on the LITESPARK-005 trial, it was a Phase 3 trial looking at belzutifan, which is an inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor 2 alpha or I'll just call HIF-2 alpha for short, was very recently approved by the FDA as a second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma after prior progression on immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. The title of Abstract 361 is "Belzutifan versus Everolimus in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced RCC: Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Phase 3 LITESPARK-005 Study," and this will be presented by Dr. Tom Pells at the meeting. At a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median duration of treatment with belzutifan was 7.6 months, while it was only 3.9 months with everolimus. At the time of data cutoff date for the second interim analysis, 22.6% of patients remained on belzutifan while only 5% remained on everolimus. In the quality of life questionnaires, the time of deterioration to various quality of life scores, as assessed by standardized scales, was significantly longer in patients randomized to the belzutifan arm compared to those in the everolimus arm. Also, patients in the everolimus arm had worse physical functioning scores. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Jeanny. In addition to the improved outcomes associated with belzutifan, patient-reported outcomes indicate better disease-specific symptoms and better quality of life among patients treated with belzutifan compared to everolimus. This is great news for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Now, Jeanny, can you please tell us about the two abstracts that reported longer follow-up of CheckMate 9ER and CheckMate 214 trials in untreated patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. So you are referring to Abstracts 362 and 363. Let's start with Abstract 362. This abstract reports the results after a median follow-up of 55 months in the CheckMate 9ER trial, comparing the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib to sunitinib in patients with advanced RCC without any prior treatment, so first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by an independent central review. So there were key secondary outcomes including overall survival (OS), objective response rates, and safety. Consistent with prior analysis at a median follow-up time of 18.1 and 44 months, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib at a median follow up of 55.6 months continues to show a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death by 42% and in the risk of death by 23% compared to sunitinib. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: And Jeanny, what can you tell us about the efficacy results of this combination by IMDC risk categories? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Similar to prior results in patients with intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk category, the combination treatment maintained significant efficacy and reduced the risk of progression or death by 44% and the risk of death by 27%. To put it simply, the update now shows a 15-month improvement in overall survival with the cabozantinib-nivolumab combination compared to sunitinib, which is amazing. Also, in patients with favorable IMDC risk group, which represented truly a small number of patients in the trial, there was a strong trend for improvement of outcomes as well. I would like to point out that no new safety concerns were identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, it looks like the key message from this abstract is that with longer follow-up, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib maintains a meaningful long-term efficacy benefit over sunitinib, supporting its use for newly diagnosed patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Let's move on to Abstract 363, which compares nivolumab with ipilimumab to sunitinib in first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. What would you like to tell us about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. The title of this abstract is "Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced RCC: Long-Term Follow-Up Data from the Phase 3 CheckMate 214 Trial." In this abstract, Dr. Tannir and colleagues report outcomes with the longest median follow-up in first-line advanced RCC setting for any clinical trial. So the median follow-up now is about 18 months. The primary endpoints were OS, PFS, and objective response rates, as assessed by an independent review according to RECIST 1.1 criteria in the intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk group, which is the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, while secondary outcomes included the same outcomes in the ITT population of patients. Although the progression-free survival was similar in both arms, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab reduced the risk of death by 28% compared to sunitinib in the ITT population of patients. When stratifying the results by IMDC risk groups, the combination arm of nivolumab-ipilimumab showed significant improvement in the intermediate to poor risk group, but there was no difference in the favorable risk group. But in the study, no new safety signals were identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny, for such a comprehensive description of the results of these two studies. I'd like to add that the median overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the ITT population in the CheckMate 214 trial has now reached 53 months, which would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. This is wonderful news for our patients. So the key takeaway from these two abstracts would be that immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations remain the backbone of first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. This is wonderful news for all of our patients, especially for those who are being treated for first-line therapy. Now, let's move on to the bladder cancer abstracts. We have two exciting abstracts from the UNITE database. What are your insights on Abstract 537, titled "Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Urethral Carcinoma Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin After Switch-Maintenance of Avelumab in the UNITE Study"? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: As our listeners know, enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that binds to a protein called Nectin 4 expressed on bladder cancer cells. In this abstract, Dr. Amanda Nizam and colleagues describe outcomes in 49 patients receiving third-line enfortumab vedotin after prior progression on platinum-based therapy and maintenance avelumab. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 7 months and the median overall survival was 13.3 months with enfortumab vedotin in this treatment-refractory setting, the objective response rates were 54%. The message of this study is that enfortumab vedotin is an effective salvage therapy regimen for those patients who have already progressed on earlier lines of therapies, including platinum-based and immunotherapy regimens. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj, for that comprehensive review. I want to focus on another patient population in the UNITE database, which is the use of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations. Can you tell us more about the sequencing now of erdafitinib and enfortumab vedotin in these patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, as discussed in Abstract 616? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. As a reminder, erdafitinib is a fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of therapies in these patients is unclear, especially with enfortumab vedotin being approved in the salvage therapy setting and now in the frontline therapy setting. So in this retrospective study, all patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma had FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations. Dr. Cindy Jiang and colleagues report outcomes in 24 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin after erdafitinib, 15 patients receiving erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, and 55 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin only. This is a multicenter national study. Interestingly, patients receiving both agents had a longer overall survival in a multivariate analysis, regardless of the treatment sequencing, than patients receiving enfortumab vedotin alone or only with a hazard ratio of 0.52. The objective response rate of enfortumab vedotin in the enfortumab vedotin monotherapy arm was 49%. When these agents were sequenced, the objective response with enfortumab vedotin was 32% after erdafitinib and 67% when used before erdafitinib. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I think these are important real-world data results, but I would like to point out that larger and prospective studies are still needed to confirm these findings, especially regarding the outcome of erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, particularly when the latter is used in the first-line setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree, Jeanny. Now, let's discuss some abstracts related to disparities in the management of patients with genitourinary cancers. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, actually, I would like to discuss 2 abstracts related to disparities in patients with prostate cancer. So the first one, Abstract 265, titled "Patient-Provider Rurality and Outcomes in Older Men with Prostate Cancer." In this study, Dr. Stabellini, Dr. Guha and the team used a SEER Medicare-linked database that included more than 75,000 patients with prostate cancer. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes included prostate cancer-specific mortality. The investigators showed that the all-cause mortality risk was 44% higher in patients with prostate cancer from rural areas who had a provider from a non-metropolitan area compared to those who were in a metropolitan area and had a provider also from a metropolitan area. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Those are very important data and highlight the healthcare disparities among the rural population with prostate cancer that still exist. So what is your key takeaway from Abstract 267, titled "Rural-Urban Disparities in Prostate Cancer Survival," which is a population-based study? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Of course. This abstract discusses, actually, a very similar issue regarding access to healthcare among rural versus urban patients. In this study, Dr. Hu and Hashibe and colleagues and team at the Huntsman Cancer Institute assessed all-cause death and prostate cancer-related death risk in a retrospective study in which patients with prostate cancer based on rural versus urban residencies looked at 18,000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017. 15% lived in rural counties. Similar to the prior abstract we talked about, patients living in rural areas had about a 19% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 21% higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality in comparison to patients living in urban areas. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So Jeanny, we can say that both of these abstracts, led by different groups of investigators, highlight that patients with prostate cancer living in rural areas have inferior survival outcomes compared to those living in urban areas, and it is time to focus on the disparities experienced by the rural population with prostate cancer. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely Neeraj. I concur with your thoughts. So, any final thoughts before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, before concluding, Jeanny, I want to express my gratitude for your participation and the valuable insights you have shared today. Your contributions are always appreciated, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to join us today. As we bring this podcast to a close, I would like to highlight the significant advances happening in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers during our upcoming 2024 ASCO GU meeting. Many studies featuring practice-impacting data will be presented by investigators from around the globe. I encourage our listeners to not only participate at this event to celebrate these achievements, but to also play a role in disseminating these cutting-edge findings to practitioners worldwide. By doing so, we can collectively maximize the benefit for patients around the world. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guest speakers express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:
Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas
Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:
Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis, Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics. | |||
| Celebrating 20 Years of Evolution in GU Oncology | 14 Dec 2023 | 00:20:13 | |
Drs. Eric Small, Anthony Zietman, and Eric Klein share their reflections as founders of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and discuss key moments in the Meeting's development, its role in advancing GU cancer research, and major challenges ahead for the field as the Symposium celebrates its 20-year anniversary. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Eric Small: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Eric Small, your guest host of this ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the co-leader of the UCSF Prostate Cancer Program and deputy director and chief scientific officer at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. This year, quite amazingly, we're celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, which is hosted annually in San Francisco. The Symposium has heralded some of the biggest strides in GU oncology and has the largest multidisciplinary, global audience for GU cancer research. I was honored to have a role in the development of ASCO GU two decades ago, along with my friends and colleagues, Dr. Eric Klein, emeritus professor and chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. And Dr. Anthony Zietman, a professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts General Hospital. On today's episode, we'll be reflecting on key moments in the meeting's development, its role in advancing GU cancers and GU cancer research, and major challenges that lay ahead for the field. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Eric and Anthony, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to catch up with you both to discuss ASCO GU, thank you for coming on the podcast today. Dr. Eric Klein: Thanks for having us. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Thanks for the invitation. Dr. Eric Small: Well, it's really exciting and it's wonderful to see the two of you. So, the ASCO GU Symposium has been a key annual event for all of us in the GU field. But to give our listeners some background, when the Symposium was first created, when we first met in San Francisco, starting on Thursday, February 17, 2005, it brought together 1,035 individuals interested in the prevention and treatment at that point of prostate cancer alone. At that time, the meeting was co-sponsored by ASCO, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology or ASTRO, the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. It was actually the culmination of several years of planning. Clearly, it represented the first truly multidisciplinary scientific and educational meeting dedicated solely to prostate cancer, and we'll come back to talk about that. The meeting went back and forth between San Francisco and Florida for a few years before finally, settling permanently in San Francisco. In the last 20 years, ASCO and the Symposium's co-sponsors expanded the meeting to include all genitourinary specialties. This year, ASCO received more than 875 abstract submissions and anticipates that there will be even more attendees than last year. On a personal note, it's truly amazing to me that here we are, 20 years later, and the meeting is going stronger than we could ever have imagined. I must say that my motivation to help organize this meeting stem from two issues that were somewhat in tension with each other. First, the field of prostate cancer and prostate cancer research was just starting to take off at the time, and we really needed, as a community, a venue where across disciplines, we could talk and meet with each other. But that was in real tension, at least at ASCO, where we were relegated at the Annual Meeting to a tiny room at the far end of the convention center on the last day of ASCO, because really, that's all we could muster. And I do remember making a pitch, assuring folks that there was an unmet need, and that the field was going to take off, who knew? So, I'm wondering, and either of you can jump in (Dr. Klein, Dr. Zietman), tell us how you got involved in the first GU meeting, and what's the most salient feature of your involvement? Anthony, do you want to start? Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think it's really important to discuss the historical context at which this meeting was born. Back in the 1990s, we were incredibly polarized as specialties in GU oncology. PSA had been introduced in the late '80s, early '90s, screening was everywhere. There was a tidal wave of patients and an almost reckless race to treatment. All surgeons believed that all patients with localized early prostate cancer needed surgery and that they could do individually, a beautiful job. And all radiation oncologists believed that they could deliver morbidity-free treatment and could do it to everyone regardless of your age or stage. And there were a few, there were a few who thought maybe we didn't need to screen everyone, and maybe there was a little bit of overtreatment, maybe we've gone a little bit too far, but those voices were really suppressed in the '90s. Those voices didn't have a voice. Many of us also believed there was more morbidity to our treatment than we'd appreciated. And that was the media in which, us three, all young research physicians, probably all in our low forties were given the charge of this meeting. And the thing I most remember about it in the planning, is that we actually decided collectively to give voice to everyone, including maverick voices. It wasn't just about the party line, and it wasn't just about the North American line, there were Britts and there were Swedes, and there were Dutchmen who had very important things to say as well, and very, very different perspectives. And we also chose to give voice to young people as well as just our party elders, so to speak. I don't know which of us, if any of us, or maybe it was our society suggested but we do it all in a single room such that rad oncs and surgeons were all together, and it led to a kind of forced truthfulness, which started to break down this groupthink that we developed in our own silo. So, when I look back, I think that that context was very important and that what we sought as young program chairs was we sort of tapped in something that was latent in our field. Eric KIein, I don't know if you remember things as I did. Dr. Eric Klein: I do. And things were very siloed then. We had hired early in the mid-90s, I think, a young radiation oncologist named Pat Kupelian, who became a close collaborator and a good friend, and who really changed the narrative around treating prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, which was all surgical prior to that time. And he did such high-quality work, it was hard not to pay attention. And he actually took it on himself in his early years when he wasn't very busy to sit down and go through all the patients that we had treated with prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, radiation versus surgery, and had the temerity to write a manuscript that showed that there was no difference in survival, based on PSA biochemical recurrence and metastasis and that sort of thing. And that was sort of game changing. And it really clued me into the fact that for patient's sake, we needed to be talking to our colleagues. The second perspective was from the perspective of having attended a couple of Prostate Cancer Foundation meetings. And I think they really deserve credit for increasing the visibility of prostate cancer research, and funding it and recruiting really good scientists from other disciplines. When young scientists were told, and we heard this repeatedly, "Don't spend your career researching prostate cancer, it's a dead end." And PCF did a great job of having a multidisciplinary meeting, which was smaller and not so clinically focused, but also got me excited. Dr. Eric Small: I think you're right, Eric. And I think that the transdisciplinary nature, as Anthony pointed out was new, it was innovative. No one had really, really thought about it. It was at the margins in different meetings. Your comments about PCF, Prostate Cancer Foundation, resonate because we did take a page from their book in many ways although that meeting, as you point out, is much more basic research-focused. I don't know if you guys recall that first year, in fact, PCF was a co-sponsor. We actually had asked Mike Milken to give a talk and he did. And obviously, once we expanded to the broader GU cancers, it was less pertinent for PCF to be involved. But absolutely, I agree with you, Eric, they deserve credit. PCF, and the PCF involvement, was one of the things that changed. There's many things that are constant that haven't changed, even though the science clearly has evolved dramatically. And I'm wondering if you guys can comment on things that are the same. One thing that stands out for me: I had the opportunity to look through the agenda for the 2005 meeting. And right there, very prominently, was a special lunch session that we had designed for mentorship and career development for trainees and early career investigators, and that's still ongoing and others have modeled it. And I think that was one amazing feature of this. One of you, I think Anthony mentioned that we invited a lot of young people to speak and to be the path blazers, but we also did this career development piece, and it was a wonderful event. I wonder if either of you or both of you could comment on other things that you think are constants and you anticipate will always be there. Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think to me that constant is that every time I go, I hear speakers I've not heard before. Often very senior speakers, I've never heard them before. But it is the practice of GU ASCO to invite people that are outside your sphere of experience, which is very challenging. Dr. Eric Klein: Two things strike me. I think one is the international nature of the faculty. We tried very hard (and subsequent program directors have) to be very inclusive and to bring the work that was the most cutting-edge to the stage. There are lots of things that are done in Europe that started there sooner. PSMA treatment, for example, and many other ProtecT trial and many other things. And the debates on stage and how that gave the opportunity for every subspecialty to have the opportunity to share its perspective on particular case management issues and case management conferences, I think have been around forever. And maybe, the most valuable part of it all is to hear people's perspective on how to manage a particular patient. Dr. Eric Small: I think the other comment you made Anthony that resonated and still goes on, was it was a conscious decision to have a single session in one room where everyone attended. And not to do the usual small breakouts and concurrent sessions, but sort of the philosophy being, is we all need to hear the same thing, we all need to be in the same room at the same time. And it really fostered this transdisciplinary approach; it was truly educational for us. Now, it's sort of part of what we do, and part of what our patients expect of us. I think that bringing us all together into one room was really great. Dr. Anthony Zietman: But it's now so part of what we do, but it's difficult certainly for younger faculty and for residents to believe we ever did it any other way. But we did, and I don't know whether ASCO GU led that or reflected that, but that was the zeitgeist among young individuals like us. And it's really become the culture of contemporary practice. Dr. Eric Small: So, given that that's the culture now, which it is, and I think sure, we should take credit for it, at least in GU: why then is it important for people to continue to attend GU ASCO today if it's now our culture to do that? Dr. Anthony Zietman: For me, it's because we share information as equal partners in a multidisciplinary team. And our practice is so multidisciplinary and multi-modality these days that we can't exist alone, we no longer try to. Dr. Eric Klein: Nor can we. The amount of knowledge that's being generated in each subspecialty and it's spinoffs is so great. It's impossible for a busy surgeon to stay on top of that. And this is sort of one-stop shopping for everything that's really current and appropriate to know about. And again, I always look at these things from the patient perspective, and my ability to counsel patients about what their best treatment options might be, I thought more and more dependent, and I think today more and more depends on being knowledgeable about everything that's going on, and not just one narrow field that you happen to be an expert in. And that's why I think it's so important for youngsters to attend and even oldsters like us to attend to stay current. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Yeah, and also, multidisciplinary means so much more these days. It does mean oncologists and radiologists, information technologists. I mean, who knows what it'll mean in the future, but it's always expanding. Dr. Eric Small: And I think it's interesting, back when we did this, when we started it, we were worried about being able to fill one meeting with prostate cancer information - we did easily. It was not immediately clear that there was a role or room for additional GU cancers. And then there was an explosion both in kidney cancer work at first, and then bladder cancer. And now it's unbelievable how much is there. And perhaps, this meeting needs to be twice as long. So, I agree with you guys. I think that it's the best way to stay current. The other thing that I really appreciate about this meeting and others have a hard time doing it, is that it provides, as Eric indicated, for the busy clinician. It integrates sort of the important information that's coming in terms of more basic science and makes it readily available and digestible, which isn't always the case at pure science meetings and may or may not be apparent in other meetings. I, again, was looking at the preliminary agenda in 2005, we had asked Bill Nelson to talk about molecular targets or prevention, how forward-thinking. And that's continued to be the case that this is a meeting where you get that integration from the laboratory. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Well, and I would add to that, not just the integration of it, it's where now you get to hear things first. I mean, it used to be that, you went the AUA or ASTRO or ASCO to hear things. Now, everyone one wants to present it first at GU ASCO. Dr. Eric Klein: Yes, that's correct. Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I think we actually made it permissible in the early days that you could present at GU ASCO and at your specialty meeting. Dr. Eric Small: What are the challenges in the field that are going to likely shape the content of future meetings? And we've all alluded to the fact that the meeting is evolving and has done a really good job of staying current with the clinical science. But beyond that, what do you two feel are important areas that this meeting is likely to continue to address? Dr. Eric Klein: So, biomarker development has always been an important part of this meeting, and I think we need to broaden our view of what biomarkers are now, and in the AI era, digital pathology and AI-based models that predict treatment response and outcome. My hope is that they will be studied in a rigorous fashion, and that they will end up outperforming the kind of single biomarker approach that we've used in the past. And we need to understand that; we need to understand the science behind AI to a certain level, and we need to understand what questions AI can address, and how that might be useful. But I'm particularly excited about digital pathology where sampling error becomes less of an issue and the number of potential inputs you're looking at that are related to the output should increase exponentially. Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I would add on the AI side of things, as a former journal editor, when AI papers came into the journal, we actually didn't have enough people who could review them, who had the understanding to review these papers and tell us, "Is this a good paper or a bad paper?" So, we're going to need to increase our understanding of AI, Eric, as you said. So, I think that will be a push in the years to come. Also, on a very practical level, it is such a popular meeting, keeping us all under one roof and in one room, will become just difficult. But it's part of the culture of the meeting, and I think it's what people want. Dr. Eric Small: It's a good challenge to have. Dr. Eric Klein: Feeding everybody too. I recall one constant has always been really good breakfasts and lunches. Dr. Eric Small: Right, that has been a standard of ours. One of the interesting things that I think has changed, we saw glimmers of it back in 2005, but it was early on and it was, I think very early on in sort of a good understanding of social determinants of health and equitable access to healthcare and the challenges posed by incredible technology development and making sure that that doesn't increase disparities. And I think that that focus has increasingly been present in meetings and is not going to be lost. And it also speaks, one of you spoke to our international audience, that increasingly, I think this meeting is going to address urologic oncology and how we address it not only in developed countries, but in lower- and middle-income countries. And I think that will be a focus as well. I'm excited with what the future holds for ASCO GU. It has been an incredible run. I'm hoping that we'll be able to perhaps catalog some of the salient presentations that have been done at this meeting over the years, but there's no question as both of you have pointed out, this has become the venue. Well, thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Really wonderful to see you both and talk with you. Dr. Eric Klein: Great to be here. Thanks. Dr. Anthony Zietman: Great to be here. Looking forward to the next 20 years. Dr. Eric Small: That's right. Dr. Anthony Zietman: If I'm still around. Dr. Eric Klein: Yeah, let's do this again in 20 years. That'd be great. Dr. Eric Small: We will. And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use and the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Eric Small: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Fortis, Harpoon Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics Honoraria: Janssen Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Teon Therapeutics, Fortis
Dr. Anthony Zietman: Leadership: Elsevier
Dr. Eric Klein: | |||
| What the FDA CAR T-Cell Therapy Investigation Means for Oncologists | 07 Dec 2023 | 00:17:26 | |
Drs. John Sweetenham and Fred Locke discuss the FDA investigation on the risk of cancer from CAR T-cell therapy and share insights on the known number of cases and the potential implications on clinical research and patient care. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. CAR T-cell therapies have been game changers for treating certain cancers including lymphomas and leukemias, as well as multiple myeloma, since the vast majority of patients who have received CAR-T do not have other curative options with conventional non-cellular, anti-cancer therapies. But on November 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it is investigating whether CAR T-cell therapy can, in rare cases, cause secondary cancers. The FDA launched the probe after receiving reports from clinical trials and other data sources of T-cell malignancies in patients who received CAR T-cell immunotherapies. Joining me to discuss the investigation and its implications for the field is Dr. Fred Locke, a medical oncologist and translational researcher and a senior member and chair in the Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Locke is an internationally renowned clinical research leader in the field of CAR T-cell therapy. You'll find our disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on podcasts are available at asco.org/DNpod. Fred, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Fred Locke: Thanks, John, I'm really glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, T-cells are the backbone of CAR T-cell therapies, and there are currently 6 CAR-T products approved by the FDA. As our listeners will know, CAR T-cell therapies manipulate a patient's T-cells, enabling them to recognize and attack antigens on cancer cells and induce potential long-standing changes in the immune system. In its statement on November 28, the FDA said it determined that the risk of T-cell malignancies is applicable to all of the currently approved BCMA- and CD19-directed, genetically modified, autologous CAR T-cell immunotherapies. Fred, could you comment for us on the investigation: How many patients are reported to have developed second malignancies from CAR T-cell therapy, and whether there are likely to be more secondary cancers reported? Dr. Fred Locke: Yes, so the FDA and the reports are coming out that there are 19 cases of T-cell malignancy that we're aware of that have occurred after the current FDA-approved CAR T-cell therapies were administered for the treatment of leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma. The majority of those cases were reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. And we don't know a lot of details of those 19 cases. We think that there's probably about 13,000 to 14,000 patients who've been treated with the commercial CAR T-cell therapies. So if you kind of do some crude math, you can come up with 19 out of say, 13,500; we're at about 0.1% of patients who could have developed T-cell lymphoma after treatment with these CAR T-cell therapies. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that T-cell lymphoma could develop from gene-modified T-cells, and these are all the patient's own T-cells that have been modified outside of the body. But I would still posit that this is a really low incidence of T-cell lymphomas in these patients who really are without other great treatment options. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, and I think that's a point that we'll return to a little bit later on in the conversation around the fact that you know, clearly, there are major benefits that have been associated with CAR T-cell therapy and hematologic malignancies so far. And of course over the years, I think that many of us have become familiar with and learned a great deal about how to manage some of the more serious side effects of CAR T-cell therapy. And you, of course, have led several pivotal national trials of anti-CD19 CAR-Ts for lymphoma. Can you comment at all on whether you've seen previous data from your own practice or others on the risk of second malignancy from CAR T-cell therapy? And can you share your insights on the data and any new emerging data that warrants our attention for the concern or risk of second malignancy? And I guess to round up that series of questions, is there anything currently in yours or others research into CAR-T to explain what's happening and why this is going on? Dr. Fred Locke: I think what may have prompted the FDA's announcement of this is that on the same date that they came out with announcing their investigation, there was the release of the abstracts for the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting. And within those abstracts, and unfortunately it was not selected for poster or oral abstract presentation, but discovered within those abstracts was one on a CAR+ T-cell lymphoma after ciltacabtagene autoleucel therapy for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma. And what these investigators and the company were reporting is that a patient with refractory multiple myeloma received the cilta-cel BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy and developed a stringent complete response, and about 5 months later developed a nasal facial plaque and PET+ cervical lymph nodes. And both the lymph nodes and the plaque were biopsied and showed a T-cell lymphoma in which 90% to 100% of the cells were positive by qPCR for the CAR construct and immunohistochemistry for the CAR protein. So this was a T-cell lymphoma growth where the cells were expressing the inserted protein, the chimeric antigen receptor protein, which is obviously not natural. And when they looked a little bit deeper at these patients, 91% of the cells have the same T-cell receptor sequence. So this was really a clonal sort of process. They did CAR integration analysis to see how the insertion of the CAR, the chimeric antigen receptor gene, could have potentially disrupted a gene within the T-cells. And what they found is that there were some dominant sort of insertions within certain genes suggesting monoclonality, but it wasn't within any sort of obvious activating genes that would be expected to lead to the T-cell lymphoma. They went on and did some additional analysis, and they showed that there was some existing TET2 mutations in the T-cells of this patient, prior to probably prior to the CAR T-cell manufacturer, and they weren't associated with clonal insertion. And I think, you know, it's possible that this patient who had a pre-existing mutation may have been susceptible to the development of a T-cell lymphoma prior to the CAR T-cell treatment. And TET2 was previously shown a number of years ago in a CLL patient treated with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy; it was shown that there was insertional mutagenesis, silencing the TET2 gene, and that associated with clonal expansion of the CAR T-cells in that patient and corresponded with remission of the CLL. However, the difference here is that that patient's T-cell clone went back down and contracted, and the patient remained in remission 5 years later with their T-cells still in the blood, but the minority of those T-cells had that that TET2 mutational insertional mutagenesis. All this is something we thought was theoretically possible, that T-cell lymphoma could develop after car T-cell therapy. And in fact, a prior trial using a different method of delivery of a CAR gene; instead of using a virus to insert the car into the into the T-cells, a transposon system called piggyBac was used. And in that trial, again, CD19 CAR trial, but in this case, it was allogeneic donor cells for patients who had relapsed after an allogeneic transplant. So it's sort of an autologous, you know, analogy, but it's using the donor cells. And in that trial, 2 out of like 10 patients developed clonal T-cell lymphoma, which was CAR+, but they weren't able to identify a clear insertional mutagenesis event in those cases. So, we've known this is possible, and it would have been great if this poster or if this abstract at ASH was presented as an oral or a poster so we could get more detail, but it's possible that that's the likely reason for the FDA's announcement. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks. The bottom line, I guess, is that for now, the jury's still out on exactly what's underlying these observations, but something which I'm sure is going to be the subject of a lot of discussion during the ASH meeting this year and moving forward. I'd like to inform our listeners that ASCO released a statement on the FDA investigation, stating that the risk of T-cell malignancies due to CAR T-cell therapy appears to be very low. And we've just heard from Dr. Locke that, of the several thousand patients who've received CAR Ts, there are 19 cases so far, it's been reported, which puts us into some type of proportion. The ASCO statement goes on to say that based on available data, and while such malignancies have occurred in patients who have received CAR T-cell therapy, the causal relationship, whether these cases are spontaneous or are caused by the therapy, needs to be investigated further, and we've just heard a little about the detail of that. ASCO added that by issuing a warning but not revoking approval of these therapies, the FDA clearly believes that the current available evidence suggests the overall benefits of these products, used within their approved label, continue to outweigh the potential risks. So Fred, the risk of secondary malignancies is already included as a class warning in the U.S. prescribing information for these CAR T-cell therapies. But do you think that the CAR-T products could eventually be taken off the market, and how would your research be impacted if this were to happen? And maybe finally, how long will patients on CAR T-cell therapy need to be monitored moving forward? Dr. Fred Locke: I don't believe that CAR T-cell therapy will be taken off the market. As we've already talked about, the incidence is extraordinarily low and the causality is unclear. It would certainly impact my research, as I'm doing clinical trials with CAR T-cell therapies, but it would more importantly impact the way we treat patients. We did over 300 CAR T-cell therapy treatments last year here at Moffitt Cancer Center. We're one of the busiest programs in the world giving CAR T-cell therapy, and it is truly a transformative therapy for all the diseases that we administer these FDA-approved therapies for. For example, in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, we participated in the ZUMA-7 clinical trial and recently reported that patients randomized to CAR T-cell therapy had improved overall survival. They were living longer than patients randomized in the second-line setting to get conventional chemotherapy and autologous transplant. This is clearly a therapy that can work. I would also add that the risk of secondary malignancies is real, but that's a risk for all cancer patients, particularly patients with hematologic malignancies, and for example, lymphoma patients who've gotten an autologous stem cell transplant are at a relatively high lifetime risk of developing a secondary myeloid malignancy, most commonly, treatment-related MDS or AML. And that risk is also present after CAR T-cell therapy. The degree of attribution of CAR-T versus the condition of chemotherapy for CAR-T versus the previous chemotherapy is all unclear, and more analysis needs to be done. But the risk of developing treatment-related MDS or leukemia is certainly higher than the small number of T-cell lymphomas reported. The other thing I want to point out is that there was an analysis of the SEER database that patients with B-cell lymphomas are at about a 5-fold higher risk of developing a T-cell lymphoma than the otherwise healthy population; and vice versa, by the way, T-cell lymphoma patients are at risk for developing B cell lymphoma. And in fact, in that SEER database, it's not a wildly different percentage chance of developing a T-cell lymphoma after a B-cell lymphoma. And this data came out before the advent of CAR T-cell therapy. So I really think we need more science to be done to understand what's happening for these patients. Will this impact the field? Well, certainly, there are treatments that are not CAR T-cell therapy that compete with CAR T-cell therapy or could; I'm a strong believer that they don't offer the same outcomes for patients, but we will certainly see people talking about this for some time. Then the other place where this could be relevant, I think, is as we look at CAR T-cell therapy for autoimmune disorders, and we're starting to see studies of that for lupus and other diseases, the risk to benefit ratio could be different in those cases. So this is something we really need to consider as we move forward with CAR T- cell therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks, Fred. And as a major clinical investigator in the field of CAR-T at the moment, do you see any potential concerns about difficulties in getting patients onto the trials of CAR T-cell in the light of this information? Dr. Fred Locke: No, I really don't. We're not seeing hesitancy, at least in the patients who are referred in for CAR T-cell therapy. Again, it may give ammunition for those who are already predisposed to not refer patients in for CAR T-cell therapy, but I don't think it should. I think that these are low risks, and these therapies clearly have benefits to patients. And we should give their patients an opportunity to get these therapies, and I don't see it impacting our clinical trials at this point. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, and your comments address what was going to be my final question to you and that is, as a referring oncologist, how would you advise a referring oncologist to talk with their patients about these data and their implications moving forward? Dr. Fred Locke: If the patient brings it up, I think the response should be that these are very few cases of very low incidence and very low risk. There are other risks to CAR T-cell therapy that are greater, and really speaking with a cell therapist who administers the treatment is probably the best way to give the patient the option to get CAR T-cell therapy if they want to, knowing all the risks and benefits. So, I would leave it up to the CAR-T treatment center to discuss those risks with the patient.
Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, thanks, Fred, for sharing your insights with us on these concerning developments in CAR T-cell therapy, and I think also for putting them into context in terms of the sort of magnitude of this problem in the context of the overall number of patients who are benefiting from this therapy right now. We truly appreciate your time, and thanks for sharing your thoughts with our listeners. Dr. Fred Locke: Thanks, John, my pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights you hear on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness
Dr. Fred Locke: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Celgene, Calibr, Allogene, Gerson Lehrman Group, EcoR1, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Legend Biotech, Cowen, Kite (Gilean), Umoja Biopharma, Takeda, Sana Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, A2 Biotherapeutics, Mittenyi Biotec, Caribou Biosciences, Takeda, Umoja Biopharma Research Funding: Kite Pharma, Allogene, Novartis, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Calgene Patients, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Double Mutant Survivin Vaccine. US010414810B2 CAR T Cells with Enhanced Metabolic Fitness; Serial Number: 62/939,727 Methods of Enhancing CAR T Cell Therapies. Serial Number: 62/892,292. Evolutionary Dynamics of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma CAR-T cell therapy. Serial Number: 62/879,534. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Kite Pharma, A2 Biotherapeutics | |||
| Managing the Complexities of Oncology Practice in 2024 | 07 Dec 2023 | 00:26:19 | |
Drs. John Sweetenham and Lawrence Shulman discuss the challenges that oncologists will be confronting in 2024 and share insights on how to build clinician resilience and optimize the oncology workforce to provide better, safer care for patients with cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm thrilled to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Larry Shulman, to the podcast today. Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine, associate director of special projects, and the director of the Center for Global Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. Dr. Shulman is also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer, and also serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. His acclaimed research has led to the development of models of clinical care to improve the patient experience and quality of care in the United States and internationally. His activities have also included innovations in health information technology, cancer survivorship care, and some other related areas. Today, Dr. Shulman will be sharing his valuable insights on some of the growing complexities and challenges that we'll be grappling with in oncology in 2024 and beyond, and potential solutions to address these issues. You'll find our four disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcasts are available at asco.org/DNpod. Larry, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thank you so much, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: To start with Larry, as you know, the growth in the number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the U.S. is greatly outpacing the number of clinicians available to care for them. The American Association for Cancer Research, for example, estimates that there will be nearly 2 million new cancer cases in the U.S. alone this year and that the number will increase significantly in the years to come. The number of cancer survivors in total in the U.S. is predicted to grow to around 20.3 million by 2026. So, the question our community has been grappling with for some time now is: "How do we confront these realities and provide optimal care for patients, while at the same time building the resilience of the clinicians who need to care for them?" This is an area I know that you've focused on for a long time and you've published several papers in recent years as well as the great work that you've done as co-chair of the National Cancer Policy Forum workshop on the oncology workforce. Can you share your insights into some of these challenges? Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. Thank you very much. As you mentioned, the number of oncologists in this country is pretty stable. There's consistent but relatively low number entering the workforce and those of us who were really in the first wave of oncologists in the 1970s are beginning to retire. A number of years ago we thought, well, we need to figure out ways to recruit more medical students and trainees into the field of oncology, but that's clearly not going to happen. And as you also mentioned, the number of cancer patients is rapidly increasing in this country, partly because of the aging population and partly because frankly we're better at treating them. The cure rates are better, and the number of survivors is going up. So, the math is pretty straightforward. We have a relatively stable number of oncology providers trying to care for a rapidly increasing number of patients and that's just not going to change. So, we need to have plan B; we need to figure out how we can better meet the needs in this country. And I think all of us who practice are feeling the strain of trying to take care of these increasing number of patients. I think there are a few things that are contributing to this as well. One—the good news is we have lots of new therapies, we have lots of genomics, which are leading us to better tailor therapies for our patients. But this is all complicated and it's a lot for us all to learn and keep abreast of and to manage on a day-to-day basis in the middle of a busy clinic. But the other thing is that I believe our care has become progressively more inefficient, making it harder every day that we go to clinic to care for the number of patients we need to. And that really has to change. For those of us who've been doing this for a long time, and I know you have as well, this has been a trend really over decades. It's gone in the wrong direction. It was a lot easier to practice a number of decades ago. Now, the requirements for documentation and pre-authorization and many other administrative tasks has just grown progressively over these years. And we need to figure out how to change that. And in addition, our electronic health records, which is where we live in clinic, have been remarkable and wonderful in many ways, but are also inefficient to use and we need to do a better job in optimizing their functionality. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thanks Larry. I do agree with you there and I think that in addition to the challenges of running the electronic health record and using that at the point of care, of course the other thing that many of our clinicians face now is an increasingly complex treatment landscape and a greater need for clinical decision support tools, which of course are not always at the moment quite as facile as we would like them to be. And I think partly because of that, many oncologists are feeling overburdened partly with these various administrative tasks they have, partly with frankly keeping up with their own specialty areas or if they're community-based general oncologists, just keeping up in general with the new information that's coming at them. And then add on top of all of that the emotional toll of caring for patients with cancer. And not surprisingly, perhaps I think we have started to see, certainly we have experienced an exodus of some oncologists in recent years who've decided to pursue careers outside of direct patient care and oncology. And those included some moving into other areas of academia, some going into industry, some going into various tech companies and so on. Are you concerned that we all struggle in the effort of building and support a resilient oncology workforce to meet the needs of this growing population that you mentioned? Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Yeah, I'm very concerned about that, John. And I think one way to think about this is that as you say, the practice of oncology inherently is a stressful and difficult, though quite rewarding way to spend your professional career. But we layer on top of that a lot of frustration and difficulties that really don't need to exist. And when I think about this, I think about really two buckets. There's a bucket of factors that are within our control in an individual institution or an individual practice, and I'll come back to that in a minute. The other bucket are external forces, things that are required by the government regulators, by the payers that need to be done in routine practice. We have less direct influence over those, though I think it's a profession, we need to think hard about how to influence the external factors as well. At the practice level, there are a lot of things that we can do. One has to do with optimizing our electronic health record, which does have, in most cases, the ability to have it customized by institution in a way that would make it optimal. And some of that again, is external because we're dealing with a vendor product that has some limited ability to be customized, but we need to do a better job of the technology that underlies our practice every day when we go to clinic. The other major factor in support, whether it's advanced practice providers, nurses, medical assistants, navigators, and other personnel who can in fact help to support the patients, help to support their families, and help to support the clinicians who are on the front line trying to care for these patients. And we all use the term, practicing at the top of your license and aspire to that. But I think frankly we don't do a great job in that regard, and we need to really think harder about how we do have the appropriate team around us. In addition, I would say that there are a lot of other things at the practice level that we need to think about, including the facility of ordering radiologic studies and consultations and so on, all of which are often more cumbersome than they should be. We really need to not put these obstacles in the way of our clinicians. Externally, I think we need to get the payers and to get the government CMS to understand that the current state, it's just not going to be viable going forward and they need to make some big changes. And I think one of the ways to think about this is that rather than doing something differently, you want to do a different thing. I mean, they really need to make some paradigm changes and what's required day in and day out from our clinicians. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, I want to pick up on something that you mentioned there, which is the role of navigators and the benefits that navigation, patient navigation, can have in several domains, but certainly it can help to reduce the burden on oncologists and strain in the system in general. But to take that a little bit further, I wonder if we could talk a little bit about how navigation can help in reducing care disparities. You were saying before we came on the podcast today, the concept of using patient navigators to reduce disparities in care is not new. It's been around for many, many years, but it seems like we almost have to keep relearning that they really help in terms of reducing various disparities which may be rural disparities, racial and ethnic and so on. There are plenty of data out there, as you've mentioned, just to quote a couple of studies, there was the ACCURE trial published a couple of years ago now, which was really a multi-pronged intervention to help Black patients overcome obstacles to completion of treatment. And it included navigation along with a number of other interventions, electronic health record flags to alert caregivers to missed appointments, providers to missed appointments, I should say. It also included physician champions to help engage the health care teams and some educational interventions as well with a significant impact on the access to care from Black patients. The Levine Cancer Institute in the Carolinas conducted a study in my own world, in aggressive large B-cell lymphoma a number of years ago, where they showed that they were able to navigate all of their patients into guideline-concordant care, which essentially eliminated the disparity in outcome between Black and White patients in their population. And then more recently, a study from the University of Maryland looked at Black men with prostate cancer and demonstrated that with the intervention from a navigator, the number of those patients who had their appropriate genetic testing was increased enormously to levels which were comparable with the White patients in their community. No clear evidence yet that that's impacted outcome, although intuitively, I think it would, but nevertheless, as you've already pointed out, there is a ton of evidence that navigation can help us to eliminate disparities. Could you talk a little bit about your own insights into that area and the work that you've done? Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure. A few years ago, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop on navigation in cancer and we spent a couple of days in Washington going over many of the studies you've mentioned. And one of our speakers was Harold Freeman, who was a surgeon in Harlem. About 60 years ago, he showed that patient navigation could reduce disparities in cancer care in his setting. And I think the surprising and somewhat disappointing aspect of this is, well, we have a new therapy, whether it's immunotherapy or whatever that is shown to improve overall survival and outcomes. We adopt that, and we start using it. And yet here something that's relatively straightforward, patient navigation, which has been shown as you say, to improve access to care, to improve guideline-concordant diagnostics, guideline-concordant treatment, patient satisfaction, and ultimately improve outcomes and reduce disparities, but has not been embraced in the same way that new therapies have been embraced. And from my point of view, these factors are equally important. They translate in the patient outcomes ultimately just like the therapies that we choose to. And we need to really buy into that. We need to understand that this really affects our patient outcomes as much as our therapies do. So, a couple of things. One is that you've already mentioned the different ways that navigation might improve outcomes, and that's clearly the case. But there are other aspects which are really critical to a lot of conversations we've been having, and that is that navigators fill vital roles that when they're not present are often filled by the treating physician, trying to make sure that the diagnostic tests, the genomics are all done, trying to make sure that the patient is getting their radiologic studies on time, trying to make sure that the appropriate appointments are being set up. Navigators are very, very good at doing this. They're very good at bonding to the patients and helping the patients feel secure through this cancer journey. But if they're not there, either those things don't get done or the clinician, the treating physician or the advanced practice provider is doing that. And so, it has the dual effect of both burdening clinicians who really have another role in the care of the patients doing these other scheduling and navigation functions as well as improving the overall care. I will say that in my own experience, it's important to have navigators who are skilled in their areas, that understand the diseases that we're treating, that understand the patient's needs in relation to those diseases and the treatments and diagnostics that we have to offer. So, there is a real skill to navigation, but a skilled navigator really makes a huge difference to the patient. And again, not only in the very tangible ways that you mentioned, but also frankly in the psychological security of the patient. And patients will tell you this and there are surveys out there that show this, that patients who are undergoing a new diagnosis of cancer are terrified, do much better psychologically when they have a navigator at their side through this journey. But it has tremendous benefit to the clinicians as well. And why haven't we embraced navigators? I can only speculate, but one of the comments that I get from health system administrators is, "Well, they cost a lot of money, and their work is not reimbursed as part of health care reimbursement." But there is, again, overwhelming evidence to show that the return on investment for navigators is substantial. And it's substantial because it keeps patients in your practice, it provides more efficient care at all levels. And we published out of the National Cancer Policy Forum work, an article that basically shows from a variety of different centers, including mine at Penn, that there is a tremendous ROI for having navigators. So yeah, it's a little bit of money upfront to hire them, but ultimately, it's a good thing financially as well as clinically. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. So often with these kind of wraparound services that are so important to our patients showing and being able to clearly demonstrate the kind of downstream revenue from those services is difficult, but is I think probably evident to those of us who are in the clinic and see what happens. So, maybe we need some more sophisticated financial models to be able to highlight that to our leaders in the health systems, I think that the evidence is really quite clear. So, Larry, one of the disparities that you've mentioned, and perhaps we haven't focused on quite so much in this discussion, has been the issue of cancer care for rural versus urban communities. And I think it's important that we highlight the challenges that oncologists are facing in rural communities across the country in caring for patients who live many miles away from a hospital or clinical practice and where the oncologists do not have the kind of support system that you'd find in an academic center in a major city. Can you comment a little on that? Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. This is a real problem. I and others have published on cancer survival statistics in rural settings and in small community hospitals and they are in fact inferior to larger academic cancer centers, probably for a multitude of reasons. And one of our colleagues, Dr. Otis Brawley, made the comment a number of years ago and still repeats it, that your likelihood of surviving cancer in the U.S. is more tightly linked to your ZIP code than your genetic code. And there is some truth to that. Now, there are tremendous challenges for providing cancer care in a small, rural hospital. We practice in academic medical centers; I'm a breast cancer doctor and I spend all of my time trying to stay current in breast cancer. And it's a field that's changing rapidly. It's hard for me to imagine how my colleagues who are generalists in the community are keeping up with the advances in so many different diseases. And I think frankly, it's really, really hard to do that. In addition, all of us at academic centers have weekly tumor boards. We get to ask our colleagues what their thoughts are about our difficult cases. We get a lot of input from pathologists, radiologists, and other colleagues. And frequently clinicians, physicians, oncologists, practicing in rural hospitals don't have that constituency around them for them to bounce difficult patients off of to try to figure out what the best approach might be for a patient. So, the differences are terrific, and the support is just not there. This is something that our country has not really confronted. We have a very big country geographically. Some of the areas of the country are quite rural. A patient can't be expected to travel four hours in each direction to an academic cancer center. We need to figure out how to better partner between our academic cancer centers and our community colleagues to support their care in ways that we've not done routinely up to this point. I know that the National Cancer Institute is very interested in this and trying to figure it out. But again, I think we have to feel a collective responsibility to support our colleagues in the community. They try really hard, they're working really hard, they're doing the best they can, but they just don't have the support that we have in academic cancer centers. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, sure. Before we wrap up the podcast today, I'd like to circle back a little to something that you said earlier and a topic that I know that you've published about quite extensively in the past and that's the issue of health care technology. And I think we probably all agree that health care's been a little bit slow to capitalize on technology to improve our care processes and outcomes. And your research has highlighted that technology can facilitate patient-clinician interactions in a number of ways through augmented intelligence, texting, chatbots, among other things. Can you tell us a little bit about this, how you think that AI might be able to help us in the future to streamline the management of some of these medical and administrative issues that we've been talking about today? Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. It's hard to turn the TV on or read a newspaper without an article on artificial intelligence. But the word you used is the word that I use, which is augmented intelligence. I don't think we're looking to replace clinicians with technology, but we're looking to in fact make their jobs easier, to remove some of the tasks that they don't need to do themselves as really an assistant, if you will, another assistant. We have used technology extremely poorly in the medical profession overall. I'm not quite sure why that is. But if you look at the banking industry or other industries, they've used technology tremendously well with great benefit, benefit not only for the people who are using the services, in our case, the patients, but also those who are providing the services, in our case, the clinicians. So, I think we need to do a better job. We need to have electronic health records that are in fact helping rather than sometimes hindering or making frustrating the care of the patients. We need to use artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence to interact with patients and help to manage them. We're using augmented intelligence chatbots to manage patients who are on oral chemotherapy able to do a lot of the tasks that normally the clinicians would be doing without in any way jeopardizing the safety or the well-being of the patients. The patients actually tell us that they like this, that it's just another way to feel connected to their practice in a way that's efficient and easy for them through texting rather than sometimes trying to call the practice, which can be frustrating. But there are lots of other things as well in analyzing data, bringing data forward that will help us to make the appropriate decisions. And one of the things that I often use as an example is the airline industry. And they have a remarkable safety record as we all know, thank goodness. But if you sit in the cockpit of an airplane and you look at the instruments, all the critical data is right in front of them, unencumbered and very clearly presented because they need those data to fly the plane, and they need those data to be rapidly and easily accessible. They can get all the data they need; you look at the cockpit ceiling, it's got a thousand switches on, everything they need is there, but the critical data is never hidden and always presented. I don't think that that in fact is the way our electronic health records are set up. In fact, quite the contrary. And all of us spend a fair amount of time looking for data and so on because the records are complicated, and they're used by a lot of different specialists. But we can use augmented intelligence to bring all the critical data up, just like the cockpit in an airplane, to make sure that we have what we need rapidly accessible, and we don't miss anything. We don't go looking for the genomic test and can't find them and then assume they weren't done and make a decision without critical data when in fact they were done, but the data is hidden. So, I think we have a lot of options to use technology to improve our daily lives. I think it will take away some of the frustrations that lead to burnout, and we'll also make practice not only more efficient, but frankly also much safer. I think we have to work hard on this. We could partner with that technology colleagues. We at Penn are trying to do that. I know others are trying to do it as well. And I think the patients will benefit, will all benefit. Practice will be better, safer, less frustrating, and the outcomes of the patients will be better. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks Larry. I think your analogy with an aircraft cockpit is so perceptive and I think that that's something if we could unclutter our electronic health records and what we're seeing in front of us in at the points of care in the clinic, I agree 100% that will be such a step forward. So, thanks for sharing that. Thanks also, Larry, for discussing some of these challenges that we're going to be confronting in the next year and beyond, as well as the potential solutions. I think one thing that is really important to remember despite these challenges is something that I mentioned in the introduction to the podcast today. So, when we are all feeling a little bit disheartened because of the challenges ahead of us, it's important to remember that in 2026 there will be an estimated 20.3 million cancer survivors in the United States, which really does underline how far we've come, certainly in the time that you and I have been practicing oncology, and really important not to lose sight of that. We had a lot of challenges, but really the achievements of the last 50 years or so are pretty remarkable. It's been a real pleasure to have you on the podcast today, so thank you again for joining us and for sharing your thoughts with us. Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thanks so much for having me, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. For more information on Dr. Shulman's research discussed in this episode, please see the articles below: Establishing effective patient navigation programs in oncology - PubMed (nih.gov) Patient Navigation in Cancer: The Business Case to Support Clinical Needs Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness
Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech Research Funding (Inst.): Celgene, Independence Blue Cross | |||
| Solutions and Key Research to Advance High-Quality Cancer Care | 09 Nov 2023 | 00:17:41 | |
Drs. Cardinale Smith and Raymond Osarogiagbon discuss key research featured at the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including the role of AI in quality measurement and solution-focused approaches addressing care delivery, financial toxicity, and clinician well-being. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Hello. I'm Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the chief scientist at the Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation and director of the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program and the Thoracic Oncology Research Group at the Baptist Cancer Center here in Memphis, Tennessee. I have the distinct delight of serving as co-chair of the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. And I am delighted to welcome my colleague, Dr. Cardinale Smith, who served as chair of the Symposium. Dr. Smith is a professor in the Department of Medicine and Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Today, we'll be discussing solutions and key research to advance high-value, high-quality cancer care that were featured at the Symposium. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Smith, it's great to be speaking to you today. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you. I'm excited to be speaking with you as well. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: The Quality Care Symposium featured many novel approaches in care delivery, including innovative ways to advance health equity through supportive oncology. As a specialist in geriatrics and palliative medicine, your work has focused on supporting the needs of patients with cancer. What are the innovations in supportive oncology that you were excited about at the meeting? Dr. Cardinale Smith: I think we had several really fantastic sessions [on supportive oncology] at the meeting. One of the key things that came up around innovations in palliative care delivery was a roundtable discussion ("Innovations in Palliative Care Delivery for Structurally Marginalized Populations: A Roundtable Discussion"), and the speakers really focused on community-engaged approaches to the delivery of palliative and supportive care interventions. During the discussion, the speakers talked about utilizing the community voice and incorporating that into work to describe and enhance models of care delivery. Dr. Manali Patel discussed her work on the transformative impact of patient navigators who focused on palliative care skills, in particular, communication, symptom discussions, and how that contributed to the improved outcomes of patients with advanced cancer. They saw reductions in mortality, lower acute care use, greater palliative care and hospice use, and lower total costs. Dr. Mao discussed a virtual mind-body fitness program to reduce unplanned hospitalizations among patients undergoing active cancer treatments. And Dr. Irwin presented her results of a randomized trial of patient-centered collaborative care for adults with serious mental illness who were newly diagnosed with cancer. I think these discussions just really centered on centering patients and focusing on supporting their care. And then finally, I was really excited to hear Dr. Deborah Mayer of UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, who received the Joseph Simone Quality Care Award, and she spoke about her distinguished career and how we can do better for our patients and ourselves ("Reflections on Improving Cancer Care: How Can We Do Better for Our Patients and Ourselves"). And what stood out for me was her recognition of the importance of "teaming," and she really talked about acknowledging that before there was terminology for it. And it struck me because it remains so critically important in terms of how we advance the science and delivery of cancer. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, that Joseph Simone Award was amazing; I've got to tell you that Manali Patel's presentation blew me away. The video of the veterans talking about end-of-life care and the tough decisions, how they got to work, man, chills down my spine. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, and I think what's even more incredible is that the folks who were helping to lead those conversations were not people who spent an incredible amount of time going to school to learn how to do this. They were folks from the community who were just engaging with people and conversations about their values. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: What an original way to tackle the wicked problem. Just amazing. So improving clinician well-being was also a key topic at the meeting. Speakers addressed oncology workforce shortages and novel approaches for improving team-based care delivery. So, Cardi, what are your key takeaways from these sessions ("Building Clinician Well-Being Through Team-Based Care Delivery") Dr. Cardinale Smith: Improving team-based care delivery is essential as the health care system can feel fragmented for patients, and, honestly, for us as clinicians as well. I think my takeaway [from this session] is that there has to be an organizational and systems-based approach to really improving this issue if we're going to make meaningful and impactful change. We were presented with data that shows that this really isn't a one size fits all approach, and what might work for physicians as a group does not work for APPs or nursing. And we really have to think about all of these different groups based on what they need. Caroline Schenkel from the ASCO Center for Research and Analytics (CENTRA) presented impactful data on the state of the oncology workforce. And that data really assessed changes in the well-being of US-based ASCO physician members and compared the responses today in 2023 to a decade ago. And unfortunately, burnout and satisfaction with work life integration appears to have significantly worsened. And while that's not really surprising, it's disappointing. There were some factors that contributed to joy in work life, and that was speaking with and advising patients, as well as enhanced practice support inclusive of administrative patient care and staffing. So I do think that gives us some information that we can use to go forward to focus on strategies we should be really encouraging and leaning in towards. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: I think it was Dr. Subbiah in this session who made the point – it's not just yoga, right? Don't tell people, "Go do yoga and get happy at work again." You have to tackle the fundamental cause of the problem, which is this crazy workload and additional tangential obligations that we have that have taken over the core mission of patient care. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Absolutely. No one needs another pizza party. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Isn't that the truth? Dr. Cardinale Smith: I want to ask you some questions. I'm going to turn the tables on you now. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Sure. Dr. Cardinale Smith: So let's talk about some emerging technologies. We had a session on artificial intelligence at the meeting that specifically focused on how AI will potentially impact quality care. Ray, tell me, what are some of your takeaways from these presentations? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, so AI, obviously, is a hot topic in this day and age. I had the privilege of chairing the session, "The Promise and the Perils of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Oncology." So we had a nice group of speakers. We had Danielle Bitterman from Dana-Farber telling us what AI is and what it promises to be for us. And then Andrew Hantel, who co-chaired the session with me, did a wonderful job describing for us the perils of AI. And then Julian Hong told us how AI promises to do all kinds of wonderful things in radiation oncology, so the huge promise of AI from back office to front office across this full spectrum of oncology, be it radiology, radiation oncology and so on and so forth, were covered. And I would strongly urge that anybody who listens to this podcast should go to that session. Andrew Hantel talked about perils, for example, this AI black box. We don't really understand when [the AI black box] tells us this is the thing, this is the answer to your question, how does it arrive at that? How can we tell that the answers we're getting are correct or incorrect? And if we were wanting to validate, how do we go back, to do so is a real problem. And then one of the take-homes was, "You can call it all the things you want, but it's still fundamentally garbage in, garbage out." So this machine learning, if the material fed into the machine is garbage, the answers you'll get back will still be garbage. And we had Dawn Hershman present a wonderful panorama of how AI is just another tool. It's not a panacea. We've still got the same problems. It's a new tool and we're still going to have to apply it using the same frameworks as we have always applied in all of science today. And then there was an abstract that was presented from the UK as the young lady Bea Bakshi presented a paper, Abstract 74, "Accuracy of an AI Prediction Platform in Predicting Tumor Origin in a Real-World Study." I would urge anybody who's interested in this to go back and watch that. Dr. Cardinale Smith: I was waiting a bit for them to talk to me about how the bots were going to take over, but I guess we're not quite there yet. And Dr. Lee Fleisher also added a lot of commentary. He was the former chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). And he gave the keynote lecture, "Measuring and Driving Quality in the Future." What did you think about some of what he had to add to this conversation? Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, it was an interesting keynote. It was certainly one of the highlights of the program. He talked about measuring and driving quality of care in the future. And the thing that struck me was how he covered the full spectrum of the topics that we dealt with in the Symposium, including AI, which was quite remarkable. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, I agree. I think he really did add an incredible amount to the conversation, and I think as much as we think CMS has control over so much of what we do, so much of it is controlled and regulated that in the end, they are just a body that oversees. And I think he really talked about that and hit that home. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: The one thing that struck me one of the throw away comments he made was how few physicians there were at CMS. What was it he said? Was it 30 something, 40 something on the regulatory side? Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, it was less than 40, high 30s. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Surprising. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah. There aren't that many physicians that actually work there and yet they are driving so much of the decision-making. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah. Wow. So Cardi, let's talk about the session, the very beginning. I think you introduced that session on day one, "The Perfect Storm of High Cost Novel Therapeutics: Are We Leaving Patients Out? Dr. Cardinale Smith: It was an incredible way, in my opinion, to start the conference. I think that the speakers really came out strong, setting the stage on really the perfect storm. I think as we are developing more high-cost novel therapeutics, the first speaker, Haley Moss, talked about how all of these approvals are leading to these accelerated pricing of drugs and how really this is unsustainable. We continue to get new and new drugs that are working, right? I mean, we have longer life expectancies for patients with cancer. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: That's the good news, but somebody has to pay for it. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Correct. And the longer you live, the harder it is to be able to sustain this and people are going into bankruptcy for it. And then Arjun Gupta came in and talked about really thinking about these supportive care drugs and supportive care meds, and how we tend not to think about those medications, but they are medications that are not highly regulated and yet also are very costly. And I think what stood out for me most from the panel and this discussion was really the patient herself, Dr. Kelly Shanahan. She is a physician, an OBGYN who no longer practices and was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. And she really talked about how cancer put her into near bankruptcy and the cost implications to someone who we would consider in the top echelon of the financial spectrum. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah. You want to know what my favorite abstract was at this? It was Abstract 300, titled "Nationwide analysis of legal barriers impacting patients with cancer and caregivers." Dr. Cardinale Smith: Okay, tell me about it. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Qasim Hussaini talked about how he had access to a unique data set of patients calling in for free legal assistance after diagnosis of their cancer. I was in awe of the uniqueness of his [and his co-authors'] approach. I don't think I've ever seen anybody tackle this problem in such an original way. I learned a lot from it, and I would definitely recommend that people go take a look at this Rapid Oral Abstract. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah. In fact, while we were sitting there in the conference, I was texting the director of oncology social work at my own institution and asking her if she heard of the organization that he worked with. Dr. Osarogiagbon: Yeah. Dr. Smith: I'd like to highlight the last great session for our listeners. And it was really the last session of the conference, "Promises and Pitfalls of Liquid Biopsy Cancer Detection Tests in the Asymptomatic Population." And I know sometimes folks don't always get to see or hear the last session. So, I would strongly encourage folks to check it out. I liked the session because it highlighted where we are in terms of thinking about diagnosing cancers among those who are asymptomatic. And it also highlighted a lot of questions that we have in terms of what we do with those results and who should be the responsible parties for that information? Does it fall to the primary care group? Does it fall to oncologists? And I think it was good to know that this is something that's top-of-mind for NCI and that they're really putting together a toolkit to think through this and to package that together for clinicians. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: I have to give you credit, Cardi. This was fabulous. The meeting was from end to end, just superb, and the attendance was record-breaking. Congratulations. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you. You are a fabulous partner. We had wonderful committee members, and the ASCO staff, as usual, is amazing. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yes. We have to do this again in San Francisco next year. Dr. Cardinale Smith: I'm looking forward to it. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Thank you, Dr. Smith, for coming on the podcast to give us these highlights from the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. Our listeners will find the links to the sessions that we discussed on the transcript of this episode. Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you, Ray. It was my pleasure. Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Cardinale Smith: Honraria: AstraZeneca Speakers' Bureau: Teva Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly, Pfizer, Gillead Honoraria: Medscape, Biodesix Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, American Cancer Society, Triptych Health Partners, Genetech/Roche, National Cancer Institute, LUNGevity Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: 2 US and 1 China patents for lymph node specimen collection kit and metho of pathologic evaluation Other Relationship: Oncobox Device, Inc. | |||
| How to Implement Universal Germline Testing for CRC | 02 Nov 2023 | 00:15:16 | |
Drs. Shaalan Beg and Priyanka Kanth discuss the readiness, logistics, and barriers to implementing universal germline multigene panel testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) following new guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that recommend genomic testing for all individuals with CRC younger than age 50. The experts also address other areas of unmet needs as new data emerge on moderate-risk genes and their association with CRC. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm the vice president of oncology at Science 37 and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Last year, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, updated its guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC), recommending that all patients with colorectal cancer who receive a diagnosis before the age of 50 have multigene panel testing and that multigene testing should also be considered for patients 50 years of age and older with colorectal cancer, regardless of a personal or family history or other criteria. This represents a huge paradigm shift in the screening and care of patients with inherited cancers. And today, I'm joined by Dr. Priyanka Kanth, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the GI Cancer Prevention Program at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, DC, to discuss new research that explores the readiness, logistics, and barriers associated with the implementation of universal germline testing in clinical practice. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Kanth, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Thank you, Dr. Beg. It's wonderful to be here today and discuss this very exciting topic. Dr. Shaalan Beg: As a gastroenterologist who sees patients and families with a high risk for GI cancer, including medically underserved populations, can you comment on the significance of the expanded NCCN guidelines for colorectal cancer? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, absolutely. So this is, I would say, a big change from NCCN recommending pretty much every colorectal cancer patient can undergo multigene panel testing or universal. So everyone who's younger than age 50 and has colon cancer should get multigene panel testing. But we are also expanding it to pretty much anyone who may have colorectal cancer, and we can offer multigene panel testing. So, we are broadening the pool of patients who can get tested, and this will bring in more patients from very different demographics. So I think it will expand to every arena of patients with different insurance profiles, underserved, and, as more insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid picks up, I think this will help a lot more patients in not only following on their genetic testing, but also their family members. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Medical oncologists are very familiar with the challenges of implementing somatic molecular testing for people who have cancer. I can only imagine that implementing universal germline testing also has significant logistical challenges and barriers. You recently published a study in JCO Precision Oncology along with your colleagues and captured some interesting perspectives from clinicians on their practice of implementing universal genomic testing for colorectal cancer. Can you tell us more about this? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Absolutely. So I would first like to thank the lead authors and senior authors of this study. They are Linda Rodgers-Fouche and Sanjeevani Arora and Rachel Hodan, who literally wrote the study and created and did all the legwork. And as you know how hard it is to do these big survey studies, so really thank them. The study is a cross-sectional survey of the members of this Community Collaborative Group of America, IGC, which I would say comprises a lot of genetic counselors, gastroenterologists, oncologists, and colorectal surgeons who take care of these patients. So these are highly specialized groups that work in the field of GI genetics. Roughly 300 plus members were sent the survey to get their take on how they think [multigene panel testing] can be implemented for all colorectal cancer patients. So to give you a synopsis of the study, the majority of members who participated, 70% or more, they supported this universal germline testing for colorectal cancer patients. But interestingly, more than 50% also thought that it will require a change in their practice or how this will be delivered. So that's the major takeaway, I would say. We are all supportive but how to really deliver to the patient would be the biggest challenge or barrier for us in the future. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, your study reported concerns on knowledge among non-genetics providers. I would assume that includes a lot of clinicians who are the first people to be in contact with potential patients who would require testing. How can the field mitigate this problem? And what are some alternate delivery service models for increasing awareness and making the process of ordering and following up on the results more efficient for practices? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: We all know the biggest barrier I would say is resources like who's going to deliver the added pool of patients that get genetic testing. So most of the current scenario, they're all seen by genetic counselors, but we have a limited number of genetic counselors and they cannot truly deal with this big influx. So how to educate non-genetic providers would be the biggest barrier. But also implementing in the system itself, like can we do pretest counseling as the first contact with the patient to deliver to discuss like you should undergo genetic testing. So that contact, can that be done with a non-genetic provider or even by other modes like telemedicine? Or can we do something like an online chat box or something which could just not only go over all the types of testing but opens the door for the patient to ask questions. So if there are alternate modes of delivery where the pretest is taken care of, that would be one big change required. The other part is like when the test is done, who returns the results? So where does it go and who explains the results? So at that point, we surely need more genetic and even non-genetic providers if they are comfortable. So how to educate them would be the biggest barrier. At that point, I think, we are still figuring out the biggest change is in the system and requiring a take from all the stakeholders who are part of taking care of these patients. So not only genetic counselors, but oncologists, gastroenterologists, pathologists who are taking care of this patient to be on board and have a really clear-cut flow of how these are delivered, how these results are returned, and how they are explained to family members. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The workflows and the resources that you have in a high-risk GI clinic at a center like Georgetown's, I think it's safe to say, are much more than what typical resources a practicing provider will have in the clinic. How do you envision clinics resourcing for this type of test either through training or retraining their existing staff or by adding additional resources? Dr. Shaalan Beg: At the community setting, it is really hard to educate essentially everyone as well. So, I feel like taking the load off the genetic counselor at the pretest level is the biggest implementation or change that can be done. And if we can remove that because not every patient is going to be positive for the gene mutation either; it does filter many patients who eventually will need returns. So at that place, how do you implement and where do you implement is the key and it is so system-based that I cannot even pinpoint. But I agree, bigger academic centers have better advantages and a knowledge base as compared to smaller community cancer centers or practices. Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yeah, and I noticed that many of the respondents in your survey agreed with offering multigene panels, but there was variability by profession, and I was wondering if that resonated with you and that was an expected finding or not. Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, and it was more so in terms of standardized multigene panel versus customized panel. So, this is fairly understandable because the genetic counselor is so well versed in offering which genes should be tested based on family history, but a non-genetic provider may not be fully equipped with the knowledge. So for example, myself, I do GI genetics, but if I have a patient with a lot of breast cancer in the family, I do defer them to a high-risk breast team. So there are nuances, too. The major difference here was also in standardized multigene panel, most of the gastroenterologists, oncologists were all for it compared to customized, which were more heavily leaned by the genetic counselor based on family history. And I can see why it's different because standardized, I would say, is much easier to implement and compared to customizing, which is based on family history or other cancer history and family. That's the major difference in the study. It comes down to education and experience and the follow-up based on what comes back from it.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: You've highlighted many factors, both from the pre-test, sort of preparing and selecting the right individuals, to ordering the right test based on the participant's risk factor profile and then optimal ways of following up on the results of these genomic tests. What are other areas of unmet needs when it comes to genomic testing for colorectal cancer? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: We know a lot about high-risk genes that are associated with colorectal cancer. We still are finding and learning about many genes, many moderate-risk genes, and their association with colorectal cancer. We don't have enough data or long-term cohort data to understand how they truly affect their lifetime risk for colorectal cancer and how do we truly surveil these patients. So that's one of the big barriers. Genetics still cannot explain all colorectal cancers. So as we get more data, we may discover more things and more genes that may be associated. But understanding these moderate-risk genes and their association with colorectal cancer would be, I think, one of the key areas to be looked into in the future. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And I would imagine as new biomarkers are identified, there will need to be a strategy to retest people who may have had genomic testing in the past. Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Absolutely. We are already encountering that in a practice. I have patients who have been tested maybe 10 years ago and just had Lynch mutation tested and were negative for that or so, and now we have so many other genes which are associated and also to understand family history changes. So, as family history changes, there might be clues to say that, "Okay, we should expand the panel or we should add these patients." So it is a very dynamic situation. There could be a scenario in which we have a lot of patients who may need to be retested based on their current situation or even based on changing family history and the availability of genetic information. So, when I see a patient, I also tell them if we don't find anything or we are not doing anything major, we say, "Let's regroup in 3 to 5 years, let's see where we are," or even with the risk mutation for some of the moderate-risk genes, we may change in a few years. So, revisiting that with these patients is highly useful. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, is it safe to say that as of 2023, if we're seeing people in our clinic who have not had testing in the last 3 to 5 years, that they should have a discussion for repeat testing today? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, in terms of certain, I would say, newer polyposis genes in the GI world that have been included, some other moderate gene mutation which we have a little bit more sense of now and it has not been tested, I think that can be expanded. Five years is a safe bet. Last 2 to 3 years, maybe not so much, but you can revisit this. Also, some patients were tested for a smaller gene panel. So not 2 genes, but maybe 10 genes were included. That would probably still stand true. They may not need 70 gene panels, so it's still good to review that in the current scenario, and every few years, every 5 years, I would say.
