ADCs in Breast Cancer: Sequencing, Resistance, and Managing Toxicity

Drs. John Sweetenham and Shaji Kumar discuss the emergence of CAR T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma, its benefits and challenges for patients, and its potential role earlier in the treatment of disease.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. 

Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematologic malignancy, and the American Cancer Society estimates that there will be more than 35,000 new cases of the disease diagnosed in the United States this year. The emergence of several novel therapies over the last decade has transformed the therapeutic landscape for multiple myeloma, and chimeric antigen receptor – or CAR T-cell therapy – is one of the newest treatments for this disease, which has created a great deal of buzz. 

Dr. Shaji Kumar is an internationally renowned investigator of novel therapeutics and next-generation treatment options for patients with multiple myeloma, and I'm delighted to welcome him to the podcast today to discuss innovations in CAR T-cell therapy in this space. Dr. Kumar is a professor of medicine and chair of the Myeloma Group, as well as chair of research in the Division of Hematology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. He is also the editor-in-chief of The Hematologist. 

You'll find our full disclosures available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. 

Shaji, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Dr. Shaji Kumar: Thanks, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Shaji, to begin with, maybe we could ask you for an overview of where CAR T-cell therapy sits in multiple myeloma right now. We know that CAR T-cell therapy has improved the survival for some patients with myeloma in recent years. But of course, relapse still remains a problem. Can you tell us a little about the therapies that are currently approved for multiple myeloma in the CAR T-cell space, and what are the potential benefits and challenges of these products?

Dr. Shaji Kumar: Absolutely. It has been a revolution, I think, in terms of therapies for multiple myeloma during the past decade. We have seen so many new treatments approved for myeloma, and consequently, the survival of patients with myeloma has significantly improved. Two decades ago, we used to tell patients a median survival of 3 years, and today we tell patients a median survival of 8 to 10 years, a number that is continuing to go up. And it is all because of the new treatments that have become available for patients, especially over the past decade, and CAR T-cell therapy has been a game changer.  

Now, the main treatments that we were relying on for the past 2 decades have been the immunomodulatory drugs, the proteasome inhibitors, and more recently, the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. Unfortunately, what we see in the clinic is that patients go through these therapies and various combinations of these agents, and often over the 6 to 10 years after the diagnosis, they often become refractory to these drugs. And then we are left with very few choices, if any, for controlling the disease. And that's where the CAR T cells have really made an impact. 

Over the past several years, clinical trials have shown that CAR T-cell therapy is highly effective. In fact, when we look at the initial trials that have been done in this space, the majority of these CAR T cells have been targeted towards what we call BCMA, or a B-cell maturation antigen that is present on both normal and abnormal plasma cells. Now, the concept of CAR T cells has been around for a while, and we have already seen success in other hematological malignancies, but it has been a little late compared to the other diseases in terms of its arrival in the myeloma field. But over the past few years, we have seen some dramatic progress. We currently have two different CAR T cells that are approved and available in the clinic. We have idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and also ciltacabtagene which is also called cilta-cel. Both of these CAR T cells are targeted towards BCMA.  

In the early trials conducted with both of these CAR T cells, we’ve seen patients who have become refractory to all the available therapies, and now upwards of 90% of these patients are responding to these CAR T cells. We are now seeing responses that we had typically not seen previously in any of the other therapies – not only the high response rates but also the depth of response. What we are seeing is a significant number of these patients – nearly half – of these patients can actually be minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative in the bone marrow after the CAR T-cell therapy. And this is clearly unprecedented in this myeloma space.

Now, the approval for both these CAR T cells has been based on the experience in patients who have become refractory to the currently available therapies. And the ‘line in the sand’ that the FDA has drawn for approval for these drugs has been at least 4 prior therapies. In those patients, when you look at the studies that have been done both for the ide-cel and the cilta-cel, it clearly demonstrates the advantages. And we can look at the data that's available in 3 groups. So we have the single-arm studies, the early phase I and phase 2 trials that have been done with both these CAR T cells. For ide-cel, we have the KarMMa trial, and for the cilta-cel, we have the CARTITUDE trials. In the initial studies, as I previously mentioned, we are seeing responses upwards of 90%, and we are seeing disease control that is lasting at least a year or more with these CAR T cells.  

Now, of course, the question is, we do need randomized phase 3 trials to demonstrate that this is indeed true. Even before the phase 3 trials came along, there have been multiple case-control studies that have been done where the outcomes of patients getting these CAR T cells were compared to real-world controls or cohorts of patients who did not get these therapies. And these studies demonstrated that the outcomes of patients getting CAR T cells were significantly better than what has been shown in the real-world controlled population. And then finally, we have, of course, the phase 3 trials that have read out in patients with relapsed myeloma, in fact, in a group of patients in an earlier stage of the disease than who were studied in those single-arm studies.

Now, based on the results from the single-arm studies, we got the approval from the FDA for the use of CAR T cells in this late stage of the disease. And with the phase 3 trials that have read out, both the KarMMa-3 trial and the CARTITUDE-4 trial again clearly demonstrate that these CAR T cells are much more effective than what we would have seen with the conventional therapies if those patients were assigned to those treatments. Now, clearly, it's not only a question of efficacy. We also know that they do come with some toxicities, and we have a good sense of the toxicities from those initial phase I and phase 2 trials. Now, as we have seen with the other diseases, the 2 major categories of toxicities that we see are the cytokine release syndrome and the neurological toxicity associated with CAR T-cell therapy. 

In terms of the clinical features and the presentations, they are not different than what we have seen with the CAR T cells used in other hematological malignancies, but we do see different frequencies of these in the myeloma patient population. The cytokine release syndrome is something that is seen in a majority of the patients, at least in the lower grades. And over the time since we have been using CAR T-cell therapy, I think we have all become a lot more familiar with the management of the cytokine release syndrome, and we have very effective therapies to manage, and to some extent, maybe even prevent the onset of the cytokine release syndrome in patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy. 

The neurological toxicity is another toxicity that is unique to these immunological therapies, known as the ICANS, or the immune cell effector-associated neurological syndromes. And these, again, thankfully, are much less frequent than what we see with the cytokine release syndrome. But even with the ICANS and other neurological toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, we have a better understanding of the biology behind it, and we also have better modalities to monitor the patients for these toxicities and intervene in an appropriate and timely manner to take care of them. 

In addition to the ICANS and the cytokine release syndrome, we certainly do see other toxicities as well. We do see hematological toxicities, which are common for many of the treatments we use for hematological malignancies. Thankfully, these other toxicities can be easily managed. They often reverse themselves over time and haven't really posed any major hurdles in terms of the utilization of these modalities of therapy for patients with myeloma.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, that's great. Thank you very much, Shaji. I'll return to some of the potential late effects of CAR T-cell therapy in a moment. But before we get to that, as you know, in other hematologic malignancies, there has been a trend in recent years to moving CAR T-cell therapy further up the therapeutic algorithm, as it were. So there is consideration being given to using this as a first-line or second-line therapy. Do you think there is a potential role for CAR T cell earlier in the treatment of multiple myeloma? For example, could you see a time when it may be used as second-line treatment for this disease?

Dr. Shaji Kumar: Absolutely. I think that's a very good point. And I think, just as with other cancers and as with myeloma, too, with many of the therapies we use for myeloma in the newly diagnosed setting or the time of first relapse, were all initially tested in these later relapses. We are following the same script even for the CAR T cells. In fact, the 2 phase 3 trials, the KarMMa-3 trial and the CARTITUDE-4 trial, enrolled patients in the earlier lines of therapy, either 1 prior line or 2 prior lines for these trials. And what we have seen with both phase 3 trials is that the outcomes, both the progression-free survival outcomes and the response rates, are significantly better compared to the standard-of-care therapies that these patients would have otherwise received. 

Now, what is unclear at this point is, does every patient at the time of the first relapse need a CAR T-cell therapy, or can we be more selective in terms of deciding which particular subgroup of patients can benefit more from this CAR T-cell therapy in different lines or different relapses? The bottom line is, I think the data that we have right now clearly points towards the utility of CAR T-cell therapy at earlier lines of treatment. The question now is, which patients do we need to do at which stage? In fact, when you look at the newly diagnosed setting, there are ongoing clinical trials that are looking at replacing autologous stem cell transplant with CAR T-cell therapy. Those phase 3 trials are currently enrolling where patients are being randomized to either the autologous stem cell transplant, which is considered a standard of care for eligible patients, or giving them a CAR T-cell therapy. Similarly, even in transplant-ineligible patients, trials are exploring the possibility of using CAR T-cell therapy instead of giving patients a prolonged course of maintenance and consolidation. 

One of the beauties with the CAR T-cell therapy right now is that it's a one-time treatment. You get the treatment and you do not get any additional therapies after that. It’s a protocol that is being debated –

whether we will need maintenance therapies after CAR T-cell therapy, but I think that is something that will have to be explored in the context of clinical trials. But certainly, I think over the next 5 years, we will see the CAR T-cell therapy moving to earlier and earlier lines of therapy. My guess is in 5 years, there will be a subset of patients where we would offer them CAR T-cell as part of the first-line therapy, some others, maybe based on disease and patient characteristics, we might use it at the time of first or second relapse.  

Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just to return to toxicities and some of the potential late effects. As you know, last November, the FDA launched an investigation to determine whether CAR T-cell therapy can, in rare cases, cause secondary cancers. You may remember that this was in response to reports of T-cell malignancies in patients who had received various types of CAR T-cell immunotherapies. The FDA determined that the risk of T-cell malignancies is applicable to all of the currently approved BCMA-directed and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous CAR T-cell immunotherapies. Could you care to comment on this whether you have seen any evidence of this in your own work, and whether the events and the FDA investigation have impacted your clinical research or your clinical practice in any way in terms of patient monitoring or maybe in terms of trial approval?

Dr. Shaji Kumar: This has been an important observation. As with all new therapies, whenever the question of long-term toxicities is brought up, especially second malignancies, it is something that needs to be looked into very carefully, and I think the FDA is doing exactly that. There have been reports of second cancers, particularly T-cell cancers. In fact, there were some statements that came out recently from the FDA where they commented on the fact that they had seen 22 cases of T-cell cancers by the end of 2023. And, in fact, in 3 of those cases where genetic sequencing was performed, they did notice that the genetic material or the chimeric antigen receptor was inserted into these cancer cells as part of the process. So I think there is a lot more work that needs to be done in terms of understanding the mechanism and probably also understanding how prevalent these instances are. 

But I think, based on what we know as of now, these cases form a very tiny fraction of the total number of CAR T-cell therapies that have been used in patients with lymphoma and myeloma. In our own day-to-day practice, this has not really affected how we view this therapy. It clearly has made a significant impact for patients with no other treatment options. So in our daily practice, we continue to use CAR T-cell therapy as we have done before these reports came out. But we do inform patients about the risk and what we know about the risk of these T-cell malignancies.  

In addition to T-cell malignancies, there have also been reports of myelodysplastic syndromes in patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy. Again, it is important to remember that, at least in the myeloma setting, many of these patients have had multiple lines of therapy, often with drugs that can cause second malignancies, particularly myelodysplastic syndrome. So I think a lot more work needs to be done in terms of understanding what is the direct impact of CAR T-cell therapy versus what was lurking underneath because of the treatments that these patients had previously received. So I think it is important for us to continue to be very diligent, as with any new therapies that we introduce for the treatment of our patients. But at the same time, understand that, in the context of the benefits that these therapies bring to our patients, especially when they have no other treatment options. 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, at least for now, and probably in the longer term, the benefits of the therapy certainly appear to outweigh the risks, although it is important not to underestimate or minimize those risks.  

I wanted to change direction a little bit and talk a little bit in the final question about care disparities and CAR T cell. Of course, CAR T-cell therapy is typically offered at large cancer centers and is very expensive. This means that there are issues of access to treatment. In addition, the literature shows us that non-Hispanic Black individuals are twice as likely to develop multiple myeloma compared to their White counterparts. Furthermore, at least right now, Black patients are less likely to receive these novel CAR T-cell therapies and continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. So, this is a big, complex question, but can you talk a little bit about how outcomes differ between racial and ethnic groups who actually receive CAR T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma? And could you address what you think are the most appropriate strategies for minimizing the disparities in access?

Dr. Shaji Kumar: That's a very, very important question, particularly in the context of multiple myeloma, where African American individuals are at a higher risk of getting plasma cell malignancies. I think we need to think about this in the context of what we know about disparities even before the CAR T cell came along. There has been a good amount of literature that has looked at the outcomes based on the types of therapies that could be impacted by this. There have been studies that have looked at cooperative group trials, which often have a good representation of minorities and have shown that if patients have equal access to advanced therapies that we have, their outcomes are comparable or sometimes even better for African American patients compared to Caucasian patients. So I think it’s very important that the treatment strategies that we develop are equally accessible to everyone. 

In terms of CAR T-cell therapy or immunotherapies, I don’t think we have any concrete evidence to suggest that there is any difference in outcomes. And I think it's reasonable to assume that if patients are exposed to similar therapies, they will have similar outcomes, even in the context of immunotherapies. But at the same time, I think we must continue to study this diligently, and the only way to do that is to ensure that clinical trials include patients reflective of society in general. This will allow us to understand if any differences exist. In addition, I think there is a serious risk that with these expensive therapies, this gap can only widen. And I think that is one reason that we must be proactive, particularly with therapies like CAR T-cell therapy, which not only are expensive but also require quite a bit of logistical support for patients to go to larger centers to get these therapies, stay around these larger centers for upwards of a couple of months, which means they are living outside of their usual societal structure, and ensure there is access to the resources that are needed to enable them to do that. So I think there is a lot that is still unknown, but I think we really need to be proactive in ensuring equal access to these therapies.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes. Thanks for a very thoughtful response to that question, also for the work that you are obviously doing to help address this extremely important issue. 

I’d like to thank you for sharing your insights with us today and for the extraordinary work that you’re doing and your team are doing to advance care for patients with multiple myeloma.

Dr. Shaji Kumar: Thank you, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you also to our listeners for joining us today. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. 

Disclaimer: 

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

Find out more about today’s guest: 

 

Dr. Shaji Kumar

@myelomaMD

 

Follow ASCO on social media:   

  

@ASCO on Twitter   

ASCO on Facebook   

ASCO on LinkedIn   

  

Disclosures:  

  

Dr. John Sweetenham:  

Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  

 

Dr. Shaji Kumar:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, K36

Research Funding (Inst.): Takeda, Abbvie, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd., Allogene Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Abbvie, Pfizer

Drs. Hope Rugo and Sara Tolaney discuss the promise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of breast cancer, highlighting key trials that shed light on matching the right ADC to the right patient in the right setting. They also explore how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, the mechanisms of resistance, and the future potential of biomarkers to predict patient response.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California, San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with breast cancer. ADCs consist of antibodies that target tumor-specific antigens on the cell surface, chemical linkers, and cytotoxic payloads that can act powerfully to kill cancer cells. On today's episode, we'll be discussing advances in research to match the right ADC to the right patients and in the right setting. We'll also talk about the next steps, assessing how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, improve options for patients, and identify biomarkers in the future to predict how patients will respond so that we can match the right treatment to the right patient and their tumor. We need to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of resistance that occur upfront as well as under the pressure of treatment. 

Joining me for this important discussion is Dr. Sara Tolaney. Dr. Tolaney is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, associate director of the Susan Smith Center for Women's Cancer, and chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Dr. Tolaney, we're delighted to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here.

Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much for having me. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Great! So, we'll move forward, and because we're friends and colleagues, I'm going to refer to you as Sara, and I'm Hope, since we’ll dispense with formalities in our discussion. 

A lot of the talks that we give about ADCs start out with “a revolution in breast cancer therapy.” And indeed, this is a really exciting time with ADCs as treatment for breast cancer, and we're rapidly moving these agents into earlier disease settings. Can you tell us a little bit about the possibilities and challenges of using ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer today?

Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's interesting that you say antibody-drug conjugates as revolutionizing outcomes of breast cancer, which I think is true. But on the flip side, I think it's also bringing up a lot of questions about how to use them, when to use them, and how to manage side effects. So there are a lot of good strengths for these antibody-drug conjugates, but a lot of unknowns that we're still trying to figure out. We had an older antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1 that we were all very familiar with that for years had been a treatment that we used very commonly in metastatic disease and now even use in early breast cancer, and I think has changed outcomes for patients. But over time, we've been able to develop newer antibody-drug conjugates as the technology has really evolved so that these agents now are able to deliver a lot of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. We're seeing very high drug-to-antibody ratios, and we're also seeing that these drugs can function via bystander effect, whereas T-DM1, for example, was not able to do that. But our newer ADCs, like sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan, are agents that do allow chemotherapy to get into that cancer cell, but also to get into neighboring cells. 

And I think the technology evolution in being able to build these so-called next-generation ADCs has allowed for really unprecedented efficacy that we've not seen before. And it's also allowed us to develop these drugs in a way that's been different. Originally, we were developing T-DM1 to turn off HER2 signaling and to deliver chemotherapy into a HER2 cell. At least that's what we thought originally. And now we're really evolving so that we can just find a tiny bit of protein on a cancer cell and use it as a target, really in a subtype-agnostic way. And I think it's just a different way of thinking about how to use these agents to really deliver a lot of chemotherapy into cancer cells and have very robust efficacy.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it is fascinating that some of the suppositions that we made with the first ADC don't seem to really hold true as well. And maybe they hold true in varying levels for the different ADCs. For example, this bystander effect is thought to allow us to target cells that have very low expression of the receptor that can be internalized even lower than our ability to detect these receptors by immunohistochemistry. And maybe we'll talk about that in a little bit.  

But first, you mentioned already sacituzumab and trastuzumab deruxtecan, the ADCs that are currently approved for breast cancer. But can you tell us a little more about those ADCs and the key trials that have led to approval of these targeted agents?

Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yes, I think when we first saw the data that came out with T-DXd and DESTINY-Breast01, I think my jaw dropped because I had never seen a waterfall plot like that. This was a single-arm study that looked at T-DXd in patients with very heavily pretreated metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and saw very high response rates of over 60% and a clinical benefit rate of almost 98%, meaning that almost every single patient who got the drug and had a median of six prior lines of therapy had reduction in tumor size. And that’s unreal. I think it was revolutionary in the sense that we had never seen that kind of activity in such a pretreated population.

The agent was studied in other registration trials, DESTINY-Breast03, which looked at T-DXd and compared it head to head with T-DM1 in a predominantly second-line metastatic HER2-positive population, and here, again, unprecedented results. I’ve never seen a p value like that or a hazard ratio of, again unreal, of a little under 0.3 and seeing a 28-month PFS with T-DXd relative to just a little under 7 months PFS with T-DM1. We have never seen patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer have a PFS that long. Even in CLEOPATRA, it’s a little under 19 months in the first-line setting, where people were predominantly naïve to HER2-directed therapies. This, again, is really changing outcomes for patients.  

But then, I think, when we go to the next step, we studied T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and it had again these unprecedented results. But there was some early data suggesting that it could even work in tumors that weren't truly HER2-positive but what we call HER2-low, meaning that they weren’t HER2/3+, they weren’t HER2-0 but they were 1+ to 2+ and not FISH amplified. And so even with a little bit of protein there, they were seeing activity in the early phase studies and so it led to DESTINY-Breast04, which compared T-DXd to chemotherapy of physician's choice in people who had had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. It was predominantly geared to look at outcomes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. But there was a small group of 58 patients with triple-negative disease that were also included in that trial. And here again, a very unprecedented outcome seeing a response rate of about 50%, which, again, we never see in pretreated hormone receptor-positive disease. And a PFS of 10 months, and again, these are people who already had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy. So it’s, again, really changing outcomes. And so now I think it leads us to a lot of other questions that we are addressing in trials - can this drug work even if the tumor has maybe no HER2 expression, what about HER2-0, what about HER2-ultra low, meaning a little bit of staining but not quite 1+. And so these are questions that I think we will need to address and there are studies that will help us address that.

On the flip side, we saw sacituzumab govitecan get developed in breast cancer. Initially, we saw very impressive results from a single arm study of sacituzumab in metastatic triple-negative disease where we saw response rates of a little over 30%. These are patients who were very heavily pretreated with metastatic triple negative breast cancer where, unfortunately, response rates end up being in a 5% range so it was a home run in that setting. So that led to the ASCENT trial, which compared sacituzumab govitecan to treatment of physician's choice therapy and that study really enrolled people who were, in essence, second line and beyond in the metastatic triple-negative setting and showed almost triple progression free survival, in essence, doubled overall survival. So again, very robust efficacy leading to confirming its approval. And then we saw data from TROPiCS-02, which looked at sacituzumab in metastatic hormone receptor-positive disease and also showed improvements in both progression free and overall survival. And this was in pre-treated populations of 2 to 4 prior lines of chemotherapy. These agents, again, have established robust efficacy, and so now the idea is can we move these drugs earlier in development into earlier line settings and can we even move these agents into the early disease setting and potentially cure more patients? So hopefully, we’ll figure out ways to make that happen.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of this exciting data. And I think we really got an idea of what waterfall plots could tell us from DESTINY-Breast01 where you could count the number of patients whose cancers grew with therapy on one hand. It's been a huge advance. I think it’s where we get this “revolution” even in patients with a median of 4 lines of prior chemo, and, in the ASCENT trial, we were able to see this improvement and survival in the hardest-treated subset of metastatic breast cancer triple negative disease. And then the remarkable data in HER2-positive and HER2-low breast cancer hormone receptor positive disease. We’re really covering all of the subset of breast cancers.  

When we introduce new therapies though, and of course, our interest is moving them earlier as lines of therapy in the metastatic setting, we really have to think about the adverse events and how those are going to affect their patients, and balancing the risk benefit ratio. Obviously when the benefit is so huge, we’re more thinking about how do we proactively manage these side effects, educate our patients, use prophylaxis when possible. Can you share with us some of your insights on management strategies for toxicities? 

Dr. Sara Tolaney: You bring up a very good point, and I will say the ADCs were designed with the idea being that we could deliver a ton of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. So obviously, my hope had been that we weren't going to see a lot of chemotherapy-like side effects because the goal was to try to spare normal cells of these side effects. But unfortunately, we do see that these agents do have real toxicities, and I think that is an important message. So, for example, with sacituzumab, for people who have hair going into it, they will lose their hair during the course of treatment, and so that's important to make patients aware of. It can lower blood counts, and about 50% of patients who are on sacituzumab will end up needing growth factor support while they're on treatment. So, that is again something that needs to be monitored and managed. But usually, we're pretty good at managing neutropenia, and with the growth factor support, I find that it actually works really well. 

Another thing with sacituzumab is the potential risk of diarrhea, but most of the diarrhea is low-grade diarrhea. It’s rare that you get someone who has high-grade diarrhea with sacituzumab. Usually, I find it works to just instruct patients to use loperamide as needed. And again, usually that works well. And certainly when needed, dose modification can also help with these side effects and so it is important to keep in mind that this is another option. With T-DXd, one thing that we do have to keep in mind as an unusual side effect is the potential risk of interstitial lung disease. We see that in about 10% to 15% of patients getting T-DXd. That is something that we do have to be very mindful of. For the most part it is low-grade ILD. But there are rare occasions where there have been deaths from ILD. And we're seeing with some of the newer trials, the death rate is usually under 1%, but it is a real potential risk. And so it is really important to counsel patients when getting T-DXd about this potential side effect, that way they are good about communicating with you if they get any new symptoms, such as shortness of breath or dry cough, to get you aware of it and can work it up and get imaging certainly if that occurs. 

And then I think the management for ILD is a little unique and a little different truthfully than the way we manage pneumonitis from other drugs. Normally, when I am treating patients who develop pneumonitis, even if it is mildly symptomatic, we often will hold treatment, give steroids, and rechallenge them when it gets better. But with T-DXd, if anyone develops symptomatic pneumonitis, you actually have to permanently discontinue the T-DXd per the guidelines because we just don't know the safety of being able to rechallenge that patient once that pneumonitis resolves. For grade 1 ILD, meaning someone who has, for example, ground glass changes seen on imaging but doesn't have any symptoms, you have to hold the drug and wait until those imaging findings resolve and then you can restart. I usually do treat grade 1 ILD patients with steroids with the hope being that maybe it will allow for the pneumonitis to resolve more quickly, although in truth I don't know if that's the case. I have just taken that approach because I don't like leaving patients off the drug for too long if not needed. Again, I typically treat them with steroids, reimage in three to four weeks, and see if I’m able to restart. If they resolve within 28 days, you can restart at the same dose. If it takes longer to resolve, you need to dose modify. 

And then I think the other big thing with T-DXd is to know that it is categorized as a highly emetogenic agent. Most of us are using three-drug prophylaxis, which I think works really well. It is also important to realize that there can be some delayed nausea, which is a little unusual with some of our other agents. And so to warn patients about that and I find that use of olanzapine or ondansetron for the delayed nausea tends to work pretty well. 

Hope, do you have any pearls for us? Obviously, you are very experienced in using these agents; are there any things you would recommend for the management of ADCs? 

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it's such a great question and an important area because, particularly as we are using these agents earlier, we really need to have strategies for both how long to continue as well as manage the toxicities. I agree with the nausea, olanzapine has been really a great addition, and using a triplet as initial premedication makes a big difference for T-DXd and other deruxtecan ADCs that are in the pipeline. And then I think that the ILD issue, we’re really learning more about the risk factors as well as retreatment. And hopefully, we’ll have more data this year at ESMO Breast and maybe ASCO on retreatment for grade 1. We certainly now do not have any data on the safety of retreatment for grade 2, so that is really not accepted now. For sacituzumab, I think the interesting area is the metabolism and the impact. So with neutropenia, as we move the drug earlier, it's easier and easier to manage, we see less severe neutropenia. We can give growth factors, which we are all good at in oncology. But I think the question about managing diarrhea and who is at risk still exists. Understanding pharmacogenomics and UGT1A1 is an interesting area where patients who have diarrhea could be tested to see if they are poor metabolizers which affects a little under 10% of the overall population. Because in that group, you could give less drug and get the same benefit with less toxicity. So I think this is all very interesting. It is important for providers and patients to be educated so that we can manage this appropriately. And I think you gave an excellent overview.  

We have new agents in the pipeline also and maybe we’ll talk about those next, and then we’ll talk a little bit about sequencing and resistance, as well as the unmet need for brain metastases. So lots of areas to talk about. There are a number of TROP-2 ADCs that are in the pipeline, and one that has presented phase III data, datopotamab deruxtecan. But other studies are being developed with new TROP-2 ADCs as well. But then there are a huge number of ADCs there with new targets, for example, immune effector targets, and new payloads, even immunotherapy and two different payloads or bispecific antibodies. And then there is interest in combining ADCs with immunotherapy and PARP inhibitors. We saw data in bladder cancer, I think it was bladder cancer, with combined 2 different ADCs at ESMO in 2023. So a lot of new approaches. How are we going to manage this moving forward? And where do you think we are going to position some of these next sort of "me-too" drugs? 

Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's an excellent question, and you're right, the field is exploding with new antibody- drug conjugates. So, it's going to leave us with this conundrum of what to do. And you brought up the really interesting example of the fact that we have an approved TROP-2 ADC, we have as sacituzumab govitecan, and for example, we've recently seen some really exciting data come out from TROPION-Breast01 looking at another TROP-2 ADC, datopotamab deruxtecan or Dato-DXd where that ADC performed better than chemotherapy in a head-to-head trial in terms of progression-free survival in a hormone receptor-positive population. Then there's another TROP-2 ADC, moving forward in development moving to phase III that Merck is developing MK-2870. All three of these ADCs are targeting TROP-2 and have a TOPO 1 payload. So, it leaves you with the question of how do you think about that? Is there going to be a role for using serial TROP-2 ADCs? Could one work after the other, even when they have very similar payloads? How are we going to incorporate them? How do you pick one over the other? So, it is going to be tricky for us as we get more and more of these agents. I think we're all excited about seeing ADCs that may have different targets and different payloads, where maybe we will see that sequential utilization will have robust efficacy if we swap things out. Again, we don't have data here yet, but I think there are other agents in development. For example, you could think of like, disitamab vedotin targets HER2 and has an MMAE payload. So, could it be that someone progresses on T-DXd for HER2-low, but then could go on to disitamab vedotin? How will that work? So, we have a lot to learn, but it's really nice to have so many options. 

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether or not we select the ADC based on a rational understanding of the tumor and the patient, or whether it's simply what's easier to give and has the right toxicity for that patient. 

So, that sort of brings us to our next topic, which is how are we going to sequence these agents? How are we going to understand the mechanisms of ADC resistance? At San Antonio in 2023, we saw a presentation where there was a top-alteration, and the patient had a really long response to a top-directed ADC, or an agent that carried a topoisomerase inhibitor. And that really struck me that we're going to see these alterations. There was a fresh autopsy study that suggested that the alterations may be different in different organ sites of disease. How are we going to figure this out?

Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yeah, I also was really puzzled to see those data from San Antonio where we've sort of simplified ADC resistance in our heads to say, well, maybe someone becomes resistant because they lose target expression, or maybe someone becomes resistant because they've developed resistance to the payload, kind of like the way we think of someone developing resistance to getting chemotherapy. But obviously, it's probably far more complex than that. With these ADCs, they need to be able to internalize the ADC and could there be mechanisms of resistance related to the internalization process? So, I think there are lots of potential areas where resistance could be occurring. I think, we don't understand it very well. We've seen patients, for example, who have responded. This is just anecdotal, but we have data, for example looking at, Dato-DXd in the phase 1 triple-negative study where there were some patients who responded despite having progressed on sacituzumab. Well, why is that? You would think if it's target resistance or payload resistance, it would be the same target and a very similar payload. So, why would those drugs work one after the other? And that's why I think we just don't understand this well enough at this point in time.  

So, it's clearly an area where more research is needed because it does have significant implications on how we think about using these drugs sequentially. We will need to understand these resistance mechanisms because there do seem to be some rare patients who benefit from these sequencing strategies and then others who don't. So, it would be nice to be able to figure this out and hopefully in the future, we'll be able to test patients and know what drugs to give them. But I think we're far off from that, unfortunately, right now.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it does seem to be a relatively elusive approach, and I think, in part, it's due to the heterogeneity of cancer. And maybe, as we're better and better at analyzing tumor cells in the blood, which are a rare group, and ctDNA, which, of course, we do now to look for mutations, maybe that'll be an approach that we'll be able to take. And also, of course, moving the drugs earlier into the disease setting with less heterogeneity and mechanisms of resistance might help as well. 

I was fascinated by the fact that although the PFS to the first ADC seems to be overall much greater than the PFS to the second ADC, when you sequence them, there are a few patients who have a longer PFS with the second, even if these are just sacituzumab T-DXd sequencing in various directions. So, it's clearly very complex. And right now, I think we're just sequencing and we don't really know how to do it. We just choose what we think is best for that patient first and go on to the next one later, which is interesting. And one of the choices might be treating brain metastases, which of course remains a huge unmet need. And if we could find effective treatment for brain metastases, maybe we could also prevent them in some patients more. What do we know about the central nervous system (CNS) penetration of ADCs and the clinical results?

Dr. Sara Tolaney: At first, we were not optimistic that these drugs would have activity in the brain because we thought that these were very large agents that probably couldn't penetrate into the blood-brain barrier. But in fact, I think we were all very excited to see that there is actually data suggesting that these drugs can actually have robust efficacy in the CNS in patients who have active brain metastases. And so what we've seen so far is data with trastuzumab deruxtecan or T-DXd, there have been some trials that have been done, including studies like DEBRA and TUXEDO, which have looked at T-DXd in patients who have active brain metastases and are showing very robust response rates within the CNS. So, we're seeing intracranial response rates on the order of 40% to 50%. And clinically, this is what we're seeing as well. These are smaller studies and there's a larger trial, DESTINY-Breast12, which will hopefully validate the robust efficacy in the CNS with T-DXd. So, again, it's really nice to see this. 

To your point, though, one area that I'm curious about, as you were alluding to, is will these drugs be able to prevent CNS disease? And I think that is a very different question because here the blood-brain barrier is not intact when patients have progressive brain metastases, and so these ADCs are causing robust activity. But if you look, for example, and I'll be curious to see what happens, DESTINY-Breast05 is looking at T-DXd in the post preoperative setting for patients who have residual disease and comparing it to T-DM1. And unfortunately, we saw that T-DM1 was not able to prevent brain metastases when looking at data from KATHERINE, where in fact, rates of CNS as the first site of recurrence were similar with T-DM1 and trastuzumab. So, now we'll be interested to see, will it be any different with T-DXd? Will T-DXd be able to have any role in prevention? I think we haven't seen anything like that with ADCs to date, so that would be a paradigm shift in our way of thinking. 

Right now, there are strategies being taken from a prevention standpoint of trying to add a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in that early-stage setting, such as what is being done in the COMPASS-RD trying to add tucatinib to T-DM1 to see if that would do it. But again, we really need to understand, again, how these drugs work, particularly when the blood-brain barrier may not be intact. But again, very exciting data with T-DXd in an ongoing trial, actually through SWOG looking at sacituzumab for patients with CNS disease. And we've seen some preliminary data with sacituzumab showing that it actually does penetrate into the brain when they've looked at drug levels in the tumor in the brain, comparing it to plasma, it actually looks similar. So, we know it's getting in there and we'll have more robust efficacy data, hopefully coming soon.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of that data. It's been exciting also to see some responses in patients with leptomeningeal disease as well, where we've really been struggling with anything that works for more than a few weeks or months at the most. So I'm holding out great hope that we're going to see a big difference because even though TDM-1 had some efficacy, it was nothing like what we're seeing with T-DXd. So we'll see. And the same with sacituzumab with triple negative disease, where sometimes brain metastases can be an isolated site of recurrence, even in patients who have a pathologic complete response. So it has been a big challenge. 

So I think that what we've learned from you is a lot about the mechanisms and the data about these new ADCs, the tremendous hope that these are bringing to our patients, but also the really exciting new approaches with new payloads, new targets of drugs that are in development, as well as potentially some different ADCs that have the same target and similar mechanisms of action of this payload. Really fascinating to hear about this, the future work on sequencing, on mechanisms of resistance, and on brain metastases. We have, of course, 2 prospective trials that we'll be looking at sequencing, one with T-DXd and Dato-DXd, and one registry trial with T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan in the US. So that's also going to, I think, provide us with some important information. 

We could talk for a long time about this, but I just wonder if you have any closing comments to sum up your thoughts. 

Dr. Sara Tolaney: I think you did a great job leading us through thinking about ADCs, and I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens in the future. While again, these agents have become a standard for us for patients with metastatic disease, I'm going to be curious to see how everything evolves and to see if we'll be able to substitute chemotherapy with ADCs in early disease settings and change outcomes. Will we be able to have novel combinations? Will we be able to sequence these drugs one after another? Will we actually have biomarker predictors to help us sort out which drug to give when? So, still a lot to learn, but clearly a very exciting field right now.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Indeed. Sara, thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast on your great work to develop novel therapies for breast cancer. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and even greater to work with you on the future progress of treatment for breast cancer.

Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much, Hope. Again, really nice to always discuss these data with you. I always learn a lot, so thank you.

Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to all of the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Disclaimer:

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

 

Follow today’s speakers:  

Dr. Hope Rugo 

@hoperugo 

Dr. Sara Tolaney

@stolaney1

 

 

Follow ASCO on social media:  

@ASCO on Twitter   

ASCO on Facebook   

ASCO on LinkedIn   

 

Disclosures:  

Dr. Hope Rugo: 

Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo

Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Talho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc, Stemline Therapeutics

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca

 

Dr. Sara Tolaney:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Bio, Artio Biopharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp, Zetagen, Bayer, Infinity Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Tango Therapeutics, Systimmune, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Sumitovant Biopharma

Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Seattle Genetics, OncoPep, Gilead

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences

Drs. Shaalan Beg and Rachna Shroff discuss key abstracts on GI cancers that were featured at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including SKYSCRAPER-08, EMERALD-1, and NEST-1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer, respectively.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I’m an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern's Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice president of oncology at Science 37. Today, we'll be discussing key abstracts and other exciting highlights from the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. Joining me to discuss some key takeaways from the meeting is the chair of this year's Symposium, Dr. Rachna Shroff. Dr. Shroff is the division chief of Hematology Oncology and chief of GI Medical Oncology at the University of Arizona Cancer Center. She also serves as the associate dean for clinical and translational research at the University of Arizona College of Medicine – Tucson.

Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. 

Dr. Shroff, welcome back to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, and congratulations on a great Symposium. The scientific advances and innovative, multidisciplinary approaches that were featured throughout the meeting were really inspiring and reflect the incredible strides we’re making in GI cancer research.

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much for having me back. I am delighted to be here. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Dr. Shroff, the theme of this year's symposium was "Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level." I’d love to hear your reflections on the sessions that you found most exciting and really resonated with the attendees. 

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yes, thank you. We were really excited about this theme because we really felt that “Taking Personalized Care to the Next Level” translated to thinking through personalized approaches to patient care, not just in the traditional ways that we think of with precision oncology and genomics driving our care, but also how we can think through multidisciplinary approaches and an individualized care plan. Thinking through how artificial intelligence and novel clinical trial designs can and should be implemented to meet the needs of our individual patients. And so we really highlighted that in what was a somewhat new reboot of a session called “Intersections,” which were every day and were really more cross-tumor; they were tumor agnostic but were thematic focused. As I mentioned, those themes were really based on feedback that we had from prior attendees, as well as from the program committee’s feeling on what are really the questions that we are dealing with and that are burning in the clinic today and that includes the emerging role of artificial intelligence and machine learning and how we integrate that into our clinical care, approaches to oligometastatic disease, and it’s not really just something that we think of in colorectal cancer but haven’t fully used that paradigm to really apply it to other GI malignancies. And then the art and science of clinical trial design where, again, traditional randomized phase 3 trials might not be the best and most innovative and most expedient way of bringing novel therapeutics to our patients. And so, I thought that all of those sessions were really highlighting different important topics that we deal with day to day.

Additionally, we had a really fantastic keynote lecture from Dr. Kimmie Ng of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She is a world-renowned expert in the early-onset colorectal cancer space, and the timing of her keynote was perfect with the new cancer statistics that came out literally days before GI ASCO that demonstrated this just dramatic rise in early onset GI malignancies as a whole, not just colorectal. And she spoke really in a comprehensive manner not just on clinical approaches, screening approaches, and how to find these patients at an earlier stage, but also kind of gave us a call to action, if you will, in terms of public health initiatives, as well as like I said, clinical care and really thinking outside of the box for how to reach these patients. 

And then, of course, we always have what I think is one of my favorite aspects of the meeting, which are the networking opportunities that include the Trainee and Early Career Networking Luncheon, the Women's Networking Reception, and the Meet the Experts Luncheon where, especially as junior career investigators, you have an opportunity to meet what we think of as the “big names” in GI cancer.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely, I remember my first couple of GI ASCO meetings and those were probably the most memorable sessions that I attended as junior faculty as well.  

So let's take a deeper dive into some key abstracts from the meeting. I'd like to begin with Abstract 245. This is the SKYSCRAPER-08 study. It's first-line tiragolumab and atezolizumab with chemotherapy in an Asian patient population with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. What are your key takeaways from this study? 

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah. This was an exciting study in my opinion in the sense that thinking through how we can build on immunotherapy backbones is obviously a pressing question across the GI cancer space. So this was a phase 3 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that looked specifically at patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. And the study was enrolled fully with an Asian population. It looked at taking the traditional chemotherapy backbone and adding to it an anti-PD-L1 with atezolizumab and an anti-TIGIT with tiragolumab. Again, that proof of principle of using anti-TIGIT and PD-L1 has been looked at across a lot of different GI cancer spaces and we know that the esophageal squamous cell cancers tend to be very immunotherapy responsive. So this was a really important question. 

This involved a number of patients, a little over 460 patients, who were randomized one-to-one to receive the tiragolumab with atezolizumab with the standard paclitaxel and cisplatin, that's used for esophageal squamous versus chemotherapy alone with placebo. And the primary endpoint was independent review of progression-free survival, and overall survival. And so, out of the 461 patients randomized, there was at the primary analysis, a median improvement in progression free survival, from 5.4 months in the control arm to 6.2 months with a tira-paclitaxel plus chemo arm with a hazard ratio of 0.56, highly statistically significant. Similarly the median overall survival was also improved from 11.1 months to 15.7 months again with a hazard ratio of 0.7 and some of the other key efficacy endpoints were also improved with the addition of the anti-TIGIT PD-L1 approach. And importantly, there was not really safety signals that jumped out at us. 

And so, to me, what this means is that, in our patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, we really should be thinking about chemotherapy with immunotherapy as a backbone and how we can build on it. And, you know, I would imagine that it's hard to argue with both the PFS and OS endpoint that adding anti-TIGIT won't necessarily be kind of the new approach to these patients. And importantly, I'll point out that it seems to be a benefit across the subgroups, including PD-1 status, which is always our big question here. I think the only thing to keep in mind is this was an all-Asian population and whether or not that kind of immune profile of the immune responsiveness is different in those patients, but regardless, a positive phase 3 trial.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's really exciting to see immune checkpoint inhibitors or immunotherapy beyond PD-1 targeted, CTLA-4 targeted treatments making their way into GI Cancers. 

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Absolutely.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Sticking with the immunotherapy theme, let's focus on hepatocellular carcinoma. So LBA432, the EMERALD-1 study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durva with or without bevacizumab looked at people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for embolization. So really a highly anticipated study, I'm wondering what your thoughts are and whether it'll be practice-changing for this field. 

Dr. Rachna Shroff: I was excited to see the press release when it showed that the study was positive, and I think it's because now that we're using immunotherapy in the advanced HCC space, our obvious question is, can we integrate it into multimodality approaches? There are a lot of smaller studies looking at neoadjuvant IO approaches, and in this intermediate stage, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. We wanted to know if there was a utility to liver directed therapy with immunotherapy. 

So, this was a large study. It was a global study looking at unresectable HCC with preserved Child-Pugh function. But it was Child-Pugh A and up to B7, importantly. And there were 616 patients randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion, with the control arm being just TACE alone. But then, there was also an opportunity for durvalumab with TACE, as well as durvalumab plus bevacizumab with TACE. The patients would receive durvalumab during their TACE treatments and could receive up to four TACE treatments and then subsequently were either continued on durvalumab alone, durvalumab plus bevacizumab, or the placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, powered specifically to look at TACE versus durvalumab plus TACE. In this study, the primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in PFS. Median PFS was 15 months versus 8.2 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.77. Most prespecified subgroups demonstrated this benefit. 

Importantly, there was a secondary endpoint looking at durvalumab plus TACE versus TACE alone, and that actually did not show a statistically significant improvement in median PFS from 8.2 months in the control arm to 10.0 months. The overall response rates were slightly higher with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab approach at 43.6%. And importantly in these patients, who oftentimes have a higher burden of disease in the liver, median time to progression is a really important and clinically meaningful endpoint. That was 22 months with the durvalumab plus bevacizumab and TACE versus 10 months for TACE alone.

I would just point out that the overall concern we always have with bevacizumab is the increased risk of bleeding and the treatment-related adverse event profile. Overall, there were no safety signals that emerged from this, with nothing that really, especially in that bleeding risk category, jumped out at us. Of course, we haven't seen the overall survival data yet because we have not seen enough follow-up to really see that number. 

I do think that this is potentially practice-changing, and I think it just demonstrates that there's probably some synergy between anti-VEGF with anti-PD-1, and then the liver-directed treatments. The obvious question for us in the United States is that the vast majority of people are moving away from TACE and towards more radioembolization and what can we extrapolate from this? Does this really tell us much if people are using more of a Y90-based approach? I think those are a lot of the burning questions that most of us have. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and it's a very interesting direction that the HCC space is taking because we heard in previous meetings, the role of PD-1 inhibition as adjuvant therapy after resection. Now, we have data for local-regionally advanced disease over local-regional treatments. And of course, you already mentioned the data for more advanced disease. So it sounds like immunotherapy may be impacting the management of anyone diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma. 

Let's talk about the MONET trial, Abstract 249, which compared thoracoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. Do you think this is a study which may influence the treatment of patients with thoracic esophageal cancer?

Dr. Rachna Shroff: So, this was, again, I think, a really important question. It was a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial comparing a more minimally invasive approach with TE — thoracoscopic esophagectomy — versus an open approach. This had patients with clinical stage 1-3, excluding T4 thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. They were randomized 1:1 to the open versus the TE approach, with a primary endpoint of overall survival and an important secondary endpoint of relapse-free survival. 300 patients were randomized, and at the second planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was a little over two and a half years. The 3-year overall survival was 82% in the TE group versus 70.9% in the open group. The DSMC of this trial actually recommended early termination based on the non-inferiority, which is what they were specifically looking at. There was a very statistically significant one-sided p-value for non-inferiority. 

Importantly, the 3-year recurrence-free survival was also markedly better in the TE group versus the open group, with no real notable differences in R0 resection, or a large percentage of patients who needed to be converted from a TE to an open approach, and really not any significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity. I think this just supports the concept that minimally invasive approaches for our patients with GI malignancies can and should be considered. Again, esophageal squamous because they tend to be seen a lot more in Asia, this study was conducted in Japan, but I think that being said, a lot of our surgeons in Europe and in the U.S. are also very amenable to minimally invasive approaches. And I think this just supports the fact that an open approach is not necessary. So, I would think again, that this is something that is implementable and I think will affect the field. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving on to metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, there have been many FGFR inhibitors that have shown activity and promise and are approved for the management of cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR alteration. But at this ASCO GI, we heard the results of the safety and efficacy of an FGFR1, 2, and 3 inhibitor, tinengotinib, as monotherapy for advanced metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (Abstract 434). How do you see this fitting into the broad picture?

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Yeah, so this was highly anticipated data, primarily because at this point, the FGFR space in cholangiocarcinoma is quite crowded. And so a lot of us were getting sick of the "me-too" drugs. What is really unique about tinengotinib is that, not only is it a selective multikinase inhibitor, but it also, in preclinical models as well as in early phase one trials, demonstrated potent inhibition of patients with FGFR2 fusions and rearrangements who had acquired resistance mutations. So, as we better understand the first generation of FGFR inhibitors and note the resistance mechanisms, these drugs are now being developed to try to circumvent or overcome those. 

This study looked at 4 different cohorts: 1 cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had primary progression who never responded to FGFR inhibitors, a second cohort with FGFR2 fusion patients who had progression after primary response, so those with acquired resistance, and then there was non-fusion FGFR alterations because we do know that a number of cholangiocarcinoma patients have other FGFR alterations that are not fusions, and then those with FGFR wild-type. The primary endpoint was objective response rate, with a total of 48 patients enrolled across the four cohorts. And so the 40 patients who were evaluable in the group that had primary resistance, which was the first cohort, there was a response rate was 9.1% and that was partial response, and 31% had tumor reduction with tinengotinib. And similarly in those with acquired resistance, 37.5%, 3 out of 8 patients had a partial response and tumor reductions were noted with an overall disease control rate between those patients with FGFR2 fusions of 94.7%, between those with primary and secondary resistance. 

In the patients who had FGFR alterations, there was 3 out of 9 patients with a partial response and again, tumor reductions were notable across the board and the disease control rate was 88.9%. The FGFR wild-type group, not surprisingly, did not see any partial responses, but interestingly, 75% of these patients had at least disease control, and the median progression-free survival was 5.26 months, again, kind of most notably impressive in the 2 cohorts that included FGFR2 fusions. The toxicity profiles are what we come to expect for FGFR inhibitors and we’ve gotten better at managing those and mitigating some of those so there was really nothing to jump out there.

So there is now an ongoing randomized phase III trial specifically looking at tinengotinib versus physician's choice in patients with FGFR2-altered cholangiocarcinoma after having received prior FGFR inhibitors. So that’s where I think it’s in is for those of us who know that there are multiple drugs in the space, our big question is can we sequence through that? Can we offer multiple FGFR inhibitors in these patients? And I think we are all eagerly anticipating this data as well as the subsequent data to really justify the use of these novel second generation FGFR inhibitors. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: It's been fantastic to see the evolution of these compounds in precision medicine, or precision oncology at its finest, in terms of understanding mechanisms of resistance and treating refractory disease.  

Let's focus on colorectal cancer. I’ll tell you, there has been a lot of discussion, Dr. Shroff, on social media, on insurance companies sometimes rejecting one biologic or the other based on tumor sidedness. We have talked about tumor sidedness predicting response on this podcast based on data from previous studies. But this year in GI ASCO, Abstract 207 explored the role of tumor genomics and tumor sidedness and they said that it’s tumor genomics, that tumor genomics better explains the differences on outcomes, and it explains it better than sidedness. What does this mean to the field? Because a lot of professional organizations have guidelines that are asking people to now incorporate sidedness. So how does that change based on these results?

Dr. Rachna Shroff: I really commend these authors on leveraging real-world data, and I think we’re getting better and better at recognizing that real world data actually informs our clinical decision making, possibly better than sometimes some of these studies that lead to the guidelines and algorithms that we develop. So this is a perfect example of a little bit cart before horse in trying to understand the way that sidedness and genomics may interplay.  

So this was a study that basically leveraged both the Foundation Medicine and Flatiron Health clinical genomic database and looked at patients with microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer. There were a total of 3,845 patients included in a kind of two-thirds one-third split between left sided and right-sided colorectal cancer. And they found the typical genomic alterations that historically have been thought of more with left-sided colorectal cancer like APC and then more of the RAS BRAF alterations in the right-sided patients. But I think what they really thought and what I think was remarkable is they really looked at the patients and how they received chemotherapy with anti-EGFR or bevacizumab therapies, and they did a multivariate analysis to really see what is driving outcomes. And like you mentioned, what they found was patients in the RAS pathway, those classified as having alterations in the RAS pathway, had less favorable outcomes, while those with APC altered group had more favorable outcomes. And that was regardless of treatment received and sidedness. 

And so when they did an analysis of what was called a “likelihood ratio test,” they found that when genomics was added to the sidedness evaluation, there was an improvement in outcome prediction, but not when sidedness was added to genomics. Like you said, it kind of demonstrates, at least in this mining of real-world data from Flatiron that tumor genomics is probably a better driver and a more important driver in determining outcomes than sidedness. 

I totally agree with you. I would push for us to really kind of bring a little bit of noise to this and to make insurance companies and other companies that are looking at this to think through this a little bit more and make sure that we’re putting all of the data together in a comprehensive passion before making the treatment plans and determinations.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: The last abstract I'd like to ask you about is Abstract 117, the NEST-1 trial. This study looked at neoadjuvant botensilimab and balstilimab for resectable mismatch repair proficient and deficient colorectal cancer, both MSS and MSI. What are your key takeaways from this study? 

Dr. Rachna Shroff: This is another study that is demonstrating that there may potentially be a role for immunotherapy in microsatellite stable patients. I will make the caveat that this was a single-arm study that really was looking at feasibility safety, with efficacy as a secondary endpoint. The combination of bot-bal in the neoadjuvant space for colorectal cancer patients, they received one dose of boten and two fixed doses of bal two weeks apart and then were taken to surgery. They limited the number of patients and out of the 12 patients that were enrolled, they limited the number of mismatch repair deficient patients. So to your point, they allowed both, but they wanted to make sure it was not just MSI-high patients.

What they basically found is that it was safe and did not delay surgery or increase risks of adverse events. But importantly, there was significant regression of tumor noted. And some interesting spatial biology analyses demonstrated potentially novel mechanisms of action, especially in the MSS population, and that ctDNA reductions correlated with pathologic response. There were a lot of different things that they were looking at, basically suggesting that bot-bal is safe and can be used in both mismatch repair–deficient and proficient patients with colorectal cancer. And now importantly, they’ve added some additional cohorts and expanding the study. As I mentioned, this is right now just 12 patients, but does definitely have a provocative result. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thanks so much, Dr. Shroff. 

Finally, the role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in GI cancers has been an exciting and important development in our field. There's tremendous data that emerged at the GI meeting, and we have decided to do a separate ASCO Daily News Podcast dedicated to ctDNA. So listeners, please look out for our coverage of key studies on ctDNA in GI cancers very soon here on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. 

Many thanks, Dr. Shroff, for sharing your insights with us today and for your great work in building a robust GI meeting this year. Thank you very much.

Dr. Rachna Shroff: Thank you so much.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Disclaimer:

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Our guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. These statements do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an endorsement by ASCO.

 

Find out more about today’s speakers:

Dr. Shaalan Beg

@ShaalanBeg

Dr. Rachna Shroff

@rachnatshroff

 

Follow ASCO on social media: 

@ASCO on Twitter 

ASCO on Facebook 

ASCO on LinkedIn 

 

Disclosures:

Dr. Shaalan Beg:

Employment: Science 37

Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine

Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals

 

Dr. Rachna Shroff:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis, Merck, QED Therapeutics, Incyte, Astra Zeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, SERVIER, Genentech, Basilea

Research Funding: Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Immunovaccine, Seagen, Novocure, Nucana, Loxo/Lilly, Faeth Therapeutics

Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Todd Morgan discuss CONTACT-02, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate-67T, and other notable studies featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, as well as additional key abstracts in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers that will significantly influence clinical practice.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Todd Morgan, the chair of this year's ASCO GU. Dr. Morgan is a urologic surgeon, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, and a professor of urology at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found at asco.org/DNpod. Todd, thank you for joining us today.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here and I'm just thrilled to be able to do this with you.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you. So, the GU meeting showcased significant advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. Can you tell us about the hot topics that captured the headlines this year? What did you find exciting this year at the ASCO GU Symposium?

Dr. Todd Morgan: The theme of this year's meeting was "20 Years of Advancing Science and Transforming Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the last 2 decades. We were thrilled to welcome over 5,200 attendees from over 70 countries, and, believe it or not, there were more than 875 abstract submissions, compared to more than 300 in the meeting's first year. Most of the participants were present in person and that was fantastic. It enabled great networking opportunities and opportunities for experts, trainees, and mentees to exchange knowledge and ideas. Without a doubt, ASCO GU remains the annual meeting in our field, and it's amazing to hear the breadth and depth of the state-of-the-art science that's presented at this meeting, and so much of it impacts patient care the second that you return home.

Additionally, the meeting's focus on diversity and interactivity, networking, multidisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based care were absolutely phenomenal from my standpoint. We had a lunch session for women's networking that was a huge success—the first time we've done that. The keynote lecture by Dr. Cheryl Lee that talked about ensuring adequate representation in clinical trials was a huge hit, and we had tremendous positive feedback from that lecture. There were also multiple featured sessions on different diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in localized, recurrent, and advanced GU cancers. And, Neeraj, my personal favorite during the symposium is always the Trainee and Early-Career Networking Luncheon on the first day and then the additional networking luncheons on the 2 following days. I had great conversations with a ton of trainees and junior faculty, and I feel so fortunate for the opportunity to get to know the future superstars in our field.

So I’d like to kick it back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. A great example is Abstract 17, which was the second oral presentation delivered, and really congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the exciting data from the CONTACT-02 trial which we were eagerly awaiting. And I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Todd, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall, and thank you for your leadership of this conference.

So let's talk about the CONTACT-02 trial. It was a phase 3 randomized trial assessing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab versus a second NHT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on one NHT. This patient population had to have extrapelvic soft tissue metastases, which could be liver metastases, lung metastases, or lymph nodal metastases, and about up to a quarter of patients had liver metastases. And overall, this was a high-risk patient population which was randomized to, as I said, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second line NHT. And these patients had received a prior NHT, mostly in the mCRPC setting.

 The co- or dual primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). And a unique thing was that PFS was assessed only by RECIST 1.1 because, as per our discussions with regulatory authorities, the trial was focused on soft tissue metastases because of questions in the past that cabozantinib can affect bone lesions in an artifactual fashion, possibly concerns. That’s why the PCWG 3 criteria were not used as the primary endpoint, but, of course, indeed used as another key endpoint, so we have information on both. Anyway, coming back to the endpoint 1:1 randomization. The randomization was stratified by presence or absence of liver metastases, prior docetaxel chemotherapy, and the setting in which NHT was given (mCSPC or CRPC).

The PFS or primary endpoint was significantly improved with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death with the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination versus second NHT. And there was a trend for overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 favoring the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination. Interestingly, all subgroups benefitted, regardless of age, region, site of metastases, but we decided to choose three clinical subgroups of interest such as patients with liver metastases, patients with prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the castration-sensitive setting, and bone metastases, and all these subgroups seemed to be benefitting with the strongest signal in the liver metastasis subgroup, with a 57% reduction in risk of progression or death, which I would argue we have never seen with any combination or any regimen in the metastatic prostate cancer setting yet, barring some targeted therapies in very selected patients. But overall, across the non-biomarker-selected patients, we have never seen this kind of signal.

Toxicity — no discussion is complete without discussing toxicity, so I would like to highlight that. Safety signal — there were no new safety signals. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension in 7%, anemia in 6%, which were similar in both arms, and, of course, diarrhea and fatigue in 4% each. And if we look at the secondary endpoints, such as time to chemotherapy and time to symptomatic skeletal events, they tended to favor the cabozantinib-atezolizumab. To sum it up, cabozantinib-atezolizumab showed a significant PFS benefit, with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death, with a trend for overall survival in this patient population with an unmet need.

So thank you so much, Todd, for allowing me to summarize the results of this trial.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, wow. That's so impressive, and not surprising that you could so fluidly go right through all that data. Amazing. We heard some discussion of the NHT control arm in this trial. Could you discuss that for a bit? Because it obviously has implications on the similar control arm of other ongoing trials in this setting.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. Pretty much all trials, every trial which has recently been reported or started in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer have a similar second NHT arm. Whether there were multiple immunotherapy trials which we have just reported, or new trials which are starting or just started enrolling patients. And the reason for that is no randomized trial has ever shown superiority of docetaxel chemotherapy over a second NHT after failure of prior NHT in the mCRPC setting. That's number one. If you look at NHT as a control, it is accepted by health authorities globally with multiple recent trials which are just starting also having NHDR and it would not have been possible without the approval of global regulatory authorities across the world.

 Then, if you look at the recently reported trial in the mCRPC setting with prior treatment with an NHT, there is an indication that chemotherapy may not be superior to NHT. For example, in the KEYNOTE-641 trial in patients with mCRPC with prior NHT, randomizing patients to enzalutamide plus pembrolizumab versus enzalutamide, the median PFS with enzalutamide was 9 months. This is very similar with docetaxel in patients randomized to docetaxel plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel; the median PFS with docetaxel is 8 months or 8.3 months. And lastly, if you really want to have a comparison of chemotherapy with NHT which has been done after progression on NHT and docetaxel chemotherapy, so later line of mCRPC setting, that is the CARD trial, as you can imagine, cabazitaxel versus NHT, especially in patients with visceral metastasis, which was the point of discussion. For example, people may not feel comfortable randomizing patients to NHT compared to taxane. The hazard ratio for PFS supporting cabazitaxel was 0.79, so almost a 0.80 PFS hazard ratio, which we have never seen turning out to be a clinically significant benefit.

So, if you combine all these data together, I think it was absolutely acceptable to us as investigators to have a second NHT as the control arm. And of course, when we are consenting the patient, we have to keep alternatives in mind, and we do talk about those alternatives with the patients. And if alternatives seem more applicable, we should not be talking to patients about those clinical trials or a given clinical trial in the clinic. I'm glad you brought this up, Todd, because this control NHT arm is not an issue with this trial, but all trials which should be presented in GU ASCO in the future meetings in the coming years. So, thank you.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, thank you. It's such an important topic and controversy at some level, but it's a difficult problem to think about and obviously highly relevant to all the trials that we're looking at. Congrats again on that trial, that's tremendous. There was another important randomized phase 3 trial and it covers radiotherapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Can you give us your insights on that one?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yeah, Todd, I think you are referring to LBA259, titled "Long-term Results of Dose Escalation of Radiation Therapy from 70 Gy to 80 Gy Combined with Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk Prostate Cancer: The GETUG-AFU 18 Randomized Trial." As you mentioned, in this randomized phase 3 trial, Dr. Christophe Hennequin and colleagues randomized patients with high-risk prostate cancer, which means they had to have either clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, or PSA ≥20 nanograms per milliliter, or a Gleason score between 8 and 10. These patients were randomized to receive ADT for 3 years combined with either dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy. So, I’d like to highlight, this was in the context of IMRT in the dose of 80 Gy or a conventional dose of 70 Gy. Now, you can argue that more people are using more than 70 Gy nowadays, but across the world, the conventional dose is still considered 70 Gy. So, 80 Gy versus 70 Gy were tested.

Patients also had to have negative lymph node status on CT scans and MRI. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival or clinical progression-free survival at 5 years following the ASTRO Phoenix definition. Secondary endpoints – and these are quite important secondary endpoints – include overall survival, acute and late toxicity, and quality of life. The best part is that this trial met its primary endpoint with a 44% reduction in risk of biochemical or clinical progression or death in the dose-escalation radiotherapy arm compared with the conventional radiotherapy arm. Interestingly, a significant 52% improvement in prostate cancer-specific survival and a 39% improvement in overall survival was observed in the dose-escalated arm. So, 80 Gy continued to be superior to 70 Gy IMRT across the primary and secondary endpoints. Now, the best part is, regarding the toxicity profile, there was no significant difference between the 2 arms, with 78% of patients in the higher dose arm and 76% of patients in the conventional arm experiencing grade 2 or more toxicities.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Great summary and really important, great news for our patients. Of course, it's a slightly different setting as it's high-risk localized prostate cancer. I checked in with our radiation oncologists at the University of Michigan after that [presentation] because I couldn't remember exactly where we are in terms of dose on these patients. And they were like, “Yeah, we've been doing 80 to 90 Gy for several years,” so it's great having this data to support that. And I think, as you said, the field at many centers has already moved that way.

And again, the key takeaway from this abstract would be that IMRT, in combination with long-term androgen deprivation therapy, is effective and safe and increases not only the biochemical or clinical PFS rate, but also the cancer-specific survival and overall survival, again, in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. And it does not appear to increase long-term toxicity. So really important.

It'd be great to switch gears and discuss kidney cancer, if that's okay, and talk about some key abstracts in that field. What do you think?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: There were so many exciting data in all cancers, which is amazing. So, Todd, could tell us about the LBA359, which I thought was one of the most impactful abstract presentations in the ASCO GU this year. It was titled, “Overall Survival Results from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 Study of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Treatment of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC)."

 

Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, this was a really big moment in our field, complete with a mid-presentation round of applause that was well deserved. And so this abstract was presented by Dr. Toni Choueiri from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and it included patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence, meaning that they had positive nodal disease or negative nodal disease with PT 2 and grade 4, or sarcomatoid features, or stage PT 3 or 4. These patients underwent nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy less than 12 weeks before randomization and had not received prior systemic therapy for clear cell RCC. Patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 milligrams or placebo IV every three weeks for at least 17 cycles, or until disease recurrence, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Disease-free survival by investigator assessment was the primary endpoint, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. In this abstract, Dr. Choueiri and colleagues report results of the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months in 496 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 498 patients receiving placebo.

So, just as a reminder to the audience here, the first interim analysis reported at a median follow-up of 24 months and showed a significant reduction of 32% in the risk to recurrence or death in patients in the pembrolizumab arm. Then subsequently in November of 2021, the FDA approved pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of patients with RCC who are at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence following nephrectomy or following nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. At that time, though, overall survival data were still immature. So, at the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months, pembrolizumab showed, for the first time in an adjuvant RCC setting, improved overall survival with a 38% reduction in the risk of death. The estimated OS rate at 48 months was 91.2% with pembrolizumab and 86% with placebo. Furthermore, the OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with metastatic but no evidence of disease, patients with PDL-1 combined positive score less than or greater than or equal to one, and patients with presence or absence of sarcomatoid features. In each of these subgroups, the forest plot looks really impressive. And the DFS benefit was similar to previously reported interim analyses with a hazard ratio of 0.72. Also, no new safety signals with pembrolizumab were observed so just tremendous data.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Todd, for such a great summary of these very important results. So the key message from this abstract, as you said, is that after a median follow-up of around 57 months, which is a long follow-up, adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrates a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival versus placebo in patients with RCC at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery. And this is, by the way, the first phase 3 study to show improved overall survival with any adjuvant therapy in RCC. Basically, this means we should continue to use adjuvant pembrolizumab or at least bring it up in our discussion with our patients who are in a similar situation with high-risk RCC after surgery. So this is great news overall.

Todd, there was another kidney cancer abstract, LBA360, which compared, interestingly, subcutaneous nivolumab with intravenous nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Could you please give us your insight about this abstract?

 

Dr. Todd Morgan: Sure. Really interesting study. Really interesting data that were presented. So as you mentioned, CheckMate 67T was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase three study led by Dr. Saby George and colleagues that evaluated pharmacokinetics and objective response rate non-inferiority of subcutaneous nivolumab versus IV nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC. So patients with measurable disease that progressed during or after 1 to 2 prior systemic regimens and who did not receive a prior immuno-oncology treatment were randomized 1-1 to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab 1200 milligrams every 4 weeks or IV nivolumab 3 milligrams per kilogram every two weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, completion of two years of treatment, or death.

The coprimary pharmacokinetics endpoints for non-inferiority testing were time-average serum concentration over the first 28 days and minimum serum concentration at steady state determined by a population pharmacokinetics analysis. A key secondary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review. So in 248 patients receiving subcutaneous nivolumab and 247 patients receiving IV nivolumab, non-inferiority for the coprimary pharmacokinetics and key-powered secondary objective response rate endpoints were met. The relative risk ratio for objective response rate was 1.33. The median PFS by independent review was 7.23 months in the subcutaneous group and 5.65 months in the IV group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 6.5% of patients in each group, and study drug toxicity led to 3 deaths in the subcutaneous group and 1 death in the IV group. These results could support using subcutaneous nivolumab as a new option to improve healthcare efficiency, especially since the average injection time with subcutaneous nivolumab was less than 5 minutes. I think we all know what issues are going on in infusion beds across the country, including, I'm sure, your center and mine.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, absolutely. I think this is great news for our patients, Todd. Thank you. This shows that we are not only improving therapeutic options and diagnostic tools, but maybe we're also on the right track towards more practical administration routes, assisting in addressing the treatment burden and improving the efficiencies of healthcare systems. We love to have this option available for our patients, especially those who are pressed for time. So, Todd, would you like to move on to bladder cancer now?

 Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, Neeraj, that'll be fantastic. I'm sure listeners would love to hear more about LBA530. Could you tell us more about this one, Neeraj?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. I think this abstract is titled "Enfortumab Vedotin in Combination with Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Subgroup Analysis Results from EV-302," which was a global phase three study and was presented by Dr. Michiel Van Der Heijden. As our audience may recall, the EV-302 trial was presented at the ESMO 2023 meeting by Dr Tom Powles and the results were very exciting where, for the first time, a combination outperformed traditional gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. In this trial, patients with previously untreated with metastatic advanced urothelial carcinoma were randomized 1-1 to receive a 3-week cycle of a combination of enfortumab vedotin, which, as we know, is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 expressed on the cancer cells and pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, versus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin, which were, until recently, the standard of care in this setting, and continue to be so in many countries in the world. The combination of enfortumab and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 55% and reduced the risk of death by 53% in the overall population. So consistent decrease in the hazard ratios for PFS and OS, and consistent improvement in overall survival and PFS in that previously reported presentation in the ESMO 2023.

Now, based on these results, this combination was recently approved by the FDA in December 2023 for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. So now the abstract, which was presented at the ASCO GU 2024 meeting, reported the results of a prespecified subgroup analysis. Select secondary endpoints included objective responses, duration of response, and safety. In 442 patients receiving the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab, and a similar number of patients receiving chemotherapy both PFS and OS were higher for the combination of EV and pembro among prespecified subgroups such as race, platinum eligibility, PDL-1 expression, metastatic site, involvement of the liver or kidney function.

Interestingly, the combination of EV and pembro reduced the risk of death by 53% in patients with visceral metastasis and 54% in patients with node-only metastasis. The improvement in PFS seems to be consistent regardless of the site of metastasis. In patients with moderate to severe renal function, the risk of death was reduced by 50% in patients receiving combination therapy. This is one of the best findings of these results because we always face challenges in treating patients with suboptimal kidney function and we cannot use cisplatin. Overall, EV plus pembro continues to show superior efficacy compared to platinum-based regimens across subgroups across the subgroups across the site of metastasis regardless of kidney function and so on.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, just amazing data. I love hearing you spell it out like that. So, thank you again for the opportunity for me to sit here with you and listen to you talk about these data. It's impressive that we have been able to expand our therapeutic arsenal for urothelial carcinoma with an immune-targeting regimen that can spare our patients potential side effects of chemotherapy. What would your final takeaway on this abstract be?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Todd. I would add that the OS benefit was consistently observed across these select prespecified subgroups, including those historically associated with poor prognosis. The results of this new analysis support the finding of primary results, which indicate that EV plus pembro is a potentially new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Before we wrap up the bladder cancer session and the podcast, Todd, could you please give us insights about LBA531?

Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, absolutely. I loved getting to hear this abstract presented. This one is titled “Ambassador,” known as the AMBASSADOR trial aligns A031501, a phase 3 randomized adjuvant study of pembrolizumab in muscle-invasive and locally advanced urothelial carcinoma versus observation, that was presented by Dr. Andrea Apolo. It's an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial that included patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra. Eligible patients had pathologic tumor stage T2 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or patients with pathologic tumor stage T3 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were cisplatin ineligible or declined adjuvant cisplatin-based therapy. These patients were randomized one to one to either receive pembrolizumab 200 milligrams every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation.

The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PDL-1 positive and negative patients and assessing safety. A total of 354 patients were enrolled to receive pembrolizumab and 348 to the observation arm, and 21% of the patients in the observation arm received a subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months for DFS, the median disease-free survival in the pembrolizumab arm was 29 months, while it was only 14 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.69. At the interim analysis, OS data showed only a trend toward better outcomes in the pembrolizumab arm, which did not, however, reach statistical significance, with a median of 50.9 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 55.8 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.98. These results could nevertheless have been impacted by the subsequent treatment of patients in the observation arm with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, especially after the FDA approval of nivolumab in 2021 for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, based on results of the CheckMate 274 trial. In terms of the safety profile, grade three or more adverse events occurred in 48.4% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 31.8% of patients in the observation arm.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That's great, Todd. This is such a great summary of this trial, and this is exciting news for our patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. I'm hoping that pembrolizumab will be another option for our patients when we are discussing adjuvant immunotherapy in the clinic, moving forward very soon.

With that, we have covered several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, significantly influencing our medical practices, at least at the current moment or in the near future. Todd, thank you for sharing your insights today. These are undoubtedly exciting updates for all members of the GU oncology community, and we are grateful for your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks.

Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks, for having me, Neeraj; this was really fun. I'm just really proud and excited to still be part of this field, to be part of the GU oncology field, and it continues to be exciting for all the folks who are coming up.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Indeed. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much.

 

Disclaimer:

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

 

Find out more about today’s speakers:  

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal

@neerajaiims

 

Dr. Todd Morgan

@wandering_gu

 

Follow ASCO on social media:  

@ASCO on Twitter    

ASCO on Facebook    

ASCO on LinkedIn    

 

Disclosures:   

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:   

Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences   

Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas  

Dr. Todd Morgan:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth, TerumoBCT

Research Funding (Institution): Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defence, GenomeDX Biosciences, Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth

 

Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss several key abstracts to be presented at the 2024 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, including sequencing versus upfront combination therapies for mCRPC in the BRCAAway study, updates on the CheckMate-9ER and CheckMate-214 trials in ccRCC, and a compelling real-world retrospective study in mUC of patients with FGFR2 and FGFR3 mutations.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a genitourinary oncologist and the clinical program director of Genitourinary Cancers at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing key posters and oral abstracts that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancer Symposium, which is celebrating 20 years of evolution in GU oncology this year. 

You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this podcast, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast at asco.org/DNpod. 

Jeanny, it’s great to have you on the podcast today to highlight some key abstracts for our listeners ahead of the GU meeting.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. It’s an honor to be here.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, as you know, this year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, and judging from this year's abstracts, it’s clear that this meeting continues to play a major role in advancing GU cancer research.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Indeed, Neeraj. This year's abstracts reflect the important strides we have made in GU cancers. So, let's start with the prostate cancer abstracts. What is your takeaway from Abstract 19 on BRCAAway, which will be presented by Dr. Maha Hussein, and of which you are a co-author? As our listeners know, several PARP inhibitor combinations with second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, or ARPIs, have recently been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, or metastatic CRPC, and the question of sequencing PARP inhibitors and ARPIs instead of combining them has emerged. From that perspective, the results of the BRCAAway trial are very important. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? 

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree with you, Jeanny. The BRCAAway study attempts to answer the crucial questions regarding sequencing versus upfront combination of therapies in the mCRPC setting. It is a phase 2 trial of abiraterone versus olaparib versus abiraterone with olaparib in patients with mCRPC harboring homologous recombination repair mutations. Enrolled patients had mCRPC disease and no prior exposure to PARP inhibitors or ARPIs or chemotherapy in the mCRPC setting and had BRCA1 or BRCA2 or ATM mutations. As previously mentioned, these patients were randomized to 3 arms: abiraterone monotherapy at 1000 milligrams once daily, or olaparib monotherapy at 300 milligrams twice daily, or the combination of abiraterone and olaparib. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-based criteria or clinical assessment or death, so, whichever occurred first was deemed to be progression.  

Secondary endpoints included measurable disease response rates, PSA response rate, and toxicity. This was a relatively small trial with 21 patients in the combination arm, 19 patients in the abiraterone monotherapy arm, and 21 patients in the olaparib monotherapy arm. It should be noted that 26% of patients had received docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting, and only 3% of patients had any prior exposure to an ARPI, and these were darolutamide or enzalutamide or in the non-metastatic CRPC setting. 

The results are very interesting. The median progression-free survival was 39 months in the combination arm, while it was 8.4 months in the abiraterone arm and 14 months in the olaparib arm. An important finding that I would like to highlight is that crossover was also allowed in the monotherapy arms. Of the 19 patients receiving abiraterone, 8 crossed over to receive olaparib, and of the 21 patients receiving olaparib, 8 crossed over to the abiraterone arm. The median PFS from randomization was 16 months in both groups of patients who received abiraterone followed by olaparib or those who received olaparib followed by abiraterone. This is striking when compared to 39 months in patients who started therapy with the combination therapy of abiraterone with olaparib.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. So the key message from this abstract is that combining olaparib and abiraterone upfront seems to be associated with improvement in PFS compared to just sequencing those agents.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly, Jeanny. I would like to add that these results are even more important given that in real-world practice, only half of the patients with mCRPC receive a second-line treatment. