Dr. Greg Kalemkerian reviews the latest evidence-based rapid update from the Expert Panel on systemic therapy for small cell lung cancer. He discusses the updated recommendations for patients with limited-stage SCLC based on the ADRIATIC trial, and for patients with relapsed SCLC based on the DeLLphi-301 trial. Dr. Kalemkerian shares insights on what these changes mean for clinicians and patients, and highlights new trials in progress to provide more options for patients diagnosed with SCLC.

Read the full rapid update, "Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update" at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02245

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts.

My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Greg Kalemkerian from the University of Michigan, lead author on, "Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update".

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Kalemkerian.

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Thank you. Thank you for the invitation.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Kalemkerian, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.

So then, to dive into the content of this rapid update, Dr. Kalemkerian, what prompted this update to the Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer Guideline, which was previously published in 2023?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So even though the original guideline only came out a year ago, the past year we've seen two significant advances in small cell lung cancer with two reports, one in limited stage with the addition of immunotherapy, the other in the addition of a new immunotherapeutic agent in relapsed small cell lung cancer.

Brittany Harvey: It's great to have this new data in the small cell lung cancer space. So based on these new changes, what are the updated recommendations from the expert panel?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So the first recommendations have to do with patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer based on the ADRIATIC trial which added consolidation durvalumab for patients who had not had progression after standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy. And this study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival with about a 10% improvement in both 2- and 3-year overall survival, up to a 57% overall survival at 3 years for the patients receiving consolidation durvalumab. And based on those findings, we updated the recommendation for the standard treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer such that it included the use of consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab for up to two years in patients who had had no disease progression, and completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Of course, those patients would be those who do not have contraindications to the use of immunotherapy.

As a corollary to that recommendation, for patients who have poorer performance status, so performance status of 3 or 4, who had had initial treatment perhaps with sequential chemotherapy and radiotherapy, if their performance status improves with their initial treatment, then it would also be reasonable to add consolidation immunotherapy for those patients as long as their performance status maintains improvement and they have no evidence of progression.

The other update of the guidelines had to do with patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer and that was based on the DeLLphi-301 trial which was a phase II study looking at the use of tarlatamab, a bispecific T cell engager, binds to both DLL3 and CD3 in order to increase the immune killing of small cell lung cancer cells. So what this study did was it treated patients who had had at least two prior regimens. So this is third-line or beyond was what the population that this study looked at. And the majority of these patients had already had some immune checkpoint therapy. They all had good performance status and it did allow patients with brain metastases to be included in the study. When we look at the patients who received the approved 10 milligram dose of the drug, the response rate was about 40%. Responses were seen in both patients with sensitive and refractory based on the time since their prior treatment and the median duration of response was 10 months, which is much better than anything we've seen before with relapsed small cell lung cancer patients, remembering that all these patients were also third-line or beyond.

So based on the results of the DeLLphi-301 trial, we updated two of the recommendations regarding relapsed small cell lung cancer. In the first one, we stated that in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with a chemotherapy free interval of less than 90 days, single agent systemic therapy would be considered standard of care, and that the preferred agents would include topotecan, lurbinectedin, or, now, tarlatamab. We did mention as a qualifying statement that single-agent chemotherapy is preferred over multi-agent chemotherapy. And the second recommendation was that, in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with a chemotherapy interval longer than 90 days, the rechallenge with a platinum-based regimen or single-agent chemotherapy was considered standard and the preferred agents for single agent therapy would be topotecan, lurbinectedin, or tarlatamab being added in the recent study. Tarlatamab was approved by the FDA for use in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with no stipulations with regard to the treatment.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you describing those updated recommendations along with the supporting data for both limited stage small cell lung cancer and relapsed small cell lung cancer.

So then, what should clinicians know as they implement these new and updated recommendations into practice?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So with regard to the ADRIATIC trial or the consolidation durvalumab being added for limite- stage small cell lung cancer patients, I think the important considerations are that this was done after patients had demonstrated no progression of disease after chemotherapy and radiotherapy, so the initial treatment does not change with platinum-etoposide plus definitive radiotherapy being recommended. The addition of durvalumab is going to be potentially useful in patients generally with good performance status, so performance statuses 0 to 1, and we still have to pay attention to the patients who may have contraindications to immunotherapy, things like interstitial lung disease, autoimmune problems that do occur in patients with small cell lung cancer where they develop paraneoplastic autoimmune syndromes such as Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Those patients with those types of preexisting conditions would not be good candidates for immunotherapy use. So still having the tailored treatment to the individual patient is what's most important. The duration of the durvalumab was up to two years and not beyond that, so following those specific guidelines for the use of durvalumab in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

With regard to tarlatamab, tarlatamab is an immunotherapy treatment. So we still do have the exclusions of people who have had prior severe immune-related adverse events, people who have pneumonitis, people who have interstitial lung disease, people with autoimmune neurologic problems we can see with small cell lung cancer, these patients should not be considered good candidates for the use of tarlatamab. The study did include patients who had had treated and asymptomatic brain metastases and there is some evidence that tarlatamab can have some control of brain metastases. So that's not necessarily an exclusion.

Tarlatamab does have some other specific considerations to it in that 51% of patients had some evidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Only 1% of those patients had grade 3 CRS. So even though they had frequent fevers and hypotension and hypoxia, it was generally not severe. But this concern for CRS and also for neurologic complications after treatment does require that patients be admitted to the hospital for a 24-hour observation period during the first and second doses. Subsequent to that, patients can be observed for some time after the infusion in the outpatient setting. But they also need to have very clear and strict guidance for when they go home about what things to look for. Looking for fevers, looking for shortness of breath, looking for any neurologic changes. It's a good idea for them to have a caregiver with them in order to observe them during that time. Most of these complications occur during the first or second cycles, but it is a drug that is going to require significant education not only of our staff, but also of the patients in order to ensure that the drug's used safely.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. For these new options, it's important to tailor cancer treatment to the individual patient and the factors that you mentioned and be mindful of these potential toxicities.

So, it's always great to learn of new options for patients. But in your view, how will this update impact patients with small cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Well, clearly we need longer term follow up. So, with regard to the limited-stage small cell lung cancer situation, that's a curative situation. We have been curing patients with limited-stage disease with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for several decades now, but the cure rates were relatively low with about 25%, 30% of people becoming long term survivors. Now the hope is with the durvalumab being added on, that we can increase that number. Thus far, we have three-year survival data with a three-year survival of 57% overall survival and we're hoping that that is maintained over time and that we're not just delaying recurrences, but that we're actually preventing recurrences and helping people live longer, as has been seen with non-small cell lung cancer in stage III disease with the addition of durvalumab to chemoradiotherapy. So hopefully, we will be improving the cure rate of people with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

There are several other trials with immunotherapy in this space coming down the line and we're anxiously awaiting not only long term follow up from ADRIATIC, but also initial data from studies such as KEYLYNK and ACHILLES and NRG-LU005. So all of these studies in the next few years are hopefully going to guide treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer and hopefully improve the long term survival outcomes. With regard to tarlatamab, unclear at this point what the long term outcomes are going to be. Is a 40% response rate substantially better than what we've seen before? Well, lurbinectedin also had about a 40% response rate in patients who had sensitive disease, but the duration of response does look longer. And there are some patients now who have been on this study that are doing very well for quite long periods of time with the drug. So, the hope here also is that we will have some small subset of patients who continue to do better for long periods of time. Whether that'll translate into a cure or not, way too early to know, clearly hoping to add another brick in the wall so that we can keep the disease at bay, at least for a longer period of time for these patients.

How we will integrate tarlatamab into the regimens is a bit unclear. Whether most of us will start using it as second-line therapy or whether we will use perhaps lurbinectedin or topotecan as second-line and tarlatamab as third-line, we're all going to have to work that out based on the potential toxicities, the logistical complications of using the drug at this point in time. But I do think that it's nice to have more options to add to our armamentarium to treat this very, very challenging and difficult disease.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. So, you've just discussed the need for both longer term follow up here along with some important ongoing trials in this space. So we'll look forward to future readouts of those trials to learn more about caring for patients in small cell lung cancer.

So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly update this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Kalemkerian.

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Okay. Again, thank you for the invitation, Brittany, and thanks to ASCO for developing the whole guideline structure to help all of us take better care of our patients.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And also thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full update, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.  You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazheova share the latest updates to the ASCO living guideline on therapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. She discusses changes for patients with EGFR driver alterations in both the first- and second-line setting, and reviews the evidence supporting these updated recommendations, from trials such as MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA-2, CheckMate 722, and KEYNOTE-789. Stay tuned for future updates to this continuously updated guideline.

Read the full update, "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.2." at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02133

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts.  

My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, lead author on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.2."

Thank you for being here, Dr. Bazhenova.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It is my pleasure.

Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Bazhenova, who has joined us on this episode today, are available online with the publication of the guideline update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.

So then, to kick us off on the content here, Dr. Bazhenova, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is being updated routinely as a living guideline. So what prompted the update to the recommendations in this latest version?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO Guidelines are developed to keep up with rapidly changing evidence which affect treatment of our patients with lung cancer. In this recently published guideline, we reviewed new evidence for patients with metastatic lung cancer harboring driver alterations. We reviewed evidence from four published studies, MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA-2, CheckMate 722 and KEYNOTE-789 that resulted in updated guidelines.

Brittany Harvey: Great. And then based off those four trials that you just mentioned, what are the updated recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: In the previous guideline, we detailed FLAURA 2 study which was presented and published in the past. In this guideline, we specifically highlighted a phase 3 MARIPOSA trial which took patients with untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer which harbored classical EGFR mutations such as EGFR deletion 19 and L858R. In this study, patients were randomly assigned to receive amivantamab plus lazertinib or osimertinib or lazertinib alone. And the study showed that the primary endpoint which was progression-free survival was longer with amivantamab plus lazertinib compared to osimertinib, and numerically the progression free survival was 23.7 months with ami-lazertinib versus 16.6 months with osimertinib which was statistically significant. The challenge that we have to face when discussing that option with our patients is increased toxicity with amivantamab and lazertinib combination. For example grade 3 treatment adverse events were 75% with amivantamab and lazertinib and 43% with osimertinib. So this will require shared decision making between our patients and ourselves. We also noticed in the guidelines that there was a subgroup analysis of that study showing that the patients with a higher disease burden, central nervous metastasis or brain metastasis as well as disease which considered to be a higher risk such as commutation, for example, p53 and liver metastasis, they might benefit from intensified therapy. However, another thing that we are highlighting in the guideline is that at this point we do not know how the intensification of therapy will change overall survival of our patients. So one needs to take into account increased toxicity with that combination.

Brittany Harvey: So then Dr. Bazhenova, in addition to those updates for first line therapy, what are the updated recommendations for second line therapy?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: For patients who have progressive disease on osimertinib or other EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, we also updated our guidelines highlighting MARIPOSA 2 study. In the MARIPOSA 2 study, patients were assigned to chemotherapy versus amivantamab plus lazertinib plus chemotherapy versus amivantamab plus chemotherapy. And both of the amivantamab arms showed superiority in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone arm and therefore this becomes an additional treatment option for our patients who develop resistance to osimertinib. In addition, we also updated the results which highlight the lack of efficacy of immunotherapy in the patients who progressed on osimertinib.

There were two studies that we highlighted. One of them was a CheckMate 722 which randomly assigned patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose cancer has progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor to receive either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab which is an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

And the second study was KEYNOTE-789 which had a very similar study design. Again, patients who progressed on EGFR TKI also were assigned to receive chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab or chemotherapy alone and in both of those studies there was no improvement in progression-free survival when adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy. So for all your patients who are progressing on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and you're thinking if additional immunotherapy is necessary, we now have two randomized phase 3 studies telling us that immunotherapy should not be used in addition to chemotherapy for patients who develop progression on osimertinib.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you talking about the evidence that supports these latest recommendations from the expert panel.

So then you've already touched on this a little bit in mentioning shared decision making and discussing toxicity with these new therapies, but what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations and how do these new recommendations fit into the previous recommendations made by the panel?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Our previous recommendations did not include a MARIPOSA trial, so did not include amivantamab and lazertinib. So in our current guidelines for patients with newly diagnosed treatment-naive EGFR classical mutations, we have three options. Number one is osimertinib, number two is osimertinib plus chemotherapy based on the FLAURA study that we highlighted in the prior version of the guidelines. And the third is amivantamab plus lazertinib. At this point, we do not have any randomized head-to-head studies of those combinations with an exception of FLAURA 2 which is osimertinib plus chemo versus osimertinib. And so the decisions will have to be made on a cross-trial comparison, taking into account patient wishes if they would like to receive chemotherapy or amivantamab plus lazertinib, understanding that this combination will result in increased toxicity.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you detailing those considerations.

So then finally, what do these new options mean for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: As a patient, it is important to also be aware of what options we have and have a direct dialogue with the physician, with the treating physician, trying to understand what option will fit with each individual patient's goals, life goals, as well as toxicity concerns.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's always great to have more options for patients and it's also important to discuss all of those options with their clinician as well.

So I want to thank you so much for your work on this update and thank you for your time today, Dr. Bazhenova.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: My pleasure.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Douglas Peterson presents the latest evidence-based guideline from ISOO, MASCC, and ASCO on the prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy. He covers topics such as recommended initial workup, best practices for prevention of ORN of the head and neck before and after radiation therapy, nonsurgical and surgical management of ORN, and management of adverse events associated with ORN. Dr. Peterson also comments on the importance of this guideline and what researchers should address moving forward.
Read the full guideline, "Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy: ISOO-MASCC-ASCO Guideline" at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02750.  

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts, bringing you timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all our shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.  

My name is Brittany Harvey and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Douglas Peterson from UConn Health, lead author on "Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy: International Society of Oral Oncology, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline." Thank you for being here, Dr. Peterson.

Dr. Douglas Peterson: Thank you, Brittany. My pleasure to be here.

Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss the guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensures that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Peterson, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. 

So then, to dive into the topic we're here to discuss, Dr. Peterson, could you first provide an overview of the scope and purpose of this joint ISOO-MASCC-ASCO guideline?

Dr. Douglas Peterson: I'll be pleased to do so, Brittany. Again, thank you for the opportunity to represent the panel in this guideline. The panel has strived to present a guideline that brings consistency in clinical practice regarding prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis of the jaw (ORN) based on the highest quality contemporary science. Given the mechanistic and clinical complexity of ORN, we also stress the importance of interprofessional oncology care of these patients. The team includes, but is not limited to, clinicians representing radiation oncology, head and neck surgery, medical oncology, otolaryngology, dental medicine, oral medicine, oral oncology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and patient advocacy organizations. So it really is a collective enterprise that we bring to bear in the guideline. 

In some cases, the panel has been fortunate to be able to utilize a high quality evidence base in the literature upon which we could build strong recommendations. In selected other cases, however, we utilized informal consensus given the low evidence quality in the field. The recommendations presented have been carefully framed in this context, with the goal of providing state-of-the-science guidelines in clinical decision making and management of ORN. I'd also like to point out that the guideline brings linkage to other guidelines published by ASCO and other major oncology organizations, regarding management of symptoms and other supportive care needs associated with ORN. These companion guidelines include addressing pain, dysphagia, oral care, trismus, and psychosocial impact and survivorship, to name a few. I'd also like to say that combining the expertise of ISOO, MASCC, and ASCO has provided an important opportunity to produce this guideline. This has been a comprehensive effort by many experts. In addition to the outstanding input from the panel, I am also personally so very grateful for the expert input from ASCO's Evidence-Based Medicine Committee, as well as endorsements from other key organizations, including the American Head and Neck Society, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Academy of Oral Medicine as endorsees of the guideline. Finally in addition, Dr. Nofisat Ismaila's leadership as ASCO staff has been absolutely invaluable as well. 

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. I appreciate you providing that background on the development of this evidence-based guideline, which was developed by a multi-organizational and multidisciplinary panel.  

So to dive into the key recommendations of this guideline, this guideline addresses six clinical questions. So, starting with question one, what key points would you like to highlight regarding how ORN is characterized, graded, and reported, and what is the recommended initial workup for patients? 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: Osteoradionecrosis of the jaw of the mandible and maxilla should be characterized in the view of the panel as a radiographic, lytic, or mixed sclerotic lesion of bone, and/or visibly exposed bone, and/or, importantly, bone probed through a periodontal pocket or fistula. In the latter case, the clinical appearance of exposed bone may be extremely subtle. ORN is occurring within an anatomical site previously exposed to a therapeutic dose of head and neck radiation therapy. So we have a combined radiographic/clinical approach characterizing the lesion in the context of the patient having received previously a therapeutic dose of head/neck radiation therapy. We do recommend that clinicians evaluate ORN based on the most contemporary staging system, the ClinRad system, which is cited in the publication itself. We also advocate for the use of the ClinRad staging system not only in clinical assessment of patients, but also in clinical trials moving forward. We'll touch a little bit later on future research opportunities as well. 

Finally, the initial evaluation of ORN should include a clinical intraoral examination, and again, the appearance of exposed bone may be extremely subtle, and/or a formal radiographic examination. The guideline delineates the various types of radiographic examinations that we recommend. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations regarding reporting and characterization of ORN, as well as the workup.  

The next section of the guideline, it focuses on best practices to prevent ORN of the head and neck prior to radiation therapy. What are the key recommendations of that section? 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: As with other adverse events in oncology patients, prevention is key. Prevention of ORN does require interprofessional management. The guideline lists several key recommendations along these lines. Now, an important caveat in what the guideline presents is that the target coverage of the tumor should not be compromised in order to avoid radiation dose to bone. So that's a very important caveat. Now having said that, focused effort should be made to reduce the mean dose to the jaw and the volume of bone receiving above 50 Gy whenever possible. So it's really a balance between maximizing target coverage of the tumor while limiting exposure to normal bone. In addition, a dental assessment by a dentist and dental specialist, if possible, is strongly advised prior to therapeutic-intent radiation therapy. The purpose of this assessment by the dental team is to identify and remove teeth which will place the patient at risk of developing ORN during the patient's lifetime, and to comprehensively educate the patient about the lifelong risk of ORN. Dental extraction in advance of radiation is often a consideration to these patients, and if clinically indicated, should occur at least two weeks prior to the commencement of radiation therapy. Now having said that, in the setting of a rapidly progressive tumor, extraction should be deferred and not cause delay in the initiation of radiation therapy.

Brittany Harvey: So you just touched on key points of prevention prior to radiation therapy. Following those recommendations, what does the expert panel recommend regarding best practices to prevent ORN after radiation therapy?

Dr. Douglas Peterson: This can be a challenging clinical issue. So the panel recommends that before finalizing dental treatment plans that may include extractions in patients with a history of head and neck radiation therapy, a review of the radiation therapy plan should be performed with particular attention focused on dose to the mandible and maxilla. For teeth in areas of high-risk for ORN, alternatives to dental extraction may be possible, for example, root canal or endodontic procedures, crowns, or dental restorations, or dental filling should be offered unless the patient has recurrent infections, intractable pain, or other symptoms that cannot be alleviated without extraction. So it really becomes a combined clinical decision making effort between the dental team and oncology team. 

One controversial area has been hyperbaric oxygen being administered prior to dental extractions in patients who have received head and neck radiation therapy previously. The panel does not recommend routine use of prophylactic HBO prior to dental extractions in these patients who have received prior head and neck radiation therapy. However, the evidence base here is limited with low quality and we offer a weak strength of recommendation. It is a controversial area, so we did also include a qualifying statement that prophylactic HBO may be offered to patients undergoing invasive dental procedures at oral sites where a substantial volume of the mandible and/or maxilla receive at least 50 Gy. This is an area of controversy. We can talk about this in the future research directions, but clearly, new high quality research related to the role of HBO in the management of these patients is needed. 

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thank you for touching on those points and that area of controversy. We can definitely touch on that a bit later as we talk about future research in this field. 

As you mentioned, Dr. Peterson, this guideline addresses both prevention and management. So, in moving into the management of ORN, how should ORN be managed nonsurgically? 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: The guideline relative to nonsurgical management of ORN is focused on the use of pentoxifylline. Now this maybe used in, and this is important, in cancer-free patients with mild, moderate, and severe cases of ORN. But pentoxifylline, the guideline also notes, is most likely to have a beneficial effect if the treatment is combined with tocopherol, antibiotics, and prednisolone as well. So there's clinical judgment involved in the nonsurgical management of ORN, centered with pentoxifylline in combination with tocopherol, antibiotics, and prednisolone.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then expanding on the management of ORN, what are the key points for surgical management of ORN?

Dr. Douglas Peterson: The panel offered several recommendations for which the strength of the recommendations was strong. Just to cite a few, in partial thickness ORN as defined by the ClinRad stage one and two that we talked about earlier, surgical management can start with transoral minor interventions which can lead to resolution over time. It may take time. It may take weeks or even a few months. Now this minimally invasive surgery may include debridement, sequestrectomy, alveolectomy, and/or soft tissue flap closure. Furthermore, small defects, clinically, for example, less than 2.5 cm in length, may heal spontaneously with local topical measures such as we described. It is recommended that larger defects, larger than 2.5 cm, in general be covered with vascularized tissue. 

Brittany Harvey: Appreciate you reviewing those recommendations regarding surgical management of ORN. So to wrap up our discussion of the recommendations with the final clinical question, what is recommended for assessment and management of adverse events associated with ORN? 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: This is a really important area as well in addition to prevention and management of ORN per se. The panel recommends that patients should be assessed by their healthcare providers for the presence of adverse events at the time of ORN diagnosis and periodically thereafter until the adverse event resolves based on patient status including any interventions or the adverse events that are clinically indicated. The panel and its literature evaluation learned that there is a relative lack of data specifically directed to the management of adverse events associated with ORN. However, this is such an important area that we wanted to address it head on. And so the management we recommend should be informed by pertinent available other guidelines that had been developed for analogous symptoms and/or disease states. The guideline provides links to these companion guidelines developed by ASCO as well as by MASCC and ISOO, the European Society of Medical Oncology, and NCCN. And so in the guideline we provide links on management of adverse events as produced by these other organizations. Table 3 presents a summary of the guidelines that address symptoms and supportive care needs associated with ORN. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations. It's clear that the panel put a lot of work and thought into these recommendations and provided needed guidance in areas with limited evidence. We'll have links available in the show notes for listeners to be able to go and read these recommendations for themselves and refer to the tables that you mentioned. 

So in your view, Dr. Peterson, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact clinicians and patients with head and neck cancer?

Dr. Douglas Peterson: As we talked about throughout this podcast, the guideline is designed to synthesize the contemporary science regarding ORN and translate that into recommendations for clinical practice in both prevention and management. As noted in the guideline, oncologists plus other interprofessional healthcare providers have been directly involved in the creation of the guideline, that interprofessional theme, which we believe is so essential given the mechanistic and clinical complexity of ORN. 

Now, in addition to the expertise of the panel, the pending widespread distribution of the guideline represents an additional important opportunity for extending the impact across clinical oncology. So in addition to the publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, dissemination by MASCC and ISOO as well as our endorsees, the American Head and Neck Society, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Academy of Oral Medicine will also be key in broadening the impact and hopefully the utilization of the guideline. And members of these organizations may very well be involved in the management of these patients as well. 

And then finally, the guideline is also designed to stimulate future research based on current gaps of the knowledge and we touched on some of those gaps, for example, with HBO for which new high quality research is needed.  

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have so many partners in this guideline and we hope that this guideline will have a large impact for patients with head and neck cancer to improve their quality of life.  

So then your final comment leads nicely into my last question and that we've already talked a little bit about some of the future research opportunities that this guideline highlights. So, to wrap us up, Dr. Peterson, what are the outstanding questions regarding osteoradionecrosis of the jaw secondary to head and neck radiation therapy in patients with cancer? 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: There are several key areas that the panel identified as we went through a rigorous review of the highest quality literature. Some of the key areas to address moving forward include: prospective studies are needed to evaluate the clinical presentation, trajectory, and response to treatment of ORN-related symptoms and function impairment, in other words, the adverse event side of the story. In addition, social determinants of health, quality of life, and psychosocial impact of ORN warrant further investigation in head and neck cancer survivors as well. In addition, new research including randomized controlled trials and prospective multicenter trials regarding the systemic and surgical treatment of ORN is also warranted, and we touched on, for example, hyperbaric oxygen. Hyperbaric oxygen has been a long standing management strategy of ORN. However, the trials to date are of limited quality in relation to supporting its use. So high quality new research related to the role of HBO in these patients is needed.  

And the expert panel also encourages creation of predictive tools, a priori tools, directed to development, grading, and staging of ORN. These could include, for example, bone turnover markers and genetic markers to name two. And finally, the research opportunities that are presented in the guidelines such as what I briefly summarized today should ideally be addressed in large prospective multicenter observational studies of risk, outcomes, and financial cost of ORN or the various treatment strategies that are highlighted in the guideline.   

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Well, we'll look forward to research that addresses those outstanding questions and I want to thank you so much for your all your work on this guideline and for taking the time to share the highlights of this guideline with me today, Dr. Peterson. 

Dr. Douglas Peterson: Thank you. My privilege to do so, Brittany.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

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.

A preview of the interview by ASCO in Action podcast host ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis with retiring ASCO Chief Medical Officer Dr. Richard L. Schilsky examining Dr. Schilsky's trailblazing medical career, his leadership in ASCO and indelible mark on its research enterprise, and what he sees for the future of oncology. Dr. Hudis also shares what Dr. Schilsky's friendship and mentorship has meant to him and suggests that he will still be supporting ASCO on critical priorities. Find all nine of ASCO's podcasts and subscribe at podcast.asco.org.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Clifford Hudis: Hello, I'm Dr. Clifford Hudis, CEO of ASCO, dropping into your feed to let you know about a special episode of the ASCO in Action podcast featuring the extraordinary career of Dr. Richard Schilsky, ASCO's Chief Medical Officer. Rich and I discuss the advances that have revolutionized cancer care over the last 50 years and much, much more. Here's a preview of the episode.

Dr. Richard Schilsky: The 1980s in many respects were the doldrums of progress in clinical oncology. There really was not a lot of innovation in the clinic. But what was happening and what was invisible to many of us, of course, was that was the decade of discovery of the fundamental biology of cancer. That's when oncogenes were discovered, when tumor suppressor genes were discovered, when it became clear that cancer was really a genetic disease. And that is what transformed the field and put us on the path to targeted therapy and precision medicine as we think of it today.

Dr. Clifford Hudis: You can find the ASCO in Action Podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show. And you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight of the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org.

An interview with Dr. Jun Ma from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology on "Chemotherapy in Combination with Radiotherapy for Definitive-intent Treatment of Stage II to IVA Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline." Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Transcript

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jun Ma from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy in Guangzhou, and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology, author on Chemotherapy in Combination with Radiotherapy for Definitive-intent Treatment of Stage II to IVA Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Ma.

JUN MA: Yes.

BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines in ensuring that the ASCO conflict-of-interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict-of-interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Ma, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?

JUN MA: Thank you, Brittany. Hi, everyone. I'm Dr. Jun Ma from the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in China. And I don't have any potential conflicts of interest related to this guideline topic.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you. Then can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

JUN MA: Yes. This guideline aims to highlight significant clinical questions about the chemotherapy in combination with the radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of stage II to stage IVA NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, It will clarify the fundamental principles of the radiotherapy planning and how to combine chemo with radiotherapy for a patient's success.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then this guideline covers five clinical questions. I'd like to review those key recommendations for our listeners. First, what does the guideline state regarding radiotherapy for patients with stage II to IVA nasopharyngeal carcinoma?

JUN MA: Yes. For all nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, we support the use of IMRT summarized in the current evidence. We don't recommend the use of other techniques, such as 2D or even 3D radiotherapy. If IMRT is not available at that spot, patients should be transferred to the institution that could that could implement IMRT whenever possible.

For all NPC patients, a prescribed dose of 70 Gy in 33 or 35 fractions delivered over seven weeks should be offered. It should be noted that the radiation dose may be adjusted according to the tumor volume and its response to the chemoradiotherapy. In terms of the target delineation, we recommend you to follow several existing consensus guidelines. Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: OK. Then what is recommended regarding chemotherapy sequence in addition to radiotherapy?

JUN MA: OK, generally speaking, patients with low disease burden, such as the lower end category of clinical stage, could receive lower intensity of chemotherapy. For T2, and if not negative of patients, chemotherapy is not routinely recommended, while for T1 or 2, N1 patients concurrent chemotherapy may be offered, particularly for T2 N1 patients.

For locoregional advanced disease, except the T3 lymph node negative patients, we recommend the use after concurrent chemotherapy with induction or adjuvant chemotherapy. It should be noted that there is a lack of head-to-head trials comparing induction chemo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemo. Thus, which sequence performs better in the contemporary era remains uncertain.

Finally, for T3 lymph node-negative patients, concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be offered. Adjuvant or induction chemotherapy may also be offered if there are adverse features, such as the bulky tumor volumes or high EBV DNA copy numbers.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then you just mentioned some chemoradiotherapy regimens. So for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy, what are the recommended chemotherapy options?

JUN MA: OK, for all NPC patient without contraindications, concurrent cisplatin should be offered along with radiotherapy. Weekly use after suspending with 48 milligrams per square meter or three weekly with eight or 200 milligram per square meter is acceptable. We recommended the cisplatin dose should be attempted to achieve a cumulative dose of at least 200 milligrams per square meter.

For patients with contraindications to cisplatin, nedaplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin may be alternative choice. For patients with contraindications to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, Fluoropyrimidines such as 5FU with concurrent chemotherapy also may be offered. Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And then for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving induction chemotherapy, what are those recommended options?

JUN MA: Yes. For all patients receiving induction or adjuvant chemotherapy, platinum-based induction regimens should be offered in terms of induction chemo, such as GP, TPF, TP, PF, and the PX regimens are recommended. So induction regimens should be administered every three weeks for a total of three cycles, or at least the minimum two cycles. If the patients receive induction chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy should be commenced within 21 to 28 days from the first day of the last cycle of induction chemotherapy.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And then for the final set of recommendations for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, what are those recommended chemotherapy options?

JUN MA: Considering that adjuvant chemotherapy is a choice of adjuvant regimens were much fewer than those of induction chemotherapy, according to current evidence. PF regimen administered every four weeks for a total of three cycles is recommended. If with contraindication to cisplatin, carboplatin may be combined with 5-FU.

It should be noted that for all patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and with contraindications to platinum-containing chemotherapy, the use of non-platinum based regimens remain experimental at this time and should not be offered routinely outside of the context of a clinical trial. The main difference between the recommendation for the induction and adjuvant chemotherapy are primarily due to the number of the randomized trials in which there are few studies regarding the adjuvant chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you for reviewing each of those recommendations. So then, what is the importance of this guideline? And how will it impact clinical practice in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma?

JUN MA: For nasopharyngeal carcinoma, it has extremely uneven geographically global distribution. More than 70 percent of this new diagnosis worldwide in the 2018 year, occurred in the East and Southeast Asia. Therefore, nasopharyngeal carcinoma remains a significant public health problem in these regions, which emphasize the significance of this guideline for providers and patients from the endemic area.

From my point of view, one of the novel features of this joint deadline is that it was developed through the international collaboration with the regional groups. Experts from the CSCO and ASCO shared interpretation of the evidence while accounting for the organizing national or cultural diversity of different regions. In brief, the guideline provides the guidelines on how to plan radiotherapy and when and how to add chemotherapy. Through the interpretation protecting the guideline, care providers can avoid over or under-treatment. And providing the most suitable chemoradiotherapy for NPC patients.

Besides, for the patients, they could receive the most suitable treatment, which is the balance of the efficiency as a quantity of the life. Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Definitely, we appreciate the collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology. So thank you so much for your work on these guidelines. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Ma.

JUN MA: Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. John D. Gordan from the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Michal G. Rose from Yale Cancer Center and VA Connecticut Healthcare System on "Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline." This guideline addresses first-line and subsequent systemic therapy options for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that is not amenable to local therapies. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Transcript

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

BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network. A collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. John D. Gordon from the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Michal G. Rose from Yale Cancer Center, and VA Connecticut Health Care System, co-chairs on "Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here Dr. Gordon and Dr. Rose.

DR. MICHAL G. ROSE: Thank you.

DR. JOHN D. GORDON: Thank you.

BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Gordon, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

DR. JOHN D. GORDON: I do not.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. And Dr. Rose, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

DR. MICHAL G. ROSE: I do not, either.

BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, then thank you. Then Dr. Rose, can you first explain the general purpose and the scope of this guideline?

DR. MICHAL G. ROSE: Of course. Thank you for this opportunity. As people know, the incidence of liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, is rising rapidly in the United States and worldwide. And although there are multiple local and potentially curable treatments for early stage disease, the medical oncologist does get involved when these fail or if the patient presents with metastatic disease. And over the last three years, or bit more than three years, we've gone from having only one agent for advanced disease, which is sorafenib, to having nine agents approved for either first or subsequent lines of treatment. So this has created a really good problem for medical oncologists, how to choose between these multiple options. So the purpose of our guideline is to help us select the best treatment for the individual patient based on the best current evidence.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then this guideline covers both first line and subsequent systemic therapy options for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Dr. Gordon, what are the key recommendations for first line therapy?

DR. JOHN D. GORDON: Thanks, and it's also a great pleasure for me to be on this podcast and I appreciate the entire process of putting together this guideline. In the front line setting, a lot of what motivates the completion of this guideline is the approval of the first front line combination for advanced HCC, which is the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab. So this was approved based on a report in the New England Journal of Medicine back in May that specifically studied a first line population of patients with advanced HCC and relatively preserved liver function. And the key recommendation of this guideline is that the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab be adopted for patients that meet this description. Particular caution is recommended for patients who are at risk of specific side effects or adverse events with these agents.

So for patients receiving bevacizumab, there is a particular risk of bleeding complications and MI or other ischemic complications. And so for patients with a recent MI or with uncontrolled esophageal varices, we recommend either management of these or not using this combination. Similarly, there are a range of contraindications to use of PD1, PDL1 inhibitors, such as atezolizumab, including history of various autoimmune diseases. And so we do not recommend this combination for patients with those co-morbidities. For patients with either more advanced liver failure or the specific risks that I just outlined, we're recommending continuation when safe and appropriate, of what was the previous standard of care. Which is front line treatment with either the oral TKI lenvatinib or the oral TKI sorafenib.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for that overview of the first line recommendations. And Dr. Rose, what are the recommendations for second line therapy?

DR. MICHAL G. ROSE: So our team had a harder time with second line recommendations. And mainly because there's a lack, currently, of published data on treatment outcomes in patients who've received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab front line or lenvatinib front line. So we debated a lot in our group, which was a very multidisciplinary and collaborative group. And we did agree that patients who are well enough to receive second line therapy, that is their Child-Pugh was still A, and they had a good performance status, they should be considered for sorafenib, oral lenvatinib, if they had received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the front line setting. But of course other options for the second line would be cabozantinib or regorafinib, are reasonable in the evidence based options.

In patients who received sorafenib oral lenvatinib front line, we also discussed that it was reasonable to treat them with atezo bev because we presume that these patients did not have access to that combination in the front line. Of course if they meet the criteria that John outlined in the discussion of front line treatment. In patients who received sorafenib or lenvatinib front line, of course that we have data on using other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cabozantinib or regorafinib. We also have data on using ramucirumab in patients who have an alpha fetoprotein greater than 400. And those were the recommendations that we made.

The other discussion that we had in these guidelines was the use of the immune checkpoint inhibitors second line. And we made the recommendation that they should be considered for patients who received sorafenib or lenvatinib in the front line setting, especially if they have contraindications to the use of further tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Or if they could not tolerate tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Got it. Thank you for reviewing those second line systemic therapy options. Then Dr. Gordon finally, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact clinical practice and affect patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma?

DR. JOHN D. GORDON: Thanks. And so I think this very much follows on Michal's initial introduction about the purpose of this guideline, which was to address the dramatic proliferation of approved agents for advanced HCC. And what we were attempting to do, and I think achieved to the best that the evidence would support, was provide some degree of guidance on how providers could select both their first line agent and then later lines of therapy to the extent that patients are able to receive it. We think that the availability of these multiple agents for HCC, as Michal alluded to, is really an embarrassment of riches and now we need to think about how to use them wisely.

And we hope that actually as these new combinations and just a greater set of options enter clinical practice, it will be possible to actually do some of the studies that would address the questions that right now remain unanswered around treatments sequencing and the like. I think that there remain some interesting questions in the management of HCC, both for patients with more impaired liver function and for patients at the threshold between localized HCC who are still candidates for local regional therapies such as TACE or selective internal radiotherapy, and requiring systemic therapy as the outcomes from systemic therapy are becoming more positive. But in aggregate we think that these guidelines now provide something of a sequence for the treatment of patients who do require systemic therapy and hopefully an outline for further development.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thanks. It sounds like this will be important for both practitioners, and patients. So I want to thank you both for joining me on the podcast today and for your leadership on the development of these guidelines, Dr. Rose and Dr. Gordon.

DR. MICHAL G. ROSE: Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to discuss them.

DR. JOHN D. GORDON: Yeah, thanks as well. And thanks to the amazing team at ASCO and to the entire expert panel, which put in quite a bit of time over the several years that we developed this guideline as more and more data became available.

BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Neelima Denduluri from Virginia Cancer Specialists, U.S. Oncology in Arlington, VA and Dr. Sharon Giordano from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX on "Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." This update addresses the use of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine and the use of biosimilar forms of trastuzumab. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Transcript

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

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO podcast network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Neelima Denduluri from Virginia Cancer Specialists, US Oncology in Arlington, Virginia, and Dr. Sharon Giordano from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, co-chairs on "Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update."

Thank you for being here, Dr. Denduluri and Dr. Giordano.

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: Thanks for having us.

Dr. Sharon Giordano: Yeah, we're delighted to be here. Thank you.

Brittany Harvey: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Denduluri, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: Our institution has received research funding from companies including Genentech.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you. And Dr. Giordano, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

Dr. Sharon Giordano: No, I don't have any relevant disclosures. Thank you.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you. Then let's get into the guideline content. Dr. Denduluri, what prompted this focused update of the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy and targeted therapy for early breast cancer guideline?

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: There was an FDA meta analysis and several other studies that showed that patients that did not receive a pathologic complete response after preoperative therapy in the HER2-positive setting had a worse prognosis. In the past, we didn't have actionable findings to improve their outcome.

But there was a trial, the KATHERINE trial, that randomized patients that received chemotherapy and trastuzumab, plus or minus pertuzumab, that did not achieve a pathologic complete response to receive standard of care trastuzumab or 14 cycles of trastuzumab emtansine. And the patients that received trastuzumab emtansine had a significantly improved outcome over those that received standard of care trastuzumab. These were very impactful findings that changed care for women with early breast cancer. Therefore, we wanted to update the guideline.

Brittany Harvey: So Dr. Giordano, there are two new recommendations in this guideline update. First, what does the guideline say regarding the use of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine following standard preoperative chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with residual invasive cancer in the breast or lymph nodes at surgery?

Dr. Sharon Giordano: So the first recommendation was based on the data from the KATHERINE trial that Dr. Denduluri just mentioned. And so their recommendation is that patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who have pathologic invasive residual disease at surgery to either in the breast or the lymph node after standard pre-op chemo with HER2-targeted therapy should be offered 14 cycles of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine unless there's a recurrence or unworkable toxicity. So basically stating, based on the data from KATHERINE, that if patients have residual disease after their chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer, they should get adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine. And the panel overall felt that the evidence behind this-- the quality of the evidence was very high, and it had a strong recommendation for this treatment.

Brittany Harvey: And then second, Dr. Denduluri, how does this guideline address the use of biosimilar forms of trastuzumab?

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: So biosimilars are increasingly being incorporated into clinical practice, and the guidance that we have from the FDA is that the efficacy of biosimilars compares well with standard trastuzumab. So, we said that patients that would receive trastuzumab are allowed to receive trastuzumab biosimilar without what we think will negatively impact their outcome.

Dr. Sharon Giordano: For that recommendation, we also had input from the Breast Cancer Guideline Advisory Group that helped us decide to expand the update to include the biosimilars. We think that at least five biosimilars have been approved by the FDA, and based on similar efficacy and similar safety data felt that it was appropriate to use them or trastuzumab in a setting where previously we had just used trastuzumab.

Brittany Harvey: Great. And then how will this guideline update impact clinical practice?

Dr. Sharon Giordano: I think that many practitioners have already adapted clinical practice to start to use adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine based on the KATHERINE data, but we certainly hope that this guideline update will reinforce the practice of providing adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with residual disease after preoperative treatment. The improvement in outcomes was really clinically meaningful for patients, so this does seem to be a significant step forward in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer.

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: Additionally, I think that it's important to remember, as clinicians, that we should think about preoperative therapy in those patients with higher-risk HER2-positive disease, because we know that we can impact their outcomes if they don't achieve a pathologic complete response. And hopefully this guideline will heighten the awareness that we need to do that. The other question that we commonly are asked is, even if there is a small amount of residual invasive carcinoma, should we switch to trastuzumab emtansine instead of trastuzumab plus or minus pertuzumab. And what the KATHERINE data did show is that patients that-- even if they had a small amount of residual cancer burden, they still derived benefit.

Obviously, we have to think about the safety, and we also wanted to outline that in this guideline that trastuzumab emtansine is associated with a higher risk of neuropathy and thrombocytopenia and liver function abnormalities. So we certainly need to worry about that. And those patients that do have poor tolerance, we can go back to their HER2-targeted backbone they received in the preoperative setting.

Dr. Sharon Giordano: Yeah, those are great additional points.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And you've both already touched on a bit of how adjuvant therapy impacts patients, but how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: I think that really, as Dr. Giordano stated, this is an overwhelming benefit that we don't normally see in terms of impacting outcomes. So the addition of trastuzumab emtansine potentially has good efficacy for them and improves their outcomes.

Dr. Sharon Giordano: Yeah, I agree. I think this trial was associated with a really meaningful reduction in risk of recurrence and better outcomes. So this really is a step forward for treating HER2-positive breast cancer.

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: The other interesting thing about this trial is that it did not delay their local therapy. They allowed concurrent trastuzumab emtansine with radiation therapy. And they also, in terms of systemic therapy, allowed endocrine therapy with trastuzumab emtansine, similar to what we do with trastuzumab plus or minus pertuzumab in the adjuvant setting. So as Dr. Giordano stated, really impactful in terms of efficacy, well-tolerated in most situations, and pragmatic in terms of not holding up the local therapy and the systemic therapy that they may need additionally.

Brittany Harvey: Great, thank you so much for sharing that information about how it impacts patients. I appreciate you both coming on the podcast today and for all your work that you put into updating these guidelines. And thank you for your time today Dr. Giordano and Dr. Denduluri.

Dr. Sharon Giordano: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.

Dr. Neelima Denduluri: Thank you both, and thank you Brittany for always working so hard to make sure that these guidelines help our patients.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Felasfa Wodajo from Virginia Cancer Specialists on "The Treatment of Metastatic Carcinoma and Myeloma of the Femur: Joint MSTS/ASTRO/ASCO Guideline." This guideline covers medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical recommendations regarding the management of patients with metastatic or myelomatous lesions of the femur. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Transcript

ASCO: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world's cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org

My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Felasfa Wodajo from Virginia Cancer Specialists in Fairfax, Virginia, co-chair on the treatment of metastatic carcinoma and myeloma of the femur, joint Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. Thank you for being here Dr. Wodajo.

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: Thank you so much Brittany, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about our joint guideline that is being published as we speak. It's a great opportunity to share the information with your members as well as hopefully patients and members of other societies.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Then first I'd like to note that ASCO takes care in the development of its guidelines in ensuring that the conflicts of interest are managed for each guideline. This guideline expert panel was assembled in accordance with the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons conflict of interest policy implementation for clinical practice guidelines. And the full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online in the full text of the joint guideline on the MSTS website.

Dr. Wodajo, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: There's one relevant, but not directly conflicting. I'm a consultant for ONKOS Surgical. That's a maker of implants, but mostly for patients who need sarcoma surgery, and they don't make implants for the types of conditions that are in the guideline.

Brittany Harvey: OK, well thanks for letting us know. First, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: Sure. The guideline is focused on the effects of metastatic carcinoma or myeloma on the femur. And, as all medical oncologists are aware, metastatic disease to the bone and myeloma are often associated with skeletal pain and sometimes skeletal fractures. Those fractures can occur in any part of the body, spine, of course long bones, and ribs, and so on.

But in our world of orthopedic surgery-- I'm a representative from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society-- the bones and then added complication are not all equal, and some areas have greater morbidity and effect on patient's outcome than others, the femur being a very important one. And we wanted to focus our efforts on discussing the causes and potential treatments of metastatic disease to the femur.

Brittany Harvey: And then what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: Sure, I'm looking forward to discussing those. I do want to, of course, take a second to acknowledge the hard work that was done by my co-chairs, Dr. Patrick Getty, also from the MSTS, Dr. John Charlson, who was an ASCO co-chair, and Dr. Josh Petit, who is the ASTRO co-chair. And also this gives me a chance to say that this guideline was a joint effort between those three organizations which you already mentioned.

The initiative was led by our organization-- the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, MSTS-- which is a mostly North American, but also international, society of musculoskeletal tumor surgeons, also known as orthopedic oncologists. And therefore, in almost every place that members of our group work, they're working in close association with medical oncologists and radiation oncologists.

So we wanted to make sure that the guideline reflects the input of all three specialties since all three specialists are often treating the same patients. And in developing the PICO questions-- which are the underlying questions in developing a guideline-- we made sure that we had co-chairs-- one from each of the societies-- agree on which PICO questions to include in the final literature search.

And then finally, the guideline as written, roughly breaks the recommendations down by specialty. It starts off with medical oncology topics, then radiation oncology topics, and then surgical topics. So that's a little bit of background that might be helpful.

I also wanted to mention that one of the meta level findings was the paucity or the dirth of literature that directly addressed the question at hand which is, what kinds of treatments can prevent femur fractures, and then which therapies are best for patients with disease in the femur that may or may not lead to fractures. And we started off with a fairly broad net. But as we focused down on the questions, our initial literature search-- which resulted in over 4,000 journal articles-- was winnowed down to a total of 23 papers which had the high enough level of evidence to be included in our guideline production. And therefore, that inevitably a good number of our questions-- not having strong enough evidence to make a strong evidence based recommendation-- and therefore more than half of our recommendations in the end had to be consensus or expert opinion.

So let me continue with your original question which is, what are the key recommendations. Well, questions that we were interested in were number one, to what extent can non-surgical treatments of metastatic disease to the femur, or myeloma in the femur, will reduce the risk of fracture.

So almost everybody listening to this podcast will know well that bone targeted agents such as the bisphosphonates and denosumab have a strong effect validated in multiple high level randomized and prospective studies in reducing Skeletal Related Events, SREs. As you know, as the listeners also know, Skeletal Related Events is a fairly broad umbrella term, and it includes fracture of any bone as well as hypercalcemia and need for surgery.

But like I said earlier on, a compression fracture of a vertebral body which causes back pain but is treated conservatively, and a fracture of the rib, which also causes pain, treated conservatively or nonoperatively, is a very different matter from a femur fracture which always requires surgery in order to allow the patient to ambulate and regain function.

Having said that, we were disappointed to find that in much of the literature around bone targeted agents-- of which there is plenty-- there's really very little of it that you can find where they stratify, or at least retort, which bones were fractured. So even though there is a strong literature base supporting reduction skeletal events, we can't really say for sure that the risk of a fracture of a femoral lesion is diminished by both targeted agents.

That came out as a consensus statement because this seems to reduce fractures overall, so we left this as a consensus and agreed that BMAs may assist in reducing the incidence of femur fractures.

The next item, number three, in our final report recommended that clinicians consider decreasing the frequency of zoledronic acid dosing to 12 weeks instead of the usual, and most common, four week interval.

There's actually a fair amount of literature supporting quarterly injections as equally efficacious. That's mostly focused on zoledronic acid. It may be true for [INAUDIBLE]. It may also even be true for denosumab, but the literature didn't support that as yet.

But we did make this strong recommendation on our part that clinicians consider reducing the frequency of dosing. If nothing else, because in addition to reducing costs to the patient and time of the patient, we think there may be-- and we put this in our rationale-- there's some chance that some of the unintended side effects of long-term treatment with these bisphosphonate and bismuth therapies such as aseptic necrosis of the jaw and atypical fractures, or brittle bone fractures, of the femur may be reduced with decreased frequency.

Extrapolating from the finding that the longer patients are treated, the higher the incidence of these conditions are, especially atypical fractures. So it could be that less frequent dosing is analogous to less length of treatment. So that was an evidence based and strong recommendation.

We also then looked at the effect of radiation on bone lesions and whether or not it does reduce risk of fracture. We found, not surprisingly, that the radiation oncology literature really focuses on pain. And it's been proven many times and in multiple studies across many decades that radiation therapy does reduce pain at 80% to 90%. And even re-treatment will reduce pain in up to 50% to 70% of patients. But surprisingly, there's actually very little data out there whether it reduces the risk of fracture.

Now we would presume that fracture risk is correlated to bone loss, and that would be radiolucency or loss of calcification on the X-ray. And there are some studies out there which attempt to measure density of bone before and after radiation therapy. And there seems to be some validation, or at least some measurement out there that radiodensity does increase with radiation therapy, and again, we went from that and extrapolated that fracture risk would best be reduced.

But that ended up being a consensus statement. And it's actually a fairly important topic. And hope that more studies would be forthcoming on this, because it would be very helpful for us to predict ahead of time whether this patient can avoid a fracture with radiation alone or do they need to go to surgery.

Next we talked about how effective or beneficial is radiation after somebody's had surgery. So whether or not they've had a fracture, is there a further benefit to radiation. And here the amount of data was even more disappointing.

There's really only two studies that attempt to address this question-- is there a benefit to additional radiation following surgery-- neither one of which was well controlled. They're way out of date and the criteria themselves used in measuring the benefit were not validated.

Now we felt, as a work group-- again consisting of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgical oncologists, in this case orthopedic oncologists-- that the additional morbidity from radiation after surgery is fairly low. So we left that recommendation as that it has some benefit, but that was the consensus only.

One item that we elevated from consensus to a moderate strength was the benefit of using multifraction radiotherapy to reduce the risk. There is some data-- again, it may be biased-- that patients who undergo single dose radiotherapy as opposed to multifraction radiotherapy for metastatic lesions have an increased risk of fracture. And it may be associated and it may be that those patients getting single dose radiation were at higher risk or had more rapidly progressing disease. But there may be some signal in that noise, and after evaluating the papers and with the help of our experts in radiation oncology, we elevated that to a moderate strength of recommendation.

Then there was a series of questions we tried to address, various surgical techniques and the management of pathology of fractures in the femur and prevention of, and those questions are really more about surgical technique. And these were addressed to our surgical colleagues in large part. I don't know, and I would suspect that the audience of this podcast probably won't be as interested in these questions as the ones we just discussed, so I'll leave those for another time. But I will say a large number of these ended up being also consensus driven evidence.

Brittany Harvey: Got it. Well, thank you so much for reviewing those highlights from the multidisciplinary group and the supporting level of evidence. That's very helpful. So in your view, why is this guideline so important and how will it impact clinical practice?

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: So, thank you for the question. I'll answer that in two ways. I think the two items that might be of immediate clinical relevance, and therefore of help to patients and their physicians, is number one, further promulgation of the idea of less frequent dosing of bone targeted agents is equally efficacious.

We felt that, if based on our common experiences in our various practices and institutions, that still was not widespread practice. In other words, most patients were still receiving monthly injections of these medications. So we do believe that there is some net patient benefit available to us if those are reduced to quarterly injections for the reasons I mentioned above. So that's one potential immediate release and early improvement that we can expect for patients.

I think the other one, to some extent, may be that what I discussed a little while ago about and multifraction versus single fraction therapy. Again, we don't have nationwide survey data to tell us how often those techniques are used. Again, based on this sort of experience of the workup we thought that that may not be widely understood. So those are two immediate clinical benefits that may be there for patients.

The other way I would look at is at a meta level. Number one was that this is a cooperative venture in which the design and implementation of the guideline was across three organizations. And many times guidelines do incorporate the viewpoints of people of multiple specialties, and sometimes even patient representatives. But it's also, I think, further valuable to have multiple organizations involved because there's some cross-fertilization opportunities there, other products may arise from that, and then also you get what we hope is promulgation of that information to people of different specialties. In other words, these recommendations don't stay inside the ecosphere of one association.

Now when you have multiple organizations working on one project, necessarily it gets more complicated. And there is certainly a heavier administrative burden in getting this project initiated and completed. But hopefully the benefits of that will accrue.

The other thing which I'd like to mention is that I think the paucity of high level evidence for the questions we ask-- which we believe are important questions for physicians and patients-- I think hopefully should stimulate the researchers in these fields to accrue more data so that future researchers and clinicians have access to these information.

For example, I suspect that in future prospective studies of bone targeted agents-- those studies are ongoing-- new agents will be coming out. Pharma will be looking at how those work for their patients in the future. And we would like to ask that those future researchers include, at a minimum, anatomic data for fractures. In other words, they should unbundle Skeletal Related Events and tabulate fractures as occurring in which part of the bone, and if that resulted in surgery.

Those data are there in the records, but if they don't collate them as they go forward, they will not be available to us, and so therefore won't be as efficacious in helping our patients in the future.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Those are some important points and I like that you touched on the collaboration of the societies. We find that very important at ASCO to one, reduce the duplication of efforts, and then also to improve the clarity of the recommendations. So, I guess then, finally-- and you've addressed this a bit in terms of dosing of bone modifying agents-- what do these guideline recommendations mean for patients?

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: Well, for the bone targeting agents, as I said, that might mean fewer doctors visits and maybe less expense, hopefully fewer side effects. For the hyperfractionated radiation, it may not be immediately apparent. I mean a lot of times when a patient's getting single fraction radiation they are fairly advanced in their cancer. But of course they'll get more fractions which means more time in the machine. But hopefully maybe some benefit If they survive longer, which of course, patients are now doing. So those are two potential patient benefits.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Well thank you for your work on these guidelines and for joining me on the podcast today Dr. Wodajo.

Dr. Felasfa Wodajo: I very much appreciate your invitation, and thank you.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play store.

If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. William P. Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on "PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides recommendations on the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for management of epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.

Transcript

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

Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. William P. Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, lead author on PARP inhibitors and the management of ovarian cancer. Thank you for being here, Dr. Tew.

Dr. William Tew: Thank you, Brittany, for having me.

Brittany Harvey: First, I'd like to note the ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Tew, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?

Dr. William Tew: No, I do not.

Brittany Harvey: OK, thank you. Then, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Dr. William Tew: Sure. So my co-chair, Elise Kohn, and panel members, and ASCO staff put together a very comprehensive guideline on the use of PARP inhibitors in the management of women with ovarian cancer. And as many of your listeners may know, there has been a rapid speed of phase 3 practice changing trials that have been published and FDA approvals within the last year, and what we wanted to do was to put that all in one document and give guidance on how and when and which PARP inhibitor to use in your specific patient and at what point during the lifecycle of ovarian cancer of when to use it.

So we broke up the guideline into five sections. One is the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first line platinum based treatment in women with stage 3 and 4 ovarian cancer. Second, we looked at maintenance therapy after a second or higher platinum based treatment. Three, the use of PARP inhibitors as treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

We then looked at different combinations of PARP inhibitors, whether it's with chemotherapy or biologics and the data that we have presently on those combinations. And then lastly, we looked at common side effects with PARP inhibitors and offering guidance on how to manage those toxicities.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Then you just mentioned that this covers several different sections, so I'd like to go through each of those sections and review those recommendations for our listeners. So first, what are the recommendations for PARP inhibitors for patients with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer?

Dr. William Tew: So for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, there's been several studies that have been published in the last year and a half, and we broke this up into the different studies and the different patient populations. First and foremost, we wanted to stress that PARP inhibitors are not recommended for the use in the initial treatment of patients with early stage, meaning stage 1 or 2 ovarian cancer, because there really isn't sufficient evidence to support the use in this population. All of the trials looked at patients with stage 3 or 4 epithelial ovarian cancer and used primarily in the main setting, and what that basically means is that women that have had a complete or partial response to first line platinum based chemotherapy and have response by CT scan or CM 125, when do you use a PARP inhibitor?

Which are the women that you would say PARP inhibitor is going to benefit you with long-term outcome? So our first recommendation is based on a trial-- looking at a drug called olaparib. Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor published in this population, and in that study, they included women with both germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. And so this is a group of women that you could offer olaparib for.

And generally, that is given at a dosage of 300 milligrams once every 12 hours for up to two years. The second study looked at a drug called niraparib, and in this trial, they included population of all women, regardless of BRCA status. And they offered it to women with high-grade serous or endometrial ovarian cancer. And the FDA has given approval for the use of niraparib for all patients, and that is at a dosage of 200 to 300 milligrams oral daily for three years, with the lower dose given for patients who have a low platelet count or low body weight to prevent the common toxicity of thrombocytopenia.

Then you could consider longer durations in select individuals, but generally, these drugs are given for a limited period of time and continued unless a patient has significant toxicity or progression. The other two studies in the newly diagnosed ovarian cancer population was a study that looked at olaparib with bevacizumab maintenance. This was a study that included patients with germline or somatic mutations and BRCA 1 or 2 and/or genomic instability or homologous repair deficiency, as determined by the myriad my choice test.

And again, this population, a partial or complete response to chemotherapy and their first line therapy should have included bevacizumab. And so if one is on bevacizumab with their platinum based therapy, they should have a response to treatment, one could continue bevacizumab and add the addition of olaparib as a PARP inhibitor. And then the final study that we addressed was called switch therapy, and that we don't really have enough data to support its use, specifically that's with the drug called veliparib, and veliparib was given in addition to the chemotherapy and then continued as a maintenance therapy.

We don't really have sufficient data to suggest this was superior, equal, or less toxic than the approaches discussed above, which is single agent PARP inhibitor or bevacizumab with PARP inhibitor. And it should be noted, also, veliparib is not yet an FDA approved drug and not commercially available.

Brittany Harvey: OK, then what are the recommendations for PARP inhibitors for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer?

Dr. William Tew: Yeah, and this data has been around a little bit longer, and I think any oncologists that treat them with ovarian cancer are more comfortable with the evidence with these studies. So what we're talking about here is that patients who were in clinical remission and then their ovarian cancer recurs. And the first group of women that we look at is patients that are then retreated with platinum based therapy. Those women that have platinum sensitive disease, and then whether to offer PARP maintenance in the second line or more remission settings.

And there is very good data to support the use of PARP monotherapy in second or greater maintenance. This has been shown with all three commercially available PARP inhibitors, olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. We do know that women who have a germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in the BRCA 1 or 2 genes have the highest benefit of maintenance PARP inhibition, and those patients have the strongest evidence to receive those drug.

So the only other point I wanted to make with current ovarian cancer is if a patient has received a PARP inhibitor in the past, there is no evidence to give a second exposure to PARP inhibitor. Those studies are being developed now, but PARP inhibitor use once in the life cycle is what's recommended. And then there's also evidence to use PARP inhibitor as an actual treatment. So not in the maintenance setting, and the drug most commonly used as one called niraparib or olaparib, and these are patients that have measurable disease or generally have platinum sensitive disease, and those women that have homologous repair deficiency, as determined by the Myriad myChoice test, and again, have platinum sensitive to disease do have benefit for treatment with PARP inhibitors.

Brittany Harvey: OK, then, so you just mentioned this, but is it correct that PARPi therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be repeated over the course of treatment?

Dr. William Tew: Right now, that is what we recommend. All of the studies that looked at the use of PARP inhibitors disqualified women who have had prior PARP inhibitors. So as of now, we don't have any evidence to support the use of repeated PARP inhibition.

Brittany Harvey: And what does the guidelines say about using PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents?

Dr. William Tew: There are many studies going on currently looking at the use of PARP inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and other targeted agents, but currently, at least in the recurrent setting, there is no data to support its use in combination with another anti-cancer treatment. Now, of course, in the context of a clinical trial, this would be very reasonable, and we encourage clinical trial participation.

The only studies that looked at PARP in combination with other anti-cancer treatments are in the first line setting, as I discussed earlier, including PARP inhibitors with bevacizumab, as in the case with olaparib or PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, as is often the case with veliparib.

Brittany Harvey: OK, thank you. And then how should clinicians manage the adverse effects associated with PARP inhibitors?

Dr. William Tew: I think the first and foremost thing is to be aware of the specific side effect profile of each PARP inhibitor, because they can vary slightly between parts. The most common side effects include fatigue, nausea, change in appetite, and effects on the blood counts, and we gave guidance on each of those specific side effects. As far as the effects on the blood counts, anemia, I'd say, is one of the more common side effects across all PARPi's, and the use of blood transfusions is generally recommended if patients are symptomatic and their hemoglobin is below 8 to 7.

And then for neutropenia, usually, this requires hold of dosing, and we did not encourage the use of growth support, although it may be used in certain settings when the drugs on hold. And then the final cytopenia issue is the issue with platelets, and this is unfortunately very common side effect with niraparib. And we discussed earlier about starting at a lower dose, 200 milligrams of niraparib based on a weight and platelet count to help temper the degree of thrombocytopenia. But with thrombocytopenia, clearly, the drugs sometimes need to be held or discontinued if it's significant.

And with cytopenias, we do recommend close observation of laboratory blood work, particularly in the first month of use of PARP inhibitors, and then always being mindful if patients are on PARP inhibitors for prolonged periods of time that there has been reports of treatment related myelodysplastic syndromes and leukemias and that should be further worked up if there is any evidence of dysplasia.

Brittany Harvey: So then, what is the importance of this guideline in your view, and how will its implementation affect clinical practice?

Dr. William Tew: Well, I think this is the most up-to-date and comprehensive guideline on PARP inhibitors and will help, both clinicians and patients, understand all the practice changing studies, the populations, and the settings they will use, and all these studies that were published over the last five years. I think this last year we've seen such a rapid growth of clinical trial results and FDA approvals that this manuscript, I think, successfully puts them all together in table form and brief recommendations to better treat and provide proper management to your patients with ovarian cancer.

Brittany Harvey: And then finally, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients with ovarian cancer?

Dr. William Tew: We were very fortunate to have two patient advocates as part of our panel, and what they told us was that these recommendations will help them understand the scientific trials, will put in context when to use PARP inhibitors, and also to prepare them for those conversations that they have with their clinicians in discussing if they're a good candidate for a PARP inhibitor now or in the future. So we're really proud of that, that we were able to get our patients perspective in developing these guidelines.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Well, thank you for your work on these important and timely guidelines and for taking the time to join me on the podcast today, Dr. Tew.

Dr. William Tew: My pleasure. Thank you so much, Brittany, for having me.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available on iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Davendra Sohal from the University of Cincinnati, and Dr. Daniel Laheru from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins on "Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." This update covers new information on targeted therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines

Transcript

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Davendra Sohal from the University of Cincinnati, and Dr. Daniel Laheru from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, co-chairs on Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer, ASCO Guideline update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Sohal and Dr. Laheru.

Hi, Brittany. Thank you for inviting us.

Happy to be here. Thanks.

First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. But Doctor Sohal, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?

No, I do not have anything directly in conflict. Thank you.

And Dr. Laheru, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

Thank you, Brittany. I do not either.

Great. Than delving into the guideline content, Dr. Laheru, can you tell us what prompted an update to this guideline?

Yeah, sure. So what has been seen in almost every cancer is that with careful understanding of the molecular alterations of individual cancers, that targeted therapies have been developed for almost every cancer. And so for pancreas cancer, we have not had an opportunity in the past to use targeted therapies. Because for pancreas cancer, many of the genetic alterations that are found in other cancers are not seen in pancreas cancer. And so the guidelines were updated based on new evidence of the use of certain targeted therapies for pancreas cancer.

Then Dr. Sohal, what are the key updates that were made to the recommendations in this guideline iteration?

So the key updates relate to the so-called targeted therapies, the genomic-driven therapies that have now come up with evidence that pertains to pancreatic cancer as well. The overarching update is that every patient with metastatic pancreatic cancer who is a candidate for treatment should have tumor or somatic, the so-called somatic genomic profiling, as well as germline genomic testing, because these can lead to treatment recommendations.

And those treatment recommendations include PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor therapies for microsat light instability high tumors, track the TRK fusion inhibitors, such as larotrectinib and entrectinib for track fusions in tumors. And PARP inhibitors, such as olaparib for germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to be used as maintenance therapy after stable disease on platinum-based therapy.

Then Dr. Laheru, can you speak to the importance of this guideline and how it will drive changes to clinical practice?

Yes. So as Dr. Sohal said, these specific genetic alterations, the mismatch repair deficiency, the use of PARP inhibitors for BRCA1, BRCA2 germline mutations or somatic mutations that are pathologically significant, and for the NTRK fusion transcripts, even though these mutations for pancreas cancer are quite unusual, less than 5%, for example, for NTRK fusion transcripts, 5% to 10% for BRCA1, BRCA2 germline mutations, and probably 1% or 2% for a mismatch repair deficient pancreas cancer, the committee felt that we should inform the larger cancer community that even though these mutations are uncommon, if they are found, they could be very important for individual treatment for pancreas cancer.

And so this is why we really felt that it was time to provide an update, because of the recent information with the olaparib maintenance and with the NTRK inhibitors for the NTRK fusion transcripts.

Great. And then finally, Dr. Sohal, how do you envision that this guideline update will affect patients?

I think it expands our armamentarium for pancreas cancer patient management. It affords opportunities for better treatments, targeted therapies, which have hopefully higher efficacy and lower toxicity than standard chemotherapy, even though, as Dr. Laheru said, the proportion of patients being eligible for these therapies may be only around 5%. Still, in a disease where there are not many options, every 1 in 20 patients can get these therapies based on tumor genomic profiling and/or germline testing.

And the other slightly different but associated topic is that if germline testing finds something in the patient, a bad gene, then obviously, that patient's blood relatives can be tested for that germline finding, and there may be implications for further testing and surveillance of family members.

Well, thank you both for your work on this metastatic pancreatic cancer guideline update. And thanks for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Sohal and Dr. Laheru.

It's our pleasure, Brittany. Thank you very much.

Certainly. Thank you so much.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available on iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Jessica Hwang from MD Anderson Cancer Center and Dr. Andrew Artz from City of Hope Cancer Center on "Hepatitis B Virus Screening and Management for Patients with Cancer Prior to Therapy: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion Update." This update presents a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management that calls for universal HBV serological testing of patients at the onset of anticancer therapy. Read the full PCO at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines

Transcript

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network a collection of nine programs, covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Jessica Hwang from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr. Andrew Artz from the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California, co-chairs on hepatitis B screening and management for patients with cancer prior to therapy, ASCO provisional clinical opinion update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Hwang and Dr. Artz.

Thank you for inviting us.

Thank you so much.

First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guideline products and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed. The full conflict of interest information for this provisional clinical opinion panel is available online with the publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Hwang, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this topic?

Well, I have received some research funding from Gilead, a maker of a hepatitis drug in the past.

And, Dr. Artz, do you have any relevant disclosures?

I have no relevant disclosures.

OK, then so, Dr. Artz, so this provisional clinical opinion, or PCO, on hepatitis B screening and management for patients with cancer prior to therapy was first published in 2010 and then last updated in 2015. What prompted this update to the PCO?

This PCO guidance, more broadly, is necessary because the hepatitis B status for most patients is actually unknown at the time they're starting cancer therapy. In 2015, the PCO though suggested that we limit hepatitis B screening to patients who were at most risk for hepatitis B reactivation, if they were hepatitis B carriers, so those receiving anti-CD20 antibodies, such as rituximab or stem cell transplant. But for the remaining patients, most patients receiving cancer therapy, the guidance was to survey patients about their close contacts or exposures to hepatitis B and determine if formal hepatitis testing should ensue.

This 2020 PCO represents an evolution in our understanding of hepatitis B screening and the dangers of hepatitis B after anticancer therapy. We've learned from studies, including those done by my colleague, Dr. Hwang, that questionnaires to detect hepatitis B are not very effective or practical. We also have accumulating information that many of our anticancer therapies pose a significant danger for hepatitis B related complications in hepatitis B infected patients. We believe appropriate monitoring and treatment, as outlined in the PCO, will reduce these dangers.

So given that new information, I'd like to discuss the updated statements for the PCO. So first, Dr. Hwang, for patients who will receive systemic anticancer therapy, who should be tested for HBV and how should they be tested?

That's a great question, Brittany. Thanks. I think that the data is really clear now that all patients with cancer anticipating systemic anticancer therapy should be tested for hepatitis B virus. That includes all solid tumor patients, as well as hematologic malignancy patients.

And they can be tested with a simple blood test. The hepatitis B virus can be tested by three blood tests for hepatitis. It's the hepatitis B surface antigen, HBsAG, or the hepatitis B core antibody. There are two types of this. It's either the IgG or the total IG, which shows, if positive, could indicate a patient has past infection. There is a IgM version of that core antibody test. And that tells, if positive, tells whether a patient has acute infection. So for our purposes, it's recommended that the IgG or total IG is used and not the IgM, because we are interested in whether a patient has past infection.

So the third test is a hepatitis B surface antibody. And this is a protective antibody. So if positive, it shows that a patient has had some exposure in the past or perhaps a vaccination in the past. And so this is a good test to have positive.

So then what does the PCO state for patients with chronic HBV infection?

Patients with chronic HBV infection, that is those patients with a positive hepatitis B surface antigen test, these patients really should have very close monitoring during as well as after anticancer therapy. These patients will need antiviral therapy prophylactically prior to enduring as well as after the cancer treatment. They should also see a clinician experienced in the management of hepatitis B, whether it's a hepatologist, a gastroenterologist, an infectious disease specialist, or maybe a primary care doctor who's experienced in treating and caring and monitoring for patients with hepatitis B. That's really important for these patients with a chronic hepatitis B, because they are at high risk of developing complications during and as well as perhaps even shortly thereafter of receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

And then what does the PCO state for patients with past HBV infection?

This is a really good question. The patients with past HBV infection are those who have a negative hepatitis B surface antigen and a positive hepatitis B core antibody. This represents maybe some 6% at least of the US population. It could be much higher. So this is a sizable group of patients. And it's really important to know that it is sort of a tailored approach.

So patients with past HBV infection who are anticipated to receive one of the high risk anticancer therapies that Dr. Artz mentioned just a few moments ago, namely stem cell transplantation or maybe one of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, these patients are at really high risk of reactivation. So these patients would need a very close monitoring plan. They would need their hepatitis B and liver test monitored during their anticancer therapy. And most often they would need antiviral prophylaxis before, during, and even after their immunosuppressive therapy ends.

So there are patients, of course, who don't receive these high-risk therapies. So that is patients with past HBV infection who are receiving anticancer therapy that's not a stem cell transplant and not an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. These patients could be monitored carefully. They could have hepatitis B and/or liver testing monitoring during anticancer therapy. And if they have any elevations in their surface antigen or their ALT, then they could have further hepatitis B testing to see if they have any evidence of complications from their hepatitis B. So that's in general what the PCO recommends for these two groups.

Well, thank you for reviewing those highlights from the PCO. So Dr. Artz, what is the importance of this PCO and how will its implementation impact practice?

Thank you for the question. This PCO I feel dramatically simplifies the challenge of hepatitis B screening by proposing universal hepatitis B testing, as Dr. Hwang outlined, at a defined point in time. That is at the initiation of therapy.

And clinicians have really struggled with hepatitis B testing for lots of different reasons. They're difficulties in knowing who to screen, how to screen, in part because the data have started to emerge that many of the therapies may pose some risks and the prior suggestion that we use questionnaires, but there wasn't a standard set of questionnaires that we could use if we wanted to identify people based on risk factors of acquiring hepatitis B. So this led to a lot of confusion on testing.

I think by standardizing this makes it considerably easier. And also, the guidance from the PCO is better harmonized with other organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and our Liver Society colleagues who actually participated in the panel. And so now the guidance clinicians receive are more consistent across organizations. So I think this will allow doctors and health care systems overall to now invest in the implementation of hepatitis B screening, rather than the question about who should we do it and can we do it and when should we do it, but rather more on the implementation to help patients.

Great. And then finally, what is the impact of this updated PCO for patients?

Well, I'll take the first part of that. I believe that the implementation should permit safer systemic anticancer therapy by reducing hepatitis B related complications. Whenever patients have complications or there's even uncertainty about whether hepatitis might be contributing, this also can lead to delays in our treatments. If we know in advance and we appropriately manage and monitor this, we should have fewer treatment delays as well. Dr. Hwang, I know, might also have some comments on this.

Thanks. I do have a few general comments beyond the cancer care implications. And I'd like to say I think that hepatitis B testing and then the results of that and sharing that information with patients is really important. Letting patients know their hepatitis B status, especially if they're positive, empowers them to seek further care, get connected with a hepatitis B specialist person who's experienced in managing hepatitis B, and also to look around the local environment to their household and close contacts because hepatitis B is a virus that is transmitted from person to person through blood-borne sexual transmission and close family or household contact.

So I think it's important for patients to know their status to protect themselves during cancer therapy, as Dr. Artz mentioned, but just in general for good health care for themselves and for those around them. And in addition, I think that it's important for the family members and those close contacts to then get screened and perhaps even consider getting vaccinated if they haven't been vaccinated.

Well, thank you both for your hard work on updating this PTO and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Hwang and Dr. Artz.

Thank you, Brittany.

Thank you, Brittany.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full provisional clinical opinion go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. This PCO also has a companion cancer.net podcast episode. Cancer.net is the patient information website of ASCO. And we encourage you to learn more by tuning into their episode. You can find their podcast and all ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org.

You can also find many of our guidelines, PCOs, and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available on iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Charles Loprinzi from Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN on "Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers: ASCO Guideline Update." This update incorporates new evidence into recommendations for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in adults with a history of cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines

TRANSCRIPT

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Charles Loprinzi from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, lead author on prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers, ASCO guideline update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Loprinzi.

It's my pleasure to participate.

First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each of our guidelines. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Loprinzi, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic?

Well, that's always the perception, I think. Let me mention a couple of things. I've been intimately involved with research with chemotherapy-induced neuropathy for about 20 years or so, and have looked at a lot of the different drugs and treatments that we considered in this guideline.

I consulted for companies that have interest in neuropathy, including Asahi Kasei Pharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Metis Pharmaceuticals, PledPharma, and NKMax America. But other than that, I do not have anything else to note there.

Great, thanks. So first, what prompted an update to this guideline on the prevention of management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers?

Well, it's been about five years since we did the initial guideline. It is a very prominent problem-- I think probably one of the most prominent chronic problems we get associate with chemotherapy. You get acute problems like nausea and vomiting, but those go away. But this can be a prominent problem that can last for years.

There have been about 40 new trials for looking at prevention of neuropathy while you're giving chemotherapy, or treatment of neuropathy after you receive the chemotherapy and looking at ways to try to treat that. About 40 new trials have been published since we did the last guideline. So it was decided that it's time to look at this again to see what's new, what's not new, and sort things out.

So with that new information that the guideline panel looked at, what are the recommendations for prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy?

OK. So for prevention-- and we're talking about you're about to give chemotherapy that has neurotoxic properties, if you will. Not all chemotherapies cause neurotoxicity. And by neurotoxicity, I'm talking about numbness, tingling, pain, usually in distal extremities. Hands and feet is where it usually starts. But that's what we're talking about here.

And the bottom line answer, which is similar to what it was five years ago, is that there is no proven means for being able to prevent this problem other than not giving the chemotherapy that can cause the problem. And we usually want to give the chemotherapy to try to kill the cancer process. So there is no proven means.

There is, however, suggestive evidence for a few things. And each of these need more research to really clarify the risks of doing them and that benefits from. One of these things is something called cryotherapy or cold therapy. And you put cold therapy on hands and feet, causes less blood flow, and slows the metabolism somewhat while the person is getting chemotherapy. And there's suggestive evidence that helps, although not proof.

There is another thing that's somewhat related to that, and it's called compression therapy, where if you put tight surgical gloves on a hand while you're getting the chemotherapy, decreasing blood flow when there's a lot of chemotherapy in the blood-- again, suggestive evidence. But there is things where they've actually combined these things with both doing cryotherapy and some compression.

And the third thing is exercise. There are data suggestion that exercise can decrease the amount of neuropathy that patients get. Again, no proof for any of those three things, but more research is needed in that area.

Thanks for reviewing those recommendations for prevention. What are the recommendations for treatment approaches for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy?

So I think we have two things in here. One of them is what about when you're giving chemotherapy to a patient-- neurotoxic chemotherapy-- and you're planning to give, let's say, 12 cycles of paclitaxel, a common drug that we give for 12 cycles once a week-- one-week cycles, so dose once a week for 12 weeks, and it causes neurotoxicity. And you might be six or seven or eight doses in, and the patient's getting fairly significant neuropathy. And you're worried about giving more of that chemotherapy because it might cause more neuropathy, which may not go away for months or years after it is finished.

So in that setting, the decision, the recommendation, is for the doctor to think about how much additional benefit are we going to get from continuing onto the 12 cycles from the 8 cycles or 6 cycles wherever we are, and decide how much, if this is given in the adjuvant setting where you're trying to cure a person.

They've had surgery. They've had-- the cancer has been removed, and you can see that there's a risk of recurrence, and you're giving chemotherapy to try to decrease the risk of recurrence, what percentage benefit will it get if you go on to 12 cycles? Is that 1% additional benefit that the patient wouldn't get recurrence? Or is it 10%? Is it 5%? Is a 15%? So helping to sort that through, and then talking to the patient about that, and then making a decision. Do I continue on with the planned full dose of their chemotherapy?

The other aspect is what about treatment of a patient who is finished with their chemotherapy, and now they have the neuropathy? And, again, for some types of chemotherapy drugs, their neuropathy continues to get worse for about three months after you've did the last dose of chemotherapy. It's not because you stop the chemotherapy that it makes the neuropathy get worse. But it's rather, in my mind, that it takes three months to get full manifestations of the neuropathy for drugs such as oxaliplatin.

So in that setting, there is one drug that is a winner, if you will, called duloxetine. It does improve things statistically significantly. It doesn't improve them a whole lot. But it does work, and it's been shown in repetitive studies for that. So that's the one recommended approach there.

There are three things where there is suggestive evidence of benefit. And, again, exercise fits in that category. There is some suggestion that patients who exercise will get benefit and get improvement. There are some data that acupuncture will cause some improvement. And there are some data that something called scrambler therapy, a type of cutaneous neuro stimulation process will help decrease neuropathy in those situations. Again, for all three of them, the committee was unable to say yes, we-- was unable to say that we have scientific proof that these work. But there's suggestive evidence that they might provide some benefit.

So with these updated recommendations, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and its relevance for practicing clinicians?

I think it's-- again, it's a big problem in practice for patients-- oncologists as they're seeing patients, and for the patients themselves, and to find what we do know works, and what we know doesn't work, and what we think might be helpful is helpful for patients. It's helpful for patients to hear this and know this.

It's helpful for physicians to be able to say, yes, we looked at all the data. There were 42 more studies, and most of them didn't show benefit, unfortunately. Here's the ones that did show benefit, and here's the ones that are suggestive evidence, or some things like exercise is probably a reasonable thing to go with. Even though it needs more study, it's probably a reasonable thing for people to do, because we don't exercise enough in this country.

And then finally, you've touched on this a bit, but how will these guideline recommendations impact patients?

I think that just kind of as we said. You know, whatever the doctors can understand better about it, the clinicians there, and then relate that back to the patients themselves is the best way. Is it possible for the patients, and there are some very bright patients out there who could read the medical literature and take a look at this and read it on their own? Yes. Sure. Why not? But that's how I think. Understanding-- getting the physicians to-- scientists to understand what we do know, and then getting that word on to the patients and their families in this setting.

Great. Well thank you for your work on this important guideline update and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Loprinzi.

You're welcome.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. This guideline also has a companion cancer.net podcast episode. Cancer.net is a patient information website of ASCO, and we encourage you to learn more by tuning into their episode.

You can find their podcast and all ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org. You can also find more ASCO guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Paul J. Hesketh from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, MA on "Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update." This update addresses antiemetic prophylaxis in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors and incorporates new data since the last guideline publication. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines

TRANSCRIPT

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Paul Hesketh from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, co-chair of antiemetics, ASCO Guideline update. Thanks for joining me, Dr. Kesketh.

Hello, Brittany. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to join in today's podcast.

First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Hesketh, do you have any relevant disclosures directly related to this guideline topic?

No, I do not have any relevant disclosures.

So, Dr. Hesketh, what prompted an update to this an antiemetics guideline, which was last published in 2017?

Well, as you know, Brittany, each guideline panel is instructed by ASCO to regularly review the evolving literature and other information, looking for any significant developments that are relevant to that specific guideline. And since our last update in 2017, there has been a tremendous expansion in the use of checkpoint inhibitors for a variety of different neoplastic diseases. Although they're often used alone, increasingly, the checkpoint inhibitors were being added to a variety of chemotherapy regimens. And as this was occurring, concerns were being expressed by some oncologists that corticosteroids, a critical component of many antiemetic regimens, might be contraindicated when checkpoint inhibitors were being added to chemotherapy regimens given the potential immunosuppressive possibility for corticosteroids. So the panel felt that an update was indicated to try to address this issue as well as providing information on new antiemetics, antiemetic regimens, and to try to categorize the medic potential of the many new anticancer agents that have been approved since our last update.

Great. So you touched on a couple things there. So first, how does the guideline address antiemetic prophylaxis in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors?

Well, the search that we conducted for this guideline found 10 relevant publication on checkpoint inhibitors. The search reaffirmed the panel's conclusion that all currently available checkpoint inhibitors really have minimal emetic potential when used as monotherapy. And really, no prophylactic antiemetics are required when an individual checkpoint inhibitor is used.

When used in combination with chemotherapy, two phase III trials were particularly instructive in helping to formulate our guidelines. Both trials were conducted in adult patients with non-small cell lung cancers treated with a platinum based doublet with or without the Program Death 1, PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab. And they recommended in both those studies that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regiment. And of note, in both studies, superior efficacy outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor containing harms. Therefore, the panel feels that there is really no clinical evidence at present to warrant emission of dexamethasone from guideline compliant prophylactic antiemetic regiments when checkpoint inhibitors are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy.

And then you touched on also antiemetic regimens that were updated. Given the new information about olanzapine, what recommendations were updated?

Well, olanzapine is a very interesting drug. It's a second generation antipsychotic which, very interestingly, has significant antiemetic properties. And the updated guidelines reaffirms the role of olanzapine as part of antiemetic prophylaxis when one administers highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. And it also can be very useful as a rescue agent in patients developing emesis despite appropriate prophylaxis.

So the new studies that were published since our last update have demonstrated the value of adding olanzapine to a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK-1 receptor antagonist used in the setting of high dose chemotherapy when used with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In addition, the prior recommendations only specified a 10 milligram dose of olanzapine as the only option. We now have data from an updated study that a 5 milligram dose is an acceptable alternative to the 10 milligram dose when used in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Great. Thanks for reviewing that information. So what in your view is the importance of this guideline for clinical practice?

Well, we have made really enormous progress in developing effective means to prevent treatment induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Each update of the guidelines, the current version included, have provided additional valuable insight for clinicians to help further limit the frequency of this potential side effect of cancer treatment. The most important aspect of the current update will be providing reassurance to clinicians that effective antiemetic prophylactic regimens do not need to be compromised when the new checkpoint inhibitors are administered in combination with emetogenic chemotherapy regiments. In addition to the new information on olanzapine, the update also notes the addition of useful new IV formulations of aprepitant and the combination agent netupitant and palonosetron. In addition, we have information on the use of fosaprepitant and as an option when an NK-1 receptor antagonist is indicated in the pediatric setting.

And then finally, how do you view that these recommendations will impact patients?

Well, we know from many patient surveys that treatment induced nausea and vomiting are among the most dreaded potential side effects that patients worry about when they think about starting cancer treatment, especially if they're going to be receiving chemotherapy. So fortunately, we now have extremely effective and well tolerated antiemetic regiments for all treatment settings. However, patients will only benefit if these evidence-based regimens are utilized in a manner consistent with the ASCO guidelines. So we hope that this guideline update will provide useful information for ecology providers to really optimize the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving various emetogenic type of treatment regimens.

Well, thank you so much for your work on this ASCO guideline update on antiemetics and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Hesketh.

Thanks very much, Brittany. Happy to do so.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Dr. Raymond Chan and Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov share the newest standards and practice recommendations from MASCC and ASCO on survivorship care for people with advanced or metastatic cancer. They discuss highlights of the standards across seven domains: person-centered care, coordinated and integrated care, evidence-based and comprehensive care, evaluated and communicated care, accessible and equitable care, sustainable and resourced care, and research and data-driven care. Drs. Nekhlyudov and Chan also comment on the impact of these standards for clinicians and for patients with advanced and metastatic cancer and the goal of providing high-quality evidence-base survivorship care for all patients.
Read the standards, "Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations" at www.asco.org/standards.

TRANSCRIPT

These standards, recommendations, and resources are available at https://asco.org/standards. Read the full text of the standards and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP.23.00716. 

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.  

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Raymond Chan from Flinders University, authors on, "Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Standards and Practice Recommendations". Thank you for being here, Dr. Nekhlyudov and Dr. Chan.

Dr. Raymond Chan: Thank you for having us.

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Great to be here.

Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss these standards, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidance products and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed through each panel. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the expert panel, including the guests on this episode today, are available online with the publication of the standards in the JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes. 

So then, to dive into the content of the standards and recommendations. First, Dr. Chan, could you provide both an overview of the scope and purpose of these joint MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations?

Dr. Raymond Chan: Thank you, Brittany. First of all, as outlined and introduced by yourself, I would like to acknowledge that this is a great collaboration between the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and ASCO. And if you may indulge me for a minute, I would like to give you a little bit of background of how this all started. It was in 2019 when I came across an article written by Ms. Terry Langbaum and Dr. Thomas Smith, who wrote a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine outlining the insufficient work and research done to advance care for people with incurable, long-term, metastatic cancer survivorship. And both Terry and Tom were living with metastatic cancer, and with their lived experience, they provided a new level of meaning to our work. And subsequently, in honor of Terry Langbaum, who is a renowned and esteemed hospital administrator who worked in cancer care, Dr. Thomas Smith and myself created the Terry Langbaum Cancer Survivorship Fellowship and appointed Dr. Nicholas Hart to complete this work.  

Within this work, we aim to develop international standards and practice recommendations to guide care for people living with treatable but incurable, metastatic, and advanced cancer. In this work, we conducted an extensive systematic review involving 81 studies, 17 guidelines, and framework documents, gathering the wisdom and consensus from 77 experts from 33 countries around the globe. Together, we reached consensus on 45 recommendations that we hope will be helpful for the clinical care community in improving care, experiences, and outcomes for people living with metastatic cancer.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing this essential background information and describing the impetus for this project. 

Then, as you discussed, Dr. Chan, these standards and recommendations have over 45 recommendations within them. So I'd like to review each of those key points from each section. This document provides these standards and practice recommendations across seven domains. So to start with that first domain, Dr. Chan, what are the key points you'd like to highlight regarding person-centered care? 

Dr. Raymond Chan: Sure, Brittany. Now, without repeating what is in the document because I hope that this podcast can lead you to that document and for you to read it in detail, it is really around a comprehensive set of principles that experts felt were important to ensure that patients themselves participate in the care as much as possible. It is around respecting their agency and making sure that their clinical and psychosocial care needs associated with their metastatic cancer diagnosis are considered and addressed. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you for providing those key points regarding person-centered care. So, moving into that next section, coordinated and integrative care, what points would you like to highlight there?

Dr. Raymond Chan: Thank you, Brittany, for the question. The standards and recommendations within this section are really around articulating the coordination, navigation, and the multidisciplinary care team approach requirements for this population. In particular for people living with metastatic or advanced cancer, it is not a given that they will be able to access survivorship care services or palliative care services. And a lot of the time, we know that care access is around the resource setting. And a lot of the time, palliative care services may not necessarily be able to cover people living with relatively longer prognosis, such as this population, the longer term metastatic and advanced cancer population. Another point is around transition and the shared care arrangement between the oncology team, survivorship care clinicians where available, and the palliative care team. Once again, these recommendations really articulate the importance of a well-coordinated, integrated approach for these patients.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those points that you just highlighted are important for care for the whole patient. 

So then, next, Dr. Nekhlyudov, I'd like to turn to you for the next couple of sections. Could you review what the highlights are for the next section: evidence-based and comprehensive care?

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Yes. Thank you, Brittany. This standard emphasizes that people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer receive the most up-to-date, evidence-based, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and interprofessional survivorship care and receive it in programs that continuously evolve their approach as guided by evidence. So as such, it is important that these survivorship programs are informed by ongoing professional development, including educational programs for healthcare professionals, that also includes active contributions by those affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. The other piece is that people affected by advanced and metastatic cancer should receive comprehensive care that encourages and supports informed decision-making in order to promote health, manage disease, and reduce stress.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely, those are very important points regarding care of the patient. 

So then, moving into the fourth domain, Dr. Nekhlyudov, what are the key points for evaluated and communicated care?

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: So the famous line is, "What can't be measured can't be improved." And so it is important that clinicians routinely and systematically evaluate and monitor supportive care needs and provide appropriate referrals to relevant survivorship care services and healthcare professionals. In order to do that, we need to establish multidirectional communication systems that take into account communication with patients and communication across healthcare professionals involved in their care. Effective communication, of course, needs to be timely, it needs to be clear, effective, respectful, and appropriate. We all know that communication is challenging across cancer care, but it may be particularly so in this specific patient population. For example, in communicating with patients, cancer care clinicians may be comfortable communicating with those with early-stage cancers or patients with early- stage cancers. And may also have had training to communicate with those patients nearing the end of life. But as we already mentioned, those affected by advanced or metastatic cancer may have different needs and as such, it is important that there is additional training for clinicians to address survivorship care needs among these individuals and their caregivers. 

And then, in addition to patient-clinician communication, to enable timely communication and collaboration between multiple healthcare providers who may be involved in caring for these patients, enhanced and secure communication strategies are needed. And as with everything else, it's important that healthcare settings engage in service evaluations and quality improvement activities to continue to examine what works, what does not, and make changes that are needed.

Brittany Harvey: It is important that these patients with metastatic or advanced cancer have their unique needs met by providing care and appropriate communication to them. 

So then, into the next section. Dr. Nekhlyudov, I believe Dr. Chan mentioned this briefly already in talking about being able to access care as part of integrative care. But what is recommended regarding accessible and equitable care?

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Right. Absolutely. I mean, as with any healthcare or cancer care, the standard emphasizes that cancer survivorship care for all people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer is not only comprehensive but also accessible. So affordable, acceptable, available, appropriate, and equitable. And the key is that it does not vary based on someone's personal, cultural, or religious factors. It is important that health workforce diversity and cultural awareness training with the development and provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate resources, that these can help healthcare professionals better understand and cater to the unique needs of the cancer survivor and the caregiver populations. We also need to develop metrics to assess the evaluation  and improvement and make sure that supportive care options are innovative, inclusive, and targeted towards eliminating disparities. 

Some of the work that Dr. Chan has otherwise led is looking at provision of telehealth and virtual care for cancer survivors. So particularly for this patient population, it is important to examine the potential benefits of virtual healthcare so that these patients who may have a lot of different needs, physical challenges, mental health challenges, caregivers, that we don't necessarily bring them to the healthcare setting and can potentially provide them the care that they need. And the last thing that I would like to point out with respect to this is that people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer may face additional challenges particularly returning to work in some capacity and should be supported by advocacy groups, or consumer groups as they are often called internationally, that advocate for accessible and equitable care and then work with specific personnel to access employment, financial and legal assistance that they may need. 

Brittany Harvey: Those are important for providing both inclusive and individualized care to every patient who a clinician may see. 

So then following those points, what is recommended and what are the key points you'd like to highlight regarding sustainable and resourced care?

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Thanks, Brittany. This is a really important point, and not to take away from any of the other standards, but in order for us to provide ongoing high quality cancer survivorship care for people affected by advanced and metastatic cancer, we need to have a sustainable and adequately resourced approach to do so. So, these standards acknowledge that not all countries or healthcare systems have access to sufficient resources. As such, supportive care may need to utilize a step-care or resource stratified approach that offers the least resource-intensive care that aligns with the needs of the patient, but then also takes into account resources that are available, but really the care should not stop there. 

Survivorship care interventions and models of care should be cost-effective yet clinically relevant and meaningful and need to have the adequate financial investment by the healthcare systems. So healthcare settings providing survivorship care for those affected by advanced and metastatic cancer have to be properly resourced in order to provide high quality ongoing care. And this includes intentional planning for support services, and  where healthcare settings provide these programs with adequate level of human resources, equipment, facilities, and leadership who value support, facilitate, and appropriately invest in such care. And as we mentioned before, it's always important to continue to evaluate what is being provided, what is being offered, sort of what are the return on investment metrics in order to continue to evolve the programs to serve the needs of the population. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you providing highlights across these past couple of domains.

So then to turn to the last domain, Dr. Chan, what is recommended regarding research and data-driven care?

Dr. Raymond Chan: So the panel actively advocated for cancer registries to enable population-wide surveillance of the incidence and prevalence of people with advanced or metastatic cancer. Knowing the number of people with advanced or metastatic cancer is extremely important for care planning. We also advocated for the active involvement of people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer to participate in the co-design of research so that we can make sure that our research better meets the needs or end-users and enhance the rigor, relevance, reach, and impact of survivorship research. 

The last point I would like to highlight is that a number of survivorship trials out there only limit the population or the focus of the trial being on early stage disease, people treated with curative intent. And within this standards and principles, we advocated for research trials to explicitly include people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer in the clinical trials and trying to address also the barriers that impede people from enrolling or participating at all levels. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you both for reviewing these key points, standards, and practice recommendations across these seven domains.  

These standards and recommendations cut really across all aspects of care for people impacted by advanced and metastatic cancer. Dr. Nekhlyudov, in your view, what is the importance of these standards and how they will impact clinicians?

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Thank you for that question, Brittany. The MASCC-ASCO standards were developed, as we already mentioned, to promote the provision of high-quality, evidence-based survivorship care for people with advanced or metastatic cancer emphasizing the need for care that is person-centered, coordinated and integrated, evidence-based and comprehensive, evaluated, and communicated, accessible and equitable, sustainable and resourced, as well as research and data-driven. For clinicians, these standards and practice recommendations provide a critical resource in order to facilitate tailored and effective care for people living with advanced or metastatic cancer across disciplines and settings. 

As we know, and much of it is due to the efforts of ASCO, cancer care is always changing resulting in changing prognoses. As such, people diagnosed with cancer in the past that had poor prognosis are now living and are living longer. And so diagnoses that fall into this specific category of patients that we're discussing here today will continue to evolve. And likewise, advanced cancer is less clearly defined for other cancer such as hematologic or CNS malignancies, but these survivors may face similar issues and challenges.  

So overall, applying these standards will help provide survivorship care to these patients. And the important piece is that what we hoped to achieve with these standards is that when we consider survivorship care, we are not only applying it to those who have early stage disease. We're not applying it only to those whose disease has been "cured." We're not applying it to those who have been deemed disease-free or those who have completed treatments. We really need to make sure that clinicians understand the challenges experienced by often disregarded or forgotten population of cancer survivors and yet acknowledge the ever changing landscape of cancer survivors and appropriately apply these survivorship standards for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. And I think as Ray would probably say as well, we should focus on including rather than excluding people with cancer, all cancers, from survivorship services and programs. 

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. This is an important population with often unrecognized or unmet needs, and the goal of these standards, as you've mentioned, is to provide a better quality survivorship care for patients with advanced and metastatic cancer.  

So that leads nicely into my final question for you, Dr. Chan. In your view, how do these standards and recommendations impact people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer?

Dr. Raymond Chan: As we continue to promulgate these standards of recommendations, I believe that patients will benefit from these standards in three ways. 

First, as clinicians, researchers, and service planners continue to improve care as per outlining the standards, patients are going to indirectly benefit from it. It is meant to lead to better care, better experiences, and better outcomes. 

Secondly, it is around the expectations of care. Many of us here would know that if we don't expect that care, it is unlikely that we would go and try to access it. And so it is extremely important that patients know what to expect. So now that I have been diagnosed with advanced or metastatic cancer, what does good care look like? So in the past, there are a number of pallaiative care standards whereby people are thinking, "Do I need palliative care? What does good palliative care look like?" Their set of standards. And now, these standards would enable patients to develop that expectation around what good care looks like. 

Thirdly is around the patients, the family units, and their navigators or their care networks to advocate for themselves, to advocate for the patient, to be able to access that care from the care team. So we hope that as we continue to promulgate these standards, that benefit would be translated into the real world for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. We definitely hope that this improves care for all patients impacted by advanced and metastatic cancer.  

So, I want to thank you both so much for this important work to develop these recommendations and standards. And thank you for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Nekhlyudov and Dr. Chan.  

Dr. Larissa Nekhlyudov: Thank you. Great to be here.  

Dr. Raymond Chan: Thank you.  

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full standards and practice recommendations, go to www.asco.org/standards. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. 

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 any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

An interview with Dr. Manish Shah from New York Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center on "Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treatment options for patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines

Transcript

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Manish Shah from New York Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center, lead author on "Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma," ASCO guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Shah.

I'm so pleased to be here on this podcast for ASCO with you, Brittany. I'm very pleased to talk about this guideline and its significance to the oncologic community and to our patients.

First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. But Dr. Shah, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?

No, I have no conflicts as it relates to this topic. I do have research funding from Merck, Boston Biomedical, Oncolys, BMS, and Acelis, and no other conflicts and nothing specific to locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Thank you. Then let's dive into this guideline. First, can you give us an overview of what this guideline covers?

Sure. This guideline covers the management of locally advanced esophageal cancer, both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer, because management of these diseases is very complicated, primarily as the epidemiology of this disease has shifted over the past several decades. About 20 to 30 years ago, squamous cell cancers of the esophagus was the predominant disease subtype. About 90% of patients that we would see with esophageal cancer were of squamous cell histology.

However, with the rise in Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and GE junction, now, about 50% of esophageal cancers are adenocarcinoma histology. This distinction is important because, while the two diseases have significant overlap and treatment options, there are differences in sensitivity to various therapies. The guideline attempts to tease out these distinctions to provide the best evidence-based practice recommendations for the community.

Great. So you mentioned that this covers both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline for patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma?

Sure. So for both squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, locally advanced disease, the first and key recommendation is that multimodality therapy is considered and offered to both disease histologies. It's very important that these patients are treated through a multidisciplinary approach that involves a surgeon, typically a thoracic surgeon, but sometimes a general surgical oncologist as well, as well as a radiation oncologist and a medical oncologist.

For adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, which is really becoming the most common type, the primary recommendation is that patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma receive either preoperative chemotherapy with radiation or perioperative chemotherapy. Because there is no comparative study for these two options, we also provide a clinical vignette to help readers understand some of the key features that may sway one to one treatment versus another.

For example, large bulky tumors where an R1 resection is more likely may be better suited for chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery. An R1 resection, of course, is where the microscopic margin might still be positive. Additionally, patients who may not have a three-hole or a thoracic surgery as part of their surgical plan may not have an adequate lymph node dissection. That might be another reason to consider chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery.

And what is recommended for patients diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Yes. For squamous cell cancer, we recognize that these tumors are much more sensitive to radiotherapy. So the options that are recommended here, based on the evidence available, is that patients who receive preoperative chemotherapy and radiation or definitive chemotherapy and radiation, meaning chemotherapy and radiation with or without surgery. These are the recommendations for squamous cell cancer.

So why is this guideline important, and how will it change practice?

So we hope that our guideline will provide some clarity on a very murky field. The study suggests that there are several options available for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma. And the guideline helps us frame the question and frame how we think about these options in offering patients the best practice that we can with regard to the available data. Additionally, the guideline may help define future research questions as well, as the gaps in knowledge are clear based on the guideline.

For example, there are patients, a significant number of patients, who have a complete response to chemotherapy and radiation. Should all of these patients have immediate surgery, or can surgery safely be delayed? That's an ongoing question that is being examined in rectal cancers. And also, there is some data in esophageal cancer as well. And that might be an important question to ask, moving forward, for example.

Great. And then finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

We hope that through the guideline process and understanding the nuances of how to treat patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, that based on histology, based on the size and bulk of the tumor, based on the likelihood of an R1 resection, or based on even the surgical approach, that patients will receive more uniform therapy and therapy that is more tailored to their particular condition and situation. In the end, we hope that patients will receive the right care and ultimately have better outcomes because their care is more uniform.

It sounds like these guidelines could have a real impact for patients. So thank you for your work on these treatment of locally advanced esophageal carcinoma guidelines and for taking the time today to speak with me, Dr. Shah.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast. And be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Eric Roeland from Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center on "Management of Cancer Cachexia: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on the clinical management of cancer cachexia in adult patients with advanced cancer. Recommendations are made on both pharmacologic and nutritional interventions. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm speaking with Dr. Eric Roland from Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. Lead author on Management of Cancer Cachexia, ASCO Guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Roland.

Well thank you very much.

Before we get into the content of this guideline, I want to note that all conflict of interest disclosure information for the expert panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Roland, do you have any conflicts of interest to disclose?

Yes, within the last two years, I've served as a consultant for Asahi Kasei Pharmaceuticals, DIG Consulting, Napo Pharmaceuticals, American Imaging Management, Immuneering Corporation, and Prime Oncology. I've also served on advisory boards for Herron Pharmaceuticals and Vector Oncology. And I serve as a member on the Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Oragenics, Kalyra Pharmaceuticals, and [INAUDIBLE] Life Sciences Pharmaceutical Company.

Thank you. Then first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Sure. We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding available evidence for nutritional and pharmacologic interventions for cancer cachexia. Specifically, we searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published between 1966 in 2019. We focused our review on adult patients with advanced or incurable cancer. And given the highly variable nature of cancer cachexia, we specifically evaluated the endpoints of loss of appetite or anorexia, body weight, and lean body mass, or skeletal muscle. Our targeted audience included clinicians as well as patients and caregivers.

Can you provide us with a little background on cancer cachexia?

Yes, first I think it's incredibly important for us to define cancer cachexia, especially given its prevalence in cancer care. Traditionally, cancer cachexia has been defined as a certain amount of weight loss over a defined time period. However, cachexia is much more complicated than weight loss alone. It is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by loss of appetite, weight, and skeletal muscle, which leads to fatigue, functional impairment, increased treatment related toxicity, poor quality of life, and even reduced survival. And as clinicians, we need to try to identify any reversible causes contributing to cachexia and treat them. This of course, includes treating the underlying cancer when possible.

Additionally, it's essential for patients to receive optimal palliation of all symptoms that may be interfering with the intake of calories, such as pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and depression. Therefore, as clinicians, we need to work in teams of experts that might include expertise in pain, palliative care, nutrition, physical occupational therapy, and mental health where available.

We also need to introduce and discuss the term, cachexia, with our patients and their caregivers, who often have never heard of it before. They may not understand that this term is unique and very different from weight loss alone. I personally have found that describing the unique nature of cachexia and providing the information to patients and caregivers can be very helpful.

Additionally, we need to recognize that food is a very complicated issue. And when we engage patients and caregivers around issues of food, we need to recognize that there are informational needs, but there are also emotional needs. And as clinicians, we help patients and caregivers gain access to evidence based information and interventions, but we equally need to ensure that they receive emotional support. Food represents hope and control in an uncontrollable situation. And not being able to eat or feed a loved one can cause severe distress.

Therefore, we need to engage patients and caregivers regarding these emotional issues and make sure they feel heard. We can also reach out to our mental health colleagues, such as social workers and psychologists, who may help us support patients and caregivers in this difficult issue.

Then, what are the key recommendations covered in this guideline?

With regard to our systematic review, we identified 20 systematic reviews and 13 additional randomized controlled trials. And from this data, we made the following recommendations. First, we found limited data supporting the integration of dietary counseling with or without oral nutritional supplements. However, given the lack of harm and the critical role of educating patients and caregivers, we felt it was important to support referring patients with incurable cancer and loss of appetite and/or body weight to registered dietitian for assessment and counseling.

It's critical for patients and caregivers to learn about practical and safe approaches to feeding. Specifically, registered dietitians may help develop strategies, such as shifting away from three larger meals per day towards frequent high protein, high calorie, nutrient dense snacks. Dietitians can also address questions regarding specific diets, including fad diets and unproven or extreme diets.

Moreover, clinicians should not routinely offer enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition to manage cachexia in patients with incurable cancer. A short term trial of parenteral nutrition may be offered to a very select group of patients, such as patients with a reversible bowel obstruction, or short gut, or issues with malabsorption, but otherwise reasonably fit. We also can consider discontinuing previously initiated enteral parenteral nutrition near the end of life, as it is associated with net harm at that time.

With regard to pharmacologic interventions, there are no FDA approved drugs to treat cancer cachexia. Yet there is sufficient data to support two pharmacologic interventions associated with improvements in appetite and/or body weight. And these include progesterone analogs, such as megestrol acetate and corticosteroids. The optimal dose and timing of each drug remains unknown.

Regarding megestrol acetate, data support its role in improving appetite, modest weight gain, and improvement in quality of life. However, the weight gain associated with megestrol acetate is primarily fat and not skeletal muscle. We also need to be aware of side effects of megestrol acetate, including an increased risk of thromboembolic events, edema, adrenal insufficiency, and even an increased risk of death.

As for corticosteroids, the first published double-blind randomized study dates back all the way to 1974, which showed an improvement in appetite and sense of well-being. However, clinicians are aware of the multiple side effects associated with corticosteroid use, that often limit initiation and timing of their use. Additionally, the weight gain associated with corticosteroids is not skeletal muscle.

As important as it is to know what drugs are evidence based, it is also important to note what pharmacologic approaches are not supported by evidence. There are many agents that have been evaluated in clinical trials without any evidence to support an improvement in cancer cachexia outcomes.

One such drug that frequently is asked about is dronabinol or the general class of cannabinoids. Insufficient data was available to recommend dronabinol or medical cannabis, and they have notable side effects, including altered mental status and a higher risk of falls. Especially in the elderly.

Why is this guideline important? And how will it impact practice?

Cachexia is a very common clinical entity and causes lots of distress for patients and caregivers. Oftentimes, the issues regarding nutrition and weight loss can be the central focus of clinical appointments and conversations with oncologists. We need to ensure that patients and caregivers have access to evidence based information and recognize that some interventions may be associated with more harm than benefit.

And finally, you've just spoken to this a bit, but how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Primarily, I think these cancer cachexia guidelines will serve as a great educational resource. They will also allow patients to better understand the risks associated with some of the pharmacologic interventions. I also think it's critical to define the current state of evidence in cancer cachexia, as we have many new exciting clinical trials evaluating novel agents in the setting.

Furthermore, as a cancer community, we need to ensure that interventional trials are focused on clinically meaningful endpoints, such as improvements in appetite, muscle mass, and quality of life. We also need to encourage a rigorous but expedited approval of these agents, given the lack of any FDA approved drugs in this setting.

Lastly, we need to recognize this is a multi-modal syndrome that requires the help and expertise of our interdisciplinary colleagues. Supporting our patients and their caregivers with this very difficult syndrome requires as much help as possible.

Great. Thank you for your work on these guidelines and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Roland.

Thank you so much, Brittany. I would also like to recognize and thank ASCO for its support of these guidelines, the talented ASCO staff, and the experts who contributed. Most of all, I'd like to recognize our patients and their caregivers.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-cancer-guidelines.

This guideline also has a companion, cancer.net podcast episode. Cancer.net is the patient information website of ASCO. And we encourage you to learn more by tuning into their episode. You can find their podcast and all ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast. And be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Benjamin Levy from Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital on "Lung Surveillance After Definitive Curative-Intent Therapy: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides recommendations to clinicians on radiographic imaging and biomarker surveillance strategies after definitive curative-intent therapy in patients with stage I-III non–small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines

Transcript

Hi. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues. You can find the ASCO in Action podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content, and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Benjamin Levy from Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital, author on "Lung Surveillance After Definitive Curative Intent Therapy ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here, Dr. Levy.

Thanks for having me.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Yeah, I think that the general broad stroke intent of this consensus paper was to provide evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for practicing clinicians on what the optimal radiographic imaging and biomarker surveillance strategy should be for patients who received definitive curative intent therapy, and specifically for patients with stage I through III non-small-cell lung cancer, or patients who have received curative intent therapy for a limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

And importantly, this expert panel comprised a multidisciplinary team, and this included not only medical oncologists, but surgical oncologists, pulmonologists, radiologists, a general internist, a patient representative. So we had, I think, the relevant stakeholders to make the best recommendations we could based on the evidence. And we really framed our recommendations by answering five questions, and I think we can get to the five questions at a later time during this cast, but we try to answer these five questions in a systematic way. And really looked at the type-- was an evidence-based or was it informal consensus? What was the evidence quality? Was it low, was it intermediate, or was it high? And then finally, the strength of the recommendation.

And importantly, we tried to answer these questions based on the evidence. We did a literature search, which culminated in a systematic review of more than-- close to 1,200 studies of which 14 studies were identified, and these 14 studies included meta-analysis, randomized control trials, case-controlled trials, and retrospective studies, and really by doing this, we wanted to come up with important guidelines. I think these guidelines are coming on the heels of a lot of confusion about what is the optimal surveillance strategies post-curative intent therapy for our lung cancer patients? So we recognize this confusion and tried our best to create guidelines that were reasonable to follow, and hopefully it can change practice.

Great. So you just mentioned that there were five key questions that you looked at for this guideline.

Yeah.

Could you elaborate on what those questions are and the key recommendations of the guideline?

Sure. So the crux of our recommendations, again, come on these five questions, and just a summary of these questions. One, what should be the frequency of surveillance imaging post-curative intent therapy? Two, what is the optimal imaging modality? Three, are there any patient factors such as performance status or age limits that would preclude surveillance? Four, is there a role for circulating biomarkers and surveillance? And then five, is there-- or what is the role of brain MRI imaging for surveillance of curative intent patients both non-small cell and small-cell?

And just briefly in terms of-- I'll maybe go over briefly just the answers to these questions that we tried to hash out in this consensus work-- for the question, what should be the frequency of surveillance imaging? We recommended that patients should undergo surveillance imaging for recurrence every six months for two years. We then recommend that patients should undergo surveillance imaging for detection of new primary lung cancers annually after the first two years.

And in question 2, what is the optimal imaging modality? We recommended a diagnostic chest CT that included the adrenals with contrast, that's preferred, or without contrast when conducting surveillance for recurrence during the first two years post-treatment. We did state that there was no evidence of any added benefit for CT of the abdomen and pelvis over a chest CT through the adrenals, that surveillance. We then, again, similar answer to recommendation 1, we do recommend a low dose screening for chest CT when conducting surveillance for new lung primaries after those first two years. And then I think importantly, we take a hard stand on PET scans as part of the answer to question 2, where we really should not be using PET scans as a surveillance tool in the surveillance starting post-curative intent therapy.

Question 3, are there any patient factors such as performance status or age limits that would preclude surveillance? And for us, we make the recommendation that surveillance imaging may be permitted in some patients who are clinically unsuitable, have multiple medical comorbidities, or unwilling to undergo further treatment. Doesn't make a lot of sense to offer surveillance imaging if patients are stating that they're not going to undergo any further treatment. We also state that age should not preclude surveillance imaging, but there needs to be a consideration for overall health status and chronic medical conditions and patient preferences.

Question 4 was, is there a role for circulating biomarkers in surveillance? And this is probably one of the more confusing parts of surveillance. Many physicians are still using CEA to monitor for a recurrence, and we really take a hard stand and say that clinicians should not be using circulating biomarkers as surveillance strategy for the detection of recurrence in patients who've undergone curative intent treatment, but we also do state that there is emerging data looking at ctDNA that may change this over the next four or five years, but we're certainly not there yet. So standard of care should not be-- to be using anything like that.

And then question 5 is, are there-- or what is the role for brain MRI for surveillance in patients with both non-small-cell and small-cell? And our recommendations are a little nuanced here. We did say for patients with stage I through III non-small-cell lung cancer, clinicians should not be using a brain MRI for routine surveillance after curative intent therapy, and patients who have undergone curative intent treatment for small-cell and did not receive prophylactic cranial radiation, this is where we do say clinicians should offer a brain MRI every three months for the first year and then every six months for the second year for surveillance. So a little bit different surveillance strategies for patients whether you're small-cell or non-small-cell.

So those are the broad stroke overviews of the recommendations that we put together in this consensus statement.

And then can you speak to the importance of this guideline and these recommendations and how they will impact practice?

I think that ASCO recognized how much confusion there was post-curative intent therapy. So I think this is the reason why these guidelines are so important. We need to keep in mind that health care resources that are utilized and be mindful of that. There's no real role for routine imaging less than the intervals that we're describing as they may obviously not be in touch with health care utilization and cost.

The other thing is this idea that patients are getting scans so frequently that we're picking up on a lot of false positive information that can't be used, and so we recognize that as well. So I think that on the heels of the confusion coupled with cost considerations, as well as what we're picking up on frequent scans, we do have to make recommendations that will hopefully unify and harmonize practice across the country to better suit patients and also evidence-based practice. I think that's really important.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Yeah, I think patients hopefully, if physicians follow these guidelines, will be receiving the appropriate interval. I mean, look, we understand that two-thirds of patients with lung cancer who relapse will present with metastatic disease and that there have been limited data thus far on what should be the optimal interval for scans. But we understand also that patients who do relapse could present with potentially curable lung cancer, and in addition, there's been recent data to suggest that even patients with limited metastatic disease who was detected on recurrence may be cured or may have improved survival with certain strategies like local ablative therapy.

So we hope that these guidelines can be firmly cemented into the practice for clinicians so that the appropriate interval is selected, but that also patients can benefit from these appropriately timed-out scans to improve outcomes for them.

Great. Thank you for your work on these guidelines, and thank you for taking the time today to give an overview to our listeners, Dr. Levy.

Thank you so much.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available on iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Jessica Geiger from Cleveland Clinic on "Diagnosis and Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in the Head and Neck: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations addressing diagnosis, surgery, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING] The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcasts.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jessica Geiger from Cleveland Clinic, author on Diagnosis and Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in the Head and Neck ASCO guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Geiger.
Thanks, Brittany, for the invitation and the opportunity.

First, can you tell our listeners what is squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck and what this guideline generally covers?

Sure. So cancer of unknown primary or carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck is metastatic squamous cell carcinoma found in cervical lymph nodes. And importantly, there's a lack of a primary mucosal tumor that's identified. So these patients comprise about 5% of all head and neck cancers. And it poses a challenge for all members of the treatment team, both from a diagnostic perspective but as well as treatment management; what is the best way to proceed for treatment with these patients? Now this guideline provides an up-to-date and evidence-based management for recommendations. And these recommendations are based on published literature. But where the data is lacking in the literature, expert panel consensus was utilized to provide recommendations.
I'd like to discuss some of the key recommendations of this guideline. First, with regard to diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck, what are the challenges, and what are the recommendations from the guideline?

The diagnostic challenges come about when a patient presents with a neck mass. They often have imaging, a clinical exam. But again, about 3 to 5 percent of patients, we will be unable to locate where this tumor started. Squamous cells don't show up in the lymph nodes by themselves. They came from somewhere else. And part of the reason that this makes a diagnostic challenge if we're not able to readily see where the primary tumor is, oftentimes, it's very small in size. And so it's not picked up by imaging or by a physical exam. Also, these are sometimes difficult anatomic locations to evaluate. So all of this can pose a challenge to coming up with the right diagnosis. Now some of the recommendations for diagnosing these patients, obviously, we need to have a complete history and physical exam. And this physical exam should include a fiberoptic laryngoscopy, so a good lab endoscopy exam looking at all of the mucosal tissues, trying to find abnormalities, trying to see where exactly this cancer started.
Now in order to make the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, obviously, a biopsy needs to be done, and that is in the neck, where these suspicious nodes are. Either a fine needle aspiration or a core needle biopsy is recommended within these guidelines. The guidelines also indicate when to do additional pathologic testing. So this is for high-risk HPV, especially in neck nodes that are in level two or three. If high risk HPV testing is negative, then we give recommendations regarding Epstein-Barr virus testing, so looking to find is this nasopharynx primary cancer and then, of course, imaging guidelines. So the image modality of choice is a contrast enhanced CT of the neck, not just to elucidate and better evaluate the nodal burden of disease, which the patient presents with, but also to investigate for evidence of a mucosal primary. Now if that fails to produce a primary then we give recommendations regarding PET scans.

And then what are the recommendations for surgery for a squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck?

There are many recommendations that we go into to address the surgical approach to a cancer with unknown primary. Now the previous question asked about diagnosis included in the surgical recommendations in our guidelines for diagnostic surgical interventions. So we can sort of branch point or divide recommendations for surgery, whether it's a diagnostic or a therapeutic procedure. And then in the therapeutic procedures, we can look more in detail at what surgery is recommended for a primary or the mucosal, and then how to how do we address the neck? So first, as part of diagnosis with surgery, all patients need a complete operative evaluation of the upper aerodigestive path. And this includes directed biopsies. So the surgeon goes in the operating room, gets a good look around. Any suspicion for any possible cancer is biopsied, as opposed to blind biopsies or random biopsies, which are not recommended.

Now the recommendations for surgery also include when to do tonsillectomies and what tonsillectomies to do. So are these palatine tonsillectomies or lingual tonsillectomies? Do we perform them or recommend them on the ipsilateral side, or what is the role for a contralateral or even bilateral tonsillectomy? And I won't go into the specifics because they're all-- all the different scenarios are laid out within the guidelines, but the recommendations are based on the patient's nodal burden. So do they have bilateral lymph nodes; do they have lymph nodes just on one side; how big they are, that all plays a role into the recommendations regarding surgical intervention. Now if mucosal primary tumor is identified, there are clear recommendations and guidelines that every effort to clear the disease with negative margin is of paramount importance. So we're talking about a definitive oncologic surgery in this case. And the reason we want to stress that negative margins are the goal is because we're trying to avoid trimodal therapy. So we're trying to get to a good surgical resection. A positive margin left behind is likely going to lead to recommendations for postoperative radiation with the addition of radiosensitizing chemotherapy, which is what we do not want. We want to try to avoid toxicities with trimodal therapy.

That brings me to then surgical management of the neck and the guidelines set forth in this document. So recommendations for neck surgical management are broken into whether the patient has what we consider small volume disease versus large volume disease. So for small volume disease, small lymph nodes on one side of the neck, we recommend a multidisciplinary discussion whether or not the patient should be best served with a definitive surgery involving a neck dissection or if they should have definitive radiotherapy. Again, our goal is to avoid trimodal therapy. So if there's obvious gross extranodal extension seen on imaging, then they would be best served with a primary radiation approach, as opposed to surgical. Similarly, any large volume disease, obviously, gross extranodal or extracapsular extension, definitive chemo radiotherapy is favored. Now a comment on management of the neck, if you're suspecting an oropharynx primary, which is the majority of cancer of unknown primaries of the head and neck, we give specific recommendations regarding what levels to routinely surgically dissect, levels IIa, III, and IV in that instance.

In your discussion of the surgical recommendations, you began to touch on the radiation recommendations. Could you elaborate on those recommendations from ASCO on radiation therapy for this patient population?
Of course. And again, when you refer back to the guideline and the recommendations, there are even more specific recommendations regarding when and how to use primary radiotherapy or adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting. So I'm not going to go into great detail for every single recommendation that is provided, but a nice overview is, basically, if a patient is receiving radiotherapy as the primary definitive management of cancer of unknown primary, obviously, we recommend treatment should be given to gross nodal disease but also to neck regions and mucosal anatomic regions, which are considered at risk for containing microscopic disease. So it's not just good enough to radiate what we see on imaging but also to consider the areas around it, the nodal echelons and other mucosal areas where there could be cancer. So for example, an HPV-related disease where it's likely oropharynx unilateral disease, there are specific locations to include. And this is also the same for HPV-negative disease. Now if we're worried about a possible nasopharynx cancer in the setting of E-Barr or EBV-positive disease, the mucosal radiotherapy can be limited to just the nasopharynx, but you want to radiate bilateral necks, level II through IV, and include the retropharyngeal lymph nodes.

There are specific recommendations where unilateral versus bilateral neck irradiation is recommended. And again, I just encourage the listeners to refer back to the guideline itself for these specific instances. Also included within the radiotherapy guidelines and recommendations are specific doses. What doses do you use? Where do you use these doses? And these doses are extrapolated from known and well established evidence for traditional head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in which we know where the primary is, also, when to give post neck dissection kind of in the adjuvant setting, again, all extrapolated from known head and neck squamous cell carcinoma but very specific and laid out within the guidelines.

And what does the expert panel recommend for systemic therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck?

Similarly, when we devised the recommendations for radiotherapy for this disease, the use of systemic therapy, when to use it, when to add it to radiation is also extrapolated from the head and neck guidelines and evidence for known head and neck cancer. So we recommend adding chemotherapy to definitive radiotherapy in advanced nodal disease, and we've defined what advanced nodal disease is based on the AJCC 8th Edition. So in HPV-negative disease, this is N2 or N3, in HPV-positive disease, multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes. If a lymph node is greater than three centimeters, we recommend adding chemotherapy to radiation in the definitive setting. Now, specifically, the chemotherapy that we recommend is cisplatin. Again, this is based on well-established studies and evidence in head and neck cancer. So patients who are medically fit and able to receive cisplatin, that is the treatment of choice. There are also recommendations regarding resected cancer of unknown primary. So with evidence of extranodal capsular extension, we recommend the addition of, again, cisplatin chemotherapy to postoperative radiotherapy, again, extrapolated from well-established head and neck studies. And then, again, if you are concerned that this is an Epstein-Barr-related nasopharynx cancer, stages II through IVA, again, AJCC 8th Edition, we recommend the addition of chemotherapy to radiation in those settings as well.

Great. This guideline covers a lot of ground and many recommendations. Can you speak to why this guideline is important and how you envision it will impact practice?
So this guideline is important because a fair amount of patients will be presenting with cancer of unknown primary. We stress through this guideline that this is very evidence-based recommendations and guidelines with a focus on a multidisciplinary approach to how to treat these patients.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Well, hopefully, this guideline will provide reassurance to patients that no matter where they are receiving treatment, they are receiving quality standard of care management, again, largely driven by evidence. And it doesn't matter whether they're treated by locally practicing experts and specialists or at a large institution, they're being treated by the standard of care that is accepted across the board.

Well, thank you for your time today, Dr. Geiger, and for working on these comprehensive guidelines.
You're very welcome. Thanks, Brittany.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available and iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please write and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Nadine Tung from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA on "Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer: ASCO, ASTRO, and SSO Guideline." This guideline covers recommendations for the management of patients with breast cancer with germline mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines 

An interview with Dr. Pauline Funchain from Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH on "Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides recommendations on systemic therapy options for adult patients with cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines

An interview with Dr. Gabriela Chiorean from the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Dr. Mary Chamberlin from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and Dr. Pritesh Lohar from the HCG Cancer Center, on "Treatment of Patients With Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." This guideline provides guidance for resource-constrained settings on the management of late-stage CRC. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

An interview with Dr. Sharon Giordano from MD Anderson Cancer Center and Dr. Michael Hassett from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute on "Management of Male Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline". This guideline provides recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer; addressing five main areas where treatment for men differs from the approach used for women with breast cancer: adjuvant endocrine therapy, endocrine therapy for advanced/metastatic cancer, adverse effects of endocrine therapy, germline genetic testing, and survivorship. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. 

An interview with Dr. Nasser Hanna from Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and Dr. Gregory Masters from Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update." This guideline provides recommendations on systemic therapy treatment options for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK, based on histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. 

Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING] The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcasts.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nasser Hanna from Indiana University's Simon Cancer Center and Dr. Gregory Masters from Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, co-chairs on therapy for stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations, ASCO and CCO Joint Guideline Update. Thank you for being here today Dr. Hanna and Dr. Masters.

Thank you. Glad to be with you.

My pleasure. Thanks.

First, Dr. Hanna, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Sure. So the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of patients with stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer were last updated in 2017. And since that time, there has been a tremendous amount of change that has taken place. The 2017 guidelines included recommendations for basically three subgroups-- those patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have certain targetable DNA mutations and those who do not have those mutations but have a PD-L1 score of 50% or higher and then everyone else.

But because of the rapid and vast changes that have taken place, we decided to make a separate guideline for those with targetable DNA mutations and to focus this current guideline on those without the targetable mutations. So within that context, this guideline categorizes patients by whether their tumors have a PD-L1 score of 0% to 49% or those who have a PD-L1 score or 50% or greater.

And within those categories, recommendations are characterized based upon whether the patient has squamous cell histology or non-squamous cell histology. And we also consider whether patients are candidates for chemotherapy or perhaps even those that decline chemotherapy and whether they have any contraindications for immunotherapy.

So what distinguishes these guidelines from other guidelines is our attempt to adhere to the strongest available evidence-based medicine. And while not every iteration of clinical management can be covered, these guidelines provide oncologists with a strong, evidence-based roadmap to treat the vast majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

So as a result of this collective effort by ASCO staff and the guideline writing committee, this report offers a substantial amount of change to the recommendations from the clinical practices guidelines provided in 2017. In 2017, the only recommendations for the use of immunotherapy were in the first line setting for patients who had a PD-L1 score of greater than 50% and in the second line setting of patients progressing after first line chemo.

But these updated guidelines include the incorporation of immunotherapy in all subgroups of patients regardless of histology and PD-L1 score. So as a result, there are about three times the number of options to consider in the first line setting with these new guidelines compared to the 2017 guidelines. However, the 2020 guidelines provides a preferred treatment regimen for each situation to simplify the decision making process for most patients.

And what are those key recommendations of this guideline update for patients without driver alterations?

So the key changes for 2020 is the incorporation of immunotherapy into nearly all settings in the first line setting, regardless of tumor histology and regardless of PD-L1 score. For those patients who have a PD-L1 score of 50% or higher, single agent pembrolizumab remains the preferred treatment for most patients.

But new evidence does provide a rationale for giving select patients chemotherapy, either carbo and pemetrexed if they have non-squamous, or carbo plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel for squamous plus the addition of pembrolizumab in this subgroup of patients. For those patients with PD-L1 scores of 0% to 49% who are eligible and willing to take chemotherapy, these new guidelines recommend chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab.

For those who have a PD-L1 score of 1% to 49% are not appropriate for chemo or decline chemotherapy, these guidelines suggest single agent pembrolizumab as a reasonable option. The guidelines also provide the option of alternative chemo immunotherapy regimens to be used in patients with non-squamous, non small-cell that were not included in the prior guidelines.

And while these are not necessarily preferred for most patients, select patients can be considered for these regimens, which include the immunotherapy drug, atezolizumab, and combination chemo with atezolizumab and bevacizumab. And the guidelines provide some commentary on potential scenarios in which these options should be considered.

Dr. Masters, why is this guideline important, and how will it change practice?

Well, the new ASCO CCO joint non-small cell lung cancer guideline update is important in that it clarifies recommendations for an international audience and is co-sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario. These guidelines were developed through a rigorous, evidence-based process with a broad range of experts, including a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, data specialists, and patient representatives.

The new guideline update provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the current literature on the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The current update also includes a data supplement with evidence tables, slide sets, and links to patient information through cancer.net, ASCO's patient information website.

In an increasingly complicated environment for oncologists, managing patients with advanced cancer, we're learning how to incorporate molecular testing and other biomarkers. And this guideline will help change day-to-day practice for clinicians as they implement these recommendations. This guideline will help clarify the optimal treatment strategies for non-small cell lung cancer patients without driver gene mutations and allow individualization based on tumor histology and immunotherapy biomarkers, such as PD-L1 testing.

At the same time, the update allows clinicians to use their individual judgment and experience to incorporate unique, intangible characteristics of patients. It also emphasizes the importance of patient preferences in deciding the optimal care for an individual affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients?

The broad range of experts who've contributed to these guidelines includes a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, researchers, data specialists, and patient representatives. This assures patients of a consensus opinion based on the available clinical research on treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It provides clinicians with the best up-to-date distillation of the many complicated trials of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in an area where patient-centered, precision medicine dictates the optimal treatment strategies.

We incorporate molecular testing in these guidelines, although this particular guideline is directed at patients without driver gene mutations. We include recommendations on implementation of chemotherapy and immunotherapy based on the best available data on biomarker testing for PD-L1.

We recognize, however, that new research continues into treatment strategies and molecular analysis to help guide incorporation of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We recognize that new treatment options and combinations will become available, and new testing techniques will help guide the decision process in the future. We plan to continue to analyze the available research and update these guidelines as clinically indicated to provide the best options for our patients.

Most of our patients will still be treated with palliative intent. But a growing number of patients have sustained control of their cancer with recent studies and updates suggesting that up to 25% of patients may have control of their disease for five years or longer. Now that more patients can maintain their quality of life with prolonged survival, with the current therapy, it is also critical that we continue to look to patient reported outcomes as an important way of defining the best options for our patients.

Thank you both for your work on this ASCO CCO guideline update for therapy for stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations and for coming on the podcast today to provide an interview, Dr. Hanna and Dr. Masters.

Thanks for having us on the program. And we have enjoyed being part of the process.

Thank you.

And thank you to all our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available and iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

An interview with Dr. Philip Saylor from Massachusetts General Hospital on "Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline." This guideline includes recommendations for management of osteoporotic fracture risk in nonmetastatic disease and interventions for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. 

Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

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

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.ASCO.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Philip Saylor from Massachusetts General Hospital, lead author on "Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Saylor.

Oh, it's my pleasure.

First, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process?

Yes. So the Cancer Care Ontario has a program in evidence-based medicine, and they periodically put out clinical practice guidelines for management of a whole variety of topics. And they relatively recently put out a publication on bone health and bone-targeted therapies in prostate cancer.

And so that's a really big topic because bone health is such a big part of prostate cancer care across the entire range of scenarios that patients can face. And their guideline addresses topics all the way from osteoporosis and fragility fractures and that risk as it relates to GnRH agonist, androgen deprivation therapy that men can get for really any prostate cancer scenario, goes all the way from that to improving quality of life in patients who have bone metastases that have progressed despite systemic therapy. So it's really a very broad series of topics that they addressed.

And so when they put out that guideline, ASCO identifies it as something that's very relevant to the ASCO community and goes through, then, a formal process of reviewing the methodology of those guidelines and then having an expert panel discuss the quality and evidence of the guidelines and really provide, if appropriate, an endorsement and some additional discussion of those topics.

So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

They really have four sort of subtopics within this bone-themed guideline that are addressed and discussed in a fair amount of detail. And each one of those four topics deserves some of its own discussion. The first topic is osteoporosis and risk for just fragility fractures, like hip fracture and vertebral body compression fractures. That's one.

The second is potential prevention of bone metastases in a patient that does not yet have bone metastases. The third one is management of castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And the fourth one is symptomatic management of men with CRPC metastatic to bone. So it is probably worth discussing each one of those, in some detail, one by one.

So for the osteoporosis fracture risk question, Cancer Care Ontario, their recommendation really is that men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture who are receiving ADT should be considered for the osteoporosis dosing of denosumab. And in situations or places where denosumab is not available, then patients can consider a bisphosphonate as an alternative.

So we had a fair amount of discussion of that recommendation. We endorsed that recommendation. And I guess my personal emphasis would be that osteoporotic fracture risk is really the biggest challenge to that is not forgetting about it.

So you can often have men who are in a good prostate cancer scenario, likely to be cured by their therapy. They're going to get some duration of ADT. And they look healthy as they sit there in clinic with you. They're likely to do well from a prostate cancer standpoint.

And it just would be so easy not to adequately screen for osteoporotic fracture risk, and just not to remember that because so many of our discussions together in clinic are focused on the prostate cancer more than the broader health questions. And so, I mean, to me, I think not forgetting about this issue is really one of the most important things to emphasize in any discussion of osteoporosis.

And so really, it's a fairly simple problem to screen for and manage. Most men should be, if they're going to be on any duration of ADT, should be tested with a bone density test, a DEXA scan. It's really a fairly inexpensive and easy test for getting a sense for where their bone health is as they begin.

And I usually tell my patients in clinic that most men don't need any new prescription medicines to manage that risk, but we'll never figure out the ones who need it unless we go through the very disciplined systematic work of doing that screening. And then among those who really do deserve treatment, it's really denosumab at the osteoporosis dosing or a bisphosphonate. Really, any of those choices really works well for improving bone mineral density.

One of the big ASCO discussion points is that denosumab is the only medicine that's been shown definitively to improve fracture risk in this setting. But that's really a product of denosumab being studied in a really large prospective randomized controlled trial. And so that's one where they required more than 1,000 patients in order to assess that fracture endpoint.

So the reason, perhaps-- probably the most important reason that bisphosphonates have not been shown to improve fractures is that none of them have been studied in such a big study. The bone mineral density trials that have studied bisphosphonates are all on the order of maybe 30 to 100 patients rather than 1,000. So really, in many clinical settings, cost and convenience are important considerations. And when those are factored in, it's often very reasonable to use a bisphosphonate rather than denosumab, though either one really could be considered a gold standard. So that's point number one from the guidelines.

Number two really discusses the issue of prevention of bone metastases. And so there are a couple of sub-recommendations from Cancer Care Ontario. But really, the most important point from that is that there is no bone-targeted drug that has been shown to prevent or delay the development of the first bone metastasis. So a number of different studies have tried to address this question in slightly different clinical scenarios.

But the bottom line is, we don't use bone-targeted medicines to prevent the first bone metastasis. And so there's always been sort of an attractive potential effectiveness there because you think if your bone-targeted therapy changes the bone microenvironment, could the natural history of prostate cancer play out differently? But the answer is that we really don't have any convincing evidence of effectiveness on that front using any drug, in any situation. So that's a pretty easy one to summarize.

For the third category of situation that's addressed in the guideline really relates to castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And so there are three sub-recommendations there. In that situation, either zoledronic acid or denosumab in monthly dosing at the skeletal event preventing dosing is a gold standard and reasonable to pursue. So that's one thing.

In men with symptomatic disease, radium-223 can be considered, both to prevent skeletal events and to improve health-related quality of life. And then, finally, all radiopharmaceuticals can be considered in that situation for palliation of bone pain. And so we endorsed those recommendations as well.

And we added a fair amount of discussion about how to optimally support men's health in those situations. For one thing, it's important to note that monthly zoledronic acid or monthly denosumab, whichever is pursued, is a fairly intensive osteoclast-targeted therapy. And so the studies that formally establish those as gold standards in that setting, they really only treated for about two years, plus or minus. So we don't know a lot about the safety of that intensity of therapy beyond two years.

And so that's an important consideration, because there are many men who do well, thankfully, for a lot longer than two years in the castration-resistant setting with bone metastases. And so we really do, as clinicians, need to respect the possibility of toxicities, especially osteonecrosis of the jaw seems to be a much, much more common phenomenon with longer durations of treatment and with these more intensive regimens. So that's one thing that deserves a lot of attention by clinicians.

The other thing is that dental evaluation and proactive dental care before and during any of these bone-targeted therapies is really an important issue not to miss. So the highest risk for having osteonecrosis of the jaw is in patients who are on one of these intensive regimens and then need to have invasive dental work when they're already been started on one of those regimens. Those are the jaws and mandibles that seem not to heal as well.

And so ideally, every patient that is going to go on intensive osteoclast-targeted therapy really should be evaluated by a dentist with the question of whether there's any dental work that really needs to be done proactively before the start of one of those medicines. And so I always say I have to be humble as a medical oncologist to say I really know little to nothing about teeth. And so I have to reach out to my colleagues in the dental field to tell me which are the patients that need to do something ahead of time and heal before they start one of these medicines. So those are a couple of important points.

And then the other thing that's really not a new piece of information but is important to emphasize is that it's really monthly therapy with denosumab or zoledronic acid should really be used only for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. So the patients who are responding to their systemic therapy really seem not to benefit from the bone-targeted therapy. And that's likely because any systemic therapy that's controlling the prostate cancer, in general, that's active against the cancer, in general, is going to prevent skeletal complications. We just have a lot fewer of those events, thankfully, when the disease is under control.

And then, finally, the fourth category of recommendation addresses symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And that's a situation where the radium-223 given in the typical once per month times six series of treatments is a gold standard, improves health-related quality of life and overall survival.

I think one of the important discussion points on that front relates to recent clinical trial data that examines the use of other secondary systemic therapies in addition to the radium. So we have a prospective randomized study that looked at abiraterone with or without radium. And what it really showed was that the combination of abiraterone and prednisone with radium resulted at a very high rate of fractures and worsened overall survival. So that's really a combination that should absolutely not be pursued outside of a clinical trial.

And so that's an important thing to know, but it's also sort of a cautionary tale that if we're tempted to combine other secondary medicines with our radium treatment, we really don't have a lot of evidence for the safety or efficacy of doing that. So that's the sort of thing that really should be reserved for clinical trials. And those are probably the most important-- those are the four main topics addressed by the guidelines. As you can tell, it really includes situations that are relevant to just about every man who receives systemic therapy for prostate cancer.

Absolutely. And thank you for that comprehensive overview and those considerations of the guideline endorsement panel. Why if this guideline important? And how will it impact practice?

So I think there's really sort of two main ways that it's important to the reader in 2020. I'd say, first of all, as a reminder and sort of educational promotion of awareness of the things that we already know but are easy to overlook. And I think the things that are really there are that it is easy to focus on the cancer therapy and easy to overlook the bone-targeted therapy.

So as we have an increasing number of systemic therapies that are active against the cancer itself, and as we have sort of, in the best possible way, more options and more molecular considerations for our prostate cancer patients, we really can't forget to do the fundamentals, like doing monthly zoledronic acid or monthly denosumab in men with castration-resistant disease that's metastatic to bone. So I think that's the kind of thing that would be easy to forget, but that we shouldn't.

And the second subtopic there would be screening for osteoporosis in any man who receives ADT. And again, that's something that-- osteoporosis or someone at high risk for fragility fracture, that's an asymptomatic situation until the fracture occurs. And then at that moment, you're really thinking back and saying, man, I wish I'd done something three years ago, or five years ago, or 10 years ago to improve bone health so that this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

So it really is up to us as the clinicians caring for these prostate cancer patients to advocate for their general health in a way that includes their bone health. We just have to really not forget to screen for osteoporotic fracture risk. So I think those reminders of things that we already know but are really easy to miss, I think that's one aspect of this.

And I think the other is just discussion of the data. It really adds some richness to the topics. And we do have these updates in an emerging field, particularly when it relates to radium-223. It seems like a drug really on, like, a drug strategy that could easily be paired with other drug strategies because it's reasonably well-tolerated.

But we learned, really especially from that clinical trial experience of radium with abiraterone, we really learned that freewheeling combinations are not necessarily safe and not necessarily effective. And so we have to just be mindful of recently emerging data and have an ear to the ground about ongoing clinical trials, sort of how to best combine and sequence all the different medicines that are sort of in our back pocket.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Yeah. I mean, I think bone health is really just so important to every patient with prostate cancer. And it's almost, for clinicians, it's almost an educational issue where we have to help our patients understand how important bone health is. When we talk in clinic about a DEXA scan to look at bone density, a lot of men really look at me a little bit blankly. They think of osteoporosis more as this sort of issue that women deal with more so than men.

But I always talk about, if you imagine having a hip fracture and needing hip surgery, or if you think about the pain and the postural changes that happen with vertebral body compression fractures, we really have to do something before any of those things occur. And most men agree with me if you put it in those practical terms. It's just the kind of thing that you have to take a couple of minutes out of your clinic visit to make sure that you address.

And the other thing really is, in men who have more challenging prostate cancer metastatic to bone, even life-threatening prostate cancer, all the complications that can happen later in the course of disease, we really need to do the best possible job not only to keep men living longer, but also to make sure their quality of life is the best it can possibly be.

And that's really-- and most of the time when prostate cancer starts to become a physical burden as it progresses, it's really a physical burden that's centered on bones and skeletal health. And that can have an effect on comfort. That can have an effect on mobility. And these things are hugely central to quality of life. So the impact on patients, all the way from osteoporosis to bone metastases, really, it's just such a central theme within the management of everybody who has to face prostate cancer.

Thank you for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Saylor.

Oh, it's my pleasure. We got to keep working to get the word out there and have the optimal management for all of our patients.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.ASCO.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available in iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Dr. John Gordan discusses the newest evidence-based guideline update from ASCO on systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). He shares the updated recommendations for first-, second-, and third-line therapy for patients with Child-Pugh Class A liver disease, guidance for patients with Child-Pugh Class B liver disease. Dr. Gordan also touches on the importance of this guideline for both clinicians and patients and the outstanding questions regarding treatment options for HCC.

Read the full guideline, "Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02745  

Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. 

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. John Gordon from the University of California, San Francisco, lead author on "Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here, Dr. Gordon.

Dr. John Gordon: Of course, happy to be here.

Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Gordon, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  

So, to jump into the content of this episode, first, Dr. Gordon, what prompted this update to the Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Guideline, which was last published in 2020? 

Dr. John Gordon: So, both the initial guideline in 2020 and then the update now were driven by advances in the standard of care. The original 2020 guideline was actually held for a little bit so that we could incorporate the availability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, which just reported back and then received FDA approval during 2020. We were happy to be able to provide what was a very timely update to clinicians about being able to use that new regimen that had really changed the face of therapeutics for advanced HCC. The update was driven again by a shift in therapeutics, specifically it was the presence of much more evidence for the use of combination CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1 immunotherapy strategies. The primary thing was the availability of durvalumab plus tremelimumab, which was studied in the so-called HIMALAYA phase III trial. The key shift in this guideline was being able to incorporate those data as a second first-line option. Furthermore, when the 2020 guideline was released, data were just becoming available about the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, and were not covered in any great detail. So we wanted to be able to be sure to incorporate both of those regimens, which we thought were quite significant in the current therapy for advanced HCC.

Brittany Harvey: Appreciate you providing that background on the evidence informing both the original guideline and this update. Next, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this update. So, starting with, what is recommended for first-line therapy?

Dr. John Gordon: The current recommendation in the first-line setting is to offer patients either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sometimes called atezo-bev or durvalumab plus tremelimumab. But, at this time, those two regimens we're not able to distinguish between them based on the primary evidence available. But there are a few distinctions in the studies and the patients that physicians may wish to consider. In particular, because atezo plus bev contains an immune therapy and then an anti vascular agent, for patients who are not eligible for antivascular agents or for whom an antivascular therapy might be of higher risk, for example, people with a history of esophageal varices or people with peripheral arterial disease, we would encourage physicians to preferentially consider durva plus treme. 

Similarly, for patients where reactivation of an autoimmune disorder is a particular concern, staying away from the more potent immune combination is also advised. But again, the data themselves support the consideration of both, and it's really up to the provider, their multidisciplinary team, and then communication with the patient to determine what is optimal for that patient.  

In addition, in the frontline setting, it is advised that for those patients who are unable to receive atezo plus bev or durva plus treme, sorafenib and lenvatinib, the traditional tyrosine kinase inhibitors that were more commonly used prior to 2020, may also be considered in the frontline setting. Furthermore, for some patients, it's also reasonable to consider the use of durvalumab alone, which is the PD-L1 inhibitor component of the durva-treme combination. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. It's helpful to understand which regimens are optimal for which patient population and options that are available for shared decision making between patients and their clinicians. 

So then, following those recommendations for first-line treatment, what is recommended for second-line therapy?

Dr. John Gordon: One of the things I want to be clear about the second-line recommendations is that these are largely driven by expert opinion rather than primary research studying the use of these agents after either atezo plus bev or durva plus treme. So, if you look at the history of HCC drug development, five or ten years ago, when we were confined to the use of sorafenib in the frontline setting, many studies explicitly studied the second and later-line population. But in the current era, where new frontline therapies have supplanted those agents, it becomes a little bit harder to provide a truly evidence-based answer. As a result, the recommendation is, frankly, to consider all of the options of FDA-approved agents and just as was the case of the frontline setting, to balance what might be patient-specific characteristics, both in terms of comorbidities and also ability to adhere with these regimens, which are not the easiest. All of those things should be considered when opting for a second-line agent. 

Just to be slightly more explicit about it, for those patients who've received frontline atezo-bev, the considerations would be either transitioning to a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most classically sorafenib, lenvatinib, or cabozantinib, or in principle, ramucirumab, the biologic antivascular agent, or a CTLA-4 and PD-1 or PD-L1 combination, such as durva-treme or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conversely, for those patients who might have received durva-treme in the frontline setting, it's reasonable to consider either a TKI or atezo plus bev.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you for reviewing both those recommendations and the level of evidence behind those. I think it's important that even in areas where the expert panel didn't have a lot of evidence to go off of, there are still recommendations available for clinicians that are based on expert opinion. 

So then, following those second-line therapy options that you just described, what recommendations did the expert panel make for third-line therapy?

Dr. John Gordon: So, regarding the recommendation for third-line therapy, one of the things that we did want to make clear as a panel is that third-line therapy is a reasonable consideration in a subset of HCC patients. Quite often, five or ten years ago, it was very seldom that a patient might be considered for frontline therapy because of the burden of toxicity and/or disease progression during the first two lines. But now, for patients with intact liver function and good performance status, I think it's very reasonable to consider the same list of agents that might have been considered for second line.

And again, I think the general guidance here is if you've already given your patient both atezo-bev and some kind of CTLA-4 and PD-1 combination, it's probably best to use a non-overlapping regimen, something like a TKI. If, in the frontline setting, you followed atezo-bev by TKI or durva-treme by TKI, then it would be reasonable to look at the immune therapy combination that the patient hadn't received yet. Unfortunately, again, at this point, this is all at the level of expert guidance and personal experience. But just thinking about the mechanistic rationale behind these different combinations, and which ones your patient has had the opportunity to benefit from yet, is probably the best guidance that we can give as you move into the later line.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thank you for reviewing that guidance as well. 

So then, these recommendations that you've already described refer to patients with Child-Pugh Class A liver disease. What is recommended in the guideline for patients with Child-Pugh Class B advanced hepatocellular carcinoma?

Dr. John Gordon: Thanks. I think that's another important question, and it's a part of the field that's still evolving. So this is in some ways similar to the situation for third line therapy. The level one evidence that we have and the clinical trials that were done were almost exclusively done in the context of Child-Pugh A liver function. But we know well that many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have some degree of impairment to their liver function, making them Child-Pugh Class B or beyond. Similar to third line therapy, we do believe that it's appropriate to cautiously consider systemic therapy for these patients, particularly a better compensated patient with Child-Pugh Class B liver function may be considered. The same systemic therapy options that are considered for patients with Child-Pugh Class A may be considered here, even to the level of considering atezo-bev or durva plus treme. I will also acknowledge, though, that when considering the liver function, bleeding risk, portal hypertension, and all of the other issues that may be at play, it may end up being safer for clinicians to consider monotherapy with an agent like durvalumab or using a TKI, by simple virtue of the fact that if complications ensue, treatment can be interrupted and the therapeutic will leave the patient's system relatively promptly. The key take home here is please do consider systemic therapy in this population, but also consider it with caution, with an understanding that the underlying hepatic dysfunction also plays a role in considering and affecting the outcome.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those recommendations for patients with Child-Pugh Class B advanced HCC and all of these recommendations, which are based off of expert review of the evidence and consensus of the entire expert panel. 

So then, Dr. Gordon, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline update, and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma?

Dr. John Gordon: I think the impact of this guideline update was really to open the field and really just make clear that the use of CTLA 4-containing combinations was appropriate for patients with HCC because those data were not available at the time of the last guideline and to try to provide some insight about where and when to incorporate them. We really think that these agents have the potential to significantly impact outcomes for patients with HCC, and so we wanted to be clear that these can be considered therapeutically even after frontline use of a PD-L1 inhibitor like atezolizumab. And so I think the key objective of this guideline is really to be enabling and really to make it clear that within the now somewhat surprisingly broad range of approved agents that we have for HCC, these options are on the table and may be used in succession, depending on patient-specific tolerance and their clinical course. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. So then you've specifically mentioned that both the original guideline and the guideline update were developed to provide timely guidance from recently published randomized clinical trials. So what are the outstanding questions still regarding treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? 

Dr. John Gordon: I think those questions are really reflected in one of the things which is challenging about these guidelines, which is that it's a very kind of open set of guidelines. We provide clinicians with a range of options, but we're really not in a position to provide much evidence-based guidance around treatment selection beyond the sort of careful avoidance of contraindications. I think that there will continue to be drug development for HCC. I think there are more potent immune therapies that are currently in use for other tumors that are being studied here, and I think we do hope to see new agents in future guidelines as well. But I really feel like the key question is going to be starting to stratify patients for who's going to be most likely to benefit from exposure to an antivascular agent, who's going to be more likely to benefit from exposure to a more potent immunotherapy so that we can give our patients the best medicine for them in the first setting, and that we're less in the position of having to sample the available options to see which one might work for our patient. And I think that's going to require significant effort, particularly, honestly, in academic medicine, as these medicines start to get used, to develop the kinds of data that will enable identification of biomarkers and mechanisms of response, as well as identification of efficacy, which has been this sort of key limiting step in HCC therapeutics for the last 10 years. Now that we've got so many effective agents, we would like to see them be more effective, but nevertheless, it's been huge strides forward. Then the question is, who gets what when? 

I think the other place of interesting development right now is the integration of locoregional therapies like embolization procedures, either chemoembolization or radioembolization, as well as stereotactic body radiotherapy with systemic therapy. My suspicion is that it's going to take a little bit more time before the use of these is really well understood and how they might fit into the current standards of care. But we're starting to see some large studies tackling this question. I think that we will see impact of the combinations of systemic therapy and local regional therapy in guidelines to come in parallel to a better understanding of which treatment is right for which patient.

Brittany Harvey: We'll look forward to all of the future developments in the care of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and look forward to inclusion of all of the things that you just mentioned into guidelines in the future. 

So I want to thank you, Dr. Gordon, for all of your work that you've done to update these guidelines and for taking the time to speak with me today. 

Dr. John Gordon: Absolutely. And I actually just want to express what a great experience I've had working with the ASCO Guidelines team. I think that this is very challenging work, and I really appreciate the professionalism and commitment that they bring to it. I think it has a huge impact, and I'm glad to be part of it.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely.

And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

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. 

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.

An interview with Dr. Christina Annunziata from the National Cancer Institute on "Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline". This guideline provides recommendations for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer and their families on which individuals should receive risk evaluation, counseling, and genomic testing, and when they should be tested. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. 

Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

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

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I am interviewing Dr. Christina Annunziata from the National Cancer Institute, co-chair on Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline. Thank you for being here Dr. Annunziata.

Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you.

First, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Sure. So this guideline is covering the use of molecular testing in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. And that's specifically what tests should be done and when to do them.

And what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

The key recommendations really are that all women diagnosed with ovarian cancer should be tested for certain gene mutations that are responsible for predisposing people to ovarian cancer and also that a genetic counselor should be involved in discussing the results of these tests with the person involved and with her family. In the guidelines, we go into specifics of which genes should be tested at what point in the course of the disease. And the guidelines mainly focus on the BRCA genes and mismatch repair genes because these are the ones with approved treatments for cancers with these mutations.

What are the clinical questions that you addressed in this guideline?

So we have three main questions when we started out. We wanted to know, first, in which individuals should risk evaluation counseling genomic testing for germline and somatic tumor alterations be performed. We also wanted to know, number two, which genomic alterations had actually demonstrated clinical utility to direct therapy for women with ovarian cancer. And third, what is the most appropriate sequence and timing of testing, meaning specifically at what point in the course of the diagnosis and the treatment of the women should we be performing this testing?

So we came up with specific answers to each of these questions. And just to briefly summarize, for the first questions in which individuals should we test, we did find evidence that all women diagnosed with ovarian cancer should be offered germline testing for, specifically, BRCA1 and BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes, irrespective of whether or not they had a family history of the disease.

Also within that question, we found evidence that women who have non-high grade serous ovarian cancer, specifically clear cell endometrioid or mucinous ovarian cancer, should have somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency. And both of these recommendations are because there are FDA approved therapies for women with cancers with these particular genetic makeups.

In the second question, we asked, which genomic alterations have demonstrated clinical utility? This goes specifically into, which specific genes should be tested in the germline and the somatic setting? And in that recommendation, specifically, we focused on, again, the BRCA1 and 2 genes and the mismatch repair deficiency genes.

We did not make specific recommendations for the homologous recombination deficiency assays at this time. Those are still undergoing evaluation. And it's likely in the near future that we will amend this recommendation to specifically discuss those.

In the third question, what is the most appropriate sequence and timing of the testing? That goes into, when should we be doing this in the course of the disease? And we did want to emphasize that women with ovarian cancer should be tested at the time of diagnosis because of the specific implications for therapies. If they have not had testing at the time of initial diagnosis-- let's say they were diagnosed several years ago-- then they should be tested at the time of their first recurrence or subsequent recurrences if those have already happened. And again, these have implications for treatment.

Why is this guideline important, and how will it impact practice?

So one of the most important recommendations is that all women should be tested at the time of the initial diagnosis. In practice today, we estimate that only about 1/3 of women are actually being tested at the time of diagnosis. This testing is important, especially for the BRCA genes, because this has implications for the choice of treatment because of recent FDA approvals for PARP inhibitors in this setting.

And how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Our goal is to ensure that all women have access to the best treatments for their ovarian cancer. In order to achieve this goal, doctors need to be aware of best practices, and patients need to understand the results in the context of their disease.

This is why we recommend that the results of the gene testing be delivered to the patient in conjunction with a genetic counselor because this has been shown to increase understanding of the tests and follow through on the recommended treatments. In some settings, we know it may be difficult to arrange these discussions with a genetic counselor, so we hope that these guidelines will emphasize the importance of this step.

Well, thank you for your overview of these and for your work on these guidelines. And thank you for taking the time today to come on the show, Dr. Annunziata.

Oh, you're very welcome. And thank you for the opportunity to highlight these guidelines.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available and iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

An interview with Dr. Edouard Trabulsi from the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University on "Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline." This guideline outlines techniques available and provides recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Ed Trabulsi from the Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, lead author on "Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Trabulsi.

Thanks, Shannon. Thanks for inviting me.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Sure. So the purpose of this guideline, and it's fairly broad, is to try to come up with some recommendations and strategies for appropriate imaging for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Also, that includes patients that are newly diagnosed that are high or very high risk for having micrometastatic disease.

Also, patients that have been treated and are suffering recurrence of disease as indicated by rising PSA. And then also, patients with metastatic disease, either on initial diagnosis, or on treatment and who are contemplating changing treatments.

Also, it has a wide range of different patient populations that all fit in the category of advanced prostate cancer. And the idea is to try to figure out or make some recommendations on strategies for what imaging is appropriate for each of those groups of men.

So what are the key recommendations for this guideline?

Well, the big impetus for this guideline is the awareness of what we would consider next-generation imaging, meaning that there's a large group of new or novel imaging studies available and on the horizon. And we're trying to figure out the best way to fit them in in the context of traditional imaging in what we would call conventional imaging.

So that would be-- conventional imaging would be imaging tests like CAT scan, radionuclide bone scan, prostate MRI, that sort of thing. Next-generation imaging would include some of the newer PET imaging scans, using different tracers and isotopes, and some of the new SPECT imaging scans, as well as full body MRI.

And so how to interweave those different imaging tests is really what's proving to be not as straightforward as we'd like. And so we realized that we need to really approach this based on a clinical disease state model. So not just one monolithic category of advanced prostate cancer, but looking at specific scenarios.

And we developed this guideline as a scenario-based algorithm. So the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer of men that are at high risk, what images we think about there; for men that have been treated and their PSA is rising, and so forth.

And so we shouldn't jump to next-generation imaging across the board. We really should look very specifically at circumstances where these new, novel, and unfortunately, expensive imaging tests could have real clinical impact.

So patients that are newly diagnosed that are high risk who have suspicious or equivocal conventional imaging, so they have a CAT scan or a bone scan or something that we're really not sure if something that we're seeing there might be an indication of disease, that's a good spot where next-generation imaging might be very helpful.

For patients that have been treated and their PSA is rising, say, after surgery or, say, after radiation, and they get traditional, what we would call conventional imaging, and we don't see a source for the PSA, well, that is another scenario where a patient-- or a category where next-generation imaging should be considered.

In that specific space, there actually are two PET imaging studies that have been approved by FDA in the US with C-11 choline, as well as the fluorine-18 fluciclovine scans.

And then also overseas, or not yet approved in the US, there are other PET-based agents that are being used in that specific space.

Another important aspect of this is that it should have real clinical impact. So if you have a man who unfortunately may be suffering, or evidence of recurrence of disease after surgery or radiation, but because of their comorbidities or age or patient preference, they're not necessarily going to be aggressive with additional therapy, then we probably don't need to chase some of these next-generation imaging studies in that man.

In the confirmed metastatic patient population, that is a little more unclear in terms of what the benefit of next-generation imaging would be outside of the setting of a clinical trial. And in those patients, if it is thought that there would be a change in clinical treatment based on the results of the scan and of next-generation imaging, then that would be a scenario where those might be considered. But we wouldn't necessarily recommend them across the board.

And so why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice?

Well, it's important and timely because of the tidal wave that we are expecting of novel, next-generation imaging that is going to become closer and closer to clinical practice. Patients are aware of these studies, and they're asking for them, even if they're not currently available or approved by an FDA or covered by a third-party insurance.

There's been a plethora of research studies and new imaging tracers in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Australia. And so trying to get ahead of where they might fit in, and which patients might benefit now and in the future, was really one of the main drivers to come out with a strong position statement on the appropriate use of imaging.

There's a lot of controversy about some of the implications of the next-generation imaging, such as the potential for false positives and the attendant prognostic tests, that that might trigger false negatives, and potentially offering clinicians or patients a more optimistic outlook than may be really present.

And so figuring out specific scenarios and specific patient populations that would benefit from next-generation imaging is the real goal of this guideline.

And so finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Well, the ultimate goal is to improve patient care and improve patient outcomes. And so by coming up with some reasonable templates and framework of where some of the next-generation imaging will fit in on a patient's disease spectrum and disease course will help them both to potentially indicate when treatment changes may be necessary, or to isolate areas of disease, and to importantly and accurately give their correct stage. And then that will translate, or we hope and expect, with more information and more accuracy in diagnosis, in better treatment plans and better patient outcomes.

Great. Thank you for your work on this important guideline on Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer. And thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Trabulsi.

Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline and find additional resources, such as the guideline pocket card, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

And you can find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available on iTunes or the Google Play Store. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Kimberly Allison from Stanford University School of Medicine and Dr. Antonio Wolff from Johns Hopkins University on "Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer Guideline: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update." This guideline updates key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer guideline, and focuses on low estrogen receptor expression cases. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

An interview with Dr. Scott Eggener of University of Chicago Medicine on "Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides recommendations for available tissue-based prostate cancer biomarkers geared toward patient selection for active surveillance, identification of clinically significant disease, choice of postprostatectomy adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy, and to address emerging questions such as the relative value of tissue biomarkers compared with MRI. 

Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines 

TRANSCRIPT

If you like what you hear from the ASCO podcast, please let us know. Take our listener survey and help shape the future of the ASCO Podcast Network. Visit podcast.asco.org, and click on the survey link. Once again, that's podcast.asco.org. The survey will just take a few minutes to complete and will help us get to know you better. Thank you so much for listening.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcast.asco.org. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Scott Eggener from the University of Chicago Medicine, lead author on molecular biomarkers in localized prostate cancer ASCO Guideline. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Eggener.

Thanks for having me, Shannon, and covering the guideline.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Yeah, this guideline has been two years in the making and is an overview of the available molecular biomarkers to help clinicians and patients make smart decisions for men with localized prostate cancer. And that's in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as for certain patients that have undergone surgery and are considering adjuvant radiation therapy.

And so what are the key recommendations for this guideline?

So there was a lot of data that the team looked through with the help of the ASCO home office, and a Herculean amount of work went into it. There's a lot of commercially available tests out there. Most of them are quite expensive. And we are trying to make sense of the available literature and provide a guide to clinicians on what these tests are, which patients they might be relevant for, and how to interpret them.

The key takeaways that the data that's been published for most of these biomarkers are purely prognostic. And there is good science and good data supporting them. But they have not been embedded in a rigorous fashion or within trials or validated to have the highest level of evidence. However, they can be used in certain situations to add additional info for the patient and clinician to try to make smart decisions based on prognostic information.

Another key recommendation is that there are select patients that these can be helpful for. And we dive into a lot of the details on who these patients may be. Number one is a patient newly diagnosed with prostate cancer who is trying to determine whether to do treatment of the prostate cancer or embark on active surveillance. And some of those decisions are relatively easy and straightforward.

But when the clinician and the patient are looking for all pieces of information to influence one way or the other, genomic or molecular biomarkers can be useful at that critical fork in the road. However, we made it very clear multiple times throughout the guideline that our group's recommendation is that the biomarkers should not be reflexively ordered for every individual newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. It seems wasteful and not an appropriate use of resources.

The other situation clinically where these can be used are for men that have had previous surgery and are considering secondary radiation therapy, which can be given in an adjuvant or salvage manner. And there are some data suggesting that a specific test by Decipher, a genomic classifier, can be used to help inform whether adjuvant radiation would be appropriate or not.

So that was a good overview. And this guideline also includes some special commentary sections with additional research questions that the expert panel wanted to address. So can you tell the listeners a little more about these important considerations?

Yeah, it's critically important to know that these tests are not black and white. And they don't always clarify a data-based path forward. But we tried to emphasize in many different areas that integrating genomic or molecular information can be integrated into optimizing decisions.

And the special commentary really dives into a lot of those details on working with the pathologists on selecting the appropriate biopsy sample to send to one of these laboratories. It gets into some of the specifics on interpreting the data, as well as the role of CLIA-approved labs and non-CLIA-approved labs for certain staining that's done internally within organizations or with biomarker panels.

And so would you be able to expand a little more about which patients may benefit from having molecular biomarkers?

Yeah, the sweet spot for some of these biomarkers include a couple different patient groups. The first one is what I alluded to earlier-- the man newly diagnosed with prostate cancer deciding whether to do active surveillance, which is a monitoring program, or to have treatment of the prostate typically by either surgery or radiation therapy.

Again, worth emphasizing-- these tests are not appropriate for every newly diagnosed patient. And I would argue even for the man deciding between surveillance and treatment, there are specific men, perhaps those with higher volume low risk prostate cancer or lower volume favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer, that provides the ideal patient that may benefit from some of these tests.

The second clinical scenario that was discussed amongst the group were patients where treatment intensification might be valuable. Again, these biomarkers are purely prognostic, and there's no high level evidence suggesting that treatment intensification leads to better outcomes. Although intuitively, the higher risk profile a patient has, either by clinical factors or biomarkers, there is a conceptual rationale that treatment intensification might prove beneficial.

And the third category of patients that may benefit are those who have had prostatectomy where the pathology shows some adverse features, and there's a high likelihood of recurrence, and the clinician's decision is to guide the man on whether pure adjuvant radiation in the setting of an undetectable PSA or early salvage therapy at the time of biochemical recurrence would be more valuable. And there is one test that is commercially available that can help inform that decision.

Great, so finally, what do you envision as the future of molecular biomarkers for localized disease?

As we took an overview of the landscape in 2018 and 2019 of these molecular biomarkers, much of the group thought this was version 1.0 or 2.0 in this space.

And it is our hope and likely scenario that not only will we have better data on some of the currently available biomarkers with higher levels of evidence from either correlative science from randomized trials or formally embedded into randomized trials, but also that there's a large amount of work being done to improve the quality of biomarkers and that, in the future, we'll see improvements on the currently available ones or newer biomarkers coming around that will be valuable for these men as they make decisions along their prostate cancer course.

Great. Thank you for your work on this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Eggener.

Thank you, Shannon.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline and find additional resources such as the guideline's pocket card, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. And you can find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available on iTunes or in the Google Play Store. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Melissa Dillmon on the Patient-Centered Standards for Medically Integrated Dispensing: ASCO/NCODA Standards. The interview covers the findings of the systematic review, which were consistent with the NCODA patient-centered standards for patient relationships and education, adherence, safety, collection of data, documentation and other areas. NCODA standards were adopted and used as basis for these ASCO/NCODA standards. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/mid-standards.

An interview with Dr. Charles Shapiro from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and Dr. Joan Neuner from Medical College of Wisconsin, co-chairs of "Management of Osteoporosis in Survivors of Adult Cancers with Nonmetastatic Disease: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." This guideline includes recommendations on assessing risk factors and interventions, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines

TRANSCRIPT

Hi. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in healthcare care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues.
You can find the ASCO in Action podcast on Apple podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content, and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.
My name is Shannon McKernin and today on the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, I'm interviewing Dr. Charles Shapiro from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and Dr. Joan Neuner from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, co-chairs of management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancers with non-metastatic disease ASCO clinical practice guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Neuner.

Thanks a lot.

Pleasure to be here.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline does cover?

This guideline covers very important topics, that of osteoporosis and that of cancer survivorship. It's the coalescence of these two common problems that is the impetus for this guideline. It covers risk factors and what you can do as a cancer survivor to mitigate your risk.
It covers screening and identification of the best test to use to measure your bone density, and it covers how to treat or pull the trigger for anti-osteoporosis drugs based on the guidelines that are contained within the document.

And what are the key recommendations for this guideline?

So we developed this guideline with three key guideline questions in mind. And they really required a fairly extensive search of the literature to address them. And we did that by looking to some of the literature outside of cancer in osteoporosis screening in other patients as well. So I'll sort of talk about it in terms of the three key questions.
So the first question we had was, which patients with non-metastatic cancer are at increased risk for developing osteoporotic fractures? So that first question was, which patients are we really addressing in this guideline? And how do we assess whether they're at potentially increased risk?
So in response to that, we strongly recommend that oncologists teaming with other physicians, including primary care doctors like myself, evaluate their patients to determine whether they're high risk. And so we provide a lot of details in an extensive document. But in our bottom line, we have a summary of the most common and the most severe risk factors. And those include things like advanced age, current smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and a history of prior fractures, so already showing that they're at high risk for fractures.
So we recommend you look to that list. And then add in your own clinical judgment, particularly about patients who have added risks from their cancer treatments. And so we do also talk about those patients. And in particular, we call out patients with specific anticancer therapies, for example, aromatase inhibitors given to breast cancer patients, antiandrogens or GnRH agonists given to breast cancer and prostate cancer patients and call out how they're at particular risk.
And finally, in response to this question, we also recommend that you consider using a risk assessment tool. And here, I mention that we had to look to the non-cancer literature. So here, the WHO actually developed something called the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, or FRAX. And we do recommend that you use this tool or something like it to help you to assess whether your patient is at high risk. And those are readily available on the web. Search FRAX-- F-R-A-X-- to use it. And, of course, we have links in the guideline.
So that addresses the first question, which again was, which patients are at increased risk? And we have a list of risk factors that you should be considering and some references, particularly FRAX, to help you with thinking about those risk factors and how important any specific risk factor is.
Our second question really dovetailed right on that. And that was, how should patients who are at increased risk, you've identified as part of that first question, to be at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures be screened? And here again, we look to the standard recommendations for patients who don't have cancer as well.
And there are two ways that you could move towards, should you screen your patient or not? One could be your patient had one of those risk factors that we talked about and are listed in the document. The other is you use that FRAX tool and patients are more than average risk. And then we recommend patients be screened using one of the standard screening tools. The most common one, is called dual X-ray absorptiometry.
And I want to specifically mention central dual X-ray absorptiometry, which means that the test is done on the hip and the lumbar spine. Those are readily available. All major medical centers have them, and many clinics have them as well. And so we do recommend that for screening. And then we offer some specifics about how frequently you might screen, because that's another question that often comes up.
And so then our final question is once you determine that your patient is at high risk because their bone density test and/or their FRAX test shows that patients are at high risk, we do encourage talking to them about treatment options. And the first thing I want to say is essentially everyone that our guideline addresses, which is all patients who currently have or who are survivors of non-metastatic cancer, that they should consume a diet with adequate calcium and vitamin D. And so that's generally considered to be 1,000 to 1,200 milligrams of calcium and at least 800 to 1,000 IUs, international units, of vitamin D.
We also strongly recommend exercises and call out some specifics. That you want to work on balance, flexibility, and resistance, if possible. And that you quit smoking and limit alcohol consumption. All very good things for the body generally, but also very good for the bones.
Obviously, the meat of this guideline is also about pharmacologic intervention specifically. And since Dr. Shapiro treats so many patients with this, I'm going to ask him if he wants to comment further on specifics about pharmacologic treatments, when you think patients should get them.

So thanks, Joan. So pharmacologic interventions include RANK ligand inhibitors, like Denosumab or IV or oral bisphosphonates. So clearly, if your patients are at risk, that means a hip fracture predicted at 3% or more or a non-hip vertebral fracture at 20% or more-- and you get these numbers from the FRAX calculator and other calculators in common usage-- then you pull the trigger and use one of these agents.
Now we couldn't distinguish between the agents in terms of what's one was preferred. It depends on patient preference, comfort with the doctor in terms of how comfortable the doctor is using the agent, and other factors that go into the decision about which biphosphonate to use. Generally, the IV Zoledronic Acid and sub-cu Denosumab are used in the cancer populations. But oral biphosphonates can be used as well.

And why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice?

Well, this guideline is so important because we know from survey studies that osteoporosis and preventing osteoporosis and treating osteoporosis in the cancer survivor population is underutilized. And this is an important point, because many people, especially with breast and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer and bone marrow transplants, will be long-term survivors. And we don't want to cure a patient just to have them fracture 10 or 20 years later. So that's the importance of the guideline.
So it's the recognition that osteoporosis is treated the same, whether you're a cancer survivor or not. But the cancer treatments we use in routine practice can cause osteoporosis and bone loss. And that's the importance of this recommendation, as well as the particulars of who's at risk, the risk factors, screening, and pulling the trigger for treatment.
So that's basically in a nutshell, why this guideline is so important and how it will change practice, because we hope that the guideline stimulates us, as health practitioners, to screen our patients for osteoporosis, recognize risk factors, and how to pull the trigger on treatment to prevent or treat osteoporosis in this population. It doesn't matter who follows patient, but the patient has to know who's going to follow the bone density and treatment for osteoporosis, whether it's comfort that an oncologist has with the whole process of screening and risk factors and pulling the trigger for bisphosphonates or Denosumab or endocrinologists, the rheumatologist, the primary care physician. The patient's got to know who's going to be responsible for what aspects of care, survivorship care. And this is a big part of survivorship care.
So the treatment summary, which is a document that the patients get and is given to the primary care provider, should specify who will take responsibility for what aspects of survivorship care. And this is a big aspect of survivorship care, osteoporosis screening and treatment, if necessary. So it doesn't matter who does it, as long as it gets done.

I would jumped in if I could, Charlie.

Yes, so please jump in.

So I guess the only other point that I wanted to make about how it might change practice is osteoporosis guidelines have been out since the late '90s, early 2000s. And so many patients probably have thought about osteoporosis and their risk in the past. But I did want to note that there have been a number of studies in the last five years showing that in primary care-- so family medicine and general internal medicine, like I practice-- that we're actually ordering fewer bone densities than we did in the past.
And all the reasons for that aren't clear. Perhaps it's because of some concerns about the rare side effects of some of these medicines. Perhaps it's because the guidelines aren't clear because the data is not clear about how often we should test people who don't seem to be at high risk once they've had a first test. But nonetheless, there seems to already be some effects of this that the hip fractures, which had been decreasing are starting to look like they're rising again.

So it really is important then if we're not going to screen very frequently everybody, that we are screening the people who really need it. And so then this guideline it calls that out that these are patients who because either their cancer treatment and the debilitating nature of that in some cases or the specific medications puts them at particular risk. Those are the ones that we can't omit this.

Great. Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

You know, I think we're hoping that this will help in the care of cancer survivors and spark people to use things like survivorship care plans. Or if those don't work in your institution, other ways to make clear what the patients who are survivors are at risk for, both related to their cancer and outside their cancer, so that we can all work as teams of health care providers to make sure all of the things on those lists addressed.
So we're hoping that with some very clear recommendations about how to address bone health that we can help those teams serve patients that they can. Obviously, it can also provide some really essential information for patients who are wondering what the things that need to be wondering about in this new phase of survivorship after cancer that they're dealing with.

Dr. Shapiro, did you have anything to add to that question?

Hopefully, we can prevent fractures in our cancer survivors by following these guidelines. It's really important that we prevent osteoporosis and hip fractures and vertebral fractures, because we don't want to cure the patient just that saddle them with osteoporosis and breaking a hip or breaking vertebral body 10 or 20 years down the line. So this will hopefully affect patients positively.
And we intended the guideline to be for patients in terms of risk factors. And if you need a biphosphonate or anti-osteoporosis drug, then it's clear indications in the document who gets it and who doesn't. So I think that the effect we hope would be great on patients, that part of general health is osteoporosis screening. And just because you're a cancer patient doesn't absolve you from participating in all the health recommendations, including osteoporosis screening.

As with all ASCO Survivorship Guidelines, we do hope that this one informs many conversations between patients, survivors, and providers. Thanks to your overview here today and your work on this guideline, more clinicians will be informed of the risk factors and possible interventions for osteoporosis and survivors of non-metastatic cancers.
So I want to thank you both for coming on the podcast to discuss this guideline with me today.

Thanks for having us.

Yes, thank you.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast. And be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.

An interview with Dr. Kala Visvanathan from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on the guideline update. This update adds anastrozole to the options of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction based on recent practice changing data. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. 

TRANSCRIPT

Hi. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology. And we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues.
You can find the ASCO in Action podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show. And you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org.

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Kala Visvanathan from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, co-first author on "Use of Endocrine Therapy For Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Update." Thank you for being here, Dr. Visvanathan.

Thank you as well for having me.

So can you tell us about the phase III randomized trial, which provided the signal for this update?

Yes. This was the IBIS-II trial that was reported out by Cuzick, et al in 2014. It was a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial that assessed the safety and efficacy of Anastrozole, the aromatase inhibitor Anastrozole, at 1 milligram per day for five years. And the primary endpoint was the reduction of the incidence of breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer.
The trial itself was reported out with a median follow up of five years and the intention-to-treat analysis actually revealed that 85 women in the placebo group and 40 women in the Anastrozole group had developed both invasive and noninvasive breast cancer. What it showed was that there was a reduction in the incidence of breast cancer of 53% overall. It included both invasive and non-invasive breast cancer after a seven-year followup.
And importantly, in subgroup analysis, similar to the other hormone endocrine therapy prevention trials, it also showed that the reduction in breast cancer risk among invasive cancers was limited to those individuals with ER-positive and PR-positive tumors. And the reduction in breast cancer incidence was among hormone-positive breast cancers.
Another interesting point to mention here was that the five-year adherence was only slightly less in the Anastrozole arm compared to placebo. So it was well tolerated. And that was 68% in the Anastrozole group compared to 72% in the placebo group.
And in all the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference, except when they stratified by hormone replacement, women who had no prior hormone replacement, they saw a clear risk reduction. And this was not seen in women with prior hormone replacement therapy.

And so what are the key recommendations for the update of this guideline?

So based on these results, the update really adds Anastrozole as another option for endocrine prevention in women at increased risk. So specifically, we say that Anastrozole 1 milligram per day orally for five years should be discussed as an alternate to tamoxifen, raloxifene or exemestane in postmenopausal women for the reduction of breast cancer in women at increased risk.
We also clarify further who are the women most likely to benefit from Anastrozole or the other endocrine prevention drugs. And these are women diagnosed with atypical hyperplasia, either ductal or lobular, or lobular carcinoma in situ or women with an estimated five-year risk of at least 3% based on the NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment tool or a 10-year risk of at least 5% based on the IBIS Tyrer-Cusick Risk Calculator.
But we also give parameters for other risk models, and that is a relative risk of at least four times the population risk for women in the age group 40 to 45 and two times that of the population age group from 45 to 69.
I think this is an important part of the recommendations, because up till now, the recommendations for women at increased risk have really followed the eligibility criteria for these trials, which were often a five-year risk, for example, of 1.7% in the NSABP trials. And here, we're trying to really highlight the importance of considering this women at higher risk where there is a clear benefit when you look at benefit-risk ratios.
We also talk about the fact that Anastrozole should not be prescribed in women who are premenopausal and that it is really important that both patients and health care providers discuss the benefits and risks of Anastrozole along with the other risk-reduction agents when they are considering prescribing this.
And then lastly, the importance of talking about specific adverse effects of Anastrozole, because here we're talking about a population of women at increased risk who are cancer free. And that includes baseline fracture risk, a measurement of bone mineral density as well as other adverse effects like joint stiffness, arthralgias, vasomotor symptoms, hypertension, dry eyes and vaginal dryness. So we think it's important that they have this discussion with women before the study.

So what are some of the clinical considerations for the use of endocrine prevention pharmaceutical agents for breast cancer risk reduction?

So in this guideline, we have introduced this section called Clinical Considerations to try to tackle some of the challenging questions that providers have when considering prescribing endocrine prevention.
So I urge people to have a look at this section, because it's really a question-answer format. So one of the things we talk about first is what I just alluded to, how do you identify women at risk, where the benefit of endocrine prevention outweighs the risks? And we go through different risk calculations, and we give examples of clinical patients who fit into these risk categories.
The second thing, which I think is an important thing, is we talk about a new study that came out while we were preparing this guideline update. And this was by De Censi, et al. And it's been published in the JCO on low-dose tamoxifen.
This was a randomized trial in women with intra-epithelial neoplasia. So this includes women with atypical hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma, or ductal carcinoma in situ. So slightly different population. And the women were randomized to tamoxifen at 5 milligrams a day-- so this is 1/4 of the standard 20-milligram dose-- or placebo for three years.
So remember-- or endocrine prevention trials were for five years. So this was a shorter duration. And then a median followup of five years, they reported out the results, and they saw half the number of neoplastic events, so DCIS or invasive cancer, compared to placebo. So the results were very comparable to the original NSABP-P1 trial and very promising.
So the further I think, what has been a sometimes prevented uptake of these agents, has been the adverse effects of tamoxifen, for example, equal to uterine cancer. And in this study, they did not see an increase in the number of serious adverse effects, including deep venous thrombosis and endometrial cancer.
They still saw an increase in hot flashes. So I think this is very promising data and could be an alternate option for some patients, where side effects are a problem or they're reticent to take prevention given the side effects.
Another thing we tackle is the question of age when you start recommending hormone prevention. And here, this relates to we talk about at 70, not so much that you would stop it at 70, but at that age or 70 or above, you would actually make sure you're taking into consideration their life expectancy. So they should have a life expectancy of 10 years or greater. And you're also taking into consideration their breast cancer risk.
So the question there was, is there an upper age limit for endocrine risk reduction therapy? And we think that, at least the panel thought that, in women 70 years of age or older, you should actually consider both the short-term risk. It should be at least in the range of 1% or more per year. So that would be women with atypical hyperplasia, a family history, or some with carcinoma in situ. We want to make sure they're active and that they have a life expectancy of 10 or more years.
Another question we tackled here was, what is the duration of endocrine therapy in this setting for breast cancer risk reduction? And this comes in the context that now, in the treatment setting, a subset of women are given, for example, tamoxifen for more than five years.
In terms of data, with the exception of raloxifene, where we do have longer-term data that is greater than five years, in women at increased risk of breast cancer from the osteoporosis prevention trial, where we see that even with women taking raloxifene for more than five years still have a benefit in terms of the breast cancer risk reduction.
We don't really have data for any of the other agents in the preventive setting. So there is currently no data from randomized trials that any of these agents, except for raloxifene, should be given for longer than five years. And that is in the setting of women with osteoporosis.
And then the last question that we tackle is to look at how you decide between taking an aromatase inhibitor endocrine prevention therapy or a SERM. And this is really only in postmenopausal women, because we still only have one option for premenopausal women, and that is tamoxifen.
Here, we just go through step by step sort of the process of thinking about the side effects for each of these agents. And in the context of the woman who is considering endocrine therapy and tailoring it to their age, what symptoms they have, or other comorbidities.

Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect conversations between providers and women at increased risk for breast cancer?

So I think, firstly, these guidelines, again, bring attention to breast cancer prevention and the need for us as a community, both providers and women, to move this field forward. And what do I mean by that is we need to be more systematic about identifying women who are truly at increased risk and then subsequently having these discussions with them about the options available.
And so I think this guideline adds another agent to the list of agents we now have that can be used to reduce breast cancer risk or breast cancer incidence and also provide the opportunity to-- we look at this and think about how we might incorporate discussions on breast cancer risk reduction into clinical practice.
We do also want to stress the importance of discussions on lifestyle factors or risk reduction in addition to these agents. So I think hopefully this guideline helps to, again, refocus attention on the issue and encourage both women to ask their providers about their breast cancer risk and then providers to re-look at this question about breast cancer prevention and how to identify those who are at risk and then discuss endocrine prevention in those at higher risk.
I think this is particularly important as we think about our aging population and the increase we are expecting in breast cancer over the next 10 to 20 years. And then also, as we think about breast cancer is now the number-one cancer diagnosed, well, the prevention becomes even more important.

Great. Thank you for your work on this guideline. It sounds like there may be many important conversations which happen between women and their providers based on the work and the research about breast cancer risk reduction. So thank you again for coming on the podcast to share with us today, Dr. Visvanathan.
Thank you. I would like to thank ASCO for having these podcasts and also shining a light on breast cancer prevention and getting this information out to its listeners.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Anna Falanga on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." The guideline revises several previous recommendations. Most notably, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been added as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment.

Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines

Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org 

TRANSCRIPT

Hi, my name is Clifford Hudis and I am the CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action Podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues. 

 You can find the ASCO in Action Podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all 9 of ASCO's podcasts which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Anna Falanga from the hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy. Senior author on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Update."
Thank you for being here today, Dr. Falanga.

Yes, thank you. I am very happy to talk on the update of the ASCO VTE guidelines.

So this guideline was first published in 2007 with an update in 2013 and a reaffirmation in 2015. So what prompted this 2019 update?

Thanks for this first question. I think that an update was urgently needed at this time. You know, before, the ASCO guidelines were published in 2007. And then an update was made in 2013, and the second one in 2015.
But in 2015 was basically a confirmation of the previous 2013 update. Now the update was urgently needed, because in the very recent years there has been even more evidence of the relevance and impact of a venous thromboembolism in the cancer patients. But in addition, and very importantly, new data from prospective randomized clinical trials with the new drugs for the management of VT in the oncological patients have become available.
In particular, as you know, low molecular weight heparins were largely used in the setting of the treatment and trauma prophylaxis in the cancer patients. And actually, the low molecular weight tapering have been the standard of treatment for many years.
However, recently the results of prospective randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulant, particularly, the anti-Xa inhibitors, Edoxaban and Rivaroxaban, for cancer associated with [INAUDIBLE] treatment support the role of this new oral agent in the VT management in this setting. And this is related to new politics in the VT management in these patients.

So what are the key recommendations for this guideline update?

The main changes to the previous recommendations are first that Rivaroxaban and Edoxiban, the two anti-Xa inhibitors oral anticoagulants have been added as an option for routine treatment in cancer patients in this update. Also, now we may offer thrombo prophylaxis with Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, or low molecular weight tapering to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer.
And about other changes of these new guidelines compared to the last one include that patients with brain metastases have been addressed in the VT type treatment sections, whereas before, only patients with the primary tumors were mentioned in the previous edition.
And finally, the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin expanded to patients undergoing a major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery. These are the main changes that all I think are very, very important.

Why is this guideline so important? And how does it affect practice?

Well, I think that the question how these changes affect our practice is a very important question, because I believe that these guidelines reflect the new evidence that we have from the new data. And this data clearly expand our possibility to choose now between the different treatment options in the single patient in the cancer population.
For instance, the new data show that treatment with [INAUDIBLE] anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparin lower the risk of a recurrent thrombosis. But in some instances there's a higher risk of bleeding, particularly in the gastrointestinal and urinary tract cancer patients. So therefore it is evident that the patient selection and the individualization of a therapy based on the patient characteristics and the type of cancer-- all these become very important.
And we have the possibility now to choose between different treatments, or in the same patients we can change from one treatment to the other according to the face of the disease or complications if the patient is in a phase that is assuming chemotherapy with many side effects like nausea and vomiting. Of course, in these cases a parenteral injection is preferable for the management of a venous thromboembolism. Whereas in other instances, a long-term and oral intake is surely more convenient.
So it depends also from the level of risk. But now for the six months treatment we can offer different choice of the oral treatment and also for high-risk patients the primary prophylaxis with Apixaban Rivaroxoaban, and a low molecular weight tapering can be chosen.

And what should patients be aware of when it comes to VTE risks and treatments?

I think that patients should be educated about the risk of a cancer associated with VTE. You know, there is that evidence that they are educated about it. And they know a lot better about neutropenia, and the fever associated with this the neutropenic condition and the other side effect. But they know very little about the possibility that they can experience venous thromboembolism. s
So I think they should be taught on how to recognize the symptoms and alert their physician. You know, sometimes the symptoms are indistinguishable It can be just a little pain in the calf. And patients must know that these are to be considered important. They must alert their physician to undergo some test-- objective test-- to see if there is a real thrombosis in the leg or not. This is extremely important, because one important consequence of venous thromboembolism of the extremities is a pulmonary embolism that can be also fatal. So they must know about that.
Also, I think they should know about the risk of bleeding associated with the anticoagulant treatment, and also that this risk of bleeding can be different in the different type of tumors.
Finally, I think that also they must be told about the once they have, for instance, and episode of venous thromboembolism they have to receive a treatment for that, and these are usually six months to the minimum, and then we'll decide. So they must know what these are the efficacy and the safety profiles of the different drugs. They must know the differences in the route of administration and the other characteristics of the drug.
So I think that their shared decision with the patients of the type of treatment must be an integral part of the decision making and is certainly desirable.

Great. It sounds as though there's some important considerations for patients and important conversations which may be prompted by this guideline. So thank you for taking your time to discuss this with me today, Dr. Falanga.

I thank you very much for this interview and talk that our colleagues and also the patients will be happy with these new guidelines of ASCO. Thank you.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Noam Yarom, Dr. Charles Shapiro, Dr. Deborah Saunders and Dr. Doug Peterson on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." This guideline addresses the prevention and management of MRONJ in patients with cancer. This guideline is intended for oncologists and other physicians, dentists, dental specialists, oncology nurses, clinical researchers, oncology pharmacists, advanced practitioners, and patients with cancer.
Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines

Find all of the ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org 

TRANSCRIPT

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing a panel of authors from "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." So could I have you each introduce yourselves for the listeners today?

Thank you, Shannon. I'm Dr. Deborah Saunders. I'm the president of the International Society of Oral Oncology and was the section head for the Systematic Review on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw," with MASCC and ISOO. I was a proud part of the steering committee and one of the authors.

Thank you, Debbie. My name is Dr. Douglas Peterson. I am professor of oral medicine in the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. I am also a faculty member in the Head and Neck Cancer Oral Oncology Program at the university's Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm a member of the steering committee for this clinical practice guideline and one of the co-authors as well. In addition, and as of June 2019, I have been serving as chair elect during this next year for ASCO's Clinical Practice Guidelines committee.

Thank you, Doug. My name is Noam Yarom. I'm an all medicine specialist from the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv University in Israel. I'm serving as a culture of this guideline, and it is a pleasure to be with you today.

Thanks, Noam. I am Dr. Charles Shapiro, professor of medicine at the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. And I'm co-chair of the guideline "Medical-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw." And I'm happy to be here.

Thank you all for being here today to discuss this guideline on the podcast. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers.

Sure. So you know, ASCO and MASCC, as well as ISOO decided that it would be great to provide a practical evidence-based approach in a multidisciplinary type setting to address this important topic that impacts all of our professions, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
It's terminology and its definition and the path that's varied and even part of this publication identifies the need for us to move forward with a concise definition and similar terminology, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is defined as the presence of an exposed or bone that is probable by a probe in a patient that has a history or is undergoing present use of a bone-modifying agent. This being in the absence of any patients having received any radiation to the head and neck and the absence of metastatic lesions to the jaw.
The importance of us identifying this definition and agreeing on the terminology allows us to move forward in future publication to better compare outcome and provide better prevention and treatment for our patients moving forward.

And what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

There are six clinical questions associated with this clinical practice guideline as well as a series of recommendations built within each of the clinical questions. Clinical question one is directed to the preferred terminology and definition for osteonecrosis of the jaw, both of the maxilla and the mandible, as associated with pharmacologic therapies in oncology patients.
The panel recommends that the term medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, MROJ, be used when referring to bone necrosis associated with pharmacologic therapies. As Dr. Saunders has described, the definition contains three key elements-- current or previous treatment with a bone-modifying agent or angiogenic inhibitor, exposed bone, or bone that can be probed through an intra or extra-oral fistula in the maxillofacial region and that has persisted for longer than eight weeks. And third, no history of radiation therapy to the jaws and no history of metastatic disease to the jaws.
Clinical question two is directed to specific steps that should be taken to reduce the risk of MRONJ. The recommendation begins with emphasizing the absolute importance of interprofessional communication of the oncology team with the dental team in advance of initiating the bone-modifying agent.
For patients with cancer who are scheduled to receive a bone-modifying agent in a non-urgent setting, a comprehensive oral care assessment, including dental examination and periodontal examination and an oral radiographic exam when feasible to do so should be undertaken prior to initiating the BMA therapy.
Once the dental care plan has been developed, it should be discussed with the dental team, the patient, and the rest of the oncology team and then implemented based on medically necessary dental procedures. These procedures should be performed prior to the initiation of the bone-modifying agent.
Once the bone-modifying agent is implemented, there should be ongoing followup by the dentist on a routine schedule, for example, every six months following initiation of the BMA therapy. It's also important to realize that there are a series of modifiable risk factors which should be emphasized with the patient.
For example, poor oral health, invasive dental procedures, ill-fitting dentures, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use are all factors that have been associated with development of a MRONJ. All of these modifiable risk factors should be addressed, where appropriate, with the patient in advance of the bone-modifying agent.
As far as elective dental alveolar surgery, these procedures, if they are not medically necessary, for example, extractions or alveoloplasties or implants, they should not be performed during active therapy with a bone-modifying agent being given at an oncologic dose.
Now, exceptions to this may be considered when a dental specialist with expertise in prevention and treatment of MROJ has reviewed the benefits and risks of the proposed invasive procedures with the patient and the oncology team. In general, however, elective dental alveolar surgical procedures should be deferred while the patient is undergoing active therapy with a bone-modifying agent.
If the dental alveolar surgery is performed, the patient should be evaluated by a dental specialist on a systematic and frequently scheduled basis, for example, every six to eight weeks until there is full mucosal coverage of the surgical site. And once again, communication between the dental team and the rest of the oncology team is absolutely paramount in assuring ongoing comprehensive care of the patient.
Interestingly, there are still questions in the literature relative to whether or not there should be temporary discontinuation of bone-modifying agents prior to dental alveolar surgery. Unfortunately, there remains insufficient evidence to support or refute the need for discontinuation of the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery.
And so the administration of the bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, in conjunction with discussion with the patient and the oral health provider. So it really becomes an individual judgment call by the treating physician relative to whether or not to temporarily discontinue the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery.
Clinical question three involves the staging of MROJ. There are a number of well-established staging systems in the literature addressing severity and extent of MROJ. For example, the 2014 American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Staging System is one example.
Another example is the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria For Adverse Events. And there is a 2017 International Task Force on O and J Staging System for MROJ that is available as well. So there are at least three well-established, widely utilized staging systems for MROJ.
Having said this, it's important in the view of the panel that the same staging system should be used throughout an individual patient's MROJ course of care. And optimally, the staging should be performed by a clinician experienced with the management of MROJ.
Clinical question four involves management of MROJ directly. Here, the recommendations talk in terms of initial treatment of MROJ, which is centered in conservative measures. Now, these conservative measures may include antimicrobial mouth rinses, antibiotics if clinically indicated, effective oral hygiene, and conservative surgical intervention such as a removal of a superficial bone spicule.
In cases, however, of refractory MROJ, more advanced MROJ, aggressive surgical interventions, for example, mucosal flap elevations, bloc resections of necrotic bone may be used if MROJ is persisting and severely affects function despite conservative initial treatment.
Clinical question five involves bone-modifying agents and whether they should be temporarily discontinued after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. And once again, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the discontinuation of the bone-modifying agents after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. The bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, again in discussion with the patient and the oral health care provider.
And finally, clinical question six involves what outcome measures that should be utilized in clinical practice to describe the response of MROJ lesion to treatment. During the course of MROJ treatment, the dentist, dental specialist, should communicate with a medical oncologist in an ongoing way, both the objective and subjective status of the lesion. The guideline presents a scale that can be utilized to describe the trajectory of the MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive.
The clinical course of MROJ may impact both local and systemic treatment decisions relative to the cessation or the recommencement of bone-modifying agents. So once again, it becomes very, very important that the ongoing interprofessional communication relative to the clinical course of MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive-- be discussed with the oncology team.

Great. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. So on that last note, how can oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists all work together to manage medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw?

Throughout these guidelines, we do emphasize the importance of collaboration among the cancer care team, dentist, and dental specialists in order to coordinate care and modify risk factors. It is very important that cancer care team and the dental care team speak the same language. Therefore, we spend time on clarifying the definitions, the diagnostic criteria, and staging of MROJ.
As been said earlier, we have developed a new system to evaluate the response to treatment, which is based both on objective findings and symptoms. By using this scale, oncologists and dentists would be able to communicate more easily for the benefit of the patients.
We emphasized the need for multidisciplinary discussion in a few critical points throughout the course of bone-modifying agent therapy. And it is most important in case of a planned oral surgery in a patient without MROJ or before aggressive surgical treatment of refractory MROJ.

And how will these guideline recommendations affect patients, and what should they talk to their doctors about?

There are a number of things that patients, providers, dental specialists, and medical oncologists can do to lessen the risk and prevent MROJ. Because the key to MROJ is prevention. Once MROJ is established, it's difficult to treat, impacting a patient's quality of life. So we want to prevent, reduce the risk of developing MROJ.
Patients can do a number of things-- pursue good oral hygiene, stop smoking, or reduce smoking, and control their diabetes, for example. Those things lessen the risk of MROJ. Providers, dental providers, dental specialists, who are specialized in the area or providers, dentists otherwise in the community, when they encounter a patient that's contemplating bone-modifying agents, they can do what's called a complete dental screening exam, which involves a complete examination of the mouth, Panorex X-rays and X-rays as clinically indicated.
We want to identify work in the mouth that needs to be repaired before initiating bone-modifying agents. That way, we don't have to deal with an emergent situation when it could be preventable prior to bone-modifying agents, because one of the single highest risk factors for MROJ is emergent dental work while you're on bisphosphonate or another anti-resorptive agent-- bone-modifying agents.
So a dental screening exam is critical to prevent or reduce the risk of MROJ. And medical oncologists have a role too in communication with the dental specialists and really think hard about the indications for bone-modifying agents, whether it be for osteoporosis, whether it be for metastatic disease, and whether it be for anti-cancer effects.

And finally, where can both patients and clinicians go to get more information on this topic or to find a dentist or a dental specialist?

Now, as far as websites, ASCO, MASCC, and ISSO all have websites you can go to to find out more information about MROJ.

Yeah, I think that's great advice. Our links for additional information are listed in the Clinical Practice Guideline as well. This is a really first step at a framework in trying to manage a side effect that affects our patients but is very multidisciplinary. And like Dr. Shapiro was saying, really the best way to prevent this is with proper communication between the dentist and the oncologist and making the patient aware of what is needed prior to commencement of these treatments.

Well, it certainly sounds as though there are some important considerations for clinicians and patients. And I really hope that this guideline is widely read and makes a real impact on the management of osteonecrosis and the communication between oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists. So from me and all of our listeners, thank you all for coming on the podcast today to discuss "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline."

 
Thank you.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important podcast.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Lynn Henry from University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute on "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline." This guideline update includes data from the MINDACT and TAILORx trials to clarify the recommendations for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 not overexpressed, axillary node-negative early breast cancer.

Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines 

TRANSCRIPT

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, lead author on "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Henry.
Thank you very much for the invitation.
So this guideline was updated to incorporate new data from the TAILORx and the MINDACT trials. So can you give us an overview of these trials and their results?
Sure. So patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, are generally treated with anti-estrogen treatment and are sometimes also recommended to have chemotherapy. Since these tumors don't always respond well to chemotherapy, tests have been developed that provide more information about how much benefit, in terms of reduction of the likelihood of cancer coming back, an individual patient is likely to get from treatment with chemotherapy. It is important that the benefit of a treatment outweighs the risk of toxicity from the treatment.
Two of those tests are called Oncotype DX and MammaPrint. And they have recently been tested in large clinical trials. So TAILORx is a large prospective trial that tested the Oncotype DX assay. In the Oncotype DX assay, a tumor is tested to get more information about how likely a cancer is to return and how much benefit the patient is likely to get from chemotherapy. Scores on this assay can range from 0 to 100.
Previously, a study showed that patients whose tumors had scores of 10 or less, and who received five years of anti-estrogen treatment, were very unlikely to have their tumors return. So chemotherapy is not recommended for them. For patients with higher scores, above 30, we also already knew that chemotherapy is likely to decrease the chance of cancers in those patients, and, so, therefore, we generally recommend chemotherapy for women with higher scores.
In the TAILORx trial, the recently reported trial, more than 6,700 women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer had their tumors tested and were found to have Oncotype DX recurrent scores between 11 and 25, which is in that intermediate range or at the higher end of the low range. Before this trial was conducted, many people with tumors like these, in the intermediate range, were treated with both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy because we weren't sure how much benefit they would obtain from chemotherapy, and we didn't want to leave out a potentially helpful treatment.
In this trial, patients were randomized, or randomly assigned by a computer, to treatment with chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy or to treatment with endocrine therapy alone. The trial was mainly looking at whether leaving out chemotherapy would increase the likelihood of invasive cancer returning. And, luckily, overall, the trial showed that the likelihood of cancer returning in those patients who got endocrine therapy alone, without chemotherapy, wasn't significantly different compared to those who were treated with chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy.
They also looked, specifically, at the group of women who were 50 years of age or younger. So mostly premenopausal women. Now, this was an exploratory question, meaning it provides information that may be correct, but it hasn't been as fully tested as the main question about what do we do for all women? In these younger women, there appeared to be some benefit from chemotherapy in those whose tumors had scores from 21 to 25, and, also possibly, in those whose tumors had scores from 16 to 20. Therefore, we still consider giving chemotherapy to younger women with Oncotype DX scores in the middle range, from 16 to 25, but not to women over age 50.
So that was the TAILORx trial. The MINDACT trial was a bit different. It was testing the MammaPrint assay and the trial also included primarily women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. But in this case, most women's sorry lymph nodes were negative, although a few women had up to three lymph nodes involved. In that trial, patient's risk of disease recurrence was assessed in two ways.
First, it was assessed based on clinical factors. So the size of the tumor, how many lymph nodes were involved, and the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptors. Second, it was assessed based on genomic factors-- that was using the MammaPrint test. So if patients were low for both clinical factors and genomic factors, they only were treated with anti-estrogen therapy.
If they were high for both clinical factors and genomic factors, then they were treated with chemotherapy followed by anti-estrogen therapy. However, if they were high for one and low for the other, then they were randomized to either endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. So it was a little bit of a confusing trial.
In the MINDACT trial, those patients who were thought to be high risk based on their clinical risk, so the size of the tumor, the number of lymph nodes, but then found to be low risk on the MammaPrint assay. They found that there was no benefit to treatment with chemotherapy in terms of how likely a woman was to develop distant metastatic disease. And if they were low risk, based on the clinical assessment, then there didn't appear to be a benefit of actually doing the test, the assay, because chemotherapy wouldn't be recommended for the patient, regardless of the results. So that was the MINDACT trial.
So what are the new and updated recommendations for the guideline?
Yes, so in this guideline, we, based on the TAILORx trial, we made new recommendations for use of the Oncotype DX results. All of these results apply to women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer. So for women older than age 50, if they have an Oncotype score of 25 or lower, then clinicians may offer endocrine therapy and no chemotherapy.
However, for women age 50 or under, if they have an Oncotype score of 15 or lower, 15, then, clinicians may offer endocrine therapy and no chemotherapy. But if the score is 16 to 25, then chemotherapy can be considered in addition to endocrine therapy. So it made a difference in that gray area in the middle. For all women with score 26 to 30, chemotherapy may be considered. And for scores above 30, chemotherapy should definitely be considered.
The data from the MammaPrint trial actually aren't that new. Results from that trial were originally published in 2016. However, that was after the original guideline was published, so we wanted to add these results to these updated guidelines for completeness. For a patient with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, node-negative breast cancer, who is thought to be at high clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence, if the MammaPrint assay shows low genomic risk, then treatment with chemotherapy can be avoided.
If a patient is thought to be at low clinical risk, the MammaPrint should not be used as chemotherapy can be avoided regardless. And for a patient with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, but who has one to three positive lymph nodes, who is thought to be at high clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence, if the MammaPrint assay shows low genomic risk, then it is possible that chemotherapy could be avoided, especially if only one lymph node is involved.
So I think the bottom line for this part is that both of these tests-- there are now women who previously would have been recommended to have chemotherapy that maybe now we can avoid chemotherapy based on using these assays on their tumors.
So why are these changes so important and how will they affect practice?
Yes, that's a good question. Before the publication of the TAILORx trial, we had good information about how to treat patients who had either very low or very high Oncotype scores. But we really weren't sure how best to treat those patients who scores fell in the middle. Now, we have important information to guide decisions about chemotherapy for patients with intermediate scores.
For many patients with scores in this range, these new results mean they will be able to avoid chemotherapy and just get endocrine therapy. While these results don't give us answers for every patient, they do provide more information that oncologists can use when having discussions with patients about the benefits and risks of chemotherapy.
And what does this mean for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer? And what should they talk to their doctors about?
So as a result of both of these trials, we now have additional tools that can help oncologists provide more individualized treatment recommendations for patients and really assess whether or not chemotherapy, in addition to endocrine therapy, is likely to provide benefits. Knowing which patients' tumors will respond to chemotherapy can help some patients avoid unwanted side effects from a treatment that's not likely to actually give them much benefit.
Now, these tests aren't appropriate for everyone and don't provide all the answers, but they are an important step in the right direction for providing more personalized treatment for women newly-diagnosed with certain types of breast cancer. Patients should talk with their doctors about whether these tests are right for them when they're making important decisions about whether or not they should receive treatment with chemotherapy.
Great. Thank you, Dr. Henry, for this informative overview of the guideline. Keeping these clinical practice guidelines updated is really crucial and it takes a lot of careful thought to ensure these recommendations represent the evidence. So thank you for coming on the podcast to discuss the "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline."
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk with you today.
And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

Dr. Lisa Law and Dr. Randy Taplitz share the latest evidence-based recommendations from ASCO on vaccines in adults with cancer. They discuss recommended routine preventative vaccinations, additional vaccinations and revaccinations for adults undergoing HSCT, CD19 CAR-T treatment, or B cell-depleting therapy, guidance for adults with cancer traveling outside the U.S., and recommendations for vaccination of household and close contacts of adults with cancer. Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz also share their insights on the guideline, including the importance of this guideline for adults with cancer and their clinicians, future advances in research, and current unmet needs. Read the full guideline, "Vaccination of Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline" at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.24.00032      

The ASCO Specialty Societies Advancing Adult Immunization (SSAAI) Project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award to the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) (with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS). The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of nor endorsement, by CDC/HHS or the U.S. Government.

Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. 

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I am interviewing Dr. Lisa Law from Kaiser Permanente and Dr. Randy Taplitz from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, authors on "Vaccination of Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline."

Thank you for being here, Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz.

Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you.

Dr. Taplitz: Thank you, Brittany.

Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to take note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Taplitz and Dr. Law, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. 

So then, to dive into the content, here first, Dr. Taplitz, can you provide a general overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline on vaccination of adults with cancer?

Dr. Randy Taplitz: Yes, so people with cancer often experience a compromised immune system due to a variety of factors. This includes chronic inflammation, impaired or decreased function of the hematopoietic system, and treatments that compromise their immune function. Because of this, people with cancer are at a higher risk for infection, including with vaccine-preventable diseases. Also, response to vaccines in patients with cancer may well be affected by this underlying immune status, and their anticancer therapy, as well as the severity of the underlying malignancy. The purpose of vaccination in this group of patients is to prevent infection or to attenuate the severity of the disease when infection cannot be fully prevented.  

This ASCO review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, or IDSA, and uses what's called a systematic literature review of 102 publications between 2013 and 2023. This includes 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized clinical trials, and 64 non-randomized studies. The largest body of evidence in these studies, not surprisingly, addresses COVID vaccines on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. ASCO convened an expert panel to review this evidence and formulate recommendations for vaccinations in this population.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that context, Dr. Taplitz. So then, next, Dr. Law, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. The guideline addresses four overarching clinical questions. So starting with the first question, what are the recommended routine preventative vaccinations for adults with cancer?

Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you, Brittany. Before I start, I just want to wholeheartedly thank the first author of this paper, Dr. Mini Kamboj, Dr. Elise Kohn from the NCI, as well as the ASCO staff in putting this publication and guideline together. It is a very, very important guideline, and I echo everything Dr. Taplitz just said. 

So going back to your question, what are the recommended routine preventative vaccines for adults with cancer? As per this guideline, there are about 7 to 8 based on patient age and risk. Namely, they are: seasonal flu, RSV for those aged 60 or above, COVID-19, Tdap, Hepatitis B, Shingrix, Pneumococcal vaccine, and the HPV vaccine. These vaccines should ideally be given two to four weeks before therapy. However, non-live vaccines can be given anytime during or after chemo, immunotherapy, hormonal treatment, radiation, or surgery.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing those vaccinations and the timing of them as well. So then, following those recommendations, Dr. Taplitz, what additional vaccinations and revaccinations are recommended for adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CD19 CAR-T treatment, or B-cell depleting therapy? 

Dr. Randy Taplitz: Many studies have shown that stem cell transplant recipients essentially lose immunity from childhood immunizations, and we know that these individuals are very vulnerable to infection, particularly in the first year after transplant. Revaccination is critical to help restore their immunity. The optimal timing of vaccination is based on our understanding of adequate immune reconstitution with B and T-cell recovery so that the individual can mount a response to the vaccine. We know that a lot of factors influence this immune reconstitution, including the age of the stem cell transplant recipient, the source of the donor, the time from transplant, graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, the treatment and severity of graft-versus-host disease, and the vaccine type and antigens used.  

There are a number of bodies throughout the world, IDSA as I mentioned, CDC, American Society for Transplant and Cellular Therapy, European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant, and European Conference for Infections and Leukemia. All of these bodies have guidelines that approach vaccination in stem cell transplants. However, variation does exist in the use of a variety of things including whether to use immune predictors to help guide vaccination, and there is really not consensus on whether this immune predictor guided vaccination is more likely to produce a protective immune response versus a standardized schedule. In addition, the duration of protection is incompletely understood. 

The bottom line in these guidelines is that they recommend complete revaccination starting for most vaccines at 6 to 12 months after stem cell transplant, in order to restore vaccine-induced immunity. And I just want to go through a few of the particulars. For COVID-19, which is a three-dose series in the primary series, influenza - generally high-dose influenza - and pneumococcal vaccine, PCV20 in general, ultimately four doses, can be administered, starting as early as three months after transplant. Although there is really not much data to guide the use of the recombinant zoster vaccine in allogeneic stem cell transplant, the vaccine can be administered after the end of antiviral prophylaxis, which in general is 12 to 18 months after allogeneic and 3 to 12 months after autologous stem cell transplant. Some of the other vaccines, such as hepatitis B, Tdap, meningococcal vaccines, and HPV revaccination in those less than 45 are also recommended.  

I want to also spend the moment talking about the two recently licensed RSV vaccines, which were essentially studied in less compromised hosts and really without any immunogenicity data in stem cell transplant, and thus, there is no recommendation in this guideline for the use of these vaccines after transplant. Live vaccines, such as MMR and varicella – varicella would be in varicella-seronegative patients without a prior history of varicella – should be delayed for at least two years and only given in the absence of active graft-versus-host disease or immunosuppression. 

Moving briefly to CAR T, which is an immunotherapy that involves adoptive cell therapy, given the available data and after a review by the group, it was recommended that adults with hematopoietic malignancies receiving CAR T therapy directed against B-cell antigens should receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines either two weeks before lymphodepletion or no sooner than three months after the completion of therapy. Administration of non-live vaccines preferably should occur before CAR T treatment or at least 6 to 12 months after, following the same timing as what we recommend for stem cell transplant. There is really little data to guide the safety and timing of administration of live vaccines after CAR T therapy.  

In terms of adults receiving B-cell depleting therapy, they are generally unable for time to mount an effective humoral response but may have at least partially intact cellular immune responses. They are encouraged to be revaccinated for COVID-19 no sooner than six months after completion of B-cell depleting therapy, and they should receive influenza vaccine approximately four weeks from the most recent treatment dose for patients on chronic therapy. For other non-seasonal immunizations, vaccines ideally should be given two to four weeks before commencing anti-CD20 therapy or delayed until 6 to 12 months after completion, except for the recombinant zoster vaccine, which can be given one month after the most recent dose of B-cell depleting therapy.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing each of those vaccinations and when they should be given, and reviewing the available data – albeit, limited data – in these situations. 

So beyond these routine preventative vaccinations and revaccinations that you've both just described, Dr. Law, what additional vaccinations does the expert panel recommend for adults with cancer traveling outside the United States?

Dr. Lisa Law: Good question. As per these ASCO guidelines, adults with solid or blood cancer traveling outside of the United States should follow the CDC standard recommendations for their destination. For the 2024 CDC Yellow Book, travel vaccines, in general, should be delayed until three months from the last chemotherapy or, and for those with solid tumors, ideally when the disease is in remission. Of note, hepatitis A, typhoid, inactivated polio, Hep B, rabies, meningococcal vaccine, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines are considered to be safe. In all cases of travel, patients should be counseled by their healthcare provider about the travel timing, with the additional attention to the regional seasonality of infections, for instance, influenza is more common in late summer in Australia, and also with attention to any outbreaks that may be occurring globally at the time of travel.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points for clinicians to discuss with their patients as they consider upcoming travel. 

So then, the final clinical question that the panel addressed, Dr. Taplitz, what vaccinations does the panel recommend for household and close contacts of adults with cancer? 

Dr. Randy Taplitz: Thank you. Yes, it is recommended that all household members and close contacts, when possible, be up to date on their vaccinations. And the only further thing I would say is that there are some special considerations for the use of live vaccines in household contacts, particularly in stem cell transplant recipients. Contacts of people who receive stem cell transplants should preferably receive inactivated influenza vaccines. As was mentioned, MMR and varicella vaccines are both safe to administer to close contacts. Vaccine strain transmission to immunocompromised hosts has not been associated with MMR use in family members.  

Eleven cases of the varicella vaccine strain transmission are described in the published literature, but none occurred in compromised hosts. Because the vaccine strain can cause severe and fatal varicella in profoundly immunocompromised people, precautions are advised to avoid close contact with a person with a vaccine-induced rash. For household contact travelers, MMR and yellow fever vaccines are considered safe. Oral cholera should be avoided. For smallpox vaccines, the second-generation ACAM2000 has rarely been associated with vaccinia transmission and should be avoided because of this. But the live replication-deficient MVA-based JYNNEOS vaccine is felt to be safe for household contacts of immunocompromised individuals.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing the importance of vaccination for household and close contacts, and some of those precautions that individuals should take. I appreciate you both for reviewing all of these recommendations. 

So then in your view, Dr. Law, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact both clinicians and adults with cancer?

Dr. Lisa Law: In my opinion, this is a very important guideline that is long overdue in the oncology community and will have a huge impact on both clinicians and adults with cancer. Over the years, I have often been asked by my colleagues and patients, "Can I have the flu vaccine, and if so, when?" So this guideline really is going to be helpful. More importantly, our cancer patients are living much longer. They may have years of quality of life even with third or fourth line of treatment, especially, for instance, like CAR T for myeloma and lymphoma. However, we know that with additional treatment, that carries a substantial risk of infection complication among these immunocompromised patients. So it is of paramount importance to inform our patients and colleagues to be proactive in advocating preventive therapy ahead of time, meaning trying to get the patients appropriately vaccinated as early as possible to generate immunity. 

Another case in point is the Shingrix vaccine. I used to see lots of shingles, but ever since we have the recombinant Shingrix, I have fewer encounters. And this is huge because post-herpetic neuralgia robs a patient's quality of life. So, again, it is very important to recommend appropriate vaccines for our cancer patients. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It is key to ensure patients receive these preventative vaccines, and we hope that this guideline puts an emphasis on that for clinicians and patients. 

So finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Taplitz, what are the current gaps in knowledge regarding the vaccination of people with cancer?

Dr. Randy Taplitz: There are a number of really important gaps in knowledge and really critical unmet needs that require research and other dedicated efforts. Among these are, and I think paramount, are really the participation of people with cancer with varied types of immunocompromise in vaccine trials. Where vaccine trials are only for cancer patients, obviously is ideal, testing vaccines in the appropriate population. But when that's not feasible, pre-existing cancer should not preclude eligibility, and inclusion of cohorts of people receiving anticancer treatment should be incorporated prospectively. So that's really critical because the quality of our guidelines is based upon the data. We use the data for developing guidelines and gathering more data in the particular patient population is really, really critical. 

Secondly, work for creating more immunogenic vaccines and research to understand the immune response to vaccines after immuno-depleting therapies, particularly with newer therapies such as CAR T and newer B cell therapies, bispecific antibodies, etc. is really critical. We need to really understand the immune response and have the most potent vaccines available to these people who may have impaired immune responses. 

Switching gears a little bit, we really need mechanisms to promote institutional commitment to integrate and sustain immunization best practices for people with cancer. This will largely be through multidisciplinary, team-based approaches, protocol-based vaccination standing orders, and leveraging data sharing so that we can all be on the same page with giving vaccines to these individuals. We also need education and evidence-based decision-making tools, emphasizing preventive care through immunization, the availability of educational resources to clinicians and patients to address commonly asked questions and also misconceptions about vaccination, that's absolutely critical. 

And finally, I think we need to develop strategies for addressing unique challenges and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy during cancer therapy. We need to focus on patient and clinician communication, and very importantly, we need to consider health equity considerations in the development and approach to vaccines in these compromised patients.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely, we'll look forward to research and advances in these areas that you've just described to support these guidelines and increase vaccine uptake. 

So I want to thank you both so much for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz.

Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you. 

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

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.

An interview with Dr. AloK Khorana from Cleveland Clinic on "Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." This guideline update adds another treatment regimen to the options for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma who did not receive preoperative therapy. 

Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines 

See all of ASCO's podcasts at www.asco.org/podcasts 

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Alok Khorana from The Cleveland Clinic, lead author on "Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Khorana.
Thank you for having me.
So this guideline was first published in 2016. And then we saw an update in 2017. And now we've just updated it again. So can you tell the listeners what has prompted these updates?
In the world of pancreatic cancer, this has been an evolution in adjuvant treatment, which is sort of a surprise, because we've been treating pancreatic cancer in a very similar fashion over the past several decades. And between the 1990s and until just a few years ago, there hasn't really been much progress in terms of what to do with pancreatic cancer patients after they've had their cancer resected.
It's pretty clear that these patients should not have just the surgery, that they should have additional treatment after the surgery. And for decades, the standard treatment after surgery was either 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine, but most oncologists are opting for gemcitabine. The two recent updates of the ASCO Guidelines reflect two large randomized trials that have been published in this area. The first changed-- added a new standard of care, which was a doublet adjuvant therapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine.
And the reason for this most recent update is the publication of a large randomized trial of adjuvant FOLFIRINOX for patients with pancreatic cancer that was published in December 2018 in "The New England." And we felt that the results were so compelling that we needed to update the guidelines so oncologists and practitioners would have the most current data to help them make decisions for patients.
So for our listeners who may not now, can you tell us what changes have been made to the recommendations in this newest version of the guideline?
So this is a guideline on a potentially curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is we are saying these are resectable pancreatic cancer patients. And the guideline update changes primarily one recommendation, recommendation 4.1, which is a listing of additional adjuvant therapy options. As I mentioned earlier, the most common monotherapy option used to be the gemcitabine 5-fluorouracil. And that recently changed to doublet therapy.
And we've kept those recommendations, but we've added the modified combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, which is known as the FOLFIRINOX regimen. And we are making this the preferred regimen for patients in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance. We are still keeping the recommendations for the doublet therapy with gemcitabine capecitabine as well as monotherapy with gemcitabine alone or fluorouracil with cholanic acid. But those are not the preferred regimens, because the data for FOLFIRINOX is much better than prior regimens.
Having said that, there are concerns about using such an aggressive regimen and in patients who have undergone a major surgery. So patients have not recovered from operation, then it's reasonable to consider one of the other regimens. But the update primarily focuses on adding adjuvant FOLFIRINOX as the preferred option in the adjuvant setting.
And how has this guideline and its updates affected care for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma?
I think since the results of this trial, the PRODIGY 24 trial came out of post-operative FOLFIRINOX. Almost every oncologist I know that focuses on treating patients with pancreatic cancer has suddenly added its use in patients that respected pancreatic cancer who are healthy enough to tolerate adjuvant FOLFIRINOX therapy. So it's definitely a practice-changing landmark paper.
The results of the study were really quite impressive. The use of adjuvant therapy with FOLFIRINOX led to much longer survival than we've seen in any trial of adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer, almost 54 months-- or actually just over 54 months, almost 55 months-- in patients who are randomized to the modified FOLFIRINOX group and about 35 months in the gemcitabine alone group.
The overall survival at three years was 63% in FOLFIRINOX and nearly 49% in the gemcitabine group. So that's a big difference at three-year survival as well. The one thing clinicians should be aware of is that this adjuvant therapy trial used a modified dose of FOLFIRINOX. They initially started off at the full those, which is 85 milligrams per meter squared of oxaliplatin, 400 mg per meter squared of leucovorin, and 180 milligrams per meter square of irinotecan.
But the dose of iriniotecan was reduced part way through the study to 150 milligrams per meter squared, along with, of course, the conventional 2.4 grams or 5-fluorouracil over 46 hours. This modification of the irinotecan dose from 180 down to 150 is what many patients on the study received and was the more tolerable regimen and allowed the study to be completed.
So the Guidelines Panel felt quite strongly that when using FOLFIRINOX in the adjuvant setting, we should stick with this modified dose, which is a lower dose of irinotecan at 150 milligrams per meter squared. And I think it's important that clinicians be aware of this distinction. And so taking this into account, many of us have made this recommendation to patients who are healthy enough to tolerate adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. And the hope is that this guideline will inform this ongoing practice as it changes in response to new data.
And finally, what trials or new research are you keeping an eye on that may prompt an update for this guideline in the future?
The results of another large adjuvant therapy trial are expected, hopefully at ASCO this year. This trial is the APAC trial that utilizes gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel or Abraxane. This doublet combination is quite widely used in patients with metastatic pancreas cancer, particularly those patients for whom we feel FOLFIRINOX may not be appropriate because of their performance status or functional status. And the hope was that the doublet combination would also have good success in the adjuvant therapy setting and perhaps be a better option than the gem-cape doublet.
There has been a press release from the sponsor of that trial, and it looks like the trial was not successful, although the way the press release is worded is rather confusing. So we wait for the full results of that trial to be presented at ASCO before we have an understanding of whether that is an appropriate regimen to use or not in the adjuvant setting. So that's certainly one large trial that many of us have been looking forward to complete sort of the set of ongoing adjuvant therapy trials in this setting.
Great. It sounds like there's some really exciting things happening in pancreatic cancer right now. And I look forward to seeing this guideline evolve with the research. So Dr. Khorana, thank you so much for coming on the podcast today and summarizing the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.
Thank you, Shannon.
And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Fabrice Andre from Institute Gustave Roussy, Paris Sud University, in Paris, France on "Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Integration of Results from TAILORx." This update provides updated recommendations on chemoendocrine therapy for patients who present with a hormone receptor positive, HER2 not overexpressed, axillary node negative early breast cancer.

TRANSCRIPT

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Fabrice André from the Institute Gustave Roussy in Paris, France, lead author on "Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer. ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Integration of Results from TAILORx." Thank you for being here today, Dr. André.
Thank you.
So based on the title of this guideline, we know that this update was prompted by the results of the TAILORx trial. So can you tell us more about that trial and what its results were?
Yes. So the TAILORx trial was a trial that randomized two treatment modalities, endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy endocrine therapy in patients who presented what we call an intermediate recurrence cohort. So before moving to the results, maybe we can discuss a little bit the background. What we knew from the past is the fact that patients who present a recurrence score below 11 should be treated with endocrine therapy alone, because they have the good outcomes. And patients who present recurrence score that is high, 31 but also can be more on 25, should receive chemotherapy.
And we are talking about patients with hormone-receptor receptor positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer without lymph node involvement. And this is extremely important. So to summarize, it's a clinical trial that includes patients with hormone-receptor positive HER2-negative lymph node negative in early breast cancer, who present with recurrence score between 11 and 25. And the question is whether we can avoid adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients who present this intermediate score. So this is the general design and the question.
In terms of research, what we have learned. We have learned that for patients above 50 years old, there is no difference between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. So it means that this patient or these patients, we would consider endocrine therapy alone. Then, for patients below 50 years old, there was some difference. And I think we go further into the detail. There was some difference favoring the use of chemotherapy in the group of patients who presented with recurrence score from 16 to 25.
And so what changes were made to the recommendations in this update of the guideline?
So first, what were [INAUDIBLE] the previous guidelines. The previous guidelines were telling the clinician which genetic tests they could use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Now, the big change is that we are making guideline to explain how to use the test. And what is new is that we have made three important decisions.
So first, for the patient is at the age above 50, now it is recommended clinician may recommend endocrine therapy alone for women older than 50 who present a recurrence score below 26. Before, the recommendation to use endocrine therapy alone was for patient's who present with low recurrence score.
So it means now we have broadened-- we have increased the number of patients who could receive endocrine therapy alone and not receive chemotherapy. Then, for patients who present a recurrence score between 16 to 25 and who are below 50 years old, the clinician may offer chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy, meaning that we are moving from [INAUDIBLE]. This intermediate score between 11 to 25 was what we call a [INAUDIBLE].
There was no recommendation on how to use the recurrence score. So right now, the update from the ASCO guideline is to provide recommendation on which treatment to administer in case a patient presents with intermediate recurrence score, and there are two different situations above 50 years old and below 50 years old.
So why are these changes so important and how will they affect practice?
So they will affect practice because for many reasons, I will say. In the US, they would affect practice because they increase the number of patients who will not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, because right now, we have an answer from randomized trial that we can avoid chemotherapy in women above 50 and from 11 to 25 recurrence score. So the impact in terms of public health would be that we could have a decrease in the use of chemotherapy or at least a better precision about who should receive adjuvant chemotherapy.
Globally, this trial is going to provide an incentive and increase the level of evidence supporting the use of genetic tests. So it's important to remember that in a large number of countries, genetic tests are not reimbursed. But now, because lack of evidence, and here we have a randomized trial showing a level 1 evidence supporting the use of genetic tests.
So we have two direct impacts of this trial. The first, inside US, where [INAUDIBLE] colleagues already use genetic tests, it provides better precision on who will receive adjuvant chemotherapy. And it's going to broaden the number of patients who will not receive. And globally, it's prospective randomized trial that we hope is going to incite payers to reimburse the genetic test in patients with early breast cancer.
And so what does this all mean for patients with early stage invasive breast cancer? And what should they talk to their doctors about?
So for patients with early breast cancer, so what are the messages for the patient? I think for the patient, the key message is that we are moving to precision medicine. We need a medicine that is extremely precise in terms of who should receive which treatments. And now, thanks to this trial, we are going to decrease the number of patients who receive chemotherapy, but also for the ones who will receive adjuvant chemotherapy, the value of the treatment, we need what the treatment provides to the patient is going to be very, very high.
So what is important for patients is to understand that because of this trial, when we give them chemotherapy, we will know that the value of this treatment and the expected benefit is going to be higher than what we used to do in the past. So it's really fast forward and more precise medicine that consists in using molecular tests in order to provide or administer treatment with very high value.
Great. Thank you Dr. André for your overview of this guideline update. This has been very informative. It's really good to hear that the expert panel has incorporated the latest research into the guideline and has carefully considered the implications for the patients. So thank you for coming on the podcast to discuss the "Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Integration of Results from TAILORx"
Thank you. What people don't realize is we did hard work that ASCO doing with all these guidelines, and people are very committed, and they are [INAUDIBLE]. I mean, it's very reassuring for ASCO member to know that there are highly professional people who provide guidelines and it is also reassuring for the patients, for everyone.
And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. David Adelstein of the Cleveland Clinic on the ASCO PCO which provides statements on the role of treatment deintensification in the management of p16+ oropharyngeal cancer. Read the full PCO at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. David Adelstein from the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Lead author on "Role of Treatment Deintensification in the Management of p16 Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion." 
Thank you for being here today, Dr. Adelstein.
Thank you, Shannon. Before we get started, I'd like to first note the contributions of my panel co-chair, Drew Ridge, and those of all of the other panel members. And I'd like to extend a special thank you to ASCO for their support in allowing us to put this together and specifically Nofisat Ismaila who did a tremendous amount of work in allowing us to complete this provisional clinical opinion.
First, can you give us an overview of the clinical issue for this PCO?
Sure. So this really came out of the implications of human papillomavirus mediated oropharynx cancer. I think as most of the listeners know, over the last several decades we've recognized the fact that oropharynx cancer has a second ideology, that not all of it is caused by tobacco use, but that the human papillomavirus is now the major ideologic factor in North American and northern Europe.
The importance of this is that the human papillomavirus-induced oropharynx cancer is a different disease. It has a number of different characteristics from the kinds of head and neck cancer we've seen in the past. It's a disease that tends to occur in younger patients, patients who are otherwise generally more healthy. It is unassociated with smoking, although it can occur in smokers. But it's much more frequent in nonsmokers.
And I think most importantly, it's a disease that has a dramatically better prognosis than the tobacco related disease. Now over the last several decades, our ability to treat advanced head and neck cancer has improved significantly, because we've begun to incorporate non-operative treatments-- chemotherapy and radiation-- and have been more aggressive in our utilization of chemotherapy and radiation with significantly greater success than we had in the past. The problem with this kind of treatment is that it is quite rigorous. And there's a good deal of acute and, more importantly, late toxicity that patients experience from these kinds of approaches.
Now as we became more familiar with the importance of HPV associated oropharynx cancer, we realized that there are subgroups of these patients who have cure rates that are in excess of 90%. And the question arose whether the kinds of rigorous chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments that we were utilizing were really necessary. Was it necessary to cause this much acute and late toxicity in patients who in vast majority of cases were going to be cured of the disease.
And it's important, because these are younger patients. And the late toxicities are going to have a major impact on their quality of life for a number of years.
What came about was the notion of treatment deintensification, the idea that perhaps it would be possible to deintensify the kinds of treatments we were giving in select patients. It's a very compelling hypothesis for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists.
But there are a number of problems as we try to test this hypothesis. The first problem is how do we identify the good risk patients? There are patients with HPV-positive disease who do not do so well-- the heavy smokers and patients with very advanced tumors. And we need to be careful if we're going to be talking about giving less treatment that we don't give less treatment to the patients who have a worse prognosis. We pick the best prognosis patients.
There have been a number of what we call risk stratification schemes that have been developed looking at trying to identify the very good prognosis patients-- those patients who are HPV positive who don't smoke and who have relatively limited disease extent. There's not universal agreement on how best to define these patients. All we know is that they do exist, that you can look at patients with these characteristics and see very good outcomes.
One of the issues that has come up is how do we utilize the American Joint Committee staging system-- AJCC the 8th edition. One of the things that AJCC 8 did which is new is that it defined a separate staging system for patients with HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, a system which is entirely different than the staging system that we've used for head and neck cancers for many years.
This was based on the recognition that the prognosis of patients with HPV-positive disease is so good so that many patients who we would previously have considered to have stage 4 disease are now classified as having stage 1 tumors, because their prognosis is so good. And that can be confusing, because the typical thought process for an oncologist is that a patient with stage 1 disease should be treated with single modality therapy.
The reason that the HPV-positive patients have such a good prognosis, however, is that many of them have been treated with combined modality therapies. And to make the assumption that because now they're classified as stage 1 is incorrect. It is they shouldn't be treated with less intensive treatments and can be confusing. AJCC 8th edition is a prognostic robust staging system, but it really doesn't help us in defining treatment.
First problem is how best to define patients who are appropriate for deintensification. Second problem is, what do you do to deintensify? What constitutes meaningful deintensification?
Well, over the last 10 or 20 years there have been some significant advances in our standard treatments for all head and neck cancers that weren't developed the idea of deintensification. We now have tremendous experience using transoral surgical techniques, which are generally minimally morbid, much less morbid than the former open techniques that previously were used, which allows consideration of surgery for many of these patients where we wouldn't have considered it before.
Similarly, intensity modulated radiation therapy has been widely adopted, and d clearly an approach using radiation, which is far less difficult, far less toxic than the former 2D or 3D radiation planning techniques that used to be used.
But if we talk about intensification, what kinds of things can we do to deintensify our treatments? Well, one thought is to reduce the radiation dose. Then the question is, how much reduction is reasonable? And how much reduction is going to actually impact on this toxicity? And are our toxicity measuring tools adequate to even detect the difference in reduction of a radiation dose? Many of our toxicity tools are very crude. Perhaps we should be using some of the patient-reported outcome quality of life instruments that are available.
Other thoughts are, perhaps one can reduce the size of the radiation therapy field. Can we reduce the dose of the chemotherapy? Can we eliminate chemotherapy? Can we even use less intensive chemotherapy? Generally, the other treatments for this disease have employed high doses of cisplatin, which is a toxic agent.
And then there the question has been asked as to whether we can reincorporate minimally morbid transoral surgical techniques in an effort to better pathologically stage patients and define more appropriate adjuvant treatment. Perhaps not all patients need adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy and radiation.
All of these approaches are interesting. They're exciting. They're being tested. But all of the experiences is preliminary.
And that really brings us to the third and the biggest problem in any deintensification approach. And that's the need to be certain that if we deintensify our therapy, we're not going to compromise outcomes. It would not be acceptable to give less treatment or less intensive treatment if our survival were compromised. And we have to be certain that we don't do this.
So what has evolved over the past decade is a whole number of treatment approaches that have some very enthusiastic early results. But these are generally single arm phase 2 reports where there is no comparison to conventional treatment. And they become difficult to interpret, because the results in general are very good.
I think what really raised a red flag for us and that really caused us to take notice was the results of the RTOG 1016 trial that we reported last year. And at the same time, the European de-escalate trial, both of which had a similar design. These were studies that were designed in an effort to see if treatment deintensification would be possible by randomly comparing the standard treatment radiation and cisplatin with what was felt to be a less intensive approach-- radiation and concurrent cetuximab. And cetuximab is an accepted agent in the United States for treating head and neck cancer.
The assumption here is that the survival would be equivalent when these two arms were compared, but that the toxicity would be improved by giving the less intensive systemic agent-- the cetuximab. The surprise when the study was analyzed was that that assumption was incorrect, that the radiation and cetuximab arm-- the deintensified arm-- actually proved inferior in terms of survival.
And this was in both trials-- both the RTOG trial and the trial from Europe. And that was a big note of caution, because it was somewhat unexpected. I think we learned from that kind of a study, from a good randomized-- a large randomized trial-- that even though the outcomes may appear to be good, we need to be very careful about deintensifying our treatment until we're sure that the survival is equivalent.
So although it's tempting for the clinician to see these very exciting reports about administering less treatment with the idea of producing less toxicity, the guideline advisory committee for ASCO really thought it was important that we get the message out that this kind of approach is not a treatment standard. This remains an investigational approach, and that the treatment standards for this disease really haven't changed.
So what are the provisional clinical opinions that were made by the expert panel?
They made several statements. The first was to acknowledge that the idea of treatment deintensification is a very compelling hypothesis, and it does require careful and appropriate testing. The second was that even though we are now better at identifying good prognosis patients, and we've seen some very promising early results, and even though we're now reclassifying patients with previously advanced stage HPV-positive disease as stage 1 or stage 2 tumors, the treatment recommendations for this disease have not changed. And they're based on the results achieved using AJCC 6 and 7.
Standard of non-operated management to patients who are eligible to receive cisplatin remains high concurrent radiation and high dose cisplatin given every three weeks. If patients undergoing a surgical resection, then adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation with radiation and high dose cisplatin every three weeks is recommended in those patients with high risk factors of positive surgical margins or external tumor extension.
And most importantly, deintensification, though it's a compelling hypothesis, is something that should only be undertaken on a clinical trial.
Why is this guidance so important? And how will it affect practice?
Well, I think the important thing about this guideline is that it shouldn't affect practice. The practice shouldn't change. The standards of care are not altered. And that for the clinician, this remains something that is exciting, something that should encourage enrollment on a clinical trial, but that we haven't changed treatment standards.
And finally, how will this guidance affect patients?
So from a patient's point of view, I think there is continued reason for optimism. A patient with the diagnosis of an HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is a patient with a very good prognosis. Patients are increasingly sophisticated. They read about the potential for treatment deintensification, and recognize that this is not something which is an accepted standard. But it should encourage their participation in clinical trials if [INAUDIBLE] is offered.
I think ultimately it's a remarkable thing when oncologists can consider the possibility of reducing treatment intensity because the treatment results have been so good.
Great. Thank you for your overview of this PCO. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Adelstein.
And thank you, Shannon. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full PCO, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An intervew with Dr. Nancy Baxter on "Duration of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." The guideline makes recommendations based on the results of the IDEA collaboration. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nancy Baxter from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, senior author on "Duration of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Baxter.

Thanks very much, Shannon, for speaking with me. I'm happy to share our work developing this guideline.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and the studies which provide the evidence?

Absolutely. So use of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is common, and it's effective. We know that these patients are at substantial risk of recurrence of their disease and that adjuvant therapy can reduce that risk.
But we also know that comes with a cost. The most effective adjuvant therapy is FOLFOX or oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. And we know that a really substantial number of people will end up with neurotoxicity, with peripheral sensory neurotoxicity, that can be long lasting and certainly affects their quality of life.
So the whole question was whether the duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapeutic regimens could be shortened when they're used for adjuvant therapy, so if we could give three months instead of six months. Because we know that if we give three months of therapy, the risk of neurotoxicity is much lower. So if we had the same effectiveness with the shorter duration, then we could spare patients the negative consequences of the agent given for a longer period of time.
So in developing these guidelines, we looked at the results of international group of trials, the six trials from the IDEA collaboration. So these were six randomized trials in various jurisdictions that tried to look at this question, so three months of an oxaliplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimen for adjuvant therapy for stage III cancer versus six months duration of therapy. And so there was a planned analysis to bring all of these data together to develop the evidence base to make this recommendation.
So our guideline and our systematic review basically identified this is the key piece of literature to base our recommendations and guidelines on. That's essentially the main study, so the meta-analysis of these six randomized controlled trials that formed the basis of the IDEA collaboration.
So the IDEA collaboration studies-- there were six individual randomized trials that formed part of the IDEA collaboration. And they were conducted in Italy, Greece, Japan, North America, through CALGB/SWOG, the UK, Denmark, Spain, Australia, Sweden, and New Zealand, as well as France. So data came from, really, around the world.
The median age of people in the studies was 64 years of age. And these people had a really good performance status, so almost all of these patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. So they were healthy patients that were in the study.
And so some patients received CAPOX, and some received FOLFOX. That wasn't part of the randomization scheme. Other than the CALGB/SWOG study, this was up to the discretion of the investigator or patient. In the SWOG/CALGB study, only FOLFOX was given.
And the authors planned a prespecified subgroup analysis to look at differences between CAPOX and FOLFOX. There was also a prespecified analysis to look at differences based on stage.
What they found when they looked at the results was that, overall, the difference between groups in terms of the three months versus six months was that the hazard ratio between these two was 1.07, meaning a small difference between the groups in terms of recurrence or death between three months and six months overall. But because the prespecified confidence interval, noninferiority interval, for the difference in outcome was 1.12, the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was above this. So it was 1.15, indicating that this prespecified noninferiority margin was exceeded.
And so the study did not prove noninferiority of the three-month regimen. So we're left with an inconclusive result. So that's why our guidelines don't have a strong recommendation for the three months, because we can't rule out a small but potentially important difference between the two groups in terms of recurrence or death.
Now, interestingly, when they looked at the prespecified subgroup analysis, which was looking at CAPOX versus FOLFOX, a difference was found. So they actually found that for FOLFOX chemotherapy, three months of therapy was inferior to six months of therapy, while for CAPOX, actually, three months and six months were the same. So it met the criteria of noninferiority. So these are kind of two different conclusions based on which type of chemotherapy was used.
This was surprising to the investigators and was not expected. And certainly, it was not consistent with the randomized trials that we have comparing these regimens. So we therefore did not make any conclusions in our recommendations about CAPOX versus FOLFOX. But this is certainly something that requires further investigation in the future.
In terms of stage, we did not find that there was an interaction between T stage or end stage when you looked at the differences between the three and the six month. And that was the prespecified analysis. But in non-prespecified analysis, which was the higher risk versus lower risk categories, you did find this difference where the patients with high-risk disease had inferior disease-free survival with three months versus six months of therapy, while those at low risk of disease, it seemed quite safe to give three months versus six months.
So that's a long story. But essentially, because the high risk versus low risk analysis was not prespecified, there's a limitation to how strong our recommendations can be to have three months of therapy. However, given that the hazard ratio associated with three months versus six months of therapy for this lower risk group was only 1.01, indicating they were the same, and the risk of neuropathy was substantially higher with six months, this has led to us making recommendations that the three months of therapy is adequate for patients with low-risk disease after discussion with patients about the possible pros and cons.

And what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

Well, so the recommendations of this guideline do depend on the pathology, so how high risk the patient is. So based on the evidence from the IDEA collaboration, the researchers found that patients who had a high risk of recurrence-- so had T4 disease or heavily node-positive disease, N2 disease-- the six-month duration of therapy was better than the three-month duration of therapy.
These studies and the meta-analysis were designed as noninferiority meta-analyses. But it was clear from the results that the three-month duration was inferior when compared to three months for these high-risk patients. So that seems clear, although we know that those patients will also be at more risk of neuropathy. And so that needs to be discussed with patients, as well.
So for the second group, which are patients who are at lower risk of recurrence, what we found was there was less of a clear benefit of six months of therapy. The recommendation was that patients who are in this low-risk category-- so T1, T2, or T3 cancers that are N1, so not heavily node-positive-- clinicians can offer three months versus six months of therapy after having a discussion with their patients about the pros and cons of that. So the clinicians can go ahead and offer that to patients and still be within the common guidelines based on evidence for treatment of stage III colon cancer.
So because there's some uncertainty after analysis of the IDEA collaboration, one of the really important recommendations that we make is about this shared decision-making approach. So the third recommendation that we make is that oncologists should discuss these factors with their patients who have stage III resected colon cancer and that the duration of therapy needs to take into account the tumor characteristics-- the surgical resection, the number of lymph nodes examined, the comorbidities, the patient functional status, all of these various things-- and there needs to be a discussion of the potential for benefit and the risk of harm based on the duration of therapy.
And oncologists definitely discuss these things with their patients. And this just emphasizes how this is yet another component of the discussion that needs to be included, particularly when speaking with low-risk patients who are at substantial risk of harm from neuropathy and are unlikely to benefit greatly by extending chemotherapy to six months.

So why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice?

Well, I think, until now, the standard recommendation has been six months of FOLFOX or six months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. And again, there are many patients who have quality of life-affecting neuropathy because of this. So for a substantial proportion of patients who present to us with stage III cancer-- so those that are low risk-- I think this provides some options to them.
So they can opt for a shorter duration of chemotherapy with a lower risk of toxicity. This saves time. This saves cost to the patient and to the system and potentially improves their quality of life without a great impact on outcome in terms of disease recurrence.
So that's a substantial number, a substantial proportion of our patients, who can be treated in this way. So I think that this is a real benefit. Again, oncologists need to have a conversation with their patients about the pros and cons. But this is an option for their patients, whereas from an evidence-based perspective, it wasn't before the publication of the IDEA collaboration.

Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

So for patients who have heavily node-positive disease-- so high-risk patients with T4 or N2 disease-- it's not going to affect care. So the expectation would be those patients would be treated with six months of therapy, similar to previous recommendations.
So this will be for people who are at lower risk of disease recurrence, so patients with T1 to 3 tumors that are N1 positive, so not heavily node positive. So these patients will have the opportunity to opt for a shorter duration of therapy. So that's a major benefit to patients.
Again, it's important that there's a discussion and that patients understand the pros and cons. But this is now an option for them, which is excellent.

Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.
And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Alejandro Lazo-Langner on Management of Cancer-associated Anemia with Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: ASCO/ASH Clinical Practice Guideline Update which provides recommendations on ESAs (and biosimilars) for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia in the noncurative setting.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Alejandro Lazo-Langner from Western University in London, Ontario, senior author on Management of Cancer-Associated Anemia with Erythropoeiesis-stimulating Agents, ASCO/ASH Clinical Practice Guidelines Update. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Lazo-Langner.

Thank you very much for the invitation to present the new guidelines.

So this guideline has been updated now three times since its original publication in 2002. So how has this guideline changed over time?

Since initial publication in 2002, this guideline has undergone a number of different changes. If you look at the initial series of recommendations in the 2002 guideline, it was really limited and it was fairly upfront recommending the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in this setting.
But during the last two updates in 2007 and 2010, that has changed significantly. And in the current guidelines, we have added some additional evidence that has been published in the last eight years. And now, in general, what we can tell is that the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents is now more restrictive than in the original guideline and is basically recommended for only one or two situations.
There has been some other updates in the last iteration of the guideline that I can certainly discuss in more detail later. But basically, in general, the guideline has now, in the last iterations, restricted the recommendations that were much more general during the first edition of this guideline, almost all of them based on available and emerging evidence regarding the onset of their side effects with these medications.
And can you give us a general overview of what this new guideline update covers, especially that new evidence that's emerged?
Yeah. So the new guideline has changed a few items. And indeed, we-- the committee did a little bit of an overhaul in the recommendations that are not in the same order as they were in the previous editions. We can say that there is a couple of important updates.
The first one would be addressing the use of biosimilars, which were not available in the previous guidelines. And we have addressed that in the current edition. The biosimilars have not been extensively studied in cancer, but they have. And so far, the committee considered that they were equivalent in terms of effectiveness and safety to the originator agents, both epoetin and erythropoietin.
And the second most important update on the guideline is the recommendation of the concurrent use of iron supplementation in patients who are receiving erythropoietin-stimulating agents. The previous versions of the guideline just recommended the use of iron supplementation in patients with documented iron deficiency. However, in the last eight years, there's been a number of studies that have suggested that the concurrent use of iron supplementation, irrespective of the baseline iron status, does increase the efficacy of the agents.
Third point is that, although this is not new, there's been more emerging evidence supporting the notion that all of the erythropoietin-stimluating agents increase the risk of thromboembolism. And this has been very consistent across all studies, and in particular derive from Julia Bohlius's systematic review and meta-analysis that was published a few years ago. And she's the lead author on these guidelines now. This has been confirmed, and I think that at this point this is probably the main limiting factor on the use of these medications.
And the final minor update was that regarding the use of erythropoietin in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. This guideline now suggests baseline serum erythropoietin level cut-off that might actually increase the chances of the erythropoietin-stimluating agents of being effective. This has been updated from the previous guidelines based on recent research.

And what are the key takeaways of this guideline update?

Well, the key takeaways is that if a clinician is deciding to use erythropoietin-stimluating agents, in agreement with the previous guidelines, the first thing that you have to consider is that you should not use these agents in patients that are receiving chemotherapy with a curative intent.
And it should be reserved to patients in whom the chemotherapy is being given with a palliative intent. It should be only used to decrease the use of red blood cell transfusions. And if a clinician is to make a decision as to whether to use these agents or not, they should consider concurrent use of iron supplementation.
But basically, the other consideration that needs to be made is that because of the confirmed increase in the risk of thromboembolic complications, in the last eight years, there's been a myriad of new treatments that may potential increase the risk of these complications, specifically and most importantly in patients with myeloma in whom the use of immunomodulators such as lenalidomide or thalidomide does increase the risk of thromboembolic events per se.
And in those patients, if they were to be considered for treatment with erythropoietin-stimluating agents, that should be done in a very, very careful fashion. The risk of thrombosis is significantly high in these patients, and the concurrent use of erythropoietin-stimluating agents is probably not a very good idea.
So if one were to summarize the guidelines, I would say that, one, consider very carefully whether your patient actually needs these agents, and if they do need the agents, whether they should be receiving them, specifically if they are only being given chemotherapy with palliative intent with a short time life expectancy. Some patients would be considered to be in palliative.
However, in conditions such as myeloma, for instance, although they are not curable, the patients may go on living for many years. So that's probably not a very good idea to use these agents if they increase the risk of complications. And if one is going to be considering these, they should consider also the concurrent use of iron to improve the efficacy of these agents.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Well, the guideline recommendations won't have a particularly high impact on patients. The most important thing is that, if patients require ongoing transfusional support due to the palliative chemotherapy or the nature of the disease they have, the use of erythropoietin-stimluating agents might decrease the need for these transfusions at the cost of increasing the risk of complications.
The new updated guidelines are probably going to result in-- if they are considered when a clinician is using these agents, they are probably going to result in lower complications for patients due to the more restrictive nature of the recommendations.
And in general, the only other consideration would be that under special circumstances related to, for instance, access to transfusional support or other personal considerations from certain patients and groups, these guidelines might actually help to overcome those barriers for transfusional support. But those were the two major impact points that would be considered based on this updated guideline.

Great. Thank you for your work on this important guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Lazo-Langner.

Thank you for the invitation.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague. 

An interview with Dr. Joe Mikhael from the City of Hope Cancer Center and International Myeloma Foundation on the ASCO and CCO joint clinical practice guideline. The guideline makes recommendations for patients who are transplantation eligible and ineligible with relapsed or refractory disease.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm interviewing Dr. Joe Mikhael from the City of Hope Cancer Center and International Myeloma Foundation, lead author on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Mikhael.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
So first, can you give us some context as to why this guideline was developed?
Well, we had a lot of ideas when we put together this guideline, but most importantly, multiple myeloma continues to be a rare disease in the cancer world. It really only accounts for about 1% to 2% of cancers. So for the practicing oncologist, they spend perhaps 3-ish percent of their time doing multiple myeloma.
And when you add to that there has been really a revolution in myeloma with new drugs approved, new treatments, new approaches, it really leaves the general oncologist with a complexity of how to treat this disease. And so we wanted to create a very practical guideline that would give very precise advice to walk through how one would care for a multiple myeloma patient, right from their diagnosis to indeed relapse disease.
We felt this approach was so important now, more than ever, because of the fact that myeloma has really changed so much, and now, thankfully, we're seeing our patients live so much longer that the treatment options can become a little bit more complicated over time. Furthermore, we partnered with Cancer Care Ontario, because this was really felt to be not just an American phenomenon, but really a full North American phenomenon of how we could work together to really give practical advice as to how to treat this disease.
So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?
In this guideline, we focused really on the treatment of the disease itself. There have been other guidelines that have focused on supportive care and bone disease and multiple myeloma, but we really focused on the treatment of patients really from induction therapy through to relapse.
So we spend time helping guide the decision around whether or not a patient is transplant eligible or ineligible, because that's really the first dividing marker in myeloma, because we know that transplant still has a role in myeloma, and eligible patients should have a transplant, or at least have access to a transplant. And historically, this was really done on the basis of age.
But the guidelines helps the clinician see that it's really not just an age phenomena. It's really a decision based on comorbidities and really what's best for the patient. So we spend time helping making that decision, and then provide very practical advice as to how to treat a patient who's going to transplant versus a patient who's not going to transplant.
We also, then, after the transplant, or in lieu of a transplant, we discuss the importance of continuous therapy, or sometimes called, maintenance therapy in myeloma. Again, we've seen maintenance therapy, now, have an impact on both progression free and overall survival. And so we felt it was really important to be very practical in giving advice as to what maintenance therapy agents to use and how to use them.
And then lastly, the guideline provides a lot of practical advice as to a patient who has relapsed with multiple myeloma. We have so many choices now with three major classes of drugs of proteasome inhibitors, immuno-modulatory drugs, and now newer monoclonal antibodies, it can be difficult sometimes to know which combination to use.
We know that triplet combinations tend to be preferred. So we walk through a number of those triplets and provide advice as how to explicitly use them. We do emphasize the importance of supportive care and of risk factor analysis throughout the guideline, so that we can understand the difference between high risk and low risk myeloma, so that we can understand how important a patient's comorbidities, especially in a disease that primarily affects older patients, can be managed.
And so we try to do so in a comprehensive way, but one that really distills down to the critical pieces to allow the practicing clinician some real advice.
So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice?
There are several kinds of guidelines for multiple myeloma, but I really think this is a critical guideline because it is so clinical and practical in its essence. It's really designed to not just give the utopian view or the clinical trial view of a disease, but practically in the trenches, how do we use the drugs that we know are going to benefit our patients.
Myeloma is one of the few cancers where we have seen a doubling, if not a tripling of survival in the last decade, because of so many of these new agents. And so making sure that our patients are treated optimally really is important. And we want to be able to ensure that they receive the best therapy possible, so they can live a longer life, but also live it with a greater quality of life.
And so finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?
Well, we really hope that this is going to help patients all across North America and the whole world, because it will give very concrete advice to the practicing clinician in how to approach the disease. And one of the things I think will directly impact patients, if you will, right away is one of the themes of these guidelines, which is that you don't treat a patient simply based on the biopsy or simply based on their age, but that it is really a complex network of comorbidities, risk factors from the disease itself, the potential side effects of certain drugs, and a patient's own very personal history.
It really fits in with the ASCO modality that we have of ensuring that we bring personalized medicine to our patients. And so this will allow the person who's reading it and who's applying it to their patient to recognize the importance of general guidelines, but also of applying it to the specific patient they care for. Because as I like to say, we don't treat multiple myeloma, we treat people. And so hopefully, this will allow the clinician to have that precision to care for their patient in the best way possible.
Great. Thank you for that overview of this guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Mikhael.
It's been a real pleasure. Thank you very much.
And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Susan Chang from the University of California San Francisco on the ASCO and SNO Endorsement of the CNS Guidelines. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Susan Chang from the University of California San Francisco, lead author on "Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults with Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Joint Endorsement of the CNS Guidelines." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Chang.

Thank you so much for this opportunity.

So first, can you give us the general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process?

Absolutely. So one of the things we've noticed, of course, is that the incidence of newly diagnosed adult patients with brain metastases is now estimated to be in the range of about 20,000 to 40,000 per year. And this has really been increasing because of several factors. This includes improved imaging tools, the fact that there's an increase in the number of cancers that are prone to spread to the brain, and the improved survival of patients with cancer.
And so the Congress of Neurological Surgeons have developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors. That includes systemic therapy, as well as supportive care. There are two guidelines that address the role of anti-convulsant abuse and steroids in the care of patients with brain tumors.
Specifically, the guideline questions were do prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs decrease the risk of seizures in both non-surgical and post-surgical patients, who are otherwise seizure free? So these are patients who have never had a seizure, does it make any sense to use these drugs? The second is do steroids, which are commonly used in patients when there is increased mass effect and cerebral edema, could that help to improve neurological functioning or quality of life, compared to supportive care or other treatments? And if they are used, what sort of dose should be used?
So the process of endorsing these guidelines included an initial assessment by content evaluators from ASCO and members of the Society of Neuro Oncology, or SNO guidelines committee. And subsequently, it was determined that a detailed review of the guidelines should be pursued.
So in this joint effort of both ASCO and SNO, a multidisciplinary expert panel of medical and radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons, neurologists, and others providing care for adults with metastatic brain tumors reviewed the content to determine the appropriateness for endorsement by the two professional societies.

So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

The key recommendations of this guidelines include the fact that routine use of prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs is not recommended for patients who are seizure free, either in the non-surgical and post-surgical settings, and that steroids could be used when patients had mild, moderate, or severe symptoms that were related to mass effect in the brain.
This choice of steroids that was recommended was dexamethasone, and the doses was about 4 to 16 milligrams, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Now, what they found was that there was insufficient evidence to recommend steroid use in asymptomatic patients, when they didn't have any mass effect.
And one of the additional aspects that the panel provided was that the minimal effective dose should be used, and that nighttime doses should be avoided. And this is because of the known side effect of insomnia that a lot of our patients experience when taking this medication right before they go to sleep.

So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice?

Well, these guidelines provide a basis for oncologists to avoid the over prescription of anti-epileptics and steroids in patients with brain metastases, particularly in those who are asymptomatic and those without signs of mass effect. It also highlights that if steroids are going to be administered, that clinicians should be very familiar with both the short and long term sequelae of steroid therapy, and they should have a plan to taper the steroids as fast as can be clinically tolerated.

So finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Well, both anti-epileptics and steroids have a wide range of toxicities that can adversely affect a patient's quality of life. And so the routine use of these drugs in patients with incidentally discovered or asymptomatic brain metastases is not supported by the available medical literature. For patients with symptoms related to mass effect, the best evidence supports the temporary use of steroids are the lowest effective dose with the intent to taper them off, and if tolerated, and after a definitive treatment of brain metastases has been initiated.
And because of the well known side effects of insomnia and agitation, nighttime doses of steroids should be avoided. So the hope is that this will have a direct effect on how we care for our patients.

Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chang.

You're very welcome. It's such a pleasure to be able to provide this for patients and families.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center on the guideline which provides recommendations on the role of post-operative therapy in patients who undergo surgical resection for biliary tract cancers. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center, lead author on "Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Biliary Tract Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shroff.

Thank you so much for having me.

So what does this guideline recommend?

This is a guideline that is basically looking at the role of post-operative therapy in patients who undergo surgical resection for biliary tract cancers. Biliary tract cancers are a somewhat heterogeneous group of malignancies that include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gall bladder cancer.
And so the question always in most cancers are, if you are able to undergo surgical and curative treatment, is there a role for post-operative chemotherapy or radiation therapy to help improve the chance of cure and decrease the risk of recurrence? So that is exactly what we investigated as an expert panel.
So our recommendations are actually twofold. The first one is that we are clearly recommending that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine for a total of six months. Within that recommendation, we do acknowledge that this is based on the BILCAP phase III randomized controlled trial and that there was a specific dosing and treatment schedule that was done in that study, but that we are allowing for institutional and regional variances that we've noted in terms of dosing of capecitabine. And so as a result, we're recommending adjuvant capecitabine, and we're allowing practitioners to determine what the best and safest dosing would be, based on their experience.
The second recommendation is more specifically for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive surgical margin, which is an R1 resection. And in those patients, we are recommending that we could consider offering these patients chemoradiation therapy.
Now, again, this is not as strong of a recommendation, because we do not have prospective randomized phase III data to support it. This was based more on a prospective single-arm study out of the Southwest Oncology Group, as well as some other retrospective studies. And so we do go on to qualify that that recommendation should really be made in a shared decision-making approach, with a multidisciplinary conversation to decide the risks and benefits of radiation in these patients-- and that we acknowledge that a prospective study would really help clarify that question a little bit more.

So can you tell us about the research that informed these recommendations?

There have been a number of studies that have looked at the role of adjuvant therapy in biliary cancers. And up until very recently, a lot of these studies were small retrospective series, single-institution or multi-institution, but everything in retrospect-- no prospective or randomized data. And so I think a lot of the reasons that we decided to have these guidelines come out now is that in the last two to three years we do finally have prospective randomized data that helps guide the recommendations.
And the majority of the recommendations that we made are based on one randomized phase III, which is BILCAP study. This was a study that was done in the UK and was presented at ASCO in 2018 and is currently in press. And it is basically a randomized controlled trial that compares adjuvant capecitabine by itself versus surveillance alone in patients who undergo surgery for biliary tract cancers.
And so our recommendations, which include that study as well as a couple others, is primarily hinged on that, since that is the largest prospective data we have so far. And based on that study, we did in fact recommend that there was a role for adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine after complete resection for biliary tract cancers.
And based on that research that was done in that trial that was completed, we do believe that the role for capecitabine for six months is pretty strong and that the data supports that now.

So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice?

Well, I think it's going to be practice-changing because up until now there has not been a clear consensus on how we approach these patients. And I will say that even now, it's really just this one study that has helped guiding these recommendations. There were a number of other studies that we looked at as part of the expert panel. And these were all prospective studies as well that looked at things like gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting, or single-arm phase II studies that came out of the Southwest Oncology Group that also explored the role of radiation. But really, nothing was a positive study other than the BILCAP study.
And so up until now, I would say it was a little bit all over the place in terms of how medical oncologists approached resected biliary cancers. I think the majority of us felt that there was probably a role for adjuvant chemotherapy or perhaps chemoradiation. But there was no rules that we could follow, and there was no clear study that we could turn to that would tell us what we should give, how long we should give it for, and whether it should be a combination of chemotherapy or chemoradiation.
And so I think it will be practice-changing because now, as part of the expert panel, we are making a very clear recommendation that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a total of six months, hopefully eliminating that kind of regional or specialist-based variation that has been happening up until this point.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Again, I think that the main way it's going to affect them is that there's going to be a little bit less gray area, in terms of medical oncologists having conversations with the patients and saying, well, you know, I think that there's probably a role for agent therapy here, but I can't show you the data that supports why I think that.
And as a result, I would hope that patients will have a little bit more faith and confidence in knowing that there is a large study that has looked at and proven the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine and that that decreases the chance of recurrence and improves overall survival. The improvement in overall survival was dramatic in this study. And we had not seen a survival of 51 months, which is what we saw in this study, in a very long time.
So for patients, not only does it make clear what they should be doing after surgery, but I would hope it also gives them additional hope that we have really changed the bar by doing this adjuvant capecitabine, and that the chance for cure is even higher when we can offer adjuvant chemotherapy.
I think the only other thing that may still be a gray area, and that is kind of what we allude to in our second recommendation, and that is in patients who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive margin or an R1 resection. And that's typically patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder cancer.
In those patients, we suggest that they could be offered chemoradiation therapy, but the evidence is not as strong there. Again, it's more retrospective studies that we looked at. There is no prospective study that answers the question of whether or not there's a role for radiation. And so as a result for patients, I think that is still the one area that's a little bit of a gray zone in terms of knowing whether chemoradiation would benefit them if they undergo surgery and have a microscopically positive resection.
But I do think that there is a definitive benefit to giving adjuvant chemotherapy, and that, hopefully, will clarify things not only from the physician perspective but also from the patient perspective.
Great.

Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Shroff.

Thank you.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Shlomo Koyfman of the Cleveland Clinic on "Management of the Neck in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline" which provides recommendations on topics such as neck dissections and postoperative treatment.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Shlomo Koyfman from the Cleveland Clinic, lead author on "Management of the Neck in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Koyfman.

It's a pleasure.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Yeah, so this is an exciting guideline because it covers a topic that we don't usually think about in head and neck cancer in a formal way, and that is management of the neck in squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and the oropharynx. So there's a lot of literature and guidelines out there on how to manage oropharynx cancer, which is becoming a more and more common cancer, especially in the HPV-positive era, less so on oral cavity. But a lot of times it's focused on people who don't get surgery, chemoradiation, or people who do get surgery and TORS, Transoral Robotic Surgery, and different approaches. But rarely do we have something focus on management of the neck per se, which is really, really important in these cancers and often overlooked in favor of the primary tumor itself. So these guidelines really take us through some salient questions in how to manage the neck in these two cancers.

And what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

The recommendations came off of six fundamental questions, three in oral cavity and three in oropharynx. There are some commonalities between the two and some differences. A lot of the fundamental questions revolve around surgical quality, and neck dissection is the standard surgical approach for management of the neck in these patients. And as we enter the quality era, how do we define benchmarks of surgical quality, which is one thing that it deals with.
The other is when to do adjuvant therapy like adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation. We also deal with when to do surgery for the neck or to do nonoperative approaches like radiation or chemoradiation. And then lastly, how do you follow patients after you've treated them? So those are kind of the salient issues that we dealt with.
And what we came out with was nothing earth shatteringly new, but I think the way it was organized and systematically put together, I think it's going to be really, really helpful for people. So some of the most important findings that this recommendation does, I think this is the first that incorporates surgical quality, as I mentioned before. So specifically neck dissection should have 18 or more nodes as multiple studies have shown that that's associated with better outcomes. And similarly we define for different diseases of oral cavity and oropharynx, and depending on what kind of tumor it is and where, what nodal levels should be dissected or treated, whether surgically or nonsurgically, and when to do just one side of the neck versus both sides of the neck. So I think there's a lot of good guidance there in terms of the surgical quality.
From a standpoint of adjuvant therapy, we define pretty clearly indications for when after surgery for oral cavity cancer, for example, when radiation should be added and when chemoradiation should be added, and I think that's very helpful. And especially for the neck itself, there's been confusion about what happens if I have 30 nodes taken out and they're all negative but I have a big, large primary tumor. What do I do with the neck? Do I radiate it? Do I not radiate it at one side, both sides? And this guideline gives some pretty clear guidance in different scenarios about how to think about that, which is pretty novel and really important, I think. I get questions about this all the time. It comes up in tumor boards all the time, and it's pretty practical.
And mostly what we say is if you have a primary tumor that's like a T3 or T4 oral cavity cancer or it approaches midline, either a contralateral neck dissection should be done or radiation should be done to the contralateral neck. And even if you have a lot of lymph nodes taken out and they're negative, if you have very high-risk primary tumor features like very large tumor or multifocal perineural invasion, those kinds of things, even with a negative neck dissection we still typically do treat the neck.
So the next recommendation that's really helpful is who can be observed after surgery? And specifically low-volume N1 you can consider observing in oral cavity cancer, whereas N2 or N3 patients all need radiation or chemoradiation in the setting of extranodal extension and positive margins. We did come out pretty firmly advocating for bolus cisplatin 100 milligrams per meter squared every three weeks as recent studies suggest that weekly cisplatin or other regimens are not as effective, and we were pretty clear about that. We were pretty synchronized with recent ASCO-endorsed guidelines in oropharynx cancer that say similar things.
In addition, one of the very important questions that comes up is a surgeon will say, well, I'm cutting out the neck tumor, and I know it comes to midline and he's got a bunch of nodes on the right side, but do I really need to do a left neck dissection? Aren't you going to radiate it anyway? And that comes up all the time. Is radiation adequate to manage a clinically negative neck in oral cavity cancer and oropharynx cancer?
I think in oropharynx cancer everybody feels pretty comfortably yes. I think in oral cavity cancer it's been somewhat controversial. We favor neck dissections when possible, but if radiation is known to be happening, especially to an elective contralateral neck, that that is adequate therapy. However, we're pretty strong in the fact that neck dissections are the tried and true way to treat oral cavity cancer and that in a T2 or above tumor where a neck dissection is indicated, just resecting the primary and leaving the neck to elective radiation is not something that we thought there was enough evidence for to advocate, and we still advocate classic neck dissection first followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as indicated.
One area of controversy that we did touch on is the issue of early stage tongue cancers and whether they need a neck dissection at all. And we came down pretty consistently with all of the co-authors on the guideline that we advocated for a neck dissection for all patients with oral cavity cancer unless it is a very small tumor that we define with very compliant patient who is amenable to very rigorous follow-up that has been done in Europe and in some other places with, specifically, people trained in careful neck ultrasound techniques. So all of those really help guide, both in early stage and more advanced stage, how to manage the neck and oral cavity cancer.
And in oropharynx cancer, again, many of the same quality metrics apply. We have some guidance about when doing transoral robotic surgery how to reduce bleeding risk by ligating feeding blood vessels, which is an important addition. We also discuss the fact that, as opposed to lateralized oral cavity patients where a unilateral either neck dissection of radiation is often indicated, in oropharynx cancer the group felt very strongly that bilateral neck should be treated. And typically if tumors extend to midline or involve the posterior oropharyngeal wall, which has bilateral drainage, that either bilateral neck dissection should be performed in those cases or a unilateral neck dissection can be done as long as adjuvant radiation is planned to both necks.
Finally, a couple of very important questions of who should not be treated surgically and who should be treated with a nonoperative chemoradiation based approach. In oral cavity cancer, as long as they were not metastatic, we felt people should be resected as long as they were surgically resectable and medically operable. In oropharynx cancer, however, anybody who had unequivocal extranodal extension of nodes into soft tissues or involvement to the carotid artery or extensive cranial-nerve involvement or skull-based involvement by extensive nodal disease are not good candidates for surgery and should be preferentially treated with chemoradiation. That was pretty strong.
And finally, the other thing we gave clarity on is when we treat oropharynx cancer with chemoradiation, how do we follow them and when do we decide to do a neck dissection or not? And essentially we recommended a PET CT scan at 12 weeks. And as long as that was negative, a neck dissection should not be done. If you don't have a PET scan and you just have high quality CT or MRI but all of the neck disease has resolved, similarly there should be no neck dissection.
And then most importantly, the situation we all face which is very complex is what happens when you have a PET CT done three to four months after treatment and you have small nodes that are still there? You have a little bit of uptake. The FDG avidity is much less than it was. There still is a lesion there, but it's much better and the patient is feeling well. And we felt pretty comfortable not doing a standard neck dissection on those patients but rather following them closely with a follow-up CT scan two to three months later and continual assessment and reserving surgery for obvious progressive disease.

So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice?

So this guideline is really important because head and neck cancer being not the most common cancer, and especially because head and neck cancer is not really one disease-- there's so many different diseases. Even oral cavity and oropharynx, there's quite a bit of variability in how we think about it. There's not a one size fits all recipe for how to manage people properly, and that leads to a lot of confusion and sometimes doubt as to what the best thing to do is in these patients. And that is a very common thing.
So I think the most important reason why these guidelines are helpful is they're really clear. They give really clear guidelines of if you're going to do surgery, here's the expectations of what nodal levels to take out and how many nodes to take out. Here's when you should do adjuvant radiation. Here's when you should do adjuvant chemoradiation. Here's when you should treat one side of the neck. Here's when you should treat both sides of the neck. If you're not going to do surgery, here's when you do radiation.
And for oropharynx cancer, here's when you can consider surgery. Here's where surgery is not the best idea. And when you treat them and if you do surgically, here's how you do it. If you do with radiation, here are the nodes that should be treated, the nodal levels. And finally, after you do that, how do you watch and act to make sure that people don't fail?
So I feel like all of those things lend a lot of clarity to some complicated decision-making processes for these patients, and this really lends clarity to that, which should help kind of lend consistency of practice. That's really our goal. Our goal was there a lot of great docs taking care of these patients out there, but patients are treated in very different ways depending on who they're seeing and where you go. Our goal was to try to increase the consistency of how people are treated no matter where they are. And if practitioners, surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists see this guideline and kind of follow it and, of course, reach out with any questions at any time, then what we'll be able to do is kind of harmonize the way patients are treated in this country, which should help, I think, the quality of care.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

They're going to affect patients because right now a lot of patients get great care, but there are some patients that are not getting ideal care either because maybe they're in parts of the country that don't have the same access to resources or they're in places where the volume of these kind of very complicated and yet not so common diseases aren't seen as high and there's confusion about how to manage them or what the quality metrics are.
I think patients are going to be affected knowing, hey, if I'm going to have a neck dissection, here's what I should be asking to make sure my surgeon knows to do and does consistently to make sure it's of high quality. Here's where I think I should be treated with surgery, maybe I shouldn't be treated with surgery, and here's how to follow me. Because there is a lot of variability in how patients are treated, and sometimes there's too many surgeries being done, not enough surgeries being done. If they're being done, maybe they're not the best quality. Even if we don't treat with surgery and we do chemoradiation, we're watching them and we may not be following them as closely, and then people may be recurring and we're not picking it up closely enough.
So I think it's going to harmonize, for patients, the way they're ultimately treated. If everybody in the country is treated relatively compatible with this guideline, I think the standard of care will go up across the board.

Great. Thank you so much for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Koyfman.

Thank you so much.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Marcia Cruz-Correa from the University of Puerto Rico and MD Anderson Cancer Center on the ASCO Resource Stratified Guideline on early detection for colorectal cancer.

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Marcia Cruz-Correa from the University of Puerto Rico and MD Anderson Cancer Center, senior author on "Early Detection for Colorectal Cance: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Cruz-Correa.

Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Absolutely, Shannon. Well, we are very excited to review the content of the guideline. And we put together a summary of the current guidelines out there for patients that are undergoing colorectal cancer screening.
With these particular resource, a certified guideline takes, for the first time, into account the place where the colorectal cancer screening is being delivered, which is different from when you read any other colorectal cancer screening guidelines, where normally we assume that all available methodologies are equally distributed regardless of the country or the setting. So in our particular guideline, we really emphasize the fact that, depending on where our clinicians are, they might have differing technologies available. And that's why it's called resource-stratified-guidelines, to help our clinicians and our practicing physicians to understand what would be the best method to be able to implement screening in their own settings.

So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

I think that the most important recommendation is that colorectal cancer is a prevalent disease, not only affecting very highly developed countries, but a disease that we're seeing more and more in low-to-middle-income countries. As ASCO is an organization that has members from around the world, being cognizant of the fact that colorectal cancer affects many individuals across different settings, and countries, and continents, for that matter, allows us to provide the most important information which is to consider colorectal cancer screening across the different settings, so not only in the industrialized well-developed first-world country, but also in the low-to-middle-income, or those that are becoming more and more industrialized.
So our main recommendation-- it's number one-- that we need consider colorectal cancer screening even in settings where, for many years, the burden of disease was really focused in infectious-driven diseases. Nowadays, we're seeing more and more low-to-middle-income countries where the number one cause of death, it's not an infectious-driven disease, but rather a cancer. And colorectal cancer, it's one of the top cancers that we're seeing in many of the settings. So our number one recommendation is to be cognizant about that so that different countries and different settings, the practitioners consider screening.
And our second and most important recommendation is that, the important thing is to consider what you have available in your setting, in your clinical practice. And depending on what you have available, then you can offer the method that could be given to your patient. So it's almost like thinking differently. It's not a one size fits all, but rather it's more or less of a personalized recommendation based on your setting, based on your clinical practice methods available to you.

So why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice?

We believe that it's very important, because when you look at guidelines in any published article out there, we read it. And it looks as if everyone had every resource available. And when you're practicing in a low-to-middle-income country, or a place-- it could be a rural area where you have more basic settings or more limited settings-- you might not have that new machine or that new equipment.
So then, as a practitioner, you feel that you're not equipped to be able to provide the best care to your patients. So this guideline, it's mirrored after a previous guideline that was put together by the ASCO Clinical Practice Group, where we stratify the type of practice for our-- where our practitioners are providing care. There are four main practice settings.
The first one is what we call the basic setting, which is where you have the minimal necessary facilities to be able to evaluate patients and provide first primary care services. The second tier, it's called the limited setting, where you have more clinical facilities, but yet you don't have all the elements, like imaging, for instance, or the specialized surgeon, or the third- or fourth-level specialized technology.
Then you have something, the next level would be the enhanced, where you, again, you see more methods and more availability of more clinical instrumentation and facilities. And then final one, which is the fourth level, will be the maximal setting. So in a maximal setting is when you go to a city, a cancer center, for instance, where you have all the specialists, all the imaging, all the endoscopy, and experts that are able to use those equipments and provide the best care.
So using that four-level approach, from basic-- and think about, when you think about basic, it's in a rural community maybe in-a-low-to-middle income or developing country, places where you have a general surgeon. And you may have a primary physician. You may have nurse practitioners or nurses that actually provide that first care, first-level care. And then you keep going from there all the way to the maximal setting. So depending where you are, these resource-stratified guidelines will provide the physician and the clinical practitioner with methods that they can implement now.
So to give you an example, when you think about colorectal cancer screening, you think about individuals that come to see you because they have no symptoms or they might have some symptoms. Most of the time, they would be asymptomatic individuals that come for a general screening, general visit. So this resource-stratified allows the physician that is practicing at a basic or a limited setting to provide, for the case of colorectal cancer, screening to provide fecal or cold-blood testing. This is a test that has been shown to be effective, that when used in the adequate setting for a patient that is 50 years of age or older, will provide enough sensitivity to diagnose an individual that might have either colorectal cancer or advanced colonic polyps so that that patient can then undergo a confirmatory test such as a barium enema, if you are in a basic setting.
Very different, Shannon, when you are in a setting where you have all the instrumentation there-- you as a physician, you could either do a fecal immunological testing to look for, or cold blood. Or you could decide to refer a patient to a colonoscopy. And I think, when you practice in the US, I mean, large or industrialized places like Europe or Australia, you think that everyone has access to endoscopy.
And believe it or not, one of the things that we realized when we were looking at all these data, is that in basic settings, setups for colonoscopy for removal of polyps with polypectomy during a colonoscopy are not available. So we took all those factors of clinical facilities, and availability of equipment, and expert physicians to be able to provide adequate care for the patients that are receiving care by our practitioners in the different settings, from basic all the way to enhanced and maximal settings.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect the patients?

You have asked the most important question. The reason that we put guidelines out there is to guide our physicians, our practitioners to provide the best care that they can regardless of where they are. By providing this information, the ultimate and most important beneficiary of these guidelines is the patients.
Right now, in many settings, especially in low-to-middle-income or developing countries, they are not receiving screening or preventive testing. In fact, there are many countries that do not have standardized or institutionalized programs for colorectal cancer screening. So if you don't have a program in place, you can imagine that then a patient would not even be considered for preventive care.
So the ultimate and most important beneficiary of this resource-stratified colorectal cancer screening guideline is the patients that we serve. So as countries continue to evolve, and even in a country that is industrialized but where you have limited resources, only access to a basic laboratory, there we can still provide screening.
And then the guidelines are written in a way that you can identify the type of practice where you're at. And you can choose between the different methods. And then it guides you as to decide when to refer a patient to a higher level with regards to clinical facilities.
So if you're in a basic setting and you get a positive screening test, what do you do with that patient? Are you able to refer to the second level, which will be the limited? Or do you have to refer it all the way to enhanced? So it's almost like it's a guideline, but it's very practical in nature.
So our hope is that this will allow our practitioners to feel empowered, to understand that this is a disease that will be affecting their population, the patients that they are taking care of, but furthermore, that they feel empowered to provide the best care, because that's why we practice medicine. And that's the bottom line, the most important reason why this was put together.

Great, thank you so much for your work on this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Cruz-Correa.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, Shannon. And you know, hopefully we'll get many comments from across the different members of the organization across the globe.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

Dr. Ilana Braun and Dr. Eric Roeland join us on the ASCO Guidelines podcast to discuss the latest evidence-based recommendations on cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer. They discuss nonjudgmental patient-clinician communication, the relatively narrow cancer-related indications for which there is actionable clinical evidence for cannabis and/or cannabinoids, and key information for adults with cancer and their clinicians. Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland also review the limited evidence regarding cannabis and cannabinoid use in adults with cancer and the outstanding questions and importance of research in this area.
Read the full guideline, "Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline" at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, 

Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcast hosts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. 

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Ilana Braun from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Dr. Eric Roeland from Oregon Health & Science University, co-chairs on "Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline."  

Thank you both for being here Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland.

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thanks so much for having us, Brittany.

Dr. Eric Roeland: Thanks, Brittany.

Brittany Harvey: Then, just before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensures that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.

Then to jump into the content of this guideline, first, Dr. Roeland, could you give us an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline? 

Dr. Eric Roeland: Sure, Brittany. I think it's important for everyone to recognize just how common the issue of cannabis or cannabinoid use is amongst people living with cancer. And I think clinicians in academia as well as through community sites, we are asked about the use of cannabis on a daily basis. And so our target audience is really to focus on clinicians providing care to adults with cancer, but also the health systems in which we work because this is a very complex issue, as well as the people living with cancer and their caregivers, as well as researchers dedicated to this field.

Brittany Harvey: So as you mentioned, this is a complex issue, and I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. This guideline provides recommendations across three clinical questions that the expert panel targeted. So, starting with the first question, what is recommended for patient-clinician communication regarding cannabis or cannabinoids? 

Dr. Ilana Braun: Given the high prevalence of medicating with cannabis or cannabinoids that Eric references, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% to over 40% of adults with cancer consume cannabis products, ASCO's guideline offers the following common-sense, good practice statement: In the clinic, providers should routinely and non-judgmentally inquire about cannabis consumption or consideration of cannabis, and either guide care or direct adults with cancer to appropriate resources. In other words, the guideline works to fully destigmatize this conversation. The guideline goes on to offer suggestions for taking a cannabinoid and cannabis history. This includes the goals of use, how the products are sourced, what formulations are being used (including the ratios of active ingredients like THC and CBD), the inactive ingredients (for instance coconut oil), whether it is herbal or synthetic, and whether the product is pharmaceutical grade or non-pharmaceutical grade. And then other questions like routes of administration, dosing schedules, perceived benefits and risks, and whether the products are being used adjunctively or as a replacement for standard treatments. It is also probably important to query potential contraindications, such as a history of cannabis use disorder or psychosis. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those good practice statements. Those are key for non-judgmental communication and taking an accurate and complete history. 

So following those statements, the expert panel next addressed the question: Does use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids by adults improve cancer-directed treatment? What recommendations did the expert panel provide for this section?

Dr. Eric Roeland: When we think about the use of cannabis or cannabinoids in treating the underlying cancer, it's incredibly important to recognize the excitement that patients and clinicians have around the potential promise. Much of this data is generated from preclinical models. However, when we're engaging patients consuming cannabis or cannabinoids to augment their cancer-directed treatment, we could find no evidence to support its use. And so we do not recommend that patients be using it to augment treatment, nor do we recommend that patients should be using it instead of their cancer-directed therapy. And I think this is a major challenge for multiple oncologists, where their patients may be using these with a goal of treating their cancer, and then present with very advanced cancer and/or multiple poorly controlled symptoms.

Dr. Ilana Braun: And I think that there are some areas of particular concern. For instance, there were two oncologic cohort studies that suggest that cannabis, which we know is an immune modulator, may actually worsen immunotherapy outcomes. These outcomes included median time to progression and overall survival. There are obvious limitations of preliminary observational data, and we now need to gather prospective, gold-standard data. But for the time being, the guideline recommends that clinicians should advise against adults receiving immunotherapy from medicating or considering medicating with cannabis and cannabinoids. And then I think there are some additional reasons for concern. First of all, this type of therapy tends to be very expensive and not covered by insurance and there are some risks for drug-drug interactions, in terms of pharmacodynamic ones, Cannabis may exacerbate neuropsychiatric side effects of opioids and even benzodiazepines. In terms of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, it's not a particularly risky substance, but there are three to be wary of in particular: warfarin, buprenorphine, and tacrolimus all have high-risk interactions with cannabinoid products. 

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you both for reviewing these recommendations and evidence regarding the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids regarding cancer-directed treatment.  

So then the last clinical question, Dr. Braun, what is recommended regarding use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids in managing cancer treatment-related toxicities and/or symptoms?

Dr. Ilana Braun: The first thing to make clear is that high-quality clinical evidence evaluating the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for adults with cancer is limited as Eric has said. The evidence that does exist weakly supports a practice of using cannabis and cannabinoids to address refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when standard treatments have failed. For other potential oncologic indications, like management of cancer-related pain, there is weak, negative, conflicting, or no evidence. But that being said, a 2017 monograph published by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic non-cancer pain, and I'm sad to say, that chronic non-cancer pain happens too in adults with cancer.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those recommendations as well. 

So you've both touched on this a little bit in that patients are often asking clinicians for recommendations regarding cannabis and/or cannabinoids, but in your view, what is the importance of this guideline, and what should clinicians know as they discuss these recommendations with their patients?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Probably one of the most important points is for clinicians to ask and to be open and to create a space where our patients are telling us about what they're using. I think we've all had patients that we've been surprised that have been using cannabis or cannabinoids in conjunction with other medications that may increase the risk of unwanted side effects or risks, including sedation or falls. I also find it challenging that many patients are receiving recommendations for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids directly from friends or family instead of through their medical providers. Therefore, I think one of the very first things is to just make sure that you're asking about it and then inquiring what the goal of their use is. 

When we talk about the use of cannabis, we also need to recognize the difference between the available data that can guide us in evidence-based recommendations, as well as the enthusiasm and available access that patients have to cannabis that has really outpaced our ability to research it. So it's important to recognize these tensions that we're living with in clinic day-to-day.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those points are key for clinicians as they discuss this complex issue with their patients. 

Following that, how will these guideline recommendations affect adults with cancer?

Dr. Ilana Braun: One really important takeaway from these guidelines is that they clearly state that cannabis and cannabinoids are medicinal, and for a medical community to clearly articulate this point is notable. I suspect they will provide encouragement, legitimacy, confidence, and even a script to oncology clinicians who were previously reticent to inquire, document, and provide clinical recommendations around non-pharmaceutical cannabis and cannabinoids. It may have a similar effect even at the institutional level in terms of supporting these practices. At the same time, I suspect they will encourage those who are recommending oncologic use of cannabinoids and cannabis for myriad cancer-related indications to adopt a more circumscribed approach. The reason I say this is that the cancer-related indications for which there is actionable clinical evidence at this time are quite narrow. So all this to say, I believe these guidelines will lead to greater transparency around cannabis decision-making in the clinic, as Eric mentions, but also lead to a possible narrowing of indications for which cannabis is clinically recommended. 

Dr. Eric Roeland: Another major role of the use of these guidelines in clinical care is informing clinicians and patients about cannabis. Cannabis has been used by humans as a plant for thousands of years, and although it's a very complex plant with hundreds of parts, the two parts that researchers have studied most are delta nine-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. In rough terms, THC can cause a high feeling, while CBD typically does not. And there are multiple types of products that have different ratios of THC and CBD. So it's critical for people to understand what those ratios are, how many milligrams of those things there are, as well as what are the programs within your region to measure or quantify what's actually in the products you're consuming.

If a person with cancer medicates with cannabis, most oncologists would prefer that they use it by mouth, such as an edible, rather than inhaling or smoking cannabis given concerns about potential impact on lung function. One challenge when consuming cannabis by mouth is that it can take up to two hours to have its full effect. So patients should be very careful not to take too much or to stack their doses, which can cause sedation, confusion, and even increase the risk of falls. Whereas when patients are consuming cannabis by breathing in a smoke or vapor, they typically feel the effects almost right away, which is why patients sometimes prefer smoking or vaping as their preferred route of administration.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Definitely. We hope these guidelines provide key information and clarity for both adults with cancer and their clinicians. 

So then, finally, you've both mentioned that there is limited evidence regarding cannabis and cannabinoid use in adults with cancer. So what are some of the outstanding questions regarding cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer care?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Thanks, Brittany. I think the questions also align with priorities for future research, and we need to recognize that the lack of evidence aligns with some of the challenges of funding research in this space. However, ongoing future research priorities include what is the nature of healthcare disparities pertaining to medical cannabis use by adults with cancer, and what are effective means to address these disparities? We also wonder, what are the optimal strategies to maximize communication in the oncology clinic regarding medical cannabis and/or cannabinoid use? And when we're thinking about cannabis and/or cannabinoids for cancer treatment specifically, we still need to know do cannabis and/or cannabinoids possess clinically meaningful anticancer activity in humans. We also need to understand what are the drug-drug interactions with our standard-of-care cancer treatments, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, radiation, and combinations of all the above. We also are wondering what the effect of cannabis and/or cannabinoids on outcomes in adults with cancer receiving some of our newer therapies, including antibody-drug conjugates and some of our newer vaccine therapies. 

Dr. Ilana Braun: I might add that collating the existing research as the guideline did is a very good first step and should serve to highlight where the gaps in knowledge lie. This guideline discusses some of the unique challenges to conducting cannabis and cannabinoid research, including limitations in funding source and study drug, red tape procedures, and issues around legalization. I believe it will take a group of highly determined and creative researchers to move the needle forward in this area, but we must.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thank you both so much for all of your work developing this guideline and creating these evidence-based recommendations. And thank you for taking the time to come on the podcast today and teach us all a little bit more about cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer care. And thank you for your time, Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland.  

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thanks so much, Brittany.

Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

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.

An interview with Dr. Manish Shah from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center on the ASCO Resource Stratified Guideline which covers treatment of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. To read the full guideline go to www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines

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

Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Manish Shah from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, senior author on "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shah.

Thank you, it's a pleasure and honor to be here.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Yes, absolutely. So the "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer" is a resource-stratified guideline. And it focuses on the management of patients with early-stage colon cancer. It's different than the surveillance and screening guideline that was written simultaneously for ASCO as another resource-stratified guideline. We felt that this was a big enough topic that we should keep it separate.
So it really talks about the management of pre-malignant lesions, as well as early-stage colon cancers, as well as rectal cancers. And the other aspect of this is that we really focused on how the guideline may apply in settings where there-- they don't have maximal resources, so basic or limited settings as well. So I would like to talk a little bit about how the guideline was created, because I think that's an important aspect. And it distinguishes it from typical other ASCO Guidelines.
So the management of colon cancer or colorectal cancer, there's a lot of literature on this. And there are several guidelines that have been produced by colorectal cancer societies, or surgical societies, or from other countries like the EORTC, or Japan, or Korea, or even the UK. So in fact, there were, I think, 30 to 40 different guidelines that we reviewed.
And we felt that, instead of doing a new literature search to kind of rehash much of the same information, we reviewed all the guidelines for certain quality measures to then select a handful of guidelines that we would use as the reference for each of our key questions or key points. And this was done in a formal process, the first by ASCO and Sarah, who was the ASCO staff who wrote the guideline, along with the members of the guideline panel. And in this process, I think that we have a pretty comprehensive guideline that covers the questions with the best evidence available.

So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

Yeah, so we addressed some several questions with regard to key recommendations. The first question, for example, was, what's the optimal treatment for patients with colon cancer that would be clinical stage 1 through 3c? And we distinguish that from a non-obstructing cancer to obstructing cancers as well, because the management would be very different.
And what we really sort of focused on is that these patients should have resection following oncologic principles. Then ideally, they should have an en bloc resection by a surgical oncologist to give the patients the best chance of care. But I think what's unique to resource-stratified guidelines, and what we have to do is sort of highlight the care that would be achieved in settings that have less resources. So a non-obstructing colon cancer in a basic setting should still have surgery and should still undergo an en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles. So that was, for example, one of the key points that was uniform across all the settings.
Other things were how to manage [INAUDIBLE] colon cancer. So in more enhanced and maximal settings, sometimes there might be opportunity to place a colonic stent, for example, by either a colorectal surgeon or by someone who has specialized training in the placement of these stents. And that would be a preferred approach in both the enhanced and maximal guidelines, whereas in a more basic setting, the recommendation was to perform a resection and possibly, if required, if a resection was not possible, a diversion to overcome the obstruction in that localized setting.
There were other recommendations that were also important. So for example, in early-stage rectal cancer, so clinical stage 1, T1 and 0 rectal cancer, in a maximal setting, these are sort of low-risk cancers without adverse features like high-grade or involvement of lymphovascular structures. The surgical oncologist and/or colorectal surgeon might consider a local excision such as the TEM procedure, which is a transendomucoscal resection. And in basic or limited settings, we would still recommend surgery in that setting following TME principles to achieve clear margins and a good surgical outcome, because we felt that, in basic-limited settings, the skill and the equipment necessary to do a local excision may not be available.
Another recommendation that might highlight the differences between basic and limited settings versus a more maximal setting is the optimal strategy for post-treatment surveillance. So this is after resection of the stage 1 to 3 colorectal cancer. What would be the best way to monitor and surveil patients? And this is the recognition that the purpose of surveillance is to identify recurrence early at a time point where the patient may still be amenable to having local regional resection or resection of the metastatic lesion to change the outcome.
So the current ASCO guidelines are to perform a medical history, and physical examination, and a CEA every six months for three to five years, have an abdominal and chest CT scan, in high-risk patients, every 6 to 12 months for three years, and a colonoscopy one year after the surgery, and then every five years or so after that, as indicated, up to age of 75. And that's what we recommended in the maximal and enhanced settings.
But in a more basic setting, the recommendation was similarly medical history and physical exam every six months for three years, a CEA every six months for three years, a chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound twice in the first three years, and a colonoscopy once i the first two years. And then if a colonoscopy is not available, we recommended a double-contrast barium enema or, for left-side tumors, a sigmoidoscopy to try to surveil the local regional extent of the the disease. So I think what we're trying to highlight is that we think that we can help patients for the management of localized early-stage colon cancer, both for treatment as well as for surveillance, and that these recommendations may vary a little bit in more limited settings, but with these recommendations, we can provide the best care for patients overall.

And so why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice?

I think that the guideline is really important, because we recognize that we're practicing medicine in the United States, or in Europe, or wherever you practice, but the levels of resources that are available to us are not uniform. And so we really are getting to the aspect that cancer care is a global proposition. And ASCO should reflect that.
And so the intention of these resource-stratified guidelines is to try to provide guidance into the best management for the indication across the spectrum of resources that are available. Interestingly, we've also heard from many people who practice in more resource-limited settings that they can use these guidelines to sort of advocate for their own area, to say that, based on our availability, we fit in a criteria that's basic or limited, but we really want to be an enhanced setting, and lobby their governments or their local officials to say, these are areas that we can improve on to take us to the next level, literally.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we remind ourselves that we're doing this to improve patient care overall. I think, in maximal and enhanced settings, the guidelines kind of reiterate the best practices across [INAUDIBLE] of guidelines that were reviewed. So I think that's a very important thing. And they unify the treatment plan across different practices.
But I think most importantly, in basic and limited settings, it provides a benchmark for what should be done. I think, for me, one key thing was that, even in basic and limited settings, we don't want to compromise oncology principles for a surgical resection. You know, it's not appropriate to just resect the tumor but leave some tumor behind to relieve an obstruction. We still need to manage that appropriately. And that is the expectation in a basic setting, for example.
So I think that, overall, wherever you are, this guideline provides recommendations to help manage the patient across the resources that are available to you. I think that's very important, because we live in a heterogeneous environment where resources are not uniform across the world.

Great, thank you for your discussion of this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Shah.

Oh, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Paul Celano from the Greater Baltimore Medical Center on the recently published ASCO Standards on safe handling of hazardous drugs.

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

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Paul Celano from the greater Baltimore Medical Center, lead author on "Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Celano.

Thank you for having me. I'm certainly glad to talk about these standards. They're very important to our employees and our patients.

So first I want to make the distinction that this publication is not a guideline like we usually cover on this podcast. So can you tell us what standards are and how they differ from guidelines?

Well, guidelines really are intended to guide practitioners around recommended care options. They give obviously a lot of latitude to clinical judgment and circumstances. Standards, on the other hand, are really meant primarily for the organization of care and are intended to have a higher level of obligation to help drive either practice or policy or even legislative efforts. So that's really the distinction.

And what are the standard statements that are made by ASCO in this publication?

The publication really is about safe handling of hazardous drugs. This all came about is because recently there have been a number of national guidelines or standards that have been offered by other organizations, but not specifically oncology or certainly ASCO or the ASCO organization. We felt a need to address the standards that have been put out on the basis of the evidence, so that best practices can be offered.

Initially, we did collaborate with other societies, such as the Oncology Nursing Society and the Hematology Oncology Pharmacy Association. That was really the impetus behind making sure that we are, in a sense, congruent with standards that are already being published and discussed, but also to also place in our interpretation of these standards so that they're based on the best evidence that's available.

And what qualifying statements are there to note about these standards?

Well, I think the best way to look at these standards is there has been recently published or offered what's been called the UST 800 standards, which really incorporate other previous standards by the Pharmacy Association as well as OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Association, as well as NIOSH, the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Oncology Nursing, etc. So there's a lot of standards that have been offered.

And in fact, the ASCO review of this really in a sense agrees with many of the standards that have already been published and offered-- types of exposures, the responsibilities of personnel handling the drugs, the personal protective equipment, how we communicate the hazardous drugs, the training of compounding personnel, how the drugs are dispensed and even transported. So there's lots of things that we really do agree with.

I think it's also important to understand that the objectives of this is really to protect personnel and the environment to make sure the standards apply to all personnel who compound hazardous drugs and preparations, all places where hazardous drugs are prepared and stored, transported and administered. So that's really a key part of this. These are a comprehensive program really to prevent worker environmental exposure and to provide the most practical safety environment for all involved.

So finally, why are these standards so important? And how will they affect practice?

Well, they effect practice in many ways. I mean, the key thing is making sure that our employees, meaning the nurses, pharmacy, the technicians, really everyone involved that they're not unduly exposed to these hazardous drugs. And so that's really the key thing that we're all trying to achieve by this.

Now, what really makes the sort of ASCO standards somewhat different or the things that we came into a contention with has to do with the differences that ASCO has come up with in contrast to some of the other standards. And these have to do with really four main areas within these standards. They have to do with medical surveillance, external ventilation, closed system transfer devices, and also proper assignment of our personnel while they may have either trying to conceive or pregnant or nursing.

So those areas that in our review, the ASCO review, have come under some question. As an example, medical surveillance, there in some of the standards offered-- not ASCO's-- that there's a number of medical surveillance procedures that have been elucidated, that really we find, number one, have really not any proven value for our employees and generate a lot of confusion in terms of how this process is supposed to be done. Obviously, if one of our employees has some undue exposure, such as a spill of chemotherapy or even just have flat out a concern, then obviously those things will be clearly investigated. But to have general medical surveillance of all employees, really we did not feel was of great value.

But also further, we really feel that this is an area where more research needs to be done to better elucidate really what should this process look like and what value are we providing to our employees.

Another aspect of this is the use of what are called closed system transfer devices. Currently, there are a number of these devices available that there is interestingly no standard way that these devices have been evaluated. And so it's hard to recommend one device over another, because there is no standards for which they're really being compared. And there certainly have been no studies looking at really any form of health outcome that really help us to direct this to how best to use these devices. And so really, a lot of these objections are more around let's do things in an evidence-based way so we can better know how to best direct our practices.

Another area of concern in terms of ASCO standards have been the implementation of external ventilation in either containment secondary engineering controls or other situations. And the challenges is that HEPA filters are probably appropriate for collecting solid or aerosolized particles, but don't capture vaporized drugs. But there's little data available on the ability of hazardous drugs to vaporize within the workplace environment and what those hazards really are. And so again, it's is a call for more research to have an optimal environment for preparing these drugs and without having to place undue burdens in terms of external ventilation.

Another area is options for alternative duties for workers who are actively trying to conceive or are pregnant or breastfeeding. And these we recognize can be special burdens to small practices looking to implement alternative duty programs. There is a lot of controversy regarding the potential level of risk that really these workers really have. And basically our stance has been that we should have a policy that identifies alternative work options for workers who are trying to conceive, are pregnant or are breastfeeding, and that this information needs to be conveyed to these employees at the time of their hire so they understand what their risks are and what their options are within the workplace.

Again, trying to make sure everyone is well informed and aware of what the work environment they're in and as their life circumstances change what they can do to change with this. I think the key is that we all feel that this is an area that we should have continued research on. And our standard, certainly ASCO's standards will continue to evolve as more and more research and evidence becomes available.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain these standards to us today, Dr. Celano.

You're welcome.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague

An interview with Dr. Valerie de Haas from Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in the Netherlands on "Initial Diagnostic Workup of Acute Leukemia: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of the CAP and ASH Guideline." ASCO fully endorses the CAP-ASH guideline on initial diagnostic work-up of AL and includes some discussion points according to clinical practice and updated literature.

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

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin and today I'm interviewing Dr. Valerie de Haas from Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in the Netherlands, lead author on "Initial Diagnostic Workup of Acute Leukemia: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of the CAP and ASH Guideline."

Thank you for being here today, Dr. de Haas.

Thank you.

So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers?

Well, yes. The laboratory evaluation of patients who are suspected of having acute leukemia is very complex, and it has evolved significantly with the incorporation of advanced laboratory techniques. The traditional backbone of initial workup of AL, of acute leukemia, is composed of ctyomorphology, cytochemistry, immunophenotyping, and molecular cytogenetics.

These techniques are the backbone of the initial diagnostic workup of acute leukemia. This is leading to risk stratification and fine tuning of the therapy by molecular signatures. The advanced molecular diagnostics, such as next-generation sequencing, has become more important in the diagnosis and in the risk stratification of acute leukemia.

This guideline is meant for both pediatric and adult patients, and it was initially published in 2017. This year, we reviewed this guideline, and we have taken into account two important developments.

First, since 2017, we've seen that there are major advances in molecular techniques and also that we can identify and validate new molecular markers. And those two events have contribute to a better risk stratification. And the second development is the effect that the WHO classification was revised in 2017 which also has led to new risk recoveries and refined subclassifications.

So what are the key recommendations of this guideline?

Well, in total, we have reviewed 27 guideline statements by the ASCO endorsement expert panelists. And discussion points are used to summarize issues that were identified from the updated literature. The ASCO expert panel determined that the recommendations from the guideline as published in 2016 are clear, thorough, and they are based upon the most relevant scientific evidences.

We fully endorse the CAP-ASH guideline on initial diagnostic workup of acute leukemia. And we decided to include some discussion points according to clinical practice and according to the updated literature. In fact, we identified four categories of key recommendations. The first one is the initial diagnostics focusing on basic diagnostics and determination of risk parameters.

This concerns, in total, about 11 guideline recommendations, and they give an overview of the initial workup varying from the collection of the clinical history of the patient to initial basic diagnostics by cytomorphology, flow cytometry and molecular cytogenetic analysis of peripheral blood, bone marrow, and cerebrospinal fluids.

Secondly, the second category were molecular markers and MRD detection, and they were addressed by 10 of the recommendations. And these recommendations give a structural overview of the molecular and cytogenetic workup for acute lymphoblastic leukemia versus acute myeloid leukemia identifying different prognostic markers.

Also, the detection of MRD is taken into account in this recommendation. There is a major difference between children and adults, and this part is given most attention in the discussion part as the developments have been major during the past few years.

The third one is the context of referral to another institution with expertise in the management of acute leukemia. This is addressed by four recommendations, emphasizing the point that referral to an institution with specific expertise is of major importance for the central workup of acute leukemia.

And finally, the final reporting and report keeping is reflected in three recommendations, mainly supporting conclusions from 2017 which were describing the fact that the complete report with basic diagnostics in one central report should be available within 48 to 72 hours. And this should be followed by complete, final, comprehensive report in one or two weeks.

So can you tell us about those discussion points that were made and why the panel decided to include these?

The discussion points include mostly issues regarding diagnostics that involve flow cytometry and molecular techniques as addressed in part one and two of the guidelines. We think that the cytomorphologic assessment is essential for initial diagnosis of acute leukemia.

Multicolor flow cytometry using 8 to 10 colors has led to a better distinction between myeloids, lymphoid, and mixed lineage blast origin. Even when the number of cells are limited, for instance in CNS involvement, fine needle aspirate of extramedullary leukemic infiltration, or skin biopsy for leukemic cutis.

Also, it was suggested to better assess the central nervous system involved in leukemia. The expert panel recommends the immunophenotyping studies as an additional detection technique next to the cytomorphological examination of cytospins and particularly for those with a low level involvement of acute leukemia that cannot be well addressed by a morphologic examination only.

The TDT immunohistochemistry staining of cytospins has alternatively been used for detection of CNS disease in AML and evaluation of CSF by multicolor flow cytometry has been recently adopted in some centers. Flow cytometry, using at least six, but we now use in some laboratories, even 8 to 10 colors has led to a much more specific in tentative diagnosis. And this has improved the detection of CNS involvement.

The use of molecular tools, for instance, polymerase change reaction, PCR, NGS for low-level CSF involvement is still under study, and therefore, we did not recommend this in our discussion.

Regarding the molecular markers and MRD detection, the discussion here was mainly based upon the results of translational research supported by better molecular detection techniques. And those molecular diagnoses have been developing in the past few years with the inclusion of many more molecular markers. And they included one of the key diagnostic criteria in the revised WHO classification, which was revised in 2017. And we made substantial changes that have been made in the ASH-CAP guidelines concerning molecular diagnostics.

Those newly identified targets by advanced molecular techniques give possibilities for better risk stratification. Some examples of better molecular characterization of acute lymphoblastic leukemia are, for instance, additional testing for MLL translocations. Furthermore, we can look in patients with T-ALL for NOTCH1, and FBXW7 mutations.

The Ikaros family zinc finger gene, the IKZF1 gene is frequently deleted in adults as well in children with B-ALL. And it was shown to have an independent prognostic significance and was also associated with poor clinical outcome.

In the current text of the current risk that the protocols IKZF1 should be regularly included in the screening panels for all ALL patients.

If we look for examples for better characterization of AML, acute myeloid leukemia, we have found an increasing number of additional cytogenetic aberrations, like for instance FLT3 ITD which is associated with poor outcome.

Another example is appropriate mutational analysis for kids, which can be detected both in adult patient as pediatric patients with a confirmed core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. So this is myeloid leukemia with a translocation A21, RUNX1, or inversion 16.

This recommendation is very strong in adults, whereas in children, this prognostic fact impact remains unclear. So there have been proven several publications which refer to a similar prognosis for children and others who refer to a poor prognosis in comparison to known mutated genes. So we suggest to test for this mutation in adults, especially, but also in children to learn from it.

Finally, emerging evidence supports molecular studies as principle test for monitoring minimal residual disease of acute leukemia. And there are several key molecular markers that are included in the initial workup, which will be carried on for monitoring MRD, for instance, PML- RAR-alpha, RUNX1-RUNXT1, CBFB-MYH11, and NPM1, CEBP-alpha and others.

Beside those aforementioned markers, it's very important to screen for other molecular markers that have predictive or prognostic value in the individual. And it is possible to use them for MRD. We have found a recent consensus from the European Leukemia Net MRD Working Group, who was proposing that for detection of molecular MRD, and they refer the RT PCR platform to NGS and digital PCR platforms.

Although all those molecular techniques have been developed very quickly and it is very tempting to use them for initial diagnostics, currently, not all laboratories will have all those techniques available. So the expert panel strongly advises understanding to make distinction between diagnostic that are needed in the first phase to start treatment and subsequently, treatment stratification, in contrast to the usual dose findings in a broader research.

For instance, available karyotyping, FISH, PCR techniques, if possible, NGS can be used in the initial start of treatment, whereas techniques like whole exome sequencing, whole genome sequencing, RNA sequencing, and epigenomic studies are meant for a broader research.

And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?

Well, in the end, the patients will receive better and especially, more personalized treatment. If we have results available within two weeks from diagnosis, it will be possible to better identify which basis will better benefit from more intensified and more personalized treatment, whereas others may need less intensive treatment with less toxicity.

If you use traditional techniques to do this supported by molecular techniques like karyotyping, FISH, and PCR techniques, and in the end, following MRD to see which patients are responding to treatment, MRD detection will help to identify these patients and stratify them finally to the best treatment.

Great. Thank you for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. de Haas.

OK. Thanks a lot.

And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.