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Whenever I think about any type of new test that has logistical challenges, has costs associated with it, and has operational demands of the clinic, I think about its disparate effect across different populations based on race, ethnicity, geography, demographics. Can you talk a little bit about how these guideline changes, what type of impact they may have, positive or not, for comprehensive genomic testing for colorectal cancer across different populations? Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, I think this is more positive than negative. This will include more patients and include more family members who were not being included, who were being missed. As we know that one of the reasons to do this multigene panel testing was the criteria, the family history criteria or the risk prediction models are not perfect. And the recent studies have shown that not every family member, every patient, is going to fit in these criteria. So we are getting more and more data in recent years that I think the much better, long-term option is to do a multi-chain panel and find it because we are missing patients. So it will increase the pool [of patients to be tested], and that will surely increase patients from all demographics. And as we do it more, there will be more buy-in from the payers and hopefully, this will decrease disparity. The problem, I think the negative part is how do we deliver it to everyone? If it is there but we are not able to deliver and that there is disparity on who gets the test and who does not, then that will create another disparity in a sense that it's there and we could have used it, but it's not being delivered. So the pros are we can include everyone, but how to include everyone is the big question. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, Dr. Kanth, there are indeed challenges ahead in our pursuit for universal germline testing for colorectal cancer. I'd like to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Thank you very much for having me here. It was great to talk to you, Dr. Beg. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Shaalan Beg: Employment: Science 37 Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals Dr. Priyanka Kanth: | |||
| How to Enhance Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship | 25 Jul 2024 | 00:18:28 | |
Drs. Hope Rugo, Diana Lam, Sheri Shen, and Mitchell Elliott discuss key strategies and emerging technology in early-stage breast cancer survivorship, including mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. There are currently about 4 million breast cancer survivors in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, and this number is expected to rise as more women are being diagnosed at early stages of this disease, thanks to advances in early detection and the delivery of more effective adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment leading to successful outcomes. In today's episode, we'll be discussing current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, focusing on a multidisciplinary approach. Joining me for this discussion are Drs. Mitchell Elliott, Sherry Shen, and Diana Lam, who co-authored, along with others, a recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, "Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines." They also addressed this topic in an Education Session presented at the recent ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Elliott is a drug development fellow and clinician scientist trainee at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Sherry Shen is a breast oncologist and assistant attending at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Dr. Diana Lam is a breast radiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. It's great to have you all on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you so much. Dr. Sherry Shen: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: Let's go into the meat of the article now and try to provide some interesting answers to questions that I think come up for clinicians all the time in practice. Your article points out that addressing the challenges in early-stage breast cancer survivorship requires a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. Dr. Shen, surveillance can facilitate the early detection of recurrence, but ultimately the goal is to prevent recurrence. Lifestyle modifications are a key component of survivorship care, and there are many interventions in this context. Could you summarize the best approaches for mitigating risk of breast cancer recurrence through lifestyle modification and how we might accomplish that in clinical practice? Dr. Sherry Shen: Absolutely. This is a question that we get asked a lot by our breast cancer patients who are so interested in what changes they can make within their lifestyle to improve their breast cancer outcomes. I always tell them that there are three main things, three main lifestyle factors that can improve their breast cancer outcomes. Firstly, enough physical activity. So the threshold for physical activity seems to be around 150 minutes of a moderately vigorous level per week. So moderately vigorous means something that gets the heart rate up, like walking quickly on rolling hills, for example. Or patients can do a vigorous level of physical activity for at least 75 minutes per week. Vigorous meaning playing a sport, swimming, for example, running, something that really gets the heart rate up. The second really important lifestyle modification is limiting alcohol use. Keeping alcohol to less than 4 to 7 drinks per week is particularly important for breast cancer outcomes, especially in women who are postmenopausal and have hormone receptor positive diseases. That's where the strongest connection is seen. Lastly, maintaining a healthy weight. We know that women who gain more than 5% to 10% of their diagnosis body weight have a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence and worse breast cancer outcomes. That, of course, is easier said than done, and it's primarily through dietary modifications. I always tell women that in terms of specific things in the diet, it's really hard to study at a population level because diets vary so much between patients. But what is really important is consuming a plant-forward whole foods diet that prioritizes nutrients and the quality of the diet. A little bit more specifically, it's important to limit the amount of red and processed meats in the diet, really limit the amount of sugar sweetened beverages, ideally to cut that out of the diet entirely, and to consume an appropriate amount of dietary fiber in the range of 20 to 30 grams per day. Those are more specific things that have been associated with breast cancer outcomes. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is such helpful, practical information for clinicians and for patients. Thank you. But let's move on to another area, surveillance testing for distant recurrence, an area of great interest, in fact highlighted in a special session at ASCO 2024. In clinic, we've seen that many cancer survivors expressed surprise at the less intensive approach to surveillance testing for recurrence, with the whole idea that if you detected it earlier, the outcome would be better. But it does raise an important question. What is the optimal strategy for monitoring for recurrence? And importantly, can early detection through surveillance testing impact outcome? Dr. Elliott, your research has focused on ctDNA surveillance and the evolving role of minimal residual disease, or MRD. Can you comment on the current surveillance guidelines for distant recurrence, and then, how we really define true MRD? Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Those are excellent questions, and I think leaving that Education Session at ASCO left us with even more questions than answers with the current role of MRD in this setting. I think a lot of this comes from wanting to help patients and trying to identify the patients at highest risk of cancer recurrence, with the goal of intervening with effective targeted therapy to prevent metastatic relapse. Current international guidelines in the United States done by ASCO and the NCCN, as well as ESMO guidelines in Europe and even our local Canadian guidelines, do not suggest that patients undergo routine screening in asymptomatic individuals, whether it be blood work or routine radiographic imaging, as there were some studies that were done in the late 1990s and early 2000s that didn't actually show benefit and actually maybe favored a little bit of harm in these situations. So these recommendations are based on these initial studies. However, we know that in the last 10, 15 years, even 20 years, that breast cancer and the landscape of breast cancer has changed significantly with the introduction of our typical standard classification of breast cancer, the emergence of HER2 positive breast cancer, and thus triple negative breast cancer, which was not actually routine standard testing at the time of these studies, and also the most effective therapies we have to date, including immunotherapy, HER2 targeted therapy and the advent of antibody drug conjugates. We're at prime time right now to potentially revisit this question, but the question is, do we have the right technology to do so? And this is where the circulating tumor DNA has really emerged as a potential option, given its minimally invasive opportunity with a standard blood test to actually identify tumor specific DNA that is highly predictive of distant metastatic recurrence or patient recurrence in general. The evolving role – we still have a lot of questions in this setting. There have been a lot of retrospective analyses of cohort studies and clinical trials that have shown that modern fit for purpose MRD based tests actually have a high positive predictive value at identifying patients with imminent risk of breast cancer recurrence. The most important thing in this setting is that there are different fit for purpose tests. The initial ctDNA assays were actually genotyping based assays, which look for the presence of mutations in the blood. But we know that the sensitivity of these assays is quite challenging at the level of ctDNA required to actually diagnose patients with very small amounts of residual disease. So the fit for purpose MRD assays are now emerging on the market. And we have several that are in clinical development, several that are in research development, but the high specificity in the setting is very important, which we're seeing some evolving and emerging technologies in this setting. We really don't have the data about if these interventions, so if we were to effectively deploy these MRD based ctDNA assays prospectively in patients, if they will actually improve patient outcomes, and how do we correct and address lead time bias, which might potentially affect study results? Also, the important thing to think about in this setting is if we are able to find something, we also should have an effective therapy to actually intervene for patients, because the outcome in these trials will actually be dependent not only on identifying early breast cancer occurrence, but also delivering the best targeted intervention for that individual patient, which currently we don't understand fully. Another really interesting thing is there was a trial, the ZEST trial, as many of our listeners may know, that was randomizing patients with patients with ctDNA detected in the adjuvant setting were randomized through either intervention or standard follow up. And going forward, is it actually an opportunity, or is it possible to actually randomize patients knowing that they have a near 100% likelihood of breast cancer recurrence to observation? So these are several ongoing questions that we have to address as we move forward to deploying this technology in the clinical space. Dr. Hope Rugo: Really fascinating, and thanks for sharing that. I think really broad and helpful information on these ctDNA [assays] and also our surveillance guidelines, which I think really suggests that you only do surveillance for cause, other than looking for local recurrence and new cancers with breast imaging. So it is really an interesting time where we're seeing evolving technologies and evolving understanding of how we can best do this kind of testing when there are so many different assays out there. I think it's going to take a little while. And also understanding, as you pointed out, trying to target treatments when patients have emerging ctDNA to mutations. And we just have no idea yet if we're going to ultimately change outcomes. This is really helpful, and I think we'll give people a good understanding of where to think about this right now, what to look for in the future. Now, of course, it's a nice segue into the idea of breast imaging for early breast cancer survivors because that's where we do have data. Dr. Lam, let's talk about how we optimize breast imaging in early-stage breast cancer survivors, because there's such a wide variation in breast cancer imaging survival protocols between different centers and different countries. And of course, here our group is representing two countries and really a broad geographic area. So some of the variations are when to do imaging in terms of frequency, when to start imaging and what kind of examination to do, screening versus diagnostic, MRI versus mammogram. And of course, there are some emerging imaging techniques as well. Could you tell us a little bit about the variation in imaging surveillance protocols in survivors, and the challenges and what you recommend? Dr. Diana Lam: First off, I want to say that surveillance mammography saves lives and annual intervals are uniformly recommended among both national and international guidelines. However, we know that in practice there are variations in imaging surveillance protocols, with approximately 40% of sites performing imaging at more frequent or six-month intervals for at least one to two years. In addition, there's variation in what type of mammogram someone gets in terms of the indication. They might be getting initial diagnostic mammograms for a short period of time or screening mammograms. However, overall, there is limited evidence in improved outcomes in women getting a diagnostic versus a screening exam for asymptomatic surveillance. In addition, there is limited evidence in increased frequency of surveillance, for example, every six months versus one year. The real difference between a screen and a diagnostic mammogram, if someone is asymptomatic in the surveillance population, primarily has to do with workflow. For screening examinations, the imaging is generally viewed after a patient leaves the facility, and it might actually take days, maybe even weeks, for the results to be delivered to the patient. In addition, if more imaging is needed, the patient will need to return back to the facility, which does diagnostic imaging work for us to work up this finding. And this practice approach causes diagnostic delays in care. It also disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic women. For diagnostic mammography surveillance, there's generally real time interpretation with immediate results. However, there are both access and scheduling limitations, as not all facilities actually perform these types of examinations. There may also be out of pocket costs which are increased due to the diagnostic indication of this exam. So what we found, which is an approach that can aid in minimizing patient costs and decreasing these health disparities, is to provide immediate interpretations of these screening mammography surveillance exams, or so-called online screens where diagnostic workup and potential biopsy can be performed on the same day. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is all very interesting, but what do we tell our patients? How do we, as oncologists, decide on how frequently to get mammograms? Should we be getting diagnostic or screening? And do we sequence MRI with mammograms for everybody or just for certain patients? And then some patients will say, "Well, my doctor does an ultrasound to mammogram." We don't do that for screening. When do you recommend that? Dr. Diana Lam: We do know that compared to people without a personal history of breast cancer, surveillance mammography is actually less sensitive. It's only about 70% versus 87% or so percent sensitive with over four times more interval cancers or cancers diagnosed after a negative surveillance mammogram compared to the general screening population without a personal history of breast cancer. In addition, about 35% of invasive second breast cancers are actually interval cancers or those not detected by surveillance mammography. However, there is currently no guideline consensus on supplemental breast imaging or additional imaging beyond surveillance mammography. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is most often recommended, particularly for patients who are already at high risk for breast cancer, such as those with genetic mutations, or patients who have had primary breast cancer diagnosed at a younger age to less than 50 years old, or those patients who have dense breast tissue on mammography. There is a question about whole breast ultrasound and this is generally not specified or recommended unless the patient is unable to undergo breast MRI. This is primarily due to the number of false positive examinations or findings that are seen that do not amount to breast cancer. We do have the opportunity here to tailor surveillance imaging by selecting people who are at high risk for interval second breast cancers in order to decrease harms and improve patient outcomes. We know that there are a number of factors such as primary breast cancer subtype which affects second breast cancer risk. We know that women who have ER negative and/or hormonal negative breast cancers have significantly higher recurrence rates within the five years of treatment with no significant difference after that 5 years. We also know that there are certain factors such as imaging factors where patients are more likely to develop an interval second cancer with mammography surveillance only. And these are factors such as if their primary breast cancer was hormone negative, if they had an interval presentation to start, or if they had breast conservation without radiation therapy. So, in terms of the future of local breast imaging surveillance, this can be improved with upfront risk prediction and stratification based on the patient, primary breast cancer and treatment factors, as well as looking at imaging test performance to optimally guide the modality and frequency of surveillance imaging. Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting. Well, thank you all three of you for sharing your valuable insights. This has been so interesting and a great addition to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I would encourage everyone to actually read the article as well because there's some really great tables and interesting information there that of course we don't have time to cover, but thank you, all three of you. Dr. Diana Lam: Thank you. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you for having us. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to the article that you can read and look at and cut out the tables discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I encourage all of our listeners also to check out the 2024 ASCO Educational Book where there is an incredible wealth of useful information. Finally, if you value the insights that you've heard today and here on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks again.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx
Dr. Diana Lam: No relationships to disclose
Dr. Sherry Shen: Honoraria: MJH Life Sciences Research Funding (Inst.): Merck, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Mitchell Elliott: No relationships to disclose | |||
| Putting Patients First: Common Sense in Cancer Care | 18 Jul 2024 | 00:25:45 | |
Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Christopher Booth discuss Common Sense Oncology, a global initiative that aims to advance patient-centered, equitable care and improve access to treatments that provide meaningful outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nate Pennell: Hello. I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, your guest host today for the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center, and I also serve as the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. My guest today is Dr. Christopher Booth, a professor of oncology and health sciences at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, where he also serves as the director of the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology. He joins me today to discuss his recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, "Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes that Matter." Dr. Booth also addressed this topic during a joint ASCO/European Cancer Organization session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Booth, welcome. Thanks for joining me. Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks for inviting me here, and I look forward to our conversation. Dr. Nate Pennell: In your article in the Educational Book, and again, thank you so much to you and your co-authors for writing that for us, and during your presentation at the ASCO Annual Meeting, I think your topic really resonated with a lot of people. You explained that the essence of oncology is delivering compassionate care, and I really was struck by the statement, "the treatments need to provide meaningful care, meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter regardless of where the patients live." Can you just tell us what exactly is Common Sense Oncology? What's your vision for what it can do to help address some of our growing challenges today? Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks, Nate. So, the Common Sense Oncology initiative was launched just over a year ago, and it really was a grassroots gathering of clinicians, policymakers, academics, as well as patients and patient advocates who recognize that there's many things we do well in the current cancer care system, but there's also areas that we can improve. And so it was created as a space for us to advocate for greater access for the things that we know really help people, but also to create a space where we can be willing to have some tough conversations and some humility and look within our field at some of the things that maybe aren't working as well as they should, and try to be constructive and not just be critics of the system, but actually be solution-focused and to try to move things forward. The Common Sense Oncology initiative, which has really taken off over the last year, really brings together people from all health systems who care deeply about people and their families who are with cancer. And our mission is that cancer care systems deliver treatments that have outcomes that matter to patients. And the vision is that, as you stated in your introduction, regardless of where someone lives, they have access to those cancer treatments which really do make a difference in their lives. Dr. Nate Pennell: That certainly sounds like something everyone should be behind. Before we talk about some of what Common Sense Oncology may be doing to help address some of the inequities in cancer care, one of the challenges that is addressed in your paper is the focus on modern clinical trials and perhaps some of the mistakes that we're making in how they are designed. In many ways, we sort of live in a golden age of clinical trials with biomarker driven treatments, which can be incredibly effective in small populations of people, sometimes at great expense. So, focusing on our modern clinical trials, some of the criticisms that have arisen are that perhaps the endpoints that are being designed really aren't ones that are meaningful for patients, or that the gains that they're trying to look for in these trials may not be particularly meaningful. So, talk a little bit about that, if you might. Dr. Christopher Booth One day, I might write a book called Paradoxes in Cancer Care. But there's a number of these things I think about. I'll start, Nate, in response to your question by talking about something I think of called the 'three buckets paradox.' The three buckets paradox, I think, reflects a communication failure on the part of our field whereby if a patient or member of the public only reads the newspapers about cancer, they might wonder why we even have cancer hospitals and why Dr. Pennell and Dr. Booth even have a job, because everything we're doing is curing cancer. But we know the reality is different. And so, I conceptualize cancer treatments as going into three different buckets. We have the red bucket, which are those treatments, which really are transformational, and I've been working in oncology for 20 years now and we've seen a number of these treatments. They markedly increase cure rates or help people live for many, many months or extra years of life. And we have those treatments; they're almost out of a science fiction movie. The green bucket is a series of treatments. They're not perhaps transformational, but they're very, very good. They offer substantial benefits to our patients, and we have quite a few of those. The concern that I think many of us recognize, and just to state emphatically that the problems that CSO is thinking about are not new problems; I think every oncologist has struggled with these things throughout each of our own careers. The concern is the third bucket, which includes many of our newer treatments, some of which, of course, are transformational. But many of the new treatments fall into this bucket, which have important side effects. They have major financial toxicity for patients' families and the system. They have time toxicity, especially in the last year of life. And the reality is most of these new treatments, either there's no proven benefit they help people live longer or better lives, or if they do, it's measured in a number of weeks. I think we need to reconcile the fact that we need to maybe speak honestly about some of the challenges in our field to recognize there's probably too many treatments going into that last bucket, and we need to push harder in the research ecosystem and the policy space to ensure we have more treatments in the first two buckets and that they remain widely available to everyone. So, to get to the specific issues you raised in your question, Nate, some of the effect sizes and the endpoints we're choosing are problematic, I think. We have many, many examples of incredible clinical trials and new treatments that really make a difference for the lives of our patients. I want to state emphatically that the RCT remains the best tool we have to identify new treatments for patients of tomorrow, and any challenges with clinical trials, actually, it's not the fault of the RCT; these are self-inflicted by us who design, interpret, and act on clinical trials. And so the use of surrogate endpoints is a major issue in our field. And I just want to also state emphatically that there are circumstances where surrogate endpoints make a lot of sense and we should be using them. The problem is, I think with our excitement to get treatment answers more quickly, we've really embraced surrogate endpoints in a very, very rapid way. And in fact, I shouldn't even refer to them as surrogate endpoints. Maybe we should use the term alternative endpoints because in many cases they have been found to not be valid surrogates for those things which we know matter to patients: overall survival and quality of life. So certainly, there's a place for surrogate endpoints. I think we live in an era now where the majority of clinical trials are being designed to detect improvements in progression-free survival rather than overall survival. So historically, most clinical trials were being launched to see if we could help people live longer or feel better. Now, the default endpoint is progression-free survival, which largely is based on tumor measurements on a CAT scan. And certainly, there are circumstances where those tumor measurements do relate to how someone feels or how long they live, but in most circumstances, that's not the case. I think we need to take a step back and just see the big picture here about where it is that we're going, and how can we raise the bar and ensure that we're identifying treatments that really offer meaningful gains to patients. Because we have to be honest about the fact that the patients and families are the ones who need to live through the side effects, the time toxicity and financial toxicity of these treatments. So, this is about maybe raising the bar and aiming a bit higher than we currently are. Dr. Nate Pennell: And it looks like CSO basically is putting together teams around evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication that I guess, is trying to advocate and influence this? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah. So, when we launched this initiative, which now is this large global coalition of people, we wanted it to be really solution focused. So, our workstream is oriented around trying to improve how we generate evidence, how we interpret evidence, and how we communicate evidence. So, the evidence generation workstream is being led by a series of leading clinical trialists from all over the world, together with patients and patient advocates who are looking at how we can come up with a framework and principles to design, perhaps a more thoughtful approach to the design, reporting, and conduct of clinical trials. So that's kind of a clinical trials workstream. And I should mention all of these project teams are populated by clinicians, academics, members of the public, as well as patient and patient advocates who, in some cases, are co-leaders of the workstreams. The evidence interpretation workstream is an educational bucket being led by clinicians and educators, together with patients, to see how we can improve the skill set of the next generation of oncologists to be better equipped in skills and epidemiology, critical appraisal, and critical thinking, so we can better dissect trials which have been well designed from those which might have some limitations, identify those treatments which have very substantial gains from those which are perhaps more marginal. And then the third workstream relates to how we communicate evidence. And this is communication broadly, how we talk about these very complex and nuanced issues at the bedside between oncologist and patient. But how we talk more broadly in society, through the media, with public and policy makers, about some of the challenges in cancer care, recognizing, of course, that no one individual, group or person is going to have the answer for what treatments matter for any specific patient. This is going to vary by every patient with their unique values, preferences and goals in life. But we think we can do a better job of talking about these issues and empowering patients to have the information they need so they can make the treatments that match their own goals and wishes. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thank you. Another thing that I was interested in in your paper, and when we talk about value and whether these endpoints that are being released for drugs that become approved are meaningful to patients, the other aspect of value is, of course, the cost. And we know that basically every new drug that gets approved, just an astronomical cost these days, which doesn't often factor into whether to approve them. It doesn't often factor into a doctor's decision about whether to use them. Can you talk a little bit about this? And is cost of drugs something that CSO is interested in addressing, or is that more of just a part of the equation in determining value of these? Dr. Christopher Booth: No, I think it's a really important point. So the value construct, I'm not an economist, so I think about this as a simple Canadian chemotherapy doctor would, which is the interface of what you get - so the magnitude of benefits, that's the endpoint, and the effect size - relative to the downsides, the cost, the clinical toxicity, time toxicity, and financial toxicity. So historically, I mean, I think, Nate, you and I will remember maybe 10 or 15 years ago when this really came on the scene, all the conversations focused on the denominator, the cost of cancer medicines, which became astronomical over the last 10 or 20 years. And we've learned a few things about that over time, and I'll get to that in a moment in reference to your question. But I think as individual clinicians or investigators, or even people writing guidelines, we don't have a lot of ability to influence the price of cancer medicines, although I think we still need to speak out about these prices, which are largely unjustified. I'll come back to that. But where I think there's growing interest, and we've seen this in the last five years, is the numerator in that value construct, which is the magnitude of benefit, the endpoint, the effect size. And I think that's where we actually have much more ability to influence. We are the doctors who make treatment recommendations, the experts who write guidelines, the investigators who design trials and so I think we need to take a bit more ownership when it comes to this magnitude of benefit construct. And that's where a lot of the work that Common Sense Oncology is doing rests. But to answer your question about cost, this is a major problem. We've known that it's been shown by several groups that the price of a cancer medicine is not justified by the R and D cost, that's been shown over time. We also have a problem where the magnitude of benefit offered by that drug also has no bearing to the price. And so this speaks to the need to really, I think, undertake more rigorous health technology assessment and think very carefully about- you know every other economic model that you and I live in, Nate, if, you know, if we have a growing family, we need a larger apartment or house, we spend more money, we get a bigger house. If we want to keep up with our kids on their fast bicycles, we spend more money, we get a better bicycle. And when it comes to cancer medicines, we found that not only is there no relationship between how well the drug works and its price, our group and others have found, if anything, there's an inverse relationship, whereby the drugs with the smallest benefit have the largest price tag. And I don't think you need a PhD in economics to know that is an incredibly broken system. So, I think there's a lot that we need to talk about when it comes to cost. Common Sense Oncology cares deeply about this because it's a huge issue about health justice and global equity and access to cancer medicines. And I think we need to work on that. But we also can't forget about the numerator, which is, to what extent do these treatments help people? Dr. Nate Pennell: I know that every time I see one of these fabulous new presentations at ASCO Plenary or something like that, I just imagine many of the doctors and patients who live outside the U.S., maybe in low- and middle-income countries, who don't have the same access to basic oncology care and specialty oncology care that we do in Western countries, and what goes through their minds when they think about this. And so, I know that this is another big part of what CSO is doing, is thinking about global equity and access to cancer care. And so, can you tell me a little bit about how you're hoping to address that? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah. And so, you're right. I guess I'll tell you another Booth cancer paradox. I call this the cancer medicine paradox, which is, on the one hand, in many health systems, I think we'll recognize that there's often overutilization of cancer medicines that are toxic, expensive, and small benefits, especially in the last year of life. So, we have that kind of overutilization paradigm in some parts of the world, but we also have this paradox where we have massive underutilization of those treatments that we know actually have large benefits. And the tragic part of this is many of those treatments are old, generic drugs that actually should be very affordable. Some of this work comes out of myself and a number of my founding colleagues of Common Sense Oncology have a policy role with the World Health Organization Essential Medicine list. My interest in this started, I guess, many years ago when I had a sabbatical in India and lived and worked at a large government cancer hospital for a period of time. And so, from this WHO working group, we launched a project. It's been called the Desert Island study. It was called the Desert Island Project for reasons I'll tell you in a moment. But essentially it was a survey of 1,000 oncologists on the frontlines of care in 82 countries worldwide. And what we are interested in doing is in our role as an advisory group to the WHO Essential Medicine List, we come up with a list of those medicines which are really most important and should be provided in all health systems. And we were interested in going to the frontlines of care, leaving the boardroom of Geneva, and going to the frontlines of care and asking real doctors in the real world, "What medicines do you think are the most important for the patients that you look after?"
So, it was a survey. We asked a lot of demographic questions about their clinical practice and their health system, but we called it the Desert Island Project, because the core question of the survey was based on the thought experiment that you and I have done many times with friends at dinner parties. For example, if you're moving to a desert island and you could only take three books, what would those books be? If you're going to have dinner with any famous podcast host in the world other than Dr. Pennell, who would that person be? And so the thought experiment was, imagine your government has put you in charge of cancer care for your country. You can choose any cancer medicines you want that will be freely available for all cancers and all people in your country. Cost is not an issue, but you can only choose 10. You can only choose 10 of those medicines to take to the desert island to look after all the people in your country, what would those medicines be? And it's amazing; of those thousand oncologists, we found, first of all, remarkable convergence between doctors, regardless of where they work, whether it was a high-income country, middle-income country, lower-income country, the doctors were very pragmatic. When we looked at the drugs that went in that suitcase over and over again, the most common drugs were the good old fashioned cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs and hormone drugs we've been using for 20 or 30 years that we know have very, very large benefits, and in the modern era now should be very affordable because they've been off patent for many years.
In that list of medicines that went to the desert island, there also were some of our newer drugs that are new and they're very expensive. But they are those drugs that have very large benefits. And, of course, all of us would want access to those for our patients. So we found that the doctors are pretty pragmatic about which medicines if they're pushed to offer the largest benefit. But the next part of the question was, okay, you've told us which medicines you want to put in your suitcase to take to the desert island, please now tell us the reality in your health system to what extent can you deliver these medicines? And it was shocking. The vast majority of oncologists, a huge number of them, said they could not even provide doxorubicin or cisplatin without causing major financial toxicity for that patient and family. Even for trastuzumab, now available as a biosimilar, only 15% of oncologists globally said they could provide it universally to all women with breast cancer. Two thirds of oncologists said, "Look, I can give it, but I will catastrophically ruin that patient's family's finances for generations to come." So, we have a big problem in the sense that we need to focus on those treatments which make a big difference and ensure that they're available to all patients who could benefit, while at the same time raise the bar so that the modern treatments that we're offering also have large benefits. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that's really eye opening, and I hope lots of people take away from this, that this is the reality for a huge number, potentially billions of people on the planet that don't have easy access to the same kinds of drugs. We're not even necessarily talking about the expensive drugs with the three-week DFS benefit, but ones that actually could be curing them of their breast cancer and their testicular cancer and their lymphomas, and they can't even get access to those, even though here we might say that they're inexpensive and relatively accessible. So how do we fix that? Maybe this is too big a question for a few minutes in a podcast, but I'm curious to see what CSO is doing to try to help. Dr. Christopher Booth: Well, the challenges are substantial, and so that's why we've kind of created this group, because it's going to require kind of collective input, I think, of everyone in our field and beyond. And I also think, one of the reasons we've been overwhelmed with interest by the next generation, the young, the trainees, the young oncologists who are very interested in this, and I think they're recognizing that this might be an alternative place for them to put their energy, talent, as they build their own academic careers, is tackling some of these really, really tricky problems where the solutions are not immediately obvious. One thing I think, Nate, that's important is for us to talk about these things and recognize that there's a range of cancer treatments, and that this might help set better expectations for the patients and families when they walk into our cancer centers, let alone in the U.S. and Canada, but also globally. We've seen challenges with all of us as human beings are technophiles, we're drawn towards the new shiny targeted therapy or a robot or treatment in cancer care, and we've seen that play out somewhat tragically. Some of my friends and colleagues in LMICs have told stories where the Minister of Health is about to make a major investment in cancer care, but they want the shiny new monoclonal antibody, because that's perceived as being newer and better, when the reality is that that might add two months of PFS compared to other agents that are much, much- have much larger benefits and, of course, are much more affordable. And there's modeling where even just one of these new medicines, for one cancer, would wipe out the entire cancer medicine budget for that country. Yet we don't have tamoxifen, doxorubicin, cisplatin or even morphine for palliative care available. So, some of this is about socializing these issues, talking about these things that, again, these are not new problems. I think every oncologist worldwide has wrestled with these things, but just at least creating a space where we can talk honestly about this and work towards solutions. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I think even just having the framework and the awareness and getting people involved is going to make a big difference. And of course, the people who ultimately are impacted the most by this are the patients with cancer. One of the big aspects in your paper is talking about how patients and patient advocates are central to the CSO movement. So, tell me a little bit about how they became involved and what role they play in CSO. Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah, so this has been a very intentional and deliberate part of the building of the Common Sense Oncology initiative. So this started with a planning meeting of- a very small planning meeting of 30 people in Kingston, here at Queen's University just over a year ago, with 30 people from 15 different countries, a mix of academics, clinicians, editors, and in that room were five or six patients and patient advocates from day 1, because we wanted to make sure that this is really all about their needs and creating a system that revolves around the outcomes that matter to patients and families. So since then, we've continued to engage broadly. We have a patient priorities project team. There's co-leadership there. One is a colleague and oncologist from New Zealand, but the other co-leader is a patient advocate from- a breast cancer patient advocate from the United States. And all of our project teams have patients and patient advocates as part of their membership. The Patient Priorities Team is working to design a patient charter to guide the design and implementation of clinical trials from the patient's perspective. And as part of that exercise we've been undertaking, we call the CSO speaking and listening tour, where we've had a series of webinars with patient advocacy groups from all over the world, where part of the webinar is us talking about the CSO mission vision, workstream and some of the challenges and solutions we see so that we can provide some education, but also get honest feedback from the front lines to learn kind of where we might be off, what we might be missing, what we should focus on. But then also, the second part of the webinar is about sharing this kind of draft patient charter and getting more broad input from patients and families about what it is they're looking for in a cancer system. And I can tell you that some of the most gratifying correspondence I've had since launching CSO, which has been essentially become my third full time job, is letters from patients and family members of former patients who have since deceased or active patients on treatment, who are saying how much they appreciate this work and how much they feel that oncology can perhaps do a better job talking about some of these things. And they've been giving us some very good ideas and suggestions that, in fact, I'm already incorporating into my clinical practice, because ultimately all of us came into this field to help people with cancer, and I think they can and should and are remaining the center of everything. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think, thankfully, that is a movement throughout medicine, certainly cancer medicine, that patients are becoming more involved much earlier in the process of designing trials. And hopefully that alone will help change the endpoints that we're building into these studies to make them much more meaningful. So, people are going to read your paper, they're going to get excited, they're going to listen to this podcast, they're going to get even more excited about how they're going to change the world through a little more common sense. So how can they get involved? Is this something that you're open to people working with you? Are there other things people can do to try to help solve some of these frustrating problems? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah, absolutely, Nate. So, we have a website at commonsenseoncology.org. Some of our co-leaders are very active on social media, so they can follow us through social media channels. If you go to our website, there is a membership button where people can join. There's no fee and we won't bombard you with too many emails. But what that has allowed us to do is build this network of people who have diverse interests and skill sets that we can then tap into various projects and workstreams where we could use the help and support. And members have access to things like virtual webinars, journal clubs, critical appraisal sessions, and they get a newsletter from us every two or three months about activities and about ideas and allow exchange of dialogue going back and forth. So certainly, we look forward to growing this initiative, and the challenges are large, but we think that with the collective input of stakeholders from around the world, we could make a difference in moving towards some solutions. Dr. Nate Pennell: And for our listeners, that is commonsenseoncology.org. You can go check this out and join if you are interested in learning more. Chris, thanks so much for sharing your insights and for all of your work on addressing these complex challenges in cancer care. Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks, Nate. Grateful for the interview and also for ASCO for giving us the opportunity in the Educational Book and at the Annual Meeting to talk about this work. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thank you. And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the article discussed today, as well as Dr. Booth's presentation at the Annual Meeting, in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. Nathan Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi
Dr. Christopher Booth: No relationships to disclose | |||
| An Era of Promise for Cancer Vaccines | 11 Jul 2024 | 00:19:21 | |
Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Lillian Siu discuss recent advances in cancer vaccines and biomarkers, including the potential of the neoantigen and immune modulatory vaccines and the challenges surrounding cancer vaccine development. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, I'm Dr. Pedro Barata, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a GU medical oncologist at the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. And today we'll be discussing a timely article that was recently published in the Educational Book titled, "State-Of-The-Art Advancements on Cancer Vaccines and Biomarkers." I'm delighted to welcome one of the article's co-authors and a world-renowned oncologist, Dr. Lillian Siu. She is a senior medical oncologist and director of the Phase 1 Program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. Welcome, Dr. Siu. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you, Dr. Barata; it's great to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Dr. Siu will discuss new tools for cancer vaccine development, strategies for combating the immunosuppressive and tumor microenvironment. She will also address cancer vaccine guidelines and patient recruitment strategies to optimize patient selection and access to cancer vaccine trials. I should say that Dr. Siu and her co-authors also addressed this topic during an Education Session at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting. Finally, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. So again, Dr. Siu, great to be speaking with you today. I'm looking forward to our discussion. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you, Dr. Barata. And before I begin, I want to acknowledge Dr. Jeffrey Weber and Dr. Inge Marie Svane, who both presented during the ASCO session you mentioned. They gave excellent presentations related to the topic of neoantigen vaccines and immune-modulatory vaccines, which we will talk about later. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. So let's get started. Cancer vaccines are among the most promising frontiers for breakthrough innovations and new strategies in the fight against cancer. The successes in vaccine development during the COVID-19 pandemic, I think, inspired further research in this area. Why do you think it's important that we harness these recent successes and technological advances to really accelerate progress in vaccine development? Dr. Lillian Siu: Absolutely. I think all of us who have lived through COVID really appreciated how important the COVID vaccine development was to all of us. It saved millions of lives. And I think we witnessed a paradigm change in drug development that none of us thought was possible, that we're able to actually bring a concept to a drug from bench to bedside within an extremely short time. That timeline is not something we would ever imagine to have happened, and it did. And I think it gives us hope that perhaps this is not just limited to the COVID vaccine; it's also extrapolatable to other therapeutics – that we can bring promising medicines to our patients in a really expedited timeline, obviously without compromising their safety. We now know that cancer vaccines have entered a new, or maybe I should say, renewed era of promise. And it's holding promise on many fronts, Pedro, if I may. It's very exciting in the area of molecular residual disease. In other words, a setting where the cancer is treated definitively by surgery or radiation, plus adjuvant treatment. And we know some patients will relapse because we know they're at high risk. And now we also have different ways to detect these microscopic risks, such as by ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA, or biomarkers. And we know that having some therapeutic that can eradicate these cancers at such microscopic levels would be very attractive, especially with low toxicity, and I think cancer vaccine is such a candidate. And of course, we can even look further into the future of using such treatment in cancer prevention, especially in those with high risk of developing cancer, for example, those with hereditary syndromes like lynch syndrome. We're not there yet, but I think it holds that promise. So I think, going back to your original question, if we can develop such a therapeutic that is showing promise in a very short period of time, it brings the timeline and the hope to a much shorter timeframe to really deliver to our patients in a very timely manner while safeguarding all the important parts, such as safety and tolerability. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wow, those are such important points. I couldn't agree with you, more. It's really exciting. As I think through this, and as I was reading through your piece, I was thinking it would be great if you could highlight some of the novel approaches to personalized neoantigen vaccine development that are driving progress in this space. Dr. Lillian Siu: Absolutely. And during the session, Dr. Weber spoke about the neoantigen vaccine, and he's a pioneer in this space. So I can only try to iterate some of the points he had delivered during his talk. Neoantigen is a very exciting space for immunologists because we know that tumors express these neoantigens. Many of these are unique antigens that are only expressed in tumors, so-called tumor specific antigens, that we can use as our targets, including vaccines, but not limited to vaccines. And with these altered sequences in DNA in different forms, they could be mutations and splice alterations, etc. We expect that we have modified proteins that are expressed by tumor cells, and these become targets for our drug development of vaccines. And now we can have very specific strategies, very sophisticated algorithms to figure out which neoantigens are more so called immunogenic, more likely to stimulate or activate the immune system, and they can be recognized by T cells. So leveraging this knowledge and technology, we have been able to develop especially mRNA vaccines that are deliverable to our patients through different mechanisms, for example, in lipopeptides, etc., so that we can deliver to the patients in a safe way, such that we can use it to deliver vaccines, such as in the MRD setting that I mentioned earlier, as well as in the advanced disease setting. So Dr. Weber, in his presentation, highlighted one of such vaccines that have been tested in a randomized controlled trial that is KEYNOTE-942, which randomized 157 patients to the mRNA vaccine plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. This is a vaccine against 34 mutated neoantigens, and it showed a significant difference in the recurrence free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.56. And if you look at the 18-month relapse free survival rate, it was 78.6% versus 62.2%. Obviously, these are still fairly early data and numbers are still small. I think we would definitely look forward to the randomized phase 3 study of neoantigen vaccine in melanoma and other cancers. Dr. Pedro Barata: No, absolutely. And I agree, it's really exciting. Dr. Weber did a fantastic job going through some of that data. So let me ask you Dr. Siu, as you think about this cancer vaccine field, what are the limitations that you'd highlight when you think about cancer vaccine development? What challenges do you encounter, obstacles do you encounter? Dr. Lillian Siu: There are many, many potential challenges. And to some extent, that's probably why cancer vaccine development has been somewhat slow for the many decades until more recently. We know first of all; the target has to be recognized. So we need immunogenic targets. So I think a lot of the effort has been put into trying to understand which antigens expressed by cancer cells are immunogenic, able to activate the immune system. They're obviously assay based methods. You're going to try and see if you can ex vivo stimulate immune cells on dishes and models, etc. But we need to also develop in silico computerized algorithms, and now with AI, I think that makes it even more tangible and exciting that we can actually understand through a large number of neoantigens or other antigens, whether we can choose the ones that are most likely going to actually stimulate T cells to be activated. And I think that is one area that there is a lot of interest in development, how to really develop ways to select out the most attractive antigens. I would also want to highlight that the platforms, which is how we deliver the vaccine, can also pose significant challenges. For example, vaccines can be delivered using peptide-based formulation, cell-based formulation, nucleic acids and viral vectors. For some of these formulations, for example, the peptides very often are restricted to HLA. They can be rapidly degraded in the body, such that they become not really visible to the T cells anymore. Some of the formulations can be very complex. For example, the cell-base; it may need to have cells isolated from patients, cultured, stored and transported to the site of delivery, which can be very complex. For some of the nucleic acid vaccines, they can have very low transfection efficiency. It could be at risk for also having, for example, DNA vaccines integrated into the host genome. And then lastly, there's also the immune suppressive environment in the TME, such that it does not really have the effect when you give it repeatedly. It becomes attenuated and no longer effective. So these are some of the challenges associated with cancer vaccines. Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you for that summary. I think it's really important for folks out there, including researchers getting into this field, to be aware of potential obstacles they might encounter. So let me ask you the opposite question as we see more compelling preclinical and clinical data emerging in this field of vaccine development, what is really exciting you the most about the newest technologies that are shaping the future of cancer vaccines, in your opinion? Dr. Lillian Siu: I think one I want to highlight is the immune-modulatory vaccine that Dr. Svane, Dr. Inge Marie Svane had presented during the presentation at ASCO. This is a completely different strategy from the neoantigen vaccine. It targets antigens in the tumor microenvironment. And we know that in the tumor microenvironment, we have tumor cells, we have immune cells, and there are many types of cell types, including, for example, macrophages, cancer associated fibroblasts, regulatory T cells, etc. And using these particular cell types, we know that we can really develop vaccines that can stimulate the body's immune system to attenuate, to downgrade some of the negative factors in the tumor microenvironment. And this is what Dr. Svane and her group is trying to do. For example, they have an IDO vaccine that is able to actually target these antigens in the tumor microenvironment, and by that, not just suppressing the negative forces, so to speak, but also activate T cells to help attack cancer cells. I think that's a very interesting area. Very early promise has been seen already in non-small cell lung cancer in early phase trials using the immune-modulatory vaccine. But going back to your question, what kind of advances; I mentioned earlier about having novel ways to select our antigens that are most immunogenic. There are many algorithms that are being developed, and I think we can try and leverage that kind of knowledge from artificial intelligence, machine learning. So I think that's definitely very exciting. There are also new vaccine platforms coming out. For example, there's recent data using modification of peptides, so called amphiphile vaccines, that already show very early promise in colorectal cancer, microsatellite status, colorectal cancer, as well as in pancreatic cancer in the molecular residual disease setting, where these long peptide vaccines targeting KRAS mutants together with adjuvant oligonucleotide DNA, combined together, can actually be given to patients and reduce the chance of cancer relapse in patients with resected colorectal cancer, as well as pancreatic cancer, with endpoints such as ctDNA or biomarker being downregulated. I think that's a very exciting example. Another very exciting example is cell-based vaccines that are being developed in Europe by the NKI Netherlands Cancer Institute Group, where they are looking at plasmacytoid dendritic cells that are loaded with peptides from different tumor associated antigens and then given to patients, which, again, in non-small cell lung cancer, together with pembrolizumab, has yielded very high response rate. And we will almost certainly see more trials coming out using that particular platform with the dendritic cells. So that's just some of the examples of exciting things that are happening in the vaccine field. Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you. I'm wondering if you can share with our listeners about what really are the existing guidelines for using these new tools for discovery, methods of treatment, and perhaps optimizing patient selection to access trials. Dr. Lillian Siu: To be honest, the latest guideline that was published from the FDA that I can find is almost 13 years ago in 2011. So I think it is time for a new guidance, or at least a draft guidance, to give some additional support and guidance in terms of what to do with these new treatments from the FDA and perhaps other regulatory agencies as well. I think we're now entering a very exciting time that cancer vaccines are no longer an ineffective therapeutic. It is now showing evidence of efficacy, not just in the advanced setting, but also in the molecular residual disease setting. There're so many questions to be answered, like how to develop these trials in early disease; what's the end point? Can we incorporate them into the neoadjuvant setting, and if so, how do we give these drugs before surgery, and do we give them maintenance after surgery? I think guidance from the regulatory authorities would be extremely helpful and informative to guide academic groups as well as the pharmaceutical sector to develop these agents in the right way. Dr. Pedro Barata: Dr. Siu, this is a fantastic summary, and we certainly are on the cusp of a new dawn of discovery and development in cancer vaccines, and super interesting to hear from you talking about it. Before letting you go, do you have any final thoughts that you'd like to share with the listeners, with all of us about this topic? Dr. Lillian Siu: I think as a drug developer like you are, I'm extremely excited because we now have yet another way to leverage the host immunity as a cancer therapeutic, and it is going to be opening a new door to combination therapy because we can imagine combining these treatments with other immunotherapeutics such as bispecific molecules such as CAR Ts and even vaccine plus vaccine combination is feasible. That came up actually during the session as a question from the audience. Can we combine neoantigen vaccines and immune-modulatory vaccines together? And both of our speakers who presented felt that it was possible. Obviously, we have to understand the sequence question and the endpoints question, but the fact that it opens a new door to combinatorial therapy, not just with immunotherapeutics, but perhaps with other therapeutics as well, antibody drug conjugates, etc., really, I think, is very exciting for this field to become further explored. I mentioned earlier in the podcast that the whole area of cancer prevention is something that we have not been tapping into for the last decade with vaccines because it has not been very effective. Viral vaccines, of course, HPV and other vaccines targeting viruses, but targeting cancer cells is not something we have been successful using vaccines to prevent cancer from developing. I think we would be very interested to see if this will become a reality in the next decade. I think we would start off with patients with high risk of developing cancers such as, as I mentioned earlier, those with lynch syndrome, those harboring BRCA alterations, for example. Can we use these vaccines to actually prevent the cancers from developing in such high-risk individuals? I think the field is definitely open to that consideration. Dr. Pedro Barata: Definitely. And I'd like to thank you, Dr. Siu, for sharing these great insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Lillian Siu: Thank you so much for your time. Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to all the listeners for your time today. You'll find a link to the article discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and I encourage you to check out the 2024 ASCO Educational Book. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So again, thank you so much for your time and see you soon.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Pedro Barata: Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau (Inst): Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Blueearth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck
Dr. Lillian Siu: Leadership (Immediate family member): Treadwell Therapeutics Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate family member): Agios Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Voronoi Inc., Oncorus, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Arvinas, Navire, Janpix, Relay Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Janssen, Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Shattuck Labs, Symphogen, Avid, Mirati Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Amgen | |||
| GU Oncology Highlights From ASCO24 | 27 Jun 2024 | 00:34:54 | |
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Rana McKay discuss promising studies in GU cancers featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that highlighted improved outcomes in urothelial carcinoma, improved survival in renal cell carcinoma, and the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker for predicting outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program, a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Rana McKay, a GU medical oncologist and associate professor at the University of California San Diego. Today, we'll be discussing some key GU abstracts featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Rana, we're thrilled to have you on the podcast today to share your insights on key advances in GU oncology from ASCO24. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you so much, Neeraj; it's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Rana, let's start with some bladder cancer abstracts. Could you tell us about Abstract 4503, titled "Impact of exposure on outcomes with enfortumab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer"? Dr. Rana McKay: Of course, I would be delighted to. First, I would like to remind our listeners that enfortumab vedotin (EV) was approved as a monotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer based on the results of EV-201 and EV-301 trials. In these pivotal studies, EV was initiated at a dose of 1.25 mg/kg, and dose modifications, such as reductions and interruptions, were used to manage adverse events. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Daniel Petrylak and colleagues conducted a post-hoc exploratory analysis to evaluate the association between EV plasma exposure and outcomes. They used multiple pharmacokinetic samples collected during the first two cycles and pre-dose samples from 3 EV monotherapy studies, namely EV-101, EV-201, and EV-301, that were conducted in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Dose reductions to 1 mg/kg were required in 42.1% and 35.1% of patients in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively, and reductions to 0.75 mg/kg were required in 13.6% and 11.1% in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively. Higher EV exposure during the first two cycles was associated with a higher objective response rate. The ORR was 21.4% for the dose of 0.75 mg/kg, while it was 18.5% for the dose of 1.0 mg/kg. Interestingly, increasing the dosage to 1.25 mg/kg improved the ORR, which ranged from 40 to 51.1% across various studies. In the EV-301 trial, when comparing the efficacy of EV to chemotherapy, EV improved PFS and OS across all dose quartiles, and there was no evidence that recommended dose modifications impacted long-term efficacy outcomes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Rana, for this great summary. I would like to add that the meticulously conducted pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated that serum levels of EV correlated with responses. Importantly, patients who had to decrease the dose did not experience compromised outcomes as EV improved PFS and OS outcomes vs chemotherapy in across all exposure quartiles in the EV-301 trial where EV was compared with chemotherapy. These findings highlight the need to start at the recommended dose of 1.25 mg/kg and reduce it, if necessary, however, clinicians should not start at a lower dose. Dr. Rana McKay: I totally agree with you, Neeraj. Now, moving on to a different setting in bladder cancer, what can you tell us about LBA4517, titled "Perioperative sacituzumab govitecan alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer: SURE-01/02 interim results"? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! So, SURE was a multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer assessing sacituzumab govitecan as a neoadjuvant therapy either alone in SURE-01 or as a combination with pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembro in SURE-02 in a flexible design allowing a bladder-sparing approach. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Antonio Cigliola and colleagues report interim results of the SURE-01 study. Patients with cT2-4N0M0 urothelial carcinoma who were ineligible for or refused cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy were planned to receive 4 cycles of neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan at a dose of 10 mg/kg followed by radical cystectomy. An extensive assessment was performed at baseline and after the 4 cycles for response assessment. Patients with clinical complete response defined with negative MRI, cystoscopy and ctDNA assays refusing radical cystectomy were offered redo transurethral resection of the bladder tumor or repeat TURBT followed by observation in the absence of viable high-grade tumor in the bladder. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, while secondary endpoints included pathological downstaging rate and safety. After the first 8 patients were enrolled, the protocol was amended due to the occurrence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and diarrhea in 75% and 50% of patients, respectively, and 2 deaths – one of which was deemed to be treatment-related due to sepsis. Key protocol changes included the reduction of the dose of sacituzumab govitecan to 7.5 mg/kg, the introduction of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, and the exclusion of patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia per ASCO guidelines. Among 21 patients who received at least one cycle of sacituzumab govitecan and included in the intention-to-treat population, 47.6% had a complete pathological response, and 52.4% had pathological downstaging. 11 patients underwent radical cystectomy, while 7 received repeat-TURBT due to complete clinical response or patient preference. Regarding the safety profile, grade 3 or more adverse events occurred in 42.5% of patients. Treatment-related adverse events leading to dose interruptions or discontinuations were more common before the protocol amendment. It is noteworthy that 3 patients died after treatment discontinuation, with one deemed treatment-related, as previously mentioned. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for a great summary. The pathological complete responses observed show promising activity for sacituzumab govitecan as a neo-adjuvant therapy and a window for bladder-sparing approaches, which is definitely exciting news for our patients! However, although the 3 deaths encountered in a neo-adjuvant setting could be concerning, the improvement of the safety profile after protocol amendments is reassuring and supports the continuation of the study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to share your insights with our listeners on Abstract 4518, titled "Quantitative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assessment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 trial"? Dr. Rana McKay: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-361 trial was a randomized phase 3 study with 3 arms that included pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. The results showed that neither the combination of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy nor pembrolizumab monotherapy improved survival outcomes compared to the chemotherapy arm. So, in this exploratory analysis presented at ASCO24, Dr. Tom Powles and colleagues sought to assess the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker between the pembrolizumab monotherapy arm and the chemotherapy arm. Tumor tissue mutations were evaluated using whole exome sequencing, and plasma ctDNA was assessed with the Guardant 360 assay. Changes in ctDNA from pre-treatment cycle 1 to on-treatment cycle 2, so 3 weeks post-baseline assessment, were quantified by the maximum variant allele frequency of tumor tissue-specific mutations. Results showed that lower baseline ctDNA levels were associated with improved clinical outcomes of response in the pembrolizumab arm but not in the chemotherapy arm. This improvement in the pembrolizumab arm was also robust to adjustment for tumor mutational burden and PD-L1. Additionally, chemotherapy led to a ctDNA clearance rate of 41% compared to 11% in the pembrolizumab arm. Patients who had a large ctDNA reduction with pembrolizumab had significantly improved outcomes compared to those achieving a large reduction with chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 0.25. However, this did not replicate in patients who did not achieve a large reduction, as these patients had similar outcomes across both arms. Let's switch gears to kidney cancer and start with Abstract 4508, reporting the final OS analysis from the JAVELIN Renal-101 trial. Neeraj, what would you like to tell us about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Well, as a quick reminder, the JAVELIN Renal-101 was a randomized phase 3 trial where patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to receive either the combination of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. In previous analyses, the combination of avelumab and axitinib significantly improved PFS compared to sunitinib and was subsequently approved by the FDA for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC in 2019. This superiority in PFS was maintained across the different analyses; however, OS data remained immature. In the abstract presented at ASCO24 by Dr. Robert Motzer from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and colleagues, the authors reported OS results at a median follow-up of around 73 months and a minimum of 68 months for all patients, which is the longest follow-up for any ICI-TKI combination in RCC. The final analysis in the overall population favored the combination of avelumab plus axitinib with a median OS of 44.8 months compared to 38.9 months with sunitinib, however, this did not reach statistical significance with a hazard ratio of 0.88. The PFS results and safety profile were consistent with previous analyses. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These new data could make this regimen less optimal than other ICI-TKI combinations in the first-line mRCC setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur, Rana. Moving on to perhaps one of the most exciting GU abstracts featured, Abstract 4506, titled "Circulating kidney injury molecule-1 biomarker analysis in IMmotion010: A randomized phase 3 study of adjuvant atezolizumab vs placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence after resection." Rana, what are your thoughts on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: Well, first, I would like to take a step back and remind our audience that in the IMmotion010 trial, patients with resected intermediate to high-risk RCC with clear cell and/or sarcomatoid component were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab or placebo. Investigator-assessed disease-free survival, which was the primary endpoint, favored the atezolizumab arm but did not reach statistical significance. In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Laurence Albiges and colleagues build on data previously reported in the ASSURE and CheckMate 914 trials and report provocative findings regarding a molecule known as kidney injury molecule 1 or KIM-1, which is a type 1 membrane glycoprotein that has been identified as a minimally invasive potential peripheral blood circulating biomarker. The KIM-1 level of 86 pg/ml was identified as the optimized threshold for defining post-nephrectomy KIM-1 high vs KIM-1 low subgroups in the IMmotion010 trial. KIM-1 levels were measured at baseline or pre-treatment, at cycle 4 day 1, and at disease recurrence or discontinuation without disease recurrence. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the KIM-1 high and KIM-1 low groups, except perhaps for a slightly higher pathological stage in the KIM-1 high subgroup. I would like to highlight 3 key takeaways from this abstract. First, KIM-1 high level was associated with significantly worse DFS with a hazard ratio of 1.75. Second, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab had a 28% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death compared to those receiving placebo, while those in the KIM-1 low subgroup had comparable outcomes across both treatment arms. Third, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab were significantly less likely to experience an on-treatment increase in KIM-1 levels, which was associated with worse DFS in both high and low KIM-1 subgroups, regardless of treatment arm. Thus, these findings support the use of KIM-1 as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients with RCC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, this is amazing data! I would like to add that these results warrant larger and, ideally, prospective studies to validate the utility of KIM-1 as a noninvasive biomarker for identifying minimal residual disease after nephrectomy and for predicting outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Rana McKay: Also, in the field of biomarkers, 2 abstracts interrogating different biomarkers in a different setting, so in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC were presented. Neeraj, could you tell us more about these abstracts? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! I think you are referring to Abstracts 4504 and 4505. In abstract 4504, Dr. Toni Choueiri and colleagues sought to assess the clinical implications of different biomarkers in the CLEAR trial, which was a randomized phase 3 trial that led to the approval of the combination of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib in the first-line mRCC setting. On the other hand, in abstract 4505, Dr. Brian Rini presented biomarker results in KEYNOTE-426, which was also a randomized phase 3 trial based on which the combination of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was approved in patients with mRCC. The authors in both trials sought to investigate the role of biomarkers in predicting treatment outcomes from 3 different angles. Starting with PD-L1 expression, the superiority of the combination arms over sunitinib was not impacted by PD-L1 status in both trials. Moving on to RCC driver gene mutations on whole exome sequencing, such as VHL, SETD2, PBRM1, and BAP1, ICI combination therapies improved outcomes regardless of mutation gene status, and this improvement was statistically significant with PBRM1 mutations in KEYNOTE-426 compared to wild-type PBRM1, but this did not replicate in the CLEAR trial. Finally, using transcriptomic signatures derived from RCC trials, especially the IMmotion 151 and JAVELIN Renal 101 trials, where 7 clusters or molecular subtypes were identified, the combination arms outperformed sunitinib in all clusters in both trials and the magnitude of this benefit differed across clusters. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you for this very interesting summary and comparison of the results of these 2 abstracts. These findings support the use of ICI-based combinations in all patients with mRCC as a first-line option. Although these abstracts could not identify specific biomarkers that could guide us clinicians in treatment selection, they provide very interesting biological insights on these molecular biomarkers that are, however, not yet clinically actionable. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very interesting point, Rana. Moving on to prostate cancer, let's start with abstract LBA5000 titled, "Cabazitaxel with abiraterone versus abiraterone alone randomized trial for extensive disease following docetaxel: The CHAARTED2 trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EA8153)." Rana, what is your takeaway on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: As a reminder to our audience, the CHAARTED2 trial was a randomized open-label phase 2 study that compared the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone to abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC previously treated with ADT plus docetaxel in the hormone-sensitive setting. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. After a median follow-up of 47.3 months, Dr. Christos Kyriakopoulos and colleagues reported in LBA5000 that patients receiving the combination of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone had a 27% reduction in the risk of progression or death. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two arms, with a median OS of 25 months in the cabazitaxel+abiraterone arm and 26.9 months in the abiraterone arm, although the study was underpowered for this endpoint. Regarding the toxicity profile, the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone was overall well tolerated with more cytopenias, as expected. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very nice summary of this abstract, Rana. I would like to add that the treatment landscape of patients with mHSPC has evolved since the design of the study and now includes combination therapies of ADT + ARPI with or without docetaxel, and ADT + docetaxel is no longer a standard of care, which limits the applicability of these results in clinical practice today. Dr. Rana McKay: Excellent point, Neeraj. Let's discuss Abstract 5001, titled "CYCLONE 2: A phase 3 study of abemaciclib with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer". Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure! In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Matthew Smith and colleagues report the primary results of the CYCLONE 2 trial, which was a randomized phase 2/3 study that investigated the combination of abemaciclib plus abiraterone versus abiraterone monotherapy in patients with mCRPC. Stratification factors included radiographic progression at study entry, presence of measurable disease, and prior docetaxel for mHSPC. Part 1 of the study established the recommended phase 2 dose of abemaciclib at 200 mg twice daily. In part 2, patients were randomized to placebo or abemaciclib, and an adaptive interim analysis using prespecified criteria was performed and recommended the expansion of the study to part 3. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival by RECIST 1.1 and PCWG3 criteria in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of the primary analysis, adding abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve rPFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.83. The median rPFS was 22 months for the combination arm and 20.3 months for the abiraterone arm. The combination was well tolerated, and the safety profile was consistent with the known adverse events. Dr. Rana McKay: So, the addition of abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve outcomes in patients with mCRPC. These findings suggest that no further investigation is warranted for abemaciclib or CDK4/6 inhibitors in biomarker-unselected patients with prostate cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Rana, what's your take-home message on Abstract 5006, titled "Health-related quality of life results from PRESTO (AFT-19), a phase 3 randomized trial of intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically relapsed castration sensitive prostate cancer"? Dr. Rana McKay: So, as a reminder to our audience, the PRESTO trial was a randomized phase 3 study that assessed the effects of intensified androgen receptor blockade in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following local therapies. Patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 9 months and no evidence of metastatic disease were randomized to receive either 52 weeks of ADT alone, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide plus abiraterone. In their paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the authors showed that patients receiving ADT plus apalutamide with or without abiraterone had significantly longer PSA-progression-free survival than those receiving ADT alone. In the oral presentation featured at ASCO24, Dr. Ronald Chen and colleagues report health-related quality of life outcomes that were assessed using various questionnaires or scales at baseline, at cycle 7, which is around 6 months on treatment, and at the end of treatment. Results showed that this intensified approach with apalutamide did not significantly increase severe adverse events, did not lengthen the time to testosterone recovery, and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue. Importantly, additional intensification with abiraterone did not further improve PSA-PFS but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, lengthened the time to testosterone recovery, and increased hot flash interference. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, in conclusion, the PRESTO trial supports using intensified androgen blockade with apalutamide to improve PSA-PFS in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer without compromising health-related quality of life. However, adding abiraterone did not offer additional benefits and increased side effects. Dr. Rana McKay: Let's move on to LBA5002 titled, "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in reducing progression among men on expectant management for low-risk prostate cancer: The MAST (Metformin Active Surveillance Trial) study." Would you like to share your insights on this abstract with our listeners? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. MAST was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that investigated the impact of metformin on the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer in patients choosing to undergo active surveillance. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven, low-risk, localized prostate cancer diagnosed within the past 6 months, characterized by a Gleason score of less than 6 observed in less than one-third of the total cores, less than 50% positivity in any one core, a PSA level of less than 10 ng/ml, and a clinical-stage between T1c and T2a. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for three years. All patients underwent repeat prostate biopsy at 18 and 36 months. The primary endpoint was time to progression, defined as the earliest occurrence of primary prostate cancer therapy, such as prostatectomy, radiation, hormonal therapy, or pathological progression on subsequent biopsies, which was defined as more than 1/3 of total cores involved, at least 50% of any one core involved, or Gleason pattern 4 or higher. The study included 407 patients, with 204 receiving metformin and 203 receiving a placebo. Results presented by Dr. Anthony Joshua showed no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival, including therapeutic and pathologic progression, with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.08. Interestingly, there was a signal that patients with a BMI more than 30 had a detriment to taking metformin with a higher risk of progression compared to those receiving placebo with an unadjusted HR of 2.39 and a p-value of 0.01. Dr. Rana McKay: I would like to add that this study showed that metformin use does not prevent the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer on active surveillance and could represent a potential detriment for patients with high BMI at study entry. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, I concur. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj; it's been wonderful being here with you today and you having me on the podcast to highlight these important advances and the amazing work that many investigators are conducting and the patients who were involved in the context of these trials. It's really excellent to see these updated results. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before we wrap up this podcast, I would like to say that we have reviewed a selection of abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, which are significantly impacting our medical practices now and in the near future. Rana, thank you for sharing your insights today. These updates are undoubtedly exciting for the entire GU oncology community, and we greatly appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures:
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:
Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas
Dr. Rana McKay: Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelxis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus | |||
| Top ASCO24 Abstracts That Could Revolutionize Oncology | 26 Jun 2024 | 00:27:33 | |
Drs. John Sweetenham and Angela DeMichele discuss potentially ground-breaking abstracts in breast and lung cancer as well as notable research on artificial intelligence and its impact on cancer care, all of which were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. My guest today is Dr. Angela DeMichele, the Marianne and Robert McDonald Professor in Breast Cancer Research and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center. Dr. DeMichele also served as the chair of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program. Today, she'll be sharing her reflections on the Annual Meeting and we'll be highlighting some advances and innovations that are addressing unmet needs and accelerating progress in oncology. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. DeMichele, congratulations on a very robust and highly successful program at ASCO24, and thanks for joining us on the podcast today. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, thanks so much for having me, Dr. Sweetenham. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: The presidential theme of the Annual Meeting this year was the "The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure." And this was certainly reflected throughout the meeting in Chicago that welcomed more than 40,000 attendees from across the globe. I know our listeners will be interested to hear some of your own reflections from the meeting now that we're on the other side of it, so to spea Dr. Angela DeMichele: Yes. Well, I will say that playing this role in the annual meeting really was a highlight of my career, and I feel so fortunate to have had the opportunity to do it. We had over 200 sessions, and in many, if not all of these sessions, we really tried to make sure that there was a case that really sort of grounded the session to really help people understand: you're going to hear about science, but how are you going to apply that? Who is the patient for whom this science really is important? We had over 7,000 abstracts submitted, and our 25 tracks and their chairs really pulled through to find really the best science that we could present this year. I think what you saw really was a representation of that across the board: incredible advances in lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, GI cancers; also really cutting-edge technologies: AI, as we'll talk about in a little while circulating markers like ctDNA, new drug development, new classes of drugs. So it was really an exciting meeting. I mean, some highlights for me, I would say, were certainly the Plenary, and we can talk a little bit about that. Also, we had a fantastic ASCO/AACR Joint Session on "Drugging the "Undruggable Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead." And, if any of the listeners have not had a chance to hear this, it's really worth going in and watching this because it really brought together three amazing speakers who talked about the successes in KRAS, and then really, how are we using that success in learning how to target KRAS to now targeting a variety of other previously thought to be undruggable targets. I learned so much. And there's really both the academic and the pharma perspective there. So I'd really encourage watching this session. The other session that I really thought was terrific was one that I was honored to chair, which was a fireside chat ("How and Where Will Public Investment Accelerate Progress in Oncology? A Discussion with the NIH and NCI Directors") with both Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, who is the director of the NIH, and Dr. Kim Rathmell, who's now the director of the NCI. And boy, I'll tell you, these two incredibly smart, thoughtful, insightful women; it was a great conversation. They were really understanding of the challenges we face conducting research, practicing medicine. And maybe different from leadership at the NIH in the past, they've really taken the approach to say that everything they do is focused on the patient, and they don't limit themselves to just research or just science, that everything that the NIH does, and particularly the NCI does, really has to be focused on making sure we can give patients the best possible care. And I think they're being very thoughtful about building important infrastructure that's going to take us into the future, incorporating AI, incorporating new clinical trial approaches that are going to make it faster and easier to conduct clinical trials and to get the results that we need sooner. So just a few of the highlights, I think, from some really interesting sessions. Dr. John Sweetenham: It certainly was an extremely enriching and impactful ASCO24. And I think that the overall theme of the meeting was extremely well reflected in the content with this amazing mix of really, truly impactful science, along with a great deal of patient-centered healthcare delivery science to accompany it. So, I completely agree with you about that. There was a lot, of course, to take in over the five days of the meeting, but I'm sure that our listeners would be very interested to hear about one or two abstracts that really stood out for you this year. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Sure. I'm a breast cancer specialist, so I can't help but feel that the late breaking abstract, the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, was really important for the field of breast cancer. So just briefly, this is a study of the antibody drug conjugate T-DxD, trastuzumab deruxtecan. This is a drug that is actually now approved in metastatic breast cancer, really effective in HER2-positive disease. But the question that this trial was trying to answer is, can this drug, which is built with the herceptin antibody against HER2, then linked to a chemotherapeutic molecule, can this work even in the setting of very, very low HER2 expression on a tumor? I think this is an incredibly important question in the field of antibody drug conjugates, of which there are now many across diseases, is how much of the target do you really need to have on the surface of the tumor? We had seen previously HER2 overexpressing tumors respond really well to this drug. HER2 tumors that have an intermediate level of expression were tested in the DP04 trial, and we saw that even those 2+ intermediate tumors responded well to this drug. The DP06 trial that was presented at ASCO was looking at this group of patients that have even less HER2 on the surface. So we typically measure HER2 by immunohistochemistry as 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+. And this was looking at patients whose tumors were over 0, but were at 1+ or below, so low and ultra-low. And it turned out that compared to treatment of physician's choice, the drug really had quite a lot of activity, even in these patients who have very little HER2 on their tumors, really showing progression-free survival benefits in the HER2-low and HER2-ultra-low groups that were appreciable on the order of about 5 months, additional progression free survival hazard ratios around 0.6, so really demonstrating that utilizing an antibody drug conjugate, where you've got very little target, can still be a way to get that drug to a tumor. And I think it'll remain to be seen whether other ADCs can have activity at very low levels of IHC expression of whatever target they're designed against. I think one of the tricky things here for implementing this in breast cancer will be how do pathologists actually identify the tumors that are ultra-low because it's not something that we typically do. And so we'll go through a period, I think, of adjustment here of really trying to understand how to measure this. And there are a bunch of new technologies that I think will do a better job of detecting low levels of the protein on the surface of the tumor because the current IHC test really isn't designed to do that. It was only designed to be focused on finding the tumors that had high levels. So we have some newer technologies with immunofluorescence, for example, that can really get down to very low levels. And I think this is going to be a whole new area of ADCs, target detection – how low can you go to still see activity? So I thought that this was an important abstract for many reasons. I will just say the second area that I was really particularly impressed with and had a big impact on me were the two lung cancer abstracts that were presented in the Plenary, the LAURA trial (LBA4) and the ADRIATIC trial (LBA5). And I think, I've been in the field of oncology for 30 years now, and when I started in the late '90s, lung cancer was a disease for which we had very few treatments. If we didn't catch it early and surgery wasn't possible for non-small cell lung cancer, really, it was a horrible prognosis. So we knew this year was the 20th anniversary of the discovery of EGFR as a subtype of lung cancer. That was really, I think, a turning point in the field of non-small cell lung cancer – finding a target. And now seeing the LAURA trial show that osimertinib really had such an enormous impact on progression-free survival amongst these patients who had EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer, progression-free survival hazard ratio of 0.16; there was a standing ovation. And one of the really big privileges of being the Scientific Program Chair is getting to moderate the Plenary Session, and it's a really amazing experience to be standing up there or sitting there while the presenter is getting a standing ovation. But this was well deserved because of the impact this is having on patients with EGFR positive lung cancer. And it was similar with the ADRIATIC trial, which looked at the benefits of adding immunotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Again, a disease that treatment has not changed in 30 years, and so the addition of durvalumab to the standard backbone of chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer had its survival advantage. These patients are living longer and it was really an impressive improvement. And I think it really underscores just the revolution that has happened in lung cancer between targeted therapy and immunotherapy has completely changed the prognosis for patients with this disease. So to me, these were really landmark reports that came out at ASCO that really showed us how far we've come in oncology. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. I think that, as you mentioned, those results are truly remarkable, and they reflect extraordinary advances in science. I think we see that both in terms of the therapeutic arena, but also, I think we've started to see it in other areas as well, like symptom control, remote patient monitoring, and so on and so forth, where some of the newer virtual technologies are really having major impacts as well. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Yes, we really wanted to have a focus on artificial intelligence in this meeting, because it's having such an enormous impact on our field in everything from care delivery to diagnostics. I'd love to hear what you thought was the most interesting, because there really was just new data across the board presented. Dr. John Sweetenham: I've actually chosen 3 abstracts which I thought were particularly interesting for a couple of reasons, really. They're all based on virtual health interventions, and I think they're interesting in really reflecting the theme of the meeting, in that they are extremely advanced technology involved in the virtual platforms, a couple of which are artificial intelligence, but very impactful to patients at the same time in terms of remote symptom control, in terms of addressing disparities, and in one case, even influencing survival. So I thought these were three really interesting abstracts that I'll walk the listeners through very quickly. The first of these was a study, Abstract 1500 ("National implementation of an AI-based virtual dietician for patients with cancer") which looked at an artificial intelligence-based virtual dietitian for patients with cancer. This is based on the fact that we know nutritional status to be a key driver of patient experience and of cancer outcomes. And as the authors of the presentation noted, 80% of patients look for nutritional support, but many of them don't get it. And that's primarily a workforce issue. And I think that's an important thematic point as well, that these new technologies can help us to address some of the workforce issues we have in oncology. So this was an AI-based platform developed by experts in nutrition and cancer patients, based on peer reviewed literature, and a major effort in terms of getting all of these data up together. And they developed an artificial intelligence platform, which was predominantly text message based. And this platform was called INA. And as this is developing as a platform, there's a machine learning component to it as well. So in theory, it's going to get better and better and better over time. And what they did in their study was they looked at little over 3,000 patients across the entire country who were suffering from various types of cancer, GU, breast, gynecological malignancy, GI and lung. And most of them had advanced-stage disease, and many of them had nutritional challenges. For example, almost 60% of them were either overweight or obese by BMI. And the patients were entered into a text exchange with the AI platform, which would give them advice on what they should eat, what they shouldn't eat. It would push various guidance and tips to them, it would develop personalized recipes for them, and it would even develop menu plans for the patients. And what's really interesting about this is that the level of engagement from the patients was very high, with almost 70% of patients actually texting questions to this platform. About 80% of the patients completed all of the surveys, and the average time that patients interacted with the platform was almost nine months, so this was remarkable levels of engagement, high levels of patient satisfaction. And although at this point, I think it's very early and somewhat subjective, there was certainly a very positive kind of vibe from patients. Nearly 50% have used the recommended recipes. More than 80% of them thought that their symptoms improved while they were using this platform. So I think as a kind of an assistant for remote management of patients, it's really remarkable. And the fact that the level of engagement was so high also means that for those patients, it's been very impactful. The second one, this was Abstract 100 ("AI virtual patient navigation to promote re-engagement of U.S. inner city patients nonadherent with colonoscopy appointments: A quality improvement initiative") looked again at an AI-based platform, which in this case was used in an underserved population to address healthcare disparities. This is a study from New York which was looking at colorectal cancer screening disparities amongst an underserved population, where historically they've used skilled patient navigators to address compliance with screening programs, in this case specifically for colorectal cancer. And they noticed in the background to this study that in their previous experience in 2022, almost 60% of patients either canceled or no-showed for colonoscopy appointments. And because of this and because of the high burden of patients that this group has, they decided to take an AI-based virtual patient navigator called MyEleanor and introduce this into their colorectal cancer screening quality improvement. And so they introduced this platform in April of 2023 through to the end of the year, and their plan was to target reengagements of around 2,500 patients who had been non adherent with colonoscopy appointments in a previous year. And so the platform MyEleanor would call the patients to discuss rescheduling, it would assess their barriers to uptake, it would offer live transfer to somebody to schedule for them, and then it would go on closer to the point of the colonoscopy to call the patients and give them advice about their prep. And it was very nuanced. The platform would speak in both English and Spanish versions. It could detect nuances in the patient's voice, which might then trigger it to refer the patient to a live agent rather than the AI platform. So, very sophisticated technology. And what was most interesting about this, I think, was that over the eight months of the study, around 60% of patients actually engaged with this platform, with almost 60% of that group, or 33% overall, accepting a live transfer and then going on to scheduling, so that the completion rate for the no show patients went from 10% prior to the introduction of this platform to 19% after it was introduced. So [this is] another example, I think, of something which addresses a workforce problem and also addresses a major disparity within cancer care at the moment by harnessing these new technologies. And I think, again, a great interaction of very, very high-level science with things that make a real difference to our patients. So, Dr. DeMichele, those are a couple of examples, I think, of early data which really are beginning to show us the potential and signal the impact that artificial intelligence is going to have for our patients in oncology. I wonder, do you have any thoughts right now of where you see the biggest impact of artificial intelligence; let's say not in 20 years from now, but maybe in the next year or two? Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, I think that those were two excellent examples. A really important feature of AI is really easing the workload on physicians. And what I hope will happen is that we'll be able to use AI in the very near future as a partner to really offload some of the quite time-consuming tasks, like charting, documentation, that really take us away from face-to-face interaction with patients. I think this has been a very difficult period where we move to electronic medical records, which are great for many reasons, but have really added to the burden to physicians in all of the extra documentation. So that's one way, I think, that we will hope to really be able to harness this. I think the other thing these abstracts indicate is that patients are very willing to interact with these AI chatbots in a way that I think, as you pointed out, the engagement was so high. I think that's because they trust us to make sure that what we're doing is still going to be overseen by physicians, that the information is going to get to us, and that they're going to be guided. And so I think that in areas where we can do outreach to patients, reminders, this is already happening with mammograms and other sorts of screening, where it's automated to make sure you're giving reminders to patients about things that they need to do for some of their basic health maintenance. But here, really providing important information – counseling that can be done by one of these chatbots in a way that is compassionate, informative and does not feel robotic to patients. And then I was really impressed with, in the abstract on the screening colonoscopy, the ability of the AI instrument to really hear nuances in the patient's responses that could direct them directly to a care provider, to a clinician, if they thought that there might be some problem the patient was experiencing. So again, this could be something that could be useful in triaging phone calls that are coming in from patients or our portals that just feel like they are full of messages, no matter how hard you try to clear them all out, to get to them all. Could we begin to use AI to triage some of the more mundane questions that don't require a clinician to answer so that we can really focus on the things that are important, the things that are life threatening or severe, and make sure that we're getting to patients sooner? So there's just a few ways I really hope it'll help us. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. I think we're just scratching the surface. And interestingly enough, in my newsfeed this morning through email, I have an email that reads, "Should AI pick immunotherapy combinations?" So we'll see where that goes, and maybe one day it will. Who knows? Dr. Angela DeMichele There was a great study presented at ASCO about that very thing, and I think that is still early, but I could envision a situation where I could ask an AI instrument to tell me all of the data around something that I want to know about for a patient that could deliver all of the data to me in real time in the clinic to be able to help me make decisions, help me quote data to patients. I think in that way it could be very, very helpful. But it'll still need the physicians to be putting the data into context and thinking about how to apply it to the individual person. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely, yes. And so just to round off, the final abstract that caught my eye, which I think kind of expands on a theme that we saw at an ASCO meeting two or three years ago around the impact of [oncology] care at home, and this was Abstract 1503 ("Acute care and overall survival results of a randomized trial of a virtual health intervention during routine cancer treatment"). So, a virtual platform but not AI in this case. And this was a study that looked at the use of an Integrative Medicine at Home virtual mind-body fitness program. And this was a platform that was used to look at hospital admission and acute care of patients who used it, and also looked at survival, interestingly enough. So what was done in this study was a small, randomized study which looked at the use of virtual live mind, body and fitness classes, and compared this in a randomized fashion to what they called enhanced usual care, which essentially consisted of giving the patients, making available to the patients, some pre-recorded online meditation resources that they could use. And this was applied to a number of patients with various malignancies, including melanoma, lung, gynecologic, head and neck cancers, all of whom were on systemic therapy and all of whom were reporting significant fatigue. This was a small study; 128 patients were randomized in this study. And what was very interesting, to cut to the chase here, is that the patients who had the virtual mind-body program, compared with the control group, actually were less likely to be hospitalized, the difference there being 6.3% versus 19.1%, respectively. They spent fewer days in the hospital. And remarkably, the overall survival was 24.3 months median for patients in the usual care arm and wasn't reached in those patients who were on the virtual mind-body fitness class platform. So very preliminary data, certainly are going to need more confirmation, but another example of how it appears that many of these non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve meaningful endpoints, including hospital stays and, remarkably, even survival. So again, I think that that is very consistent with the theme of this year's meeting, and I found that particularly interesting, too. I think our time is up, so I want to thank you, Dr. DeMichele, for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. We really appreciate it. And once again, I want to congratulate you on what was really a truly remarkable ASCO this year. Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, thanks so much for having me. It's been a tremendous pleasure to be with you today. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in a transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Angela DeMichele: Consulting or Advisory Role (an immediate family member): Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, Inviata/NeoGenomics
| |||
| Enhancing Treatment Efficacy in Multiple Myeloma at ASCO24 | 24 Jun 2024 | 00:22:10 | |
Drs. John Sweetenham and Marc Braunstein discuss practice-changing studies in hematologic malignancies that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the ASC4FIRST trial in chronic myeloid leukemia and IMROZ and CARTITUDE-4 in multiple myeloma. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. On today's episode, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in hematological malignancies that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Joining me for this discussion is an old friend, Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist from the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Marc, it's great to have you back on the podcast again. There were some important studies in the heme space at the Annual Meeting this year, and we're very pleased that you're able to share your takeaways. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Thank you, John. It's great to be back again. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's start out, Marc, with LBA6500. This abstract reports the primary results of the ASC4FIRST trial, and this was a trial comparing asciminib with investigator selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Could you tell us a little about the trial and how you think it's going to impact clinical practice? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So, asciminib is an oral tyrosine kinase of the ABL kinase domain. As we know in CML, the BCR-ABL translocation is characteristic of the disease, and asciminib is approved for chronic phase CML with a T315I resistance mutation or for patients who have received 2 or more prior lines of therapy. So the ASC4FIRST trial was a randomized trial of 405 patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML who are randomized one to one to receive either asciminib at 80 milligrams once daily, or investigator's choice of a first generation TKI imatinib or one of three second generation TKIs nilotinib, dasatinib, or bosutinib. The primary endpoint of the study was the major molecular response, or MMR, at 48 weeks. Pretty much, the study met its primary endpoint with a 67% rate of MMR at 48 weeks, with asciminib versus 49% in patients treated with the investigator's choice of TKI. And in addition, the major molecular remission or MMR of 4.5, which is a deep remission, those rates were higher as well, with asciminib versus investigator's choice at a rate of 39% versus 21% when comparing the groups. Furthermore, when we looked at toxicity, there were fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events, with the asciminib at 38% versus either 44% with the first generation, or 55% with the second generation TKI, and fewer discontinuations as well with asciminib. So I think this abstract is practice-changing. I think it offers compelling data to use asciminib upfront for chronic phase CML. Those who don't agree with that sentiment might argue that we want to see longer term follow up. There's a planned follow-up at 96 weeks. We would want to see the rate of progression to acute myeloid leukemia and of course overall survival as well. But I think the abstract certainly shows an improvement in outcomes with asciminib versus our current array of TKIs. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I think it certainly is, at least at minimum, potentially practice changing. I agree with you. Just one question, and this may be a little bit speculative, but do you have any thoughts about treatment free survival with asciminib and how that might line up against some of the other TKIs? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, that's a great question. The abstract did not necessarily address that, patients were treated until progression, but we know that with the current landscape of TKIs, that in patients who have achieved a deep MR of 4 or 4.5 for at least 2 years who discontinue their TKI, the rate of relapse is about 50%. The current study, the ASC4FIRST, doesn't address that, but I think it's a really good question about whether, for those patients who have achieved a deep remission, whether they can eventually stop asciminib down the line. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I guess it's one of those 'watch this space' things. So we'll see how the data mature out. And let's move on to what I think is another potentially practice-changing study, at least in certain parts of the world. And that's [the] LBA7000 study in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. As you remember, this was a German Hodgkin lymphoma study group trial which looked at the tolerability and efficacy of a novel regimen, BrECADD versus eBEACOPP for patients with advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma in their study, which is known as GHSG HD21. Can you give us your thoughts and take home messages from this trial? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, John, absolutely. So the German HD21 study is a phase 3 study of 1,500 patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The majority were stage 3 or 4, 84%, that compared two regimens BEACOPP to BrECADD. The major difference between these 2 groups being that the newer BrECADD regimen swaps out bleomycin for brentuximab vedotin, which is an anti-CD30 antibody drug conjugate. Also, in the BrECADD regimen they eliminate vincristine that's incorporated into BEACOPP. Those are kind of the global differences between these 2 regimens. And when comparing these, they looked at the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. Of note, in this study there was a PET adjusted approach where if patients achieved interim PET negativity after 2 cycles, that was followed by an additional 2 cycles of their treatment as opposed to 4 cycles if they were PET positive after the initial 2 cycles of their respective treatment. And of note, there were similar rates of PET2 negativity between both arms, about 58% in both arms. So at a median follow-up of 48 months, the 4-year progression-free survival was significantly better with the brentuximab containing BrECADD regimen at 94% versus 91% with a hazard ratio of 0.66. And the overall survival of the BrECADD arm was 98.6%, which is very high and impressive. The 4-year overall survival was similar between the arms at around 98%, but of note, there were fewer severe adverse events with BrECADD, the brentuximab containing arm versus BEACOPP at about 42% versus 59% and interestingly less peripheral neuropathy with the brentuximab containing BrECADD. So we're doing extremely well in treating advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. So the bar is set very high. But in this study, the rates of progression-free survival and overall survival are very impressive. While these intensive regimens tend to be used outside of the U.S., there are several notable benefits of the study, including greater than 50% PET2 negativity and high rates of progression-free survival at 4 years. In discussing this abstract, it's worth noting that there are other competing regimens, if you want to call it that, that are more commonly used in the U.S. So the ECHELON-1 study looked at brentuximab AVD compared with ABVD with bleomycin and it was a 94% versus 89% 6-year overall survival rate favoring the brentuximab containing A+AVD regimen. And lastly, more recently, the SWOG S1826 study that hasn't been published but was presented in abstract form looked at nivolumab AVD versus brentuximab AVD at a median follow up of 12 months showed a progression-free survival of 94% versus 86%. And that study still has yet to be published and needs to mature. But both of those regimens are in the NCCN guidelines. So, we're definitely pushing the bar higher in terms of improving responses in treating advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Dr. John Sweetenham: I think that there's no question that these results from BrECADD are very impressive. But I'm taken back to what I think has been a kind of philosophic discussion in Hodgkin lymphoma now for a number of years about balancing disease control and efficacy against the potential short-term and long-term toxicity of the regimens, particularly when you have very effective salvage therapies for those patients who may suffer a relapse. So I think that this is a discussion over whether you take a very intensive, upfront approach to Hodgkin lymphoma versus something that may be less and slightly less intensive. I suspect that's a discussion that's going to continue for a long time. I don't know what you feel, but my own feeling about this is that this study will likely have a major influence over treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly in western Europe. Less likely in the US.., I would think. I don't know what your thoughts about that are. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, it's a great question. In SWOG S1826, that study did include pediatric patients. In HD21, the median age was 31 and did not include pediatric patients. So I think we have to be selective in terms of fitness and which patients may be better suited for different regimens. But I think what all these studies show is certainly when we incorporate novel immunotherapies, whether it's brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, we improve progression-free survival and even overall survival. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So let's shift gears now and take a look at Abstract 7500, the IMROZ study. This was the study of isatuximab, bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus VRD alone for transplant ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. I know we discussed this in our preview podcast a few weeks back, Marc, but I just wonder now, having seen the data in more detail, what do you think of the important takeaways? And again, are we looking at a new standard of care? Dr. Marc Braunstein: You know, there are many standards of care in multiple myeloma, but we're always looking to make improvements on the regimens we have at our disposal. So, just to recap, IMROZ is a phase 3 randomized study of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab with the backbone of bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone or VRD versus VRD alone, specifically, in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients age less than 80. They studied 446 patients in this study, randomized 3 to 2 to Isa-VRD versus VRD alone, with the primary endpoint of progression free survival. Now, similar to other studies where they included a monoclonal antibody up front, the study met its primary endpoint of improving progression-free survival with the quad regimen containing the monoclonal antibody isatuximab versus VRD alone. So what was interesting about the study, it's really the first of its kind to be presented that specifically looked at transplant ineligible patients, which is presumably a less fit or perhaps more frail population that wouldn't go on to consolidation with stem cell transplant. And in this study, the progression-free survival at 5 years was 63% versus 45%, clearly superior when you included isatuximab. And the rates of complete remission and MRD negativity were all significantly improved, too. However, that was also met with slightly more grade 3 or higher treatment emergent adverse events, 92% versus 84% in the control arm. There are also 11% grade 5 treatment emergent adverse events with the isatuximab group versus 5.5% with VRD alone. Although there was no major difference in treatment discontinuation. One small caveat worth noting, too, is that high-risk patients in this study, when presented at ASCO, did not necessarily show a difference in benefit, although there wasn't necessarily a detriment either. So, John, I think that clearly quadruplet regimens are superior in outcomes of efficacy to triplets, even in transplant-ineligible patients. But I think we have to tailor these treatments to individual patients because I think when it comes to transplant-ineligible patients, it's a spectrum of patients who may be more or less fit for quad regimens versus triplet regimens. It's also worth noting, though, that in this study, the patients are really only getting a quad regimen for 4 cycles. They get their Isa-VRD, and then you drop the bortezomib. So when we think about quads, it's not that they're getting the quad regimen indefinitely, it's really for the induction cycles. But still, I think we have to be aware of potential safety issues. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. And let's stay on the theme of multiple myeloma, Marc, and talk a little bit about Abstract 7504, which was a subgroup analysis of the CARTITUDE-4 study. This is a report on the use of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus standard of care in patients with functional high risk multiple myeloma. Can you give us your thoughts on this and maybe put it into a bit of context for us? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely, John. It's really a great time to be in the field of multiple myeloma. We're making tremendous progress, but when we think about one of the unmet needs, it's just consistently the high-risk patients who have shorter responses and are at higher risk for poorer outcomes. Just to review, cilta-cel is one of the 2 available anti-BCMA CAR T-cell products available for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Very recently, the FDA approved cilta-cel for lenalidomide refractory patients after 2 or more prior lines of therapy based on the CARTITUDE-4 study, which was published by San-Miguel and colleagues in New England Journal of Medicine in July 2023. And that study randomized 419 patients with multiple myeloma with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy to receive either cilta-cel or physician's choice of standard of care, which was either 1 of 2 triplet regimens, a pomalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone or daratumumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone. It's worth noting that about 25% of the patients in the CARTITUDE-4 study had prior anti-CD38 antibody treatment previously and the carfilzomib was not included in one of the standard-of-care arms, and we know that those regimens containing carfilzomib do increase survival in relapsed myeloma. Nevertheless, the primary outcome of progression-free survival was not reached in the CAR T-cell arm versus 11.8 months in the standard-of-care arm, with a significant reduction in progression of 74%. So clearly a positive study and CAR T-cell therapy is included in the NCCN guidelines for patients who have an early relapse from their myeloma. The current abstract by Costa et al focused specifically on a subgroup of 79 patients from CARTITUDE-4 in second line of treatment and looked at what they called functional high-risk myeloma, defined as progression of disease within 18 months of initial treatment or after stem cell transplant. Again, the study showed a retained benefit of cilta-cel with significant improvement in progression-free survival either not reached or 12 months with the control standard of care arm, as well as complete remission rate and rates of MRD negativity of 65% versus 10% in the control. The overall survival outcome was still immature and not presented. Nevertheless, cilta-cel is clearly superior to standard-of-care triplet regimens. I think that for patients with high risk, they clearly derive a benefit from CAR T-cell therapy if they have short progression-free survival after initial therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. So let's round this out by talking about another area of unmet need, I guess in a way in a difficult to treat patient group. And that's Abstract 7007, the SYMPATICO study. This is a study which looks at the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had a mutated TP53. Can you just briefly review this for us and tell us what you think we should be taking away from this studys? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, mantle cell lymphoma typically has an aggressive behavior, but the subgroup of patients with a P53 mutation tend to have the poorest outcomes and do represent an area of unmet need. Although BTK inhibitors are making important improvements in mantle cell lymphoma, they have yet to be approved in newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma. Acalibutinib and zanubrutinib are FDA-approved BTK inhibitors for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma. Ibrutinib was withdrawn from the market in the U.S. for mantle cell lymphoma. Dr. Michael Wang's group presented late-breaking data from the phase 3 SYMPATICO trial at ASH 2023, in which 267 patients with relapsed refractory mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive either ibrutinib plus the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax or ibrutinib plus placebo after 1 to 5 prior lines of therapy. And that study showed a 32 versus 22 months progression-free survival at a median follow up of 51 months. The current abstract, also by Dr. Wang and colleagues, looked at the subgroup of patients who had a P53 mutation and included an open label cohort of 44 patients in the first line of treatment and a relapse refractory cohort of 75 patients, and compared this subgroup of patients with P53 mutation to those without. When we look at the outcomes, the patients who did not have a P53 mutation clearly did better in terms of progression-free survival being not reached in first-line treatment compared to 22 months progression-free survival in those patients with first-line [treatment] with a P53 mutation. As well as in the relapsed refractory setting, the PFS without the P53 mutation was 47 months versus 21 months with the mutation. However, when you look at these patients treated with ibrutinib and venetoclax comparing whether they got treated in first line or the relapse refractory setting, the overall response rates are very similar at about 80% to 90% and the CR rates were very similar at about 55% to 58%, which to me suggests that although patients with P53 mutation do worse than those without it, whether they're treated in the first-line or the relapse setting with this combination of venetoclax, they tend to do somewhat similar, suggesting that you can overcome resistance to prior therapy in the relapse setting. So I think further data are certainly warranted to explore the role of combination therapies that include novel agents such as BTK inhibitors in the first line setting. It's worth noting that the TRIANGLE study was recently published, and this study looked at including ibrutinib at various phases, including at induction in combination with intensive chemotherapy and during the maintenance phase. And that study showed encouraging outcomes in patients who received ibrutinib even without stem cell transplant compared to those who received stem cell transplant. So the role of BTKIs in mantle cell lymphoma is certainly evolving, and I think it offers a very effective intervention without the same kind of toxicities we see with cytotoxic chemotherapy that's traditionally used in mantle cell lymphoma. But I think the subgroup of patients with P53 mutation in this disease still represent an area of unmet need that unfortunately have worse outcomes. But novel agents may be able to overcome some of those adverse outcomes. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think these are intriguing data, and obviously it needs more follow-up and probably more prospective studies. But nevertheless, I think there are some signals there for sure that need to be followed up on. Marc, as always, it's great to have your insights on key advances in the heme space from ASCO. An important year this year, and we really appreciate your time and effort in sharing with us your thoughts on what we've learned this year. So thank you as always. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstract discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's guest:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Marc Braunstein: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS
| |||
| Identifying Young BRCA Carriers With Breast Cancer: Early Detection Can Lead to Better Prognosis | 02 Oct 2025 | 00:14:21 | |
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Matteo Lambertini discuss a compelling global study on the clinical behavior of breast cancer in young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis, and the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Now, when we think about genetic testing, whether for patients diagnosed with breast cancer or for other family members of them, it seems to be widely underutilized. Today, we're going to be discussing a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported on the clinical behavior of breast cancer and specifically young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis. I thought this was just a fascinating piece, and I honestly couldn't wait to have this conversation. It's a really compelling paper that highlights the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and really the need for genetic counseling and testing to inform people about early detection that could lead to a better prognosis. I'm really delighted to welcome the study's lead author, Dr. Matteo Lambertini. He really needs no introduction. He's very well known in the breast cancer world for his amazing contributions to fertility in the context of breast cancer, to pregnancy in the context of breast cancer, and genetic testing. He's an associate professor at the University of Genova, and a breast cancer medical oncologist at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genova, Italy. Dr. Lambertini, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a great pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks. And just FYI, if you're listening in and you want to hear our disclosures, they're all listed at the transcript of this podcast. So, I poured through this paper [Clinical Behavior of Breast Cancer in Young BRCA Carriers and Prediagnostic Awareness of Germline BRCA Status] yesterday, Dr. Lambertini, and first of all, congratulations on this study. This was a huge international multicenter effort, 4,752 patients. How did you pool all these patients with young breast cancer? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thanks a lot for the question. Yes, this was an effort made by several centers all over the world. The main idea behind the creation of this network that we have named as BRCA BCY Collaboration, was to get as many data as possible in a sort of niche patient population in the breast cancer field, meaning women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger, and all of them being BRCA carriers. We know that around, in the Western world, around 5% of breast cancer cases are being diagnosed under the age of 40 years, and among them around 10-15% are BRCA carriers. So, I would say it's a relatively rare patient population where we did not have a lot of evidence to support our choices in terms of counseling on treatment, prevention, and oncofertility as well. That was the idea behind the creation of this network that includes many centers. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. You know, what's so interesting about this is that you sort of draw this line between patients who have BRCA testing at the time of diagnosis and then BRCA testing earlier in their course and then leading to a diagnosis perhaps. And I think that's where really sort of the dichotomy in outcome sits. Can you maybe elaborate on this and tell us about timing of genetic testing in this study and what that meant ultimately in terms of prognosis? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: In this specific analysis from this large network, including almost 5,000 women with breast cancer diagnosed at the age of 40 years or younger and being a BRCA carrier, we looked specifically into the timing of genetic testing because this is a retrospective study and the criteria for inclusion are those that I have just mentioned, so diagnosis at a young age plus carrying germline BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. In this analysis, we have looked into the time the patient has got the genetic testing and particular we focused on two populations: those that were diagnosed, knowing already to be a BRCA carrier, and those that got tested after being diagnosed with breast cancer. And the main findings from this analysis have been that knowing to be a BRCA carrier was associated with a lower stage at the time of diagnosis, meaning more T1 tumors, so a tumor less than 2 cm, more node-negative disease, and this translated into less aggressive treatment, so less often axillary dissection, less often use of chemotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And even more importantly, we have seen a better overall survival for those patients that were diagnosed already knowing to be BRCA carriers as compared to those tested after breast cancer diagnosis. These results after adjusting for all the confounding, stage, treatment and so on, there was not significant anymore, meaning that it's not the timing of test per se that is probably leading to a better survival, but it is the fact that knowing to be a BRCA carrier would likely translate into having access to all the preventive measures that we have in this setting and this will translate into an overall survival benefit, so in terms of saving more lives in young BRCA carriers. Dr. Monty Pal: I think it's such an important point, and it's one that I think might sound implicit, right, but it needs to be proven, I think, through a study like this. You know, the fact that finding this early, identifying the mutation, doing enhanced screening, and so forth, is really going to lead to superior clinical outcomes. One of the things that I think many people puzzle over, including myself, is what to do? I personally occasionally will see BRCA altered patients in the context of prostate cancer. But that's a very different population of individuals, right? Typically older men. In young females with BRCA mutation, I guess there's a specific set of considerations around reproductive health. You'd already highlighted preventive strategies, but what sorts of things should we be talking about in the clinics once a patient's diagnosed and once perhaps their breast cancer diagnosis is established? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, exactly. Knowing to be a BRCA carrier has a lot of implications from prevention to treatment to survivorship issues including reproductive counseling. And this is important not only for the patient that has been diagnosed with breast cancer but also for all the family members that will get tested and maybe identify with this sort of genetic alteration before diagnosis of cancer. Why this is important is because we have access to very effective preventive measures, a few examples: MRI screening, which starts at a very young age and normally young women don't have an effective screening strategy outside the BRCA field. Also, primary preventive measures, for example, risk-reducing surgery. These women are known to have a high risk of breast cancer and high risk of ovarian cancer. So the guidelines are suggesting to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at a young age, so 35 to 40 years in BRCA1 carrier, 40 to 45 years in BRCA2 carrier. And also risk-reducing mastectomy should be discussed because it is a very effective way to prevent the occurrence of breast cancer. And in some situations, including the setting that we are talking about, so young women with breast cancer, BRCA carrier, also risk-reducing mastectomy has shown to improve overall survival. On the other side, once diagnosed with breast cancer, nowadays knowing to be or not a BRCA carrier can make a difference in terms of treatment. We have PARP inhibitors in the early setting, in the adjuvant setting as well as in the metastatic setting. And in terms of survivorship implication, one of the critical aspects for young women is the oncofertility care which is even more complicated when we talk about BRCA carriers that are women candidates for gynecological surgery at a very young age. So this sort of counseling is even more complicated. Dr. Monty Pal: One of the other things, and this is subtle in your paper and I hope you don't mind me bringing it up, is the difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2. It really got me thinking about that because there are differences in phenotype and manifestation. Do you mind just expanding on that a little bit for the audience because I think that's a really important reminder that you brought up in the discussion? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: The difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been known that there are different phenotypes of breast cancer that are more often diagnosed in these two different populations. Normally BRCA1 carriers have a higher likelihood to develop a triple negative breast cancer as compared to BRCA2 carriers, more likely to develop a hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative disease. In this study, again, a specific population of young women with breast cancer, we have seen the same findings, mostly triple negative disease in BRCA1 carrier, mostly luminal-like disease in BRCA2 carrier. But what's novel or interesting from this study is to look also at the age at the time of diagnosis of this disease. And particularly in BRCA1 carriers, we should be sort of more careful about diagnosis of breast cancer and also other primary tumors including ovarian cancer because the risk of developing these malignancies is higher even at a younger age as compared to BRCA2 carriers. And this has implications also in the primary and secondary prevention that we were talking about earlier. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, interesting. I guess the fundamental question then from your paper becomes, how do we get at the right patients for screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2? And I realize our audience here is largely oncologists who are going to be listening to this podcast, oncology providers, MDs, nurses, etc. But maybe speak for a moment to the general practitioner. Are there things that, for instance, a general practitioner should be looking for to say, "Wait a minute, this patient's high risk, we should consider BRCA1, BRCA2 testing or germline screening"? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, it's a very important question for the breast cancer community. After the updated ASCO guideline, the counseling is way easier because right now the age cutoff goes up to 65 years, meaning that all the patients diagnosed with breast cancer below the age of 65 years should be tested these days. And then above the age of 65, there are different criteria like triple-negative disease or family history. From a general practitioner standpoint, it's of course a bit more difficult, but knowing particularly the family history of the person that they have in front will be crucial to know if there are cases of breast cancer diagnosed at a young age, maybe triple-negative cases, knowing cases of ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives or pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives, and of course cases of prostate cancer as well. So, I would say probably mostly the family side will be important from a general practitioner perspective. From an oncology one, the other point that I think is important to stress also based on the data that we have shown in this publication is that having a case of breast cancer known to carry a BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. It means that all the people around this case should get tested and if found to be BRCA carrier and healthy carrier, these people should also undergo the primary and secondary prevention strategies because this is very critical also to improve their outcomes and try to avoid the developing of breast or ovarian cancer, but also in the case of diagnosis of this disease, a diagnosis at an earlier stage, as we have seen in this paper. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. I'm going to diverge from our list of questions here and close by asking a question that I have at the top of my mind. You're very young. I know our podcast listeners can't see you, but you're very, very young. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you. Thank you for that. Not so young but yeah. Dr. Monty Pal: You have nearly 300 papers. Your H-index is 67. You've already made these seminal contributions, as I outlined it from the outset, regarding fertility, regarding use of GnRH analogs, regarding pregnancy and breast cancer. What are you studying now? What are you really excited about right now that you're doing that you think might potentially be practice changing? Give us a little teaser. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Dr. Pal. Receiving this compliment from you is fantastic. So, thanks a lot for that. From my side, in terms of my research, I've been interested in the field of breast cancer in young women since the start of my training. I've had very good mentors from Italy, from Europe, from the U.S. I'm still interested in this field, so I think we still have a lot to learn to try to improve the care of young women with breast cancer. For example, the oncofertility care, which is something I worked a lot over the past years. Now with all the new treatment options, there's a sort of new chapter of oncofertility counseling. So, what's the impact of immunotherapy? What's the impact of the new targeted agents? More on the genetic aspects, now we know that there's not only BRCA1 or BRCA2. There are a lot of other different genes that may increase the risk of breast cancer and other malignancies. And also for these genes, we really don't have a lot of evidence to counsel women on prognosis, treatment, prevention strategy. So we need to learn way more for this special patient population that are quite rare, and so we really need a multicenter academic effort to try to give some evidence in this field. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. It's tough because these are rare circumstances, but, you know, I think that you've done really well to sort of define some collective experiences that I think really define therapy. I mean, I just remember when I was in training 25 years ago, just reading through textbooks where all the experience around breast cancer and pregnancy was really just very sort of anecdotal almost, you know? And so it's great to see that the state of the science has moved forward. Well, gosh, I really enjoyed our conversation today. I think your study really reminds us how powerful genetic information is in terms of improving outcomes. And, you know, hopefully this will lead some individuals to perhaps test more broadly in appropriate settings. So, thank you so much, Matteo, for joining us today with your fantastic insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a real pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: And thanks to our listeners too. You'll find a link to Dr. Lambertini's study in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks a ton. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Seagen, Menarini, Nordic Pharma Speakers' Bureau: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Knight Therapeutics, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Menarini Research Funding (Inst.): Gilead Sciences Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Roche | |||
| Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives | 18 Sep 2025 | 00:18:02 | |
Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Mina Sedrak discuss the science behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and the development of drug therapies and technologies aimed at helping older patients and cancer survivors. TRANSCRIPT Transcript: Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of medical oncology here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. I am also host of this podcast. Today, we are going to be talking to somebody that I consider to be my little brother, if you will, in oncology, Mina Sedrak. Mina is an expert in the area of cancer and aging, which really includes the development of drug therapies and technologies that help enable older adults and survivors to live longer, healthier, and more vibrant lives. I am really excited to chat with him. He is an expert not just in cancer and aging but also breast cancer. He was my former colleague here at City of Hope before he moved over to the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is an associate professor and director there of the Cancer and Aging Program. Dr. Sedrak's research involves mechanisms behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and really aims to take this science into more of a therapeutic direction, which I am super, super excited about. Mina, thanks so much for joining us today, and just FYI for our listeners, we have all of our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you, Monty. Thank you, Dr. Pal, for having me. I am really excited to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: I feel like we have to go on a first-name basis here with how well we know each other. So Mina, you and I together have witnessed this evolution in cancer and aging. I mean, both of us worked together here with just a legendary figure in the field of geriatric oncology, I will call it, Dr. Arti Hurria, mentor to me, mentor to you, mentor to so many. Can you give us a sense of where cancer and aging has gone since the time that you and I started here together at City of Hope? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Dr. Hurria and her collaborators, Dr. [Willliam] Dale and Dr. [Supriya] Mohile, they were like huge pioneers in the field. They were one of the very first people to highlight the importance of looking at older adults beyond just their chronological age and their comorbidities and moving us beyond just seeing patients and making decisions using what we call the eyeball test. "Oh, this person looks fit or not fit, frail or robust," to really using objective measures to assess our patient's health status and incorporate that assessment into our evaluation of the treatment, prognostication, and discussions with our patients throughout the cancer continuum. And so that is what geriatric oncology has and continues to be, and it is a huge, important part. And their work has laid the foundation to show that when we look at our patients beyond just their chronological age and we look at their functional age, and we do these objective assessments, we can gain much more deeper information to tailor the treatment for our patient that is sitting in front of us, rather than do a prescriptive treatment or over- or undertreatment in that population. So that is sort of where the field is growing, and a lot of the work now is, how do we implement that? How do we put that into clinical practice? Dr. Monty Pal: Well, let me kind of spearhead that discussion, right? I have these moments when I go to the ASCO Annual Meeting – I remember this happened to me a while ago when Dr. Jennifer Temel presented that terrific work around early palliative care interventions, right? Or it even happened to me this year, right, when Dr. Christopher Booth presented the CHALLENGE trial around exercise and colon cancer. You know, these amazing, I am going to say simple, they are not simple, but they are simple interventions relative to, you know, some of the complex drugs and mechanisms that we are using nowadays that really help outcomes for our cancer patients. The big question becomes, how do you implement, right? But my understanding is that there are easy ways for us to take tools in cancer and aging and sort of plug them into our daily practice. Am I right about that? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Yes, and that is something that they are – the Cancer and Aging Research Group, which was founded by Dr. Hurria and now is co-led by Dr. Dale, Dr. Mohile, and Dr. [Heidi] Klepin, they have been incredible at really trying to develop practical tools, like the Practical Geriatric Assessment, which is now endorsed by the ASCO and other NCCN guidelines. And so, there are tools that are becoming more and more practical to help incorporate that into clinic. Now, what might be practical in a resource-intensive setting may not be practical in some of the limited resources, whether it is rural and/or other countries where the resources may be more limited. So that is why Cristiane Bergerot, Enrique Soto, and others have been really working hard. There was actually a really beautiful paper that was just published in the Journal of Global Oncology, where they have shown that there are guidelines [ASCO Geriatric Assessment Global Guideline] about how to implement these tests, these tools, these assessments in clinical practice, even in different resource settings. So I think we are going to get to the future where this is much more – it is definitely important, but it is much more easily 'incorporatable' into our practice. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, you know how close I am to Cris, and I was so proud when I saw that paper come out. That was really exciting. You know, I skimmed it. I have to tell you, I did not get into the weeds, but it was apparent to me that, you know, some of these geriatric oncology tools are things that, you know, I could probably plug and play into my practice where I am double- and triple-booked over, you know, most slots, right? I mean, I could still probably afford a little bit of time or maybe have, like, a nurse or an extender kind of help participate in the evaluation process. I thought that was, yeah, really, really interesting. Dr. Mina Sedrak: I will just say that at UCLA, we are working with Dr. Arash Naeim, who is a geriatric oncologist, and he has developed an AI platform where the assessments can be done by an AI computer. So it is like talking to your ChatGPT. They can talk to you, and for a few minutes, they will ask you the questions. So you do not even have to fill it out on a piece of paper. You could give the patient a little iPad, put them in a private room while they are waiting for their doctor, and get the results, and it is right there for you. And so, we have been trying to think about how can technology help with the completion of the assessment, at least doing that? And I think it is actually, it has been very cool. We did a pilot study. He is writing that up, and we are going to continue to do some of this exciting work. How do we think about AI in the context of this? And, you know, older adults, they are not like what they used to be. A lot of older adults are very familiar with and comfortable with phones and computers and iPads, much more so today than they were even at the time when Dr. Hurria was alive. Dr. Monty Pal: That is so interesting. You mentioned this, the AI approach is something I have been thinking about in this context because what if, for instance, you know, we have got video monitors all over our hospital, right? What if you are actually just taking a look at that patient as they make their way towards your clinic? Capture that video, use an AI algorithm to say, "Hey, you know, the timed get-up-and-go test in this patient is not particularly good based on what I am seeing here," right? There are so many ways that you could, you know, stir the pot and come up with creative ways to get these tests done. Dr. Mina Sedrak: That's right. And Arash is looking at also sensors. So he has some studies where he is putting sensors inside people's homes, where they would put them, like, on top of an Alexa app or the equivalent. A lot of people have these apps, and basically, they can sense how you are moving around and what you are doing, just movement-wise. And then they can collect that information to gain information about your life beyond just what we are seeing in the 20-minute visit in the clinic. Even when I do a walk test where I get gait speed or physical performance, short physical performance battery, the chair sit-up, those are oftentimes a single, cross-sectional, static measure. But what about the dynamic ability of capturing what has been happening for the last 7 days? What has been happening for the last 25 days between the visits, between the cycles of chemotherapy? And could that inform how I make decisions when I see patients and who do I need to target and identify? And so, we are very excited because really at UCLA, Arash is leading the technology efforts and thinking about implementation of these important measures and these important tools but leveraging new technology. And we do not want to be behind; we want to be ahead of the game. Dr. Monty Pal: I love that idea because there is a Hawthorne effect, isn't there, where you observe a process, and it naturally gets better. I mean, when you ask that patient to get up in the clinic and move, they are probably functioning to the best of their abilities, but we could probably learn a lot from just watching how fast that patient picks up a remote control at home. Some simple movement like that that is volitional would probably help out a ton. And I got to tell you, it is so funny when you mention Arash Naeim's name. I distinctly remember him serving as an attending on the wards when he was brand new at UCLA on faculty when I was a resident there. And his dad is a legendary hematopathologist, right? Dr. Mina Sedrak: I did not know that. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, yeah. Faramarz Naeim wrote the book on a lot of heme-path malignancies. Incredible guy. Very, very storied hematopathologist at UCLA. I could probably go on this topic forever, but in the interest of time, I am going to shift to something that again, I could probably talk about forever, which is this area of senescence that you are involved in. You know, you had mentioned this to me, I am going to say during your outro from City of Hope and towards your transition to UCLA, it is such an exciting area. I mean, understanding the actual biologic process of aging and using those underpinnings to really sort of tailor therapy. So tell us where the state of the science is there with this body of work that you are doing. Dr. Mina Sedrak: As I said before, we have tools now to assess patients and to then do something about the deficits. So if a patient is falling, what we do is we refer them to physical therapy where they can do fall precautions and strength training to give them the information. But all of these supportive care interventions are very important. They are great. But they oftentimes are not targeting the root cause of why they are happening. And so that is really where I have been very interested in, how can we understand why is it that something like chemotherapy or immunotherapy is causing a decline in cognitive function or a decline in physical function? And so that has really led us to think about geriatric oncology rather than a discipline of older adults, but to think about aging as a physiologic process. We are all aging. As every day goes by, we are aging. And what that means is that our bodies are accumulating damage, the cells are being exposed to various stressors, and the repair mechanisms are declining. And as we get older, it is really more damage and less repair mechanism at the cellular molecular level. And it turns out that these processes of how our cells repair and respond to damage are fundamental processes of biological aging. And there has been a large amount of preclinical and now really exciting clinical work to show that there are hallmarks that could be used to assess the rate of which we age by looking at these processes. And that includes things like epigenetics, telomeres, inflammation, and something called 'cellular senescence.' And we have been interested in my lab in senescence because it is a unique process that has an important role in aging, but it also has a really important role in cancer. Senescence is a cell state. Cells, when they are stressed, they respond to entering this state of senescence. The stress could come from anything. It could come from an oncogene activation. It could come from a reactive oxygen species. It could come from a direct damage to the cell. But it is a cell state, just like apoptosis, necrosis. Senescence is a state in which the cell, in response to that stressor, undergoes an arrest from the G to the S phase. And that arrest is oftentimes associated with a resistance to apoptosis. So then the cell does not die, but it is alive, and it remains metabolically active. And in fact, downstream pathways of these cell cycle inhibition of this G-to-S phase lead to the increase of these transcription factors in the chromatin and lead to the development of these pro-inflammatory factors. So these cells, which can occur in various tissues in the body, can continue to live despite having developed these changes, and then they secrete these proinflammatory molecules like cytokines, chemokines, metalloproteinases, all of these, which are called the senescence-associated secretory phenotype, or SASP. And as we age, we accumulate more and more of these cells, and our bodies are no longer able – our immune system, like macrophages and T cells – are no longer able to remove them effectively. And as we accumulate them in various organs, these organs release a lot of inflammatory cytokines, and the chronic inflammation in that tissue leads to the tissue being damaged, and it does not work as well, and then it starts to decline in function. And that is believed to be how senescence plays a role in aging. It is the accumulation of senescent cells that occurs with increased damage and then the repair mechanism of clearing these cells effectively, which then leads to build up of inflammation and chronic inflammation leads up to damage in multiple tissues. Dr. Monty Pal: This concept to me is fascinating. And I guess the big question is – senescence is bad, right – is it not reasonable to think that this body of research, I mean, if you are able to sort of have a meaningful impact on senescence, it could have implications well beyond oncology. Is that fair? You really could extend lifespan all around. Is that reasonable to think, all-cause mortality? Dr. Mina Sedrak: One hundred percent. And that is what they have been shown in animal models. And the reason senescence is exciting is because it turns out that you can target these cells and you can induce apoptosis of these cells, but it requires active targeting of various pathways, but it can occur. And when it does, and it is done either genetically or pharmacologically in mice, we see that the mice can reverse damage. So if you take an old mouse and you genetically engineer it to remove senescent cells, that mouse will go from being frail to fit. And if you take a young mouse and you induce senescent cells at a high rate and you accumulate them in that mouse, that mouse, even though it is young, will become frail. So that has really led to this exciting opportunity of, can we translate this finding that we are seeing in animals and in in vivo cells, cell cultures, into humans? And could that have a benefit beyond just one disease? Could it have a benefit in multiple diseases? And not just really longevity, which I think it would be great, but what people are really looking for is, how do we live healthy as we get older? How do we move the curve so that people are not developing chronic diseases in their 60s, but they are developing them in their 80s towards shortening the period of their life with disability rather than what we have currently, which is people are living to 70s, the average life expectancy is in the mid-70s, but they are spending 10 or 11 years in disability of that life. And so, how could we reduce that time frame? Dr. Monty Pal: This is brilliant, Mina. And for our audience, this compelling dialogue that we have had here thankfully is translating to funding for Mina's work. He just scored in the second percentile for his NIH R01 based on this topic. We are so, so proud of you. I mean, it is just remarkable work. It is not easy in the current climate to get funding, and a second percentile score is just absolutely wonderful. You know, Mina, I could probably go on with you for a couple more hours here talking about your work in cancer and aging. I think I am going to have to have you back on the podcast here. But a million thanks for sharing your thoughts here today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. And thanks to our listeners too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please do not forget to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, Mina. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Monty Pal: Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Mina Sedrak: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Up-to-Date | |||
| GI Cancer Research at ASCO25: Plenary Highlights and More | 24 Jun 2025 | 00:20:47 | |
Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Kristen Ciombor discuss practice-changing studies in GI cancers and other novel treatment approaches that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TranscriptDr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. There were some remarkable advances in gastrointestinal cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Kristen Ciombor to discuss some exciting GI data. Dr. Ciombor is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research and a co-leader of Translational Research and the Interventional Oncology Research Program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Ciombor, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks, Dr Beg. It's great to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Alright, let's kick it off. Big year for GI cancers. We'll start off with LBA1. This was the ATOMIC study sponsored by NCI and the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and the Alliance group. This is a randomized study of standard chemotherapy alone or combined with atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for stage III mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: I think this study was really definitely practice-changing, as you can tell because it was a Plenary. But I do have some concerns in terms of how we're actually going to implement this and whether this is the final answer in this disease subtype. So, as you said, the patients were enrolled with stage III resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, and then they were randomized to either modified FOLFOX6 with or without atezolizumab. And that's where it starts to become interesting because not many of us give FOLFOX for 6 months like was done in this study. Obviously, the study was done over many years, so that was part of that answer, but also the patients received atezolizumab for a total of 12 months. So the question, I think, that comes from this abstract is, is this practical and is this the final answer? I do think that this is practice-changing, and I will be talking to my patients with resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer about FOLFOX plus atezolizumab. I think the big question is, do these patients need chemotherapy? And can we do a neoadjuvant approach instead? And that's where we don't have all the answers yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, but it has been great to see immunotherapy make its way into the adjuvant space after having made such a big impact in the metastatic space, but still some unanswered questions in terms of the need for chemotherapy and then the duration of therapy, which I guess we'll have to stay tuned in for the next couple of years to to get a lot of those questions answered. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, but a big congratulations to the study team, to the NCTN, the NCI. I mean, this is really a great example of federally funded research that needs to continue. So, great job by the study team. The DFS 10% difference is really very large and certainly a practice-changing study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and and sticking with colon cancer, and and this another federally funded study, but this time funded by a Canadian cancer clinical trials group was LBA3510. This is the CHALLENGE study. It's a randomized phase 3 trial of the impact of a structured exercise program on disease-free survival for stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer. This study got a lot of buzz, a lot of mainstream press coverage, and a lot of discussions on what that means for us for the patients who we're going to be seeing next week in our clinic. What was your takeaway? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, this is a really interesting study, and I was so glad to see it presented because this partially answers one of the questions that patients always have for us in clinic, right? You know, once they've completed their standard chemotherapy and surgery, what else can they do to help prevent recurrence? And so we've always known and sort of extrapolated that healthy lifestyle habits are good, but now we have data, particularly in these patients. Most of them were stage III colon cancer patients, those had high-risk stage II cancer. And basically, the goal was to increase their physical activity by at least 10 MET hours per week. So, my big question, of course, as I came into this presentation was, "Okay, what does that mean exactly? How does that translate to real life?" And really what the author presented and explained was that basically most patients could hit their target by adding a 45- to 60-minute brisk walk 3 to 4 times a week. So I think this is very approachable. Now, in the confines of the study, this was a structured exercise program, so it wasn't just patients doing this on their own. But I do think kind of extrapolating from that, that this is very achievable for most patients. And not only did this prevent recurrence of their prior cancer, but actually the rate of new primary cancer diagnoses, was less, which is really interesting, especially in the breast and prostate cancer. So this was a really interesting, and I think practice-changing study as well, especially given that this is something that most patients can do. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and there was a lot of discussion in the hallways after the presentation in terms of how this really changes our existing practice because most folks already recommend exercise as a way for improving outcomes in cancer patients. So we've already been doing that. Now we have some data on how much it can impact the benefit. But there was some discussion about what the actual degree of impact was. There was a drop-off rate in terms of how long folks were able to stick with this exercise regimen. But you've seen this in clinic when someone have their surgery, they have their chemotherapy, they've been so intimately involved with the oncology world, with the oncology practice, and they somehow feel that they're being let loose into this mean, angry world without any guidance and they're looking for something to do. "What more can I do in terms of my lifestyle?" And then here we have very solid data, as solid as can be for an intervention like exercise, showing that there is an impact and you can give a prescription for exercise when someone wraps up their chemotherapy for colon cancer, thanks to the study. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. It was a great study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving to gastroesophageal cancer, another late-breaking abstract. This is LBA5. The MATTERHORN trial was a phase 3 trial of durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable GE junction and gastric cancer. And again, another area where immunotherapy has made an impact, and here we're seeing it move closer for earlier-stage disease. What was your take-home for the MATTERHORN trial? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this study looked at neoadjuvant perioperative durvalumab plus our current standard chemotherapy of FLOT versus placebo plus FLOT. And this was a large study, almost 1,000 patients were randomized. And the primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it was definitely met in favor of the D + FLOT arm, as Dr. Klempner discussed after Dr Janjigian's presentation. I do think there are still some unanswered questions here. Overall survival is not yet mature, so we do have to wait and see how that shakes out. But it's very interesting and kind of is reflective of what, as you said, we're looking at earlier and earlier lines of therapy, particularly with immunotherapy, in these GI cancer spaces. So it makes a lot of sense to test this and and to look at this. So the toxicity was pretty similar to what we would expect. Primary endpoint was met, but again, we'll have to wait and see what the survival data looks like. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and in oncology, we know, especially for treatment that does add additional cost, it does add additional potential toxicity that we want to see that overall survival nudged. I did see some polls on social media asking folks whether their practices changed from this, and I think the results were favoring adding durvalumab for this group of patients but understanding that there are caveats to the addition of treatments and the eventual FDA approval in that indication as well. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Exactly. I completely agree with that. Dr. Shaalan Beg: All right. How about we stick with gastroesophageal cancer? LBA4002 was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction cancer. This was the DESTINY-Gastric04 study. And again, antibody-drug conjugates making a big impact across different diseases. And here we have more data in the HER2-positive gastric cancer space. Your thoughts on this study? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this is a really important space in gastroesophageal cancer because the HER2 positivity rate is fairly high as compared to some of our other tumor types. So, I do think one of the important things was that patients did have biopsy confirmation of HER2 status, which was very important, and then they were randomized to either T-DXd versus the kind of second-line standard of ramucirumab-paclitaxel. So this was a great practical study and really answers a question that we had for a while in terms of does anti-HER2 therapy in the second-line really impact and improve survival. So we did see a statistically significant improvement favoring T-DXd. I do think it's always important to look at toxicity, though, too. And there was about almost 14% rate of interstitial lung disease, which of course is the most feared toxicity from some of these antibody-drug conjugates, especially T-DXd. So I do think it's important to keep that in mind, but this is definitely a great addition to the armamentarium for these HER2-positive patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And pancreas cancer was on the stage after a very long time with a positive clinical trial. This is Abstract 4006. These were preliminary results from a phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone for previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. This is a frontline clinical trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus/minus the study drug. There were other cohorts in this study as well, but they reported the results of their part 3B arm. And great to see some activity in the pancreas space. And your thoughts? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, we definitely need better treatments in pancreas cancer. This was a very welcome presentation to see. The elraglusib is an inhibitor of GSK-3beta, and it's thought that that mediates drug resistance and EMT. And so this is, I think, a perfect setting to test this drug. So patients basically were randomized. Patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were randomized 2: 1 to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus or minus this elraglusib. So, what we saw was that overall survival was better with the addition of this new drug. And overall, not only the 1-year overall survival, but also median overall survival. The thing that was interesting, though, was that we saw that the overall survival rates were 9.3 months with the combination versus 7.2 months with just gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. And that's a little bit lower than we've seen in other studies. So, not sure what was going on there. Was it the patients that were a bit sicker? Was it a patient selection, you know, thing? I'm not really sure how to explain that so much. Also, the toxicity profile was much higher in terms of visual impairment, with over 60% of patients being treated with the combination versus 9% with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. So these were mild, grade 1 and 2, but still something to be cautious about. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And especially with this being a phase 2 trial, making sure that in a larger study we're able to better evaluate the toxicity and see if the control arm in the larger confirmatory study performs differently will be really important before this compound makes it to the clinic in our space. But very exciting to see these kinds of results for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We've talked, it seems, a couple of times on this podcast about the BREAKWATER clinical trial. We did hear PFS and updated OS data, updated overall survival data on first-line encorafenib plus cetuximab plus modified FOLFOX6 for BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. This was LBA3500. And eagerly anticipated results – we have all previously heard the progression-free survival results – but here we heard updated overall survival results, and very well-received study it seemed from the audience that time. So what are your takeaways on the updated results for BREAKWATER? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: In my opinion, this was one of the most practice-confirming studies. As you mentioned, we've already seen some of the preliminary data of BREAKWATER at prior meetings. But really what was particularly impactful for me was the median overall survival with the BREAKWATER regimen. So, again, patients received FOLFOX, encorafenib cetuximab in the first line if they had BRAF-mutated V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. And the median PFS was 12.8 months, which was actually really remarkable in this traditionally very aggressive, poor prognosis subtype of tumors. So, by seeing a median overall survival of 30.3 months was just incredible, in my opinion. Just a few years ago, that was considered the median overall survival for all comers for metastatic colorectal cancer. And we know the median overall survival was more in the less than 12 months range for BRAF. So this was incredibly impactful, and I think should be absolutely practice-changing for anyone who is eligible for this regimen. I think again, where the practice meets the study is what's kind of important to think about too, how long did patients get FOLFOX, and certainly it adds toxicity to add a BRAF-targeted regimen on top of FOLFOX already. So, one of the other interesting things about the study, though, was that even though it didn't complete treatment, they actually did look at encorafenib/cetuximab alone and in the first line without chemotherapy. And those preliminary results actually looked okay, especially for patients who might not be able to tolerate chemotherapy, which we certainly see in practice. So, overall, definitely more data. And I agree that it's certainly practice-changing. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And it completely, as you mentioned, changes the outlook for a person who's diagnosed with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer today versus even 7 or 8 years ago. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: And we're seeing this over and over in other subtypes too, but how you choose to treat the patient up front really matters. So really giving the right regimen up front is the key here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And along the same lines, Abstract 3501 wanted to answer the question on whether people with MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer need double checkpoint inhibitor therapy or is single therapy enough. So this [CheckMate-8HW] study compared nivo plus ipi with nivo alone, nivo monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. And we've known that both of these are fairly active regimens, but we also know the chance of immune-related adverse events is significantly higher with combination therapy. So this was a much-needed study for this group of patients. And what were your takeaways here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This, of course, has been really nivo-ipi in the first-line MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer is now a standard of care. And not everybody is eligible for it, and there could be reasons, toxicity reasons, and other things too. But as we've been seeing for the last couple of years, immunotherapy clearly beats chemo in this space. And now looking at doublet versus single immunotherapy treatment in the first line, I think really nivo-ipi does beat out monotherapy. I will say, however, there is a caveat in that we still haven't seen the nivo-ipi versus nivo in the first line. So what has been presented thus far has been across all lines of therapy, and that does muddy the waters a little bit. So definitely looking forward and and we've asked this many times and based on the statistical plan and and what not, you know, we just haven't seen that data yet. But I do think it's becoming increasingly important to consider doublet immunotherapy for these patients as long as there are no contraindications. With the again, with the caveat that we have to have these toxicity discussions in the clinic with patients because many patients can tolerate it, you know, this regimen fairly well, but there can be very severe toxicities. So, I think an informed discussion should really be had with each patient before moving forward. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, informed decision, making them aware of the potential of real significant toxicities, immune-related toxicities with double therapy. But I am curious in your practice, how often do you see people choosing doublet therapy as frontline? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: So patients are really savvy, and a lot of times they've heard this data before or have come across it in patient advocacy groups and other things, and it's really nice to be able to have that conversation of the risk versus benefit. So I will say not all of my patients choose doublet, and many of them are still cured with immunotherapy monotherapy. So the big question there is, will we ever understand who actually needs the doublet versus who can still be cured or have very good long-term outcomes with just the single agent? And that has not been answered yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a great point. So the last abstract I was hoping we could talk about is POD1UM-303 or the INTERAACT2 subgroup analysis and impact of delayed retifanlimab treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. What were your thoughts here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This was a study, actually we saw at ESMO, we saw the primary data at ESMO last year, and this was an update with some exploratory analyses. But this was really an important study because once again, we're looking at immunotherapy in later lines of therapy. That's how we started looking at and investigating immunotherapy, and now we're moving it up and up in the treatment course. So this was a study of carboplatin/paclitaxel plus or minus retifanlimab. Actually it was retifanlimab versus placebo. And it was a positive study, as we heard last year. This actually led to FDA approval of this regimen last month, just before ASCO, and it has now been incorporated in the NCCN guidelines as the preferred first-line option. So what I thought was important from the additional data presented at ASCO was looking at the different subgroups, it did not appear that patients with liver mets or not had different outcomes. So that was really good to see because sometimes in colon cancer we see that immunotherapy doesn't work as well when patients have liver mets. And interestingly, because we use immunotherapy in anal cancer without any biomarkers, unlike with colon cancer or some of the other tumor types, also the authors looked at PD-L1 status, and it did look like maybe patients did a little bit better if they had higher PD-L1 expression, but patients still could benefit even if they were PD-L1 negative. So that was important, I think, and we will continue to see further data come out from this study. I want to mention also that EA2176 just completed accrual, so that was carbo-taxol plus or minus nivolumab. And so we should be seeing that data sometime soon, which will hopefully also confirm the ongoing role for immunotherapy in the first-line setting for anal cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: That was a fantastic review. Thank you, Dr Ciombor. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks for having me here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe, wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Science37, Nant Health, Lindus Health Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (Inst.): Delfi Diagnostics, Universal Diagnostics, Freenome Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Incyte, Exelixis, Bayer, ALX Oncology, Tempus, Agenus, Taiho Oncology, Merck, BeiGene Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Boston Biomedical, MedImmune, Onyx, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Incyte, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Nucana, Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer/Calthera, Genentech, Seagen, Syndax Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Incyte, Tempus | |||
| Breast Cancer Research Poised to Change Practice From ASCO25 | 23 Jun 2025 | 00:31:39 | |
Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. TranscriptDr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we're starting with DESTINY-Breast09, which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the CLEOPATRA trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large trial, and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the DESTINY-Breast03 data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time. So, let's move on to SERENA-6, which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months' time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to ASCENT-04, which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the KEYNOTE-355 trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the KEYNOTE-355 regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest, like I was surprised that this wasn't the plenary over the SERENA-6 data because this, in my mind, there we have a practice-changing trial. I will immediately be trying to use this in my PD-L1 population because, to be honest, as a triple-negative breast cancer clinical specialist, when I get a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who's PD-L1 positive, I think, "Oh, thank God," because we know that part of the disease just does better in general. But now I have something that really could give them a durable response for much longer than I ever thought possible when I started really heavily treating this disease. And so, this was immediately practice-changing for me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I think that it's pretty clear that this is at least an option, if not the option, for this group of patients. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, the duration of responses here was – it's just really important because, I mean, I do think this will make people live longer. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, moving on to the final study that we're going to discuss today, neoCARHP (LBA500), which was neoadjuvant taxane plus trastuzumab, pertuzumab, plus or minus carbo(platin) in HER2-positive early breast cancer. I think this is a study a lot of us have been waiting for. What was the design and the results of this trial? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: I was really excited about this as well because I'm one of those people that was waiting for this. This is a Chinese trial, so that is something to take note of. It wasn't an international trial, but it was a de-escalation trial which had become really popular in HER2-positive therapy because we know that we're overtreating HER2-positive breast cancer in a lot of patients. A lot of patients we're throwing the kitchen sink at it when maybe that is not necessary, and we can really de-escalate and try to personalize therapy a little bit better because these patients tend to do well. So, the standard of care, of course, in HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer with tumors that are greater than 2 cm is to give them the TCHP regimen, which is docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. And that was sort of established by several trials in the NeoSphere trial, and now it's been repeated in a lot of different studies as well. And so, that's really the standard of care that most people in the United States use for HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer. This was a trial to de-escalate the carboplatin, which I was super excited about because many of us who treat this disease a lot think carbo is the least important part of the therapy you're giving there. We don't really know that it's necessary. We've just been doing it for a long time, and we know that it adds a significant amount of toxicity. It causes thrombocytopenia, it causes severe nausea, really bad cytopenias that can be difficult in the last few cycles of this to manage. So, this trial was created. It randomized patients one to one with stage 2 and 3 HER2-positive breast cancer to either get THP, a taxane, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, similar to the what we do in first-line metastatic HER2-positive versus the whole TCHP with a carboplatin AUC of 6, which is what's pretty standard. And it was a non-inferiority trial, so important there. It wasn't to establish superiority of this regimen, which none of us, I think, were looking for it to. And it was a modified intent-to-treat population. And so, all patients got at least one cycle of this to be assessed as a standard for an intent-to-treat trial. And so, they assumed a pCR rate of about 62.8% for both groups. And, of course, it included both HER2-positive triple positives and ER negatives, which are, you know, a bit different diseases, to be honest, but we all kind of categorize them and treat them the same. And so, this trial was powered appropriately to detect a non-inferiority difference. And so, we had about 380 patients treated on both arms, and there was an absolute difference of only 1.8% of those treated with carbo versus those without. Which was fantastic because you really realized that de-escalation here may be something we can really do. And so, the patients who got, of course, the taxane regimen had fewer adverse events. They had way fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events than the THP group. No treatment-associated deaths occur, which is pretty standard for- this is a pretty safe regimen, but it causes a lot of hospitalizations due to diarrhea, due to cytopenias, and neutropenic fever, of course. And so, I thought that this was something that I could potentially enact, you know, and be practice-changing. It's hard to say that when it's a trial that was only done in China, so it's not necessarily the United States population always. But I think for patients moving forward, especially those with, say, a 2.5 cm tumor, you know, node negative, those, I'd feel pretty comfortable not giving them the carboplatin here. Notes that I want to make about this population is that the majority were stage 2 and not stage 3. They weren't necessarily your inflammatory HER2-positive breast cancer patients. And that the taxane that was utilized in the trial is a little different than what we use in the United States. The patients were allowed to get nab-paclitaxel, which we don't have FDA approval for in the first-line curative intent setting for HER2-positive breast cancer in the United States. So, a lot of them got abraxane, and then they also got paclitaxel. We tend to use docetaxel every 3 weeks in the United States. So, just to point out that difference. We don't really know if that's important or not, but it's just a little bit different to the population we standardly treat. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, are there patients that you would still give TCHP to? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, great question. I've been asked that a lot in the past like week since ASCO. I'd say in my inflammatory breast cancer patients, that's a group I do tend to sometimes throw the kitchen sink at. Now, I don't actually use AC in those because I know that that was the concern, but I think the TRAIN-2 trial really showed us you don't need to use Adriamycin in HER2-positive disease unless it's like refractory. So, I don't know that I would throw this on my stage 3C or inflammatory breast cancer patients yet because the majority of this were not stage 3. So, in your really highly lymph node positive patients, I'm a little bit hesitant to de-escalate them from the start. This is more of a like, if there's serious toxicity concerns, dropping carbo is absolutely fine here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: All right, great. Thank you, Dr. Shatsky, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks so much, Dr. Zibelli and ASCO Daily News. I really want to thank you for inviting me to talk about this today. It was really fun, and I hope you find my opinions on some of this valuable. And so, I just want to thank everybody and my listeners as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you learn things from it, please take a moment to rate, review, and describe because it helps other people find us wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers @Dr_RShatsky Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: No relationships to disclose Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Consulting or Advisory Role: Stemline, Astra Zeneca, Endeavor BioMedicines, Lilly, Novartis, TEMPUS, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Greenwich LifeSciences, Briacell, Gilead, OnKure, QuantumLeap Health, Stemline Therapeutics, Regor Therapeutics, Greenwich LifeSciences, Alterome Therapeutics
| |||
| Precision Oncology Advances in Hematologic Cancers at ASCO25 | 20 Jun 2025 | 00:18:23 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Marc Braunstein highlight top research on hematologic malignancies from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including abstracts on newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. TranscriptDr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. On today's episode, we'll be discussing promising advances in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, relapsed B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Marc, there were some great studies in the heme space at this year's Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on the podcast to highlight some of these advances. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yes, I agree, John, and thank you so much for inviting me again. It's great to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's start out with Abstract 6501. This was a study that reported on the primary endpoint results of the phase 3B ASC4START trial, which assessed asciminib versus nilotinib in newly diagnosed chronic phase CML. And the primary endpoint of this, as you know, was time to treatment discontinuation because of adverse events. Can you give us your insights into this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So, like you mentioned, you know, asciminib is an allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL kinase that has activity in CML, and that includes patients with the T315I mutation that confers resistance to first- and second-generation TKIs. So, the ASC4FIRST study, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed superior efficacy of asciminib compared to investigator-selected first- or second-generation TKIs, actually leading to the FDA approval of asciminib in first-line CML. So, the authors of that study presented data at this year's ASCO meeting from the phase 3 ASC4START comparing safety and time to discontinuation due to adverse events of asciminib versus nilotinib, a second-generation TKI. So, 568 patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomized one-to-one to once-daily asciminib or twice-daily nilotinib. So, at a median follow-up of 9.7 months, about 11% in the asciminib group and 17% in the nilotinib group discontinued treatment, with significantly fewer discontinuations with asciminib due to adverse events. There was also a secondary endpoint of major molecular response, which was also better with asciminib. For example, the MR 4.5, which is a deep response, was 2.5% versus 0.4% favoring asciminib by week 12. So, I think in conclusion, these results build on the ASC4FIRST study, making the case for the superior safety and efficacy of asciminib versus other first- or second-generation TKIs in newly diagnosed CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. Do you think this is going to change practice? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I think so. I think there are still some questions to be answered, such as what resistance mutations occur after first-line treatment with asciminib. But I think the sum of these studies really make the case for using asciminib upfront in CML. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thank you. And let's move on to our second abstract. This was Abstract 7015 and was reported from Mass General Hospital. And this was a study in patients with relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and reported the 2-year results of the so-called STARGLO study. This is a comparison of glofitamab, a T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in this group of patients. Can you tell us a little bit about your impressions of this study? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So just for background, the treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma is expanding, now with two bispecific antibodies targeting CD20 that are approved after two or more lines of therapy. Among these, glofitamab was approved in 2023 based on phase 2 data showing an objective response rate of 52%, with 39% complete responses in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients after a median of three prior lines of therapy. Distinguishing glofitamab from epcoritamab, the other approved bispecific, glofitamab was given for 12 cycles and then stopped. Additionally, when combined with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the phase 3 STARGLO study, there was significantly improved overall survival compared to rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients at a median follow-up of 11 months. The authors of that study published last year in Lancet now present at ASCO this year the 2-year follow-up of the STARGLO study. Two hundred and seventy-four patients with a median of one prior line of therapy were randomized two-to-one to glofitamab plus GemOx versus rituximab plus GemOx, with the primary endpoint of overall survival. Here, the median overall survival was not reached versus 13.5 months, with a median PFS also significantly improved at about 14 months versus 4 months in the control. CRS of note in the glofitamab arm was mostly grade 1 or 2, with only about 2.3% grade 3 events. And three of the four patients had grade 1 or 2 neurotoxicity. So, John, putting this into context, I think it's encouraging that we now have randomized data showing the superiority of a bispecific plus chemotherapy over rituximab plus chemotherapy in transplant-ineligible patients. And while only 8% of the patients in the STARGLO study had prior anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, I think this regimen could be considered in those patients who are ineligible for transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think a couple of other compelling numbers to me were the fact that around 55% of these patients were alive at 2 years in the group who'd received glofitamab, and that almost 90% of those having that arm of the study who had a CR at the end of treatment were alive at 12 months. So, clearly, it's an active agent and also a kind of great off-the-shelf fixed-duration alternative in these relapsed and refractory patients. Dr. Marc Braunstein: I agree, and I would also note that the phase 3 SKYGLO study is looking at glofitamab plus Pola-R-CHP versus Pola-R-CHP alone. So, we may even be using these eventually in the first-line setting. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Let's stay on the theme of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and look at one other abstract in that space, which was Abstract 7000. This was a study from the HOVON group in the Netherlands, which looked at the prospective validation of end-of-treatment circulating tumor DNA in the context of a national randomized trial. What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, non-invasive liquid biopsies to detect and monitor cancers via circulating tumor-derived DNA or ctDNA, you know, is really emerging as a valuable tool in both solid and liquid tumors to understand disease biology, and also for drug development. So, to date, the most established application of ctDNA in lymphoma, I would say, is really for monitoring of minimal residual disease. So, in this correlative study by Steven Wang and colleagues in the HOVON group, they evaluated the prognostic significance of MRD status as assessed by ctDNA following first-line treatment with curative intent with either R-CHOP or dose-adjusted R-EPOCH. At the end of treatment, encouragingly, 76% of patients were MRD-negative, and 24% were MRD-positive. Now, of note, MRD-positive status at the end of treatment predicted inferior progression-free survival at 2 years, with only 28% of patients who are MRD-positive being progression-free versus 88% who are MRD-negative. And in fact, all the patients who failed to achieve a complete response after first-line treatment and were MRD-positive ultimately relapsed. So, circulating tumor cells are rarely found in large B-cell lymphomas, and so this study really builds on accumulating data that ctDNA has clinical value to detect residual disease with a non-invasive approach. So, there are many implications of how we could potentially use this to detect early signs of relapse, to potentially escalate treatment for consolidation if patients remain MRD-positive. So, I think this will eventually become utilized in clinical practice. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think it's interesting that it provided an independent assessment of response, which was independent, in fact, of the results of PET-CT scanning and so on, which I think was very interesting to me. And the authors of the abstract actually commented in their presentation that they think this should be integrated as part of the standard response assessment now for patients with large B-cell lymphoma. Would you agree with that? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I would. For one thing, it allows repeated sampling. It's a non-invasive approach; it doesn't necessarily require a bone marrow biopsy, and it may have more sensitivity than conventional response measures. So, I think having a standardized system to assess ctDNA will be helpful, and definitely, I think this will be a valuable biomarker of disease response. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Thanks. We're going to change gear again now, and we're going to highlight two abstracts in the multiple myeloma space. The first one of these is Abstract 7507. And this abstract reported on the long-term results of the CARTITUDE study for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. What are your comments on this presentation? Dr. Marc Braunstein: So, this study actually got a lot of press, and I've already had multiple patients asking me about CAR T-cells as a result. Just as some background, CAR T-cells targeting BCMA, which is pretty much universally expressed on malignant plasma cells in myeloma, have really shown remarkable responses, especially in heavily pretreated patients, showing superior progression-free survival in both later and earlier phases of the disease, including in randomized studies in patients with second-line or beyond. So, the CARTITUDE-1 was really the original Phase 1/2 study of ciltacabtagene autoleucel, one of the two approved anti-BCMA CAR T-cell products, which was investigated in patients with a median of six to seven prior lines of therapy. So, these were patients who were pretty heavily pretreated. So, in the study presented by Voorhees at this year's ASCO meeting, this was the long-term follow-up at a median of 5 years from the one-time CAR infusion in these patients with a median of five prior lines of therapy. And remarkably, of the 97 patients, 33% remained progression-free at 5 years plus, without needing any further myeloma treatment during that time. And among those 33% of patients, 23% had high-risk cytogenetics, which we know are notoriously difficult to achieve responses in. What was interesting that they presented as correlative studies was there were some biomarkers that were distinguishing the patients who had the long PFS, including enrichment of more naive T-cells in the product, lower neutrophil-to-T-cell ratio, higher hemoglobin and platelets at baseline, and higher CAR T-cell levels relative to soluble BCMA levels. And the fact that they reported a median overall survival of 61 months in these really heavily pretreated patients, I think these data are impressive. I think we're going to continue to be using CAR T even earlier in the disease status than fifth or sixth line, as it was studied in CARTITUDE-1. There are even ongoing studies looking at first-line treatment with CAR T-cells. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, do you think that those 33% of patients who are disease-free at 5 years, do you think any of those are cured? Dr. Marc Braunstein: That was one of the headlines in the press. I think if we're going to discuss things like "operational cures," where we're transforming myeloma into really a chronic disease, where patients can live practically a normal life expectancy, I think the measure of 5 years, especially in this population that was explored in CARTITUDE-1, I think we can call that close to a cure. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay. Well, thank you. Exciting data, for sure. We're going to conclude today with another abstract in the multiple myeloma space. And this was Abstract 7500, which looked at an MRD, minimal residual disease-driven strategy following induction and transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and reported on the primary endpoints of the phase 3 MIDAS trial. Can you walk us through this one, Marc? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. It is a bit more complicated than the prior one we discussed because this is a randomized study with four arms. So, I'll start by saying that anti-CD38-based quadruplet regimens continue to show superior outcomes in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The MIDAS study mentioned is an open-label phase 3 trial with four arms in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients. And initially, these patients were all treated with quadruplet therapy with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab combined with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in 718 newly diagnosed myeloma patients. So, they received the quadruplet regimen for six cycles and then were randomized based on their MRD status at 10 to the negative fifth following six cycles of induction. And that first randomization, if they were MRD-negative, was to either consolidation with six more cycles of the quadruplet regimen or transplant, autologous transplant, plus two cycles additionally of the quadruplet regimen. And both arms were followed by lenalidomide maintenance. The primary endpoint was MRD negativity at 10 to the negative sixth prior to entering the lenalidomide maintenance component. And in addition, the patients who were MRD-positive after induction were randomized to transplant plus two cycles of consolidation or a tandem autologous transplant. So, the median follow-up of the study was about 16 months, and the pre-maintenance rate of MRD negativity was high, between 84 to 86% between the two arms who were MRD-negative, which was not significantly different. And as far as the 233 patients who were MRD-positive, the pre-maintenance MRD negativity was also not significantly different at 40% for those who received autologous transplant, and 32% who received a tandem transplant. So, there's a lot of debate in the myeloma field about the evolving role of autologous transplant and whether transplant still plays a significant role in patients who are either MRD-negative after induction or who have deep remissions and are of standard risk. So, I think these data suggest that patients who are MRD-negative after induction with a quadruplet regimen studied here, which was Isa-KRd, plus consolidation, may possibly be able to forego consolidation with autologous transplant. And likewise, for those patients who are MRD-positive after induction, tandem transplant didn't seem to provide much of a benefit compared to single transplant, which is consistent with prior studies such as the StaMINA study. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, where do you think this leaves us, Marc? Are we going to need more studies before we have any definitive guidance on whether an autologous transplant is still appropriate for those patients who are MRD-negative? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Well, as clinicians, we want to do what's best for our patient. And in myeloma, the best we can do is to get as deep remissions as possible, meaning MRD negativity. And so, I think it's clear from the MIDAS study and others that quadruplet regimens provide the deepest remissions when given upfront. We can debate the role of autologous transplant. I think certainly the role of tandem autologous transplant is fading. But as far as a single autologous transplant as consolidation, I think it's reasonable as a goal to try to achieve MRD negativity after the transplant, especially for patients who remain MRD-positive after induction. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, great. Marc, thanks as always for sharing your insights on the heme malignancies studies from the ASCO meeting this year and for joining us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Always appreciate hearing your thoughtful and balanced input on these. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Thank you, John. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's guest:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Marc Braunstein: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS | |||
| ASCO25 Recap: CHALLENGE, DESTINY-Breast09, and More | 19 Jun 2025 | 00:25:45 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. TranscriptDr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called 'the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just 'the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely. So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely. So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point. So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
More on today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics | |||
| Day 5: Top Takeaways From ASCO25 | 03 Jun 2025 | 00:09:52 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. TranscriptHello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Starting with LBA9500, this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the RELATIVITY-098 trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the RELATIVITY-047 trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the AMPLITUDE trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in LBA5006, were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the MAGNITUDE study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today's presentations is Abstract 7504, presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called MagnetisMM-6 trial part 1. Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level 'G', comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose | |||
| Day 4: Top Takeaways from ASCO25 | 02 Jun 2025 | 00:09:05 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research on maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. TranscriptHello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today's selection features reports of 3 randomized trials in very different clinical settings: maintenance therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, and a supportive care intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The first of these studies, Abstract 8006, was presented by Dr. Luis Paz-Ares from the University Hospital [October 12] in Madrid, Spain, and reports the primary results of the IMforte trial. This was a phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Despite some improvements in the first-line treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, most of the patients experience early disease progression and long-term survival remains very limited. This provides a rationale for considering a maintenance intervention. Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent and transcription inhibitor [that is] already approved in the United States for patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic SCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been shown to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors in pre-clinical studies and has also been evaluated in early-phase clinical trials. The IMforte trial is a global, randomized trial in which patients are initially treated with atezolizumab, and those patients who do not progress on induction therapy are then randomized to maintenance therapy with atezolizumab alone or atezolizumab with lurbinectedin. The primary endpoints of the study were progression-free and overall survival. Four hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized and at a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival for patients who received the combination was 5.4 months and the median overall survival was 13.2 months. This compares with 2.1 and 10.6 months, respectively, in patients who received atezolizumab only. The lurbinectedin and atezolizumab combination was generally well-tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety signals. The benefit was consistent in magnitude across all the relevant patient subgroups. This is the first phase 3 study to show a progression-free and overall survivial improvement with first-line maintenance in extensive stage SCLC and the result is likely to be practice-changing, establishing a new standard of care in this tough-to-treat disease. Next up is LBA5500, presented by Dr. Sven Mahner from LMU University in Munich, Germany. This describes the results of the TRUST study, a randomized trial of upfront surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. As background, total macroscopic tumor resection with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The optimal timing of such surgery remains controversial, whether it's more beneficial as a primary cytoreductive surgery before chemotherapy or in the form of interval cytoreductive surgery after 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Previous studies have addressed this issue, but results have been confounded by issues of patient and center selection. The TRUST study is a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 trial that compares the outcomes of the timing of surgery in surgically fit patients with seemingly resectable FIGO stage IIIB/IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. Seven hundred and ninety-seven patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomized to undergo surgery prior to therapy with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab and a PARP inhibitor, or to have the surgery between the third and fourth cycle of the same systemic therapy. Of the initial 797 patients, 688 comprised the intent-to-treat population, of whom 345 received primary cytoreductive surgery and 343 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. The results show that patients undergoing primary surgery had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who had interval cytoreductive surgery (median progression-free survival was 22.1 months versus 19.7 months). No difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 arms of the study. This is the first study to show a benefit for primary cytoreductive surgery, although the progression-free survival improvement was not reflected in an overall survival difference. A subgroup analysis for patients who underwent complete cytoreduction suggests a progression-free survival and survival benefit, although it isn't clear to me that the study was powered for this endpoint. Nevertheless, these are very difficult studies to perform, and the investigators should be congratulated for this robustly conducted clinical trial. Today's final abstract is 1504, presented by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo from Harvard Medical School. The trial evaluated BMT-VR, a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This randomized trial included adult patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation. The BMT-VR platform included, among others, modules addressing psychoeducation, coping, acceptance, and gratitude. BMT-VR patients were provided with VR headsets and completed all modules during their hospitalization. Patient-reported outcomes were then assessed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-BMT. Use of the VR tool was tracked during hospitalization. Control patients received usual care during their hospital stay and were then assessed at the same intervals post-BMT. Eighty evaluable patients were randomized, 39 to BMT-VR and 41 to usual care. Completion rates for the BMT-VR modules were high [at] around 70-75%. Patients who received the BMT-VR intervention experienced significantly improved anxiety, quality of life, and coping at 4 weeks post-BMT. In the longer term, sustained benefits were seen at 24 weeks for some endpoints including quality of life, with some benefits, including for depression and PTSD symptoms, improving longitudinally over the study period. These data are preliminary and will need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies, but this trial demonstrates the feasibility of using virtual interventions in our patients and also provides intriguing preliminary data that they may be effective. Thanks for listening to today's report and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from the final day of ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speaker:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose | |||
| Day 3: Top Takeaways From ASCO25 | 01 Jun 2025 | 00:09:24 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies on novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. TranscriptDr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies exploring novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first abstract is number 4505. This study, led by Dr. Toni Choueiri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describes the final analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which compared the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab with sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The ipi-nivo combination is approved for the frontline treatment of intermediate and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the primary analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which demonstrated a higher response rate and longer overall survival compared with sunitinib. Today's presentation provided the final safety and efficacy results for the trial with long-term follow-up of more than 9 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in this trial comprised 550 patients randomized to nivo and ipi versus 546 who received sunitinib. The final analysis showed sustained long-term benefit for the combination therapy. Patients given nivolumab plus ipi had a 29% reduction in the risk for death compared with sunitinib. For patients with intermediate or poor-risk disease, there was a 31% reduction in the risk of death. The probability of remaining in response through 8 years was more than doubled with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in the ITT population at 48% versus 19%, and in the intermediate and poor-risk population at 50% versus 23%. The other important observation is that patients with favorable-risk disease appeared to have a 20% reduction in the risk for death at 9 years and more durable responses. This suggests a possible delayed benefit for ipi and nivo in this group since these differences were not seen in the earlier analysis. No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up, and the results confirm the use of ipi and nivo as a standard front-line combination therapy in this disease. Since this combination has been in widespread use for some years, the results are not surprising although the subgroup analysis suggesting benefit in favorable-risk patients is likely to inform practice in the future. Today's second abstract is number is 8506, which was presented by Dr. Tony Mok from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, describing results from the phase 3 HERTHENA-Lung02 trial. This trial compared the antibody-drug conjugate patritumab deruxtecan with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer following a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Patritumab deruxtecan, also known as HER3-DXd, comprises a fully human anti-HER3 IgG3 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor payload, and showed activity in a previous phase 2 trial in patients relapsing after EGFR TKI and chemotherapy. In this phase 3 study, this agent was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in eligible patients with an EGFR-activating mutation who had previously received 1 or 2 EGFR TKIs, at least one of which was a third-generation drug, with relapse or progression after this therapy. Five hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. The primary analysis showed a 9-month progression-free survival of 29% for the experimental arm compared with 19% for platinum-based chemotherapy, for a hazard ratio of 0.77 and a P value of 0.011. With higher progression-free survival rates at 6 months and 12 months, HER3-DXd also had a better objective response rate (35.2% versus 25.3%) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), and HER3-DXd also extended intracranial progression-free survival compared with PBC in patients with brain metastases, with a hazard ratio of 0.75. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 73% of patients treated with HER3-DXd and 57% of patients who received PBC. HER3-DXd had a higher rate of grade or more 3 thrombocytopenia, and drug-related interstitial lung disease occurred in 5% of patients in the HER3-DXd arm. The follow-up will need more time to mature since no overall survival data are currently available, but definitely an agent to watch with interest. Moving on to today's final abstract, 8500, was presented by Dr. Pasi Jänne from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describing results from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. This study is exploring the use of a potent KRAS inhibitor, adagrasib, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic KRASG12C- mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Adagrasib has already received accelerated approval in the U.S. for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a KRASG12C mutation. A previous report from the KRYSTAL-7 study demonstrated encouraging activity in combination with pembrolizumab in the frontline setting for this patient group who also had more than 50% expression of PD-L1. The presentation today described efficacy and safety data for this drug combination across all PD-L1 expression levels. One hundred and forty-nine patients with a median age of 67 years were treated with the combination, 104 of whom had PD-L1 expression level results available, representing the so-called biomarker population in this trial. The overall response rate for the entire study population was 44%. In the biomarker population, the overall response rate ranged from 36% in those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression to 61% for those with more than 50% expression. For all patients, the median response duration was just over 26 months, and the median progression-free and overall survival rates were 11 and 18.3 months respectively. For the biomarker population, the median progression-free and overall survival were highest in those patients with more than 50% PD-L1. No new safety issues emerged from this analysis; the most frequent toxicities were nausea, diarrhea, and increases in transaminases. Immune-related toxicities included pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis. These are important results and the results of the phase 3 portion of KRYSTAL-7, which compares first-line therapy with adagrasib plus pembro versus pembro alone in the KRASG12C mutated/PD-L1 more than 50% group, will be informative. For those patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression, the authors suggest that the treatment escalation may be beneficial, possibly including the addition of chemotherapy. That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose | |||
| Day 2: Top Takeaways From ASCO25 | 31 May 2025 | 00:09:43 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence. TranscriptDr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence. Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group. For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group. The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases. The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them. The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks. Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination. These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report. The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis. Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%. The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context. Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker: Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose
| |||
| Day 1: Top Takeaways From ASCO25 | 30 May 2025 | 00:10:08 | |
In the first episode of a special daily series during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. John Sweetenham discusses the results of 2 studies on the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer plus an additional study exploring the association of Medicaid expansion with cancer survival outcomes. TranscriptDr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'll be bringing you brief analysis on selected abstracts from each day of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today, I'll be reviewing three abstracts, the first two of which address the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Today's first study is Abstract 3501. These data were presented by Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and report on the expanded analysis of the CheckMate-8HW trial. This was a phase 3, international, multicenter trial in patients with MSI-high/MMR-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, who were randomized between nivolumab (nivo) alone, nivolumab plus ipilumomab (ipi) or investigators' choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. The study showed that nivo plus ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in the first-line setting and superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone across all lines of therapy. These results led to the approval of nivo + ipi in the first-line setting in patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the U.S., the EU, and many other countries. In today's presentation, Dr. Lenz reported on the expanded analyses of nivo plus ipi versus nivo across all lines of therapy and longer follow-up results for nivo and ipi versus chemo in the first-line setting. With longer follow up (the median is now at 47 months) nivo and ipi continued to show progression-free survival benefit compared with chemotherapy with a median PFS of 54.1 months versus 5.9 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.21. Additionally, the analysis of the effects on PFS2, defined as the time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, start of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death, showed that compared with chemotherapy, first-line nivo and ipi was associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of death or disease progression, despite the fact that 71% of those who progressed following chemotherapy crossed over to receive subsequent immunotherapy. The study also showed that across all lines, nivo and ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone, the median not reached versus 39.3 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.62. No new toxicity signals emerged after further analysis. Most treatment-related adverse events with possible immune etiology were observed within the first six months of therapy. The results for PFS2 are particularly significant. Up to now, there has been some reluctance to use nivo and ipi as first-line therapy, partly because of its toxicity profile and based on the rationale that it would be active after other frontline therapies. The observation in this study that the beneficial effects of nivo and ipi are maintained downstream is compelling. The results suggest that delaying the use of this combination to the second line or later may compromise subsequent PFS and supports the use of nivo and ipi as a standard-of-care frontline option for MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. Moving on, the next study I'm featuring today is Abstract 3503, presented by Dr. Jeanne Tie from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Institute of Medical Research from Melbourne, Australia. This study reported the impact of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant chemotherapy escalation in stage III colon cancer, focused on the primary analysis of the ctDNA-positive cohort from the randomized DYNAMIC-III trial. As background, about 30% of patients with stage III colon cancer will recur following standard-of-care adjuvant therapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens. And current data show that for those patients with high-risk disease, 6 months of chemotherapy is associated with a lower recurrence rate than 3 months. Circulating tumor DNA following initial surgery has been shown to be a strong independent prognostic factor for these patients, but questions remain about how ctDNA can be used for adaptation of treatment. Questions regarding treatment adaptation were addressed in the DYNAMIC-III trials – specifically, does treatment escalation benefit those who are ctDNA positive following surgery, and can therapy be de-escalated for those who are ctDNA negative. The first of these 2 questions – treatment escalation in the positive group – is the subject of this report. One thousand and two patients were randomized in this study, between ctDNA-informed therapy (502) or standard management (500). Of those patients included in the intent to treat cohorts, 129 were ctDNA positive in the ctDNA-informed arm compared with 130 in the standard management arm. Various pre-planned treatment escalation protocols were used, depending on the choice of first-line therapy. With a median follow up of 42.2 months, there was no difference in 3-year relapse free survival between the ctDNA informed group (48%) and the standard management group (52%). There was, however, a highly significant difference in relapse-free survival for patients who cleared ctDNA by the end of treatment compared with those who didn't. The authors concluded that the recurrence risk for this group remains high, at about 50%, after adjuvant therapy and that it increases with higher ctDNA burden, but treatment escalation didn't appear to reduce the recurrence risk. Clearance of ctDNA was associated with a favorable outcome, suggesting that as more effective treatments are developed in the future for this group, ctDNA will likely prove to have major utility. Changing gears now, my final selection for today is Abstract 11006, presented by Dr. Elizabeth Shafer from the American Cancer Society. This study explored the association of Medicaid expansion with 5-year survival after a cancer diagnosis. Dr. Schafer began her presentation by providing some historical perspective on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on reducing the number of uninsured adults aged less than 65 years in the United States. She then reviewed some recent data on the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer care, including improved screening rates, improved access to cancer surgery, and an increase in earlier cancer diagnosis. The current study builds on earlier data from the American Cancer Society which showed improved 2-year overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed cancer following Medicaid expansion. The new study reported by Dr. Schafer examined 5-year cause-specific survival in individuals with cancer since Medicaid expansion, analyzed according to cancer type and various demographic and social factors. Using data from more than 813,000 individuals from 26 states that expanded Medicaid compared with more than 610,000 from 12 states that did not, the authors reported that similar improvements in 5-year cause-specific survival were observed in the expansion and the non-expansion states, but when analyzed by other factors, differences in outcome emerged. For example, although similar improvements in survival between expansion and non-expansion states were seen in urban communities, there was a significant improvement of 2.55 percentage points in survival for individuals in rural communities in expansion states compared with those in non-expansion states. Similar trends were observed in high poverty areas, where improvements in survival were superior in expansion versus non-expansion states. When examined by cancer type, the authors observed greater improvements in 5-year survival for those with pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer, possibly due to improvements in screening and early access to treatment. The authors concluded that those residing in rural and high-poverty areas experienced the most improvement in cause-specific cancer survival following Medicaid expansion. In summary, it's encouraging to see an improving trend in cancer mortality overall, independent of Medicaid expansion, but it's also important to remember that this is yet another study which confirms how implementation of the ACA has improved cancer outcomes and begun to address some of the disparities in cancer care. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speaker:
Follow ASCO on social media:
Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose | |||
| ASCO25 Preview: Key Research Accelerating Cancer Care | 22 May 2025 | 00:20:42 | |
Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss top abstracts that will be presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including research on tech innovations that could shape the future of oncology. TranscriptDr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Hamilton is also the chair of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program, and she's here to tell us about some of the key abstracts, hot topics, and novel approaches in cancer care that will be featured at this year's Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, it's great to have you on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Dr. Hamilton, the Presidential Theme of the Annual Meeting this year is 'Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and that's reflected in many of the sessions that will focus on action-oriented guidance to improve care for our patients. And as always, there'll be great presentations on practice-changing abstracts that will change treatment paradigms and transform care. Can you tell us about some of the hot topics this year and what you're particularly excited about? Dr. Erika Hamilton: You're right. Dr. Robin Zon's theme is 'Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and you're going to see that theme really interlaced throughout the ASCO program this year. We had a record number of submissions. Over 5,000 abstracts will be published, and there'll be about 3,000 presentations, either in oral format or poster presentations. We have 200 dynamic sessions. Many of the discussants will be highlighting key takeaways and how we can translate action-oriented guidance to better treat our patients to build a better future. Our state-of-the-art science will include a Plenary Session. This will feature presentations as well as discussion of each of the presentations for clinical late-breaking abstracts. We have Clinical Science Symposia that I'm particularly excited about this year. These will feature key abstracts as well as discussions and a foundational talk around the subject. We're covering novel antibody-drug conjugate targets, turning "cold" tumors "hot" to include CAR T, as well as the future of cancer detection. There'll be rapid oral abstracts, case-based panels, and this will also feature interactive audience polling and case discussions. I also want to highlight the community connection opportunities. There will be 13 Communities of Practice that will be meeting on-site during ASCO, and there's also really a plethora of networking opportunities for trainees and early-career professionals, a Women's Networking Center, a patient advocate space, and I'm happy to report there will also be live music out on the terrace this year at ASCO. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, that's going to be a really great addition. I have to say, I think this is always a special time of year because excitement starts to mount as the meeting gets closer and closer. And once the abstracts are out there, I certainly personally feel that the excitement builds. Talking of abstracts, let's dive into some of the key abstracts for this year's meeting. I'd like to start out by asking you about Abstract 505. This reports on 15-year outcomes for women with premenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in the SOFT and TEXT trials. It assesses the benefits of adjuvant exemestane and ovarian function suppression or tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression. So, could you talk us through this and tell us what you think the key takeaways from this abstract are? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Absolutely. This is essentially the SOFT and TEXT trials. They are trials that we've been following for quite some time, evidenced by the 15-year outcome. And I think it really answers two very important questions for us regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that are facing hormone receptor-positive disease. The benefit of ovarian function suppression for one, and then second, the benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen, which is our SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator]. So, in terms of the SOFT trial, when we talk about distance recurrence-free interval, which I really think is probably the most meaningful because secondary cancers, et cetera, are not really what we're getting at here. But in terms of distant recurrence-free interval, certainly with tamoxifen, using tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression adds a little bit. But where we really get additional benefits are by moving to exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor with the ovarian function suppression. So, for example, in SOFT, for distant recurrence-free interval for patients that have received prior chemotherapy, the distance recurrence-free interval was 73.5% with tamoxifen, bumped up just a tiny bit to 73.8% with ovarian function suppression. But when we used both ovarian function suppression and switched to that aromatase inhibitor, we're now talking about 77.6%. It may seem like these are small numbers, but when we talk about an absolute benefit of 4%, these are the type of decisions that we decide whether to offer chemotherapy based on. So, really just optimizing endocrine therapy really can provide additional benefits for these patients. Just briefly, when we turn to TEXT, similarly, when we look at distance recurrence-free interval for our patients that are at highest risk and receive chemotherapy, tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression, 79%; 81% with exemestane and ovarian function suppression. And when we talk about our patients that did not receive chemotherapy, it increased from 91.6% up to 94.6%—very similar that 3% to 4% number. So, I think that this is just very important information when counseling our patients about the decisions that they're going to make for themselves in the adjuvant setting and how much we want to optimize endocrine therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks so much for your insight into that. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's turn to hematologic malignancies. Abstract 6506 reports exciting results on the new agent ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. This is a phase 1b clinical activity study and safety results. This was the pivotal KOMET-001 study. And my question is, will this new agent fulfill an unmet need in this NPM1 space? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great question. And I think the answer is almost certainly 'yes'. So, just as some brief background, NPM1 mutation is known to be a driver of leukemogenesis in around 30% of patients with AML, and it's a poor prognostic factor. And typically, about 50% of these patients will relapse within a year of their first-line therapy, and only around 10% of them will get a subsequent complete remission with salvage therapy. Menin inhibitors, which disrupt the interaction between menin and KMT2A, are known to be active in NPM1-mutated as well as in KMT2A-rearranged AML. And ziftomenib is a selective oral menin inhibitor, which in this study was evaluated at a dose of 600 mg once a day, as you mentioned, a phase 1b/2 study, which is multicenter and presented by Dr. Eunice Wang from Roswell Park. It's a relatively large study of 112 patients who were treated with this standard dose with relatively short median follow-up at this time. The median age was 69 years, and median prior therapies were two, but with a range of one to seven. And I think very importantly, 60% of these patients had previously been treated with venetoclax, and 23% of them had had a prior transplant. Looking at the results overall for this study, the overall response rate was 35%, which is actually quite impressive. Specifically for those patients in the phase 2 part of the study, around 23% achieved a CR [complete remission] or CRh [complete remission with partial hematologic recovery]. What's very interesting in my mind is that the response rates were comparable in venetoclax-naive and venetoclax-exposed patients. And the drug was very well tolerated, with only 3% of patients having to discontinue because of treatment-related adverse events. And I think the authors appropriately conclude that, first of all, the phase 2 primary endpoint in the study was met, and that ziftomenib achieved deep and durable responses in relapsed and refractory NPM1-mutated AML, regardless of prior venetoclax, with good tolerance of the drug. And so, I think putting all of this together, undoubtedly, these data do support the potential use of this agent as monotherapy and as a new option for those patients who have relapsed or refractory NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. So, let's move on a little bit more now and change the subject and change gears completely and talk about circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]. This has been a hot topic over a number of years now, and at this year's meeting, there are quite a few impactful studies on the use of ctDNA. We have time to focus on just one of these, and I wanted to get your thoughts on Abstract 4503. This is from the NIAGARA trial, which looks at ctDNA in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who receive perioperative durvalumab. Could you tell us a little bit about this study? Dr. Erika Hamilton: So, this was the phase 3 NIAGARA trial, and this is literally looking for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that are cisplatin-eligible, and the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So here, this is a planned exploratory analysis of ctDNA and the association with clinical outcomes from NIAGARA. So, this is really the type of study that helps us determine which of our patients are more likely to have a good outcome and which of our patients are more likely not to. There were 1,000 randomized patients in this study, and 462 comprised the biomarker-evaluable population. There were about half in the control arm and half in the durvalumab arm. And overall, the ctDNA-positive rate at baseline was about 57%, or a little over half, and that had decreased to about 22% after neoadjuvant treatment. ctDNA clearance rates from baseline to pre-radical cystectomy was about 41% among those with durvalumab and 31% among those in control. And the non-pCR rate was 97% among patients with pre-cystectomy ctDNA-positive status. So, this really gives us some information about predicting who is going to have better outcomes here. We did see a disease-free survival benefit with perioperative durvalumab, and this was observed in post-cystectomy ctDNA-positive as well as the ctDNA-negative groups. Shifting gears now to GI cancer, Abstract 3506 is a long-term safety and efficacy study of sotorasib plus panitumumab and FOLFIRI for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. And this is the CodeBreaK-101 study. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. A very interesting study, and this abstract builds upon the phase 3 CodeBreaK-300 trial, which I think has just been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This showed that the combination of sotorasib and panitumumab improved clinical outcomes in patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The current abstract, as you mentioned, reports the CodeBreaK-101 trial. And this was a phase 1b trial where FOLFIRI therapy was added to sotorasib and panitumumab in previously treated patients with KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The abstract reports the overall and progression-free survival results, as well as some updated safety and response data. So, in this study, patients with this particular mutation who had received at least one prior systemic treatment but were KRAS G12C inhibitor-naive were enrolled into an expansion cohort of the CodeBreaK-101 protocol. And these patients received what apparently now recommended as the standard phase 2 dose of sotorasib of 960 mg daily, plus panitumumab and a standard dose of FOLFIRI. And the primary endpoint of the study was safety, and secondary endpoints included confirmed response, overall response, and progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigator. And by November of last year, 40 patients had been enrolled into this study. Common treatment-related adverse events were cutaneous; some patients developed neutropenia, and stomatitis was fairly widespread. Discontinuation of sotorasib because of adverse events was only seen in 1% of patients, although patients did have to discontinue because of toxicity from some of the other agents in the combination. Looking at the results of this study, the updated objective response rate was 57.5%, and the disease control rate was estimated at 92%, going on 93%, with a median time to response of 1.6 months and a median response duration of 6 months. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months, and the overall survival 17.9 months. So, the authors have concluded that this combination, including sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI, does appear to show quite promising long-term efficacy in pretreated patients with this specific mutation. The ongoing phase 3 study they mentioned, CodeBreaK-301, is aiming to evaluate this combination against the standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. So, promising results, and we'd be very interested to see how this particular combination performs in the frontline. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing that. Let's shift gears again and really talk about digital technology. I feel that we're all going to have to get much better with this, and really, there are a lot of promises for our patients coming here. There are a lot of abstracts at ASCO that are focusing on innovations in digital technology, including a really interesting psychosocial digital application for caregivers of patients that are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? It's Abstract 11000. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. This abstract certainly caught my eye, and I think it's intriguing for a number of reasons, partly because it's app-based, and partly also because it specifically addresses caregiver burden and caregiver needs in the oncology setting, which I think is especially important. And although the context, the clinical context of this study, is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, I think it has potential applications way beyond that. We all know that caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation have significant quality-of-life struggles. They are well-documented to have significant psychological and emotional strain before, during, and after stem cell transplantation. And this abstract describes an application called BMT-CARE, which is aimed at improving caregivers' quality of life, caregiver burden, mood symptoms, and coping skills, and so on. So, this was a single-center, randomized trial from MGH [Massachusetts General Hospital] of this app for stem cell transplant caregivers, compared with usual care in those individuals. And the eligible patients, or eligible individuals, were adults caring for patients with heme malignancy undergoing either an autologous or an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients were randomly assigned either to use the app or for usual care. And the app itself—and I think it'll be interesting to actually see this at the meeting and visualize it and see how user-friendly and so on it is—but it comprises five modules, which integrate psychoeducation, behavior change, stress management, and they're delivered through a kind of interactive platform of educational games and videos. And then participants were self-reporting at baseline and then 60 days after transplant. So, around 125 patients were enrolled in this study, of around 174 who were initially approached. So, just over 70% uptake from caregivers, which is, I think, relatively high, and evenly distributed between the two randomized arms. And the majority of the participants were spouses. And at 60 days post-stem cell transplant, the intervention participants reported a better quality of life compared with those who received usual care. If you break this down a little bit more, these participants reported lower caregiving burden, lower incidence of depression, fewer PTSD symptoms, and overall better coping skills. So, the authors conclude that this particular app, a digital health intervention, led to pretty substantial improvements in quality of life for these caregivers. So, intriguing. As I said, it'll be particularly interesting to see how this thing looks during the meeting. But if these kind of results can be reproduced, I think this sort of application has potential uses way beyond the stem cell transplant setting. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I find that just so fascinating and very needed. I think that the caregiving role is often underestimated in how important that is for the patient and the whole family, and really giving our caregivers more tools in their toolbox certainly is quite helpful. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, the meeting is getting closer, and as I mentioned earlier, I think anticipation is mounting. And I wanted to say thanks so much to you for chatting with me today about some of the interesting advances in oncology that we're going to see at this year's meeting. There is a great deal more to come. Our listeners can access links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I'm also looking forward, Dr. Hamilton, to having you back on the podcast after the Annual Meeting to dive into some of the late-breaking abstracts and some of the other key science that's captured the headlines this year. So, thanks once again for joining me today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Be sure to catch my "Top Takeaways from ASCO25." These are short episodes that will drop each day of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. So, subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, and join me for concise analyses of the meeting's key abstracts.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
More on today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: No relationships to disclose Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics | |||
| Promising New Therapies in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer | 04 Sep 2025 | 00:18:27 | |
Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Petros Grivas discuss innovative new intravesical therapies and other recent advances in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Monty Pal here at the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. And I'm really delighted to be your new host here. Today's episode is going to really sort of focus on an area near and dear to my heart, something I actually see in the clinics, and that's bladder cancer. We're specifically going to be discussing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, which actually comprises about 75% of new cases. Now, in recent years, there's been a huge shift towards personalized bladder-preserving strategies, including innovative therapies and new agents that really are reducing reliance on more primitive techniques like radical cystectomy and radiation therapy. And I'm really excited about this new trend. And really at the forefront of this is one of my dear friends and colleagues, Dr. Petros Grivas. He's a professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Hematology Oncology at the University of Washington. It's going to take a while to get through all these titles. He's taken on a bunch of new roles. He is medical director of the International Program, medical director of the Local and Regional Outreach Program, and also professor in the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. Petros, welcome to the program. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you so much, Monty. It's exciting for me to be here. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Just FYI for our audience, our disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. We're going to get right into it, Petros. Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, this is a really, really challenging space. We see a lot of recurrence and progression of the disease over time, about 50% to 70% of patients do have some recurrence after initial treatment, and about 30% are ultimately going to progress on to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Now, I will say that when you and I were in training, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer was something that was almost relegated to the domain of the urologist, right? They would use treatments such as BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) in a serial fashion. It was rare, I think, for you and I to really enter into this clinical space, but that's all changing, isn't it? I mean, can you maybe tell us about some of the new therapies, two or three that you're really excited about in this space? Dr. Petros Grivas: Monty, you're correct. Traditionally and conventionally, our dear friends and colleagues in urology have been managing patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The previous term was superficial bladder cancer. Now, it has changed, to your point, to non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this has to do with the staging of this entity. These tumors in superficial layers of bladder cancer, not invading the muscularis propria, the muscle layer, which makes the bladder contract for urine to be expelled. As you said, these patients have been treated traditionally with intravesical BCG, one of the oldest forms of immunotherapy that was developed back in the 1970s, and this is a big milestone of immunotherapy development. However, over the years, in the last 50 years, there were not many options for patients in whom the cancers had progression or recurrence, came back after this intravesical BCG. Many of those patients were undergoing, and many of them still may be undergoing, what we call radical cystectomy, meaning removal of the bladder and the lymph nodes around the bladder. The development of newer agents over the last several years has given the patients the option of having other intravesical therapies, intravesical meaning the delivery of drugs, medications inside the bladder, aiming to preserve the bladder, keep the bladder in place. And there are many examples of those agents. Just to give you some examples, intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy drugs that you and me may be giving intravenously, some of them can be given inside the bladder, intravesical installation. One example of that is a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel. These drugs are given in sequence one after the other inside the bladder, and they have seen significant efficacy, good results, again, helping patients keeping the bladder when they can for patients with what we call BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And again, there's criteria that the International Bladder Cancer Group and the FDA developed, how to define when BCG fails, when we have BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And we're actually going to get into some of the FDA requirements and development pathways and so forth. What I'm really interested in hearing, and I'm sure our audience is too, are maybe some of the new intravesical treatments that are coming around. I do think it's exciting that the gemcitabine and docetaxel go into the bladder indeed, but what are some of the top new therapies? Pick two or three that you're excited about that people should be looking out for in this intravesical space. Dr. Petros Grivas: For sure, for sure. In terms of the new up-and-coming therapies, there are a couple that come to mind. One of them is called TAR-200, T-A-R 200. This agent is actually a very interesting system. It's an intravesical delivery of a chemotherapy called gemcitabine, the one that I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that is actually being delivered through what we call a pretzel, which is like a rounded [pretzel-shaped] structure working like an osmotic pump, and that is being delivered inside the bladder intravesically by urologists. And this drug is releasing, through the osmotic release mechanism, this chemotherapeutic drug, gemcitabine, inside the bladder. And this can be replaced once every 3 weeks in the beginning. And the data so far from early-phase trials are really, really promising, showing that this agent may be potentially regulatory approved down the road. So TAR-200 is something to keep in mind. And similarly, in the same context, there is a different drug that also uses the same mechanism, and this osmotic release, this pretzel, it's just encoded with a different agent. The different agent is an FGFR inhibitor, a target therapy called erdafitinib, a drug that you and me may give in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma if they have an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And that drug is called TAR-210. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And can I ask you, in that setting, do you have to have an FGFR3 mutation to receive it? Or what is the context there? Dr. Petros Grivas: So for TAR-210, TAR-2-1-0, usually there is a checking to see if there is an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And the big question, Monty, is do we have adequate tissue, right? From a limited tissue on what we call the TURBT, right, that urologists do. And now there is a lot of development in technology, for example, urine circulating tumor DNA to try to detect these mutations in the urine to see whether the patient may be eligible for this TAR-210. Both of those agents are not FDA approved, but there are significant promising clinical trials. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So now let's go to a rapid-fire round. Give us two more agents that you're excited about in this intravesical space. What do you think? Dr. Petros Grivas: There is another one called cretostimogene. It's a long name. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: They really make these names very easy for us, don't they? Dr. Petros Grivas: They are not Greek names, Monty, I can tell you, you know. Even my Greek language is having trouble pronouncing them. The cretostimogene, it's actually almost what we call a growth factor, a GM-CSF. The actual name of this agent is CG0070. This is a replicating mechanism where GM-CSF is replicating in cells. And this agent has shown significant results again, like the TAR-200, in BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. I would say very quickly, two agents that actually were recently approved and they're already available in clinical practice, is nadofaragene firadenovec, another long name. That's a non-replicating vector that has the gene of interferon alfa-2b that stimulates the immune system in the bladder. It's given once every 3 months. And the last one that was, as I mentioned, already FDA approved, it's an interleukin-15 superagonist. It's another long name, which is hard to pronounce, but I will give it a try. It's a drug that was recently actually approved also in the UK. The previous name was N-803. It's given together with BCG as a combination for BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: This is a huge dilemma, I think, right? Because if you're a practicing, I'm going to say urologist for the moment, I guess the challenge is how do you decide between an IL-15 superagonist? How do you decide between a pretzel-eluting agent? How do you decide between that and maybe something that's ostensibly, I'm going to guess, cheaper, like gemcitabine and docetaxel? What's sort of the current thinking amongst urologists? Dr. Petros Grivas: Multiple factors play into our account when the decision is being made. I discuss with urologists all the time. It's not an easy decision because we do not have head-to-head comparisons between those agents. As you mentioned, intravesical chemotherapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel has been used over the years and this is the lowest cost, I would say, the cheapest option with good efficacy results. Obviously, the nadofaragene firadenovec every 3 months and the interleukin-15 superagonist, N-803, plus BCG have also been approved. The question is availability of those agents, are they available? Are they reimbursed? Cost of those agents can come into play. Frequency of administration, you know, once every 3 months versus more frequent. And of course, the individual efficacy and toxicity data, preference of the patients; sometimes the provider, the urologist, may have something that they may be more familiar with. But we lack this head-to-head comparison. Of course, I want to make sure I mention that radical cystectomy may still be the option for appropriate patients. So that complicates also the decision making and has to be individualized, customized, and personalized, taking into account all those factors. And there is not one size fitting all. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So I think we discussed five intravesical therapies. As you point out, and you know, I'm going to get some calls about this: I think I referred to radical cystectomy as being a more primitive procedure. Not true at all. I think it's something that still is, you know, a mainstay of management in this disease space. But I guess it gets even more complicated, am I right, Petros? Because now we have systemic therapies that we can actually apply in this non-muscle invasive setting for at this point, refractory disease. Can you maybe just give us a quick two-minute primer on that? Dr. Petros Grivas: Absolutely, and systemic therapies now come into play, as you said. And a classical example of that, Monty, came from the KEYNOTE-057 trial that we published about 6 years ago. This is intravenous pembrolizumab, given intravascularly, intravenously, as opposed to the previously discussed intravesical administration of agents. Pembrolizumab was tested in that KEYNOTE-057 trial and showed efficacy about, I would say, one out of five patients, about 20%, had a complete response of the tumor in the bladder in a year after starting the treatment. Again, it's hard to compare across different agents, but obviously when we give something intravenously, there is a risk of toxicity, side effects systemically, what we call immune-related adverse events. And this can also play in the decision making, right? When you have intravesical agents versus intravascular agents, there is different toxicity profiles in terms of systemic toxicity. But intravenous pembrolizumab has been an option, FDA approved, since, if I remember, it was early 2020 when this became FDA approved. There are other agents being tested in this disease, but like atezolizumab through the SWOG study that Dr. Black and Dr. Singh led, but atezolizumab is not FDA approved for this indication. Again, this is for BCG unresponsive, high-risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So maybe teach us how it works, for instance, at an expert center like the Fred Hutch. When you see a patient with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, there's obviously the option of surgery, there's the intravesical therapies, which I imagine the urology team is still really at the helm of. But then, I guess there has to be consideration of all options. So you've got to bring up systemic therapy with agents like pembrolizumab. In that context, are you involved that early on in the conversation? Dr. Petros Grivas: That's a great discussion, Monty. Paradigm is shifting as we mentioned together. The urologists have been treating these patients and still they are the mainstay of the treaters, the managers in this disease. But medical oncologists come to play more and more, especially with the FDA approval of intravenous pembrolizumab about 5 years ago [GC1] [KM2] . We have the concept of multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic here at Fred Hutch and University of Washington. This happens every Tuesday morning, and we're very excited because it's a one-stop shop for the patients. We have the urologist, a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and experts from radiology and pathology, and we all review cases specifically with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. But every now and then, we see patients with BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this is where we discuss and we talk to the patient about pros and cons of all those options. And that's a classic example where medical oncologists may start to see those patients and offer their input and expertise. In addition to that, sometimes we have clinical trials, we may see these patients because there are systemic agents that may be administered in this setting. We have the SunRISe trial program that includes also a systemically administered checkpoint inhibitor. So that's another example where we see patients either in the context of multi-clinic or in individual solo clinics to counsel the patients about the pros and cons of the systemically administered agents in the context of clinical trials. Usually checkpoint inhibitors are the class of agents that are being tested in this particular scenario. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I can see a scenario where it's really going to require this sort of deep dive, much in the way that we do for prostate cancer, for instance, where the medical oncologist is involved very early on and planning out any sort of systemic therapy component of treatment or at the very least, at least spelling out those options. I think it's going to be really interesting to see what this space looks like 5 or 10 years down the road. In closing, I wanted to go through something that I think is so different in this space, at least for the time being, and that is the paradigm for FDA approval. When you and I have our fellows in the clinics, we always say, "Look, you know, the paradigm in this disease and that disease and the other disease needs to be phase 3 randomized trials, right? Big thousand patient experiences where you're testing clinical endpoints." That's tough in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, right? Because thankfully, outcomes can actually be quite good, you know, in this setting, right? It's tough to actually estimate overall survival in some of these early-stage populations. Tell me what the current regulatory bar is, and this is a tough thing to do in 2 minutes or less but tell me where you see it headed. Dr. Petros Grivas: You alluded to that before, Monty, when I was giving the background and we talked about the regulatory approval. And I have to very quickly go back in time about 10 years ago because it's important for context that can help us in other disease types too. We had workshops with the FDA and the NCI with the help of the International Bladder Cancer Group and other colleagues. And we try to define a framework, what endpoints are meaningful for those patients in this disease. It was a multidisciplinary, multiple stakeholders meeting, where we tried to define what is important for patients. What are the available agents? What are the trial designs we can accept? And what are the meaningful endpoints that the regulatory agencies can accept for regulatory approval? And that was critical in that mission because it allowed us to design clinical trials, for example, single-arm trials in a disease where there was no standard of care. There was intravesical valrubicin and chemotherapy anthracycline that was approved for many years, but was not practically used in clinical practice, despite being approved, the valrubicin. And because of that, the FDA allowed these single-arm trials to happen. And obviously the endpoint was also discussed in that meeting. For example, for carcinoma in situ, complete response, clinical complete response, because the bladder remains intact in many patients, clinical complete response was a meaningful primary endpoint, also duration of response is also very important. So what is the durable clinical complete response in 1 year or 18 months is relevant. And when you have papillary tumors like Ta or T1 with CIS, for papillary tumors, event-free survival becomes one of the key endpoints and you look at it over time, for example, at 12 or 18 months, what is the event-free survival? So clinical complete response, duration of response, event-free survival, depending on the CIS presence or papillary tumors, I think these are endpoints that have allowed us to design those trials, get those agents approved. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, it's awesome to have you here on the program so we can get some early looks into some of these conversations. I mean, clearly, you're at the table at a lot of these discussions, Petros. So I want to thank you for sharing your insights with us today. This was just tremendous. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you, Monty. You know, patients in the center, I just came back from the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network meeting in Washington, D.C., and we discussed all those questions, the topics you very eloquently mentioned and asked me today, and patients gave us great feedback and patients guide us in that effort. Thank you so, so much for having me and congratulations for the amazing podcast you're doing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Oh, cheers, Petros, thanks so much. And thank you to the listeners who joined us today. If you really like the insights that you heard on this ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Find out more about today's speakers:
Follow ASCO on social media: Disclosures: Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Petros Grivas: Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Strata Oncology, Abbvie, Bicycle Therapeutics Replimune, Daiichi Sankyo, Foundation Medicine, Bicycle Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Urogen Pharma, Tyra Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Gilead Sciences, Acrivon Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, ALX Oncology, Genentech Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences | |||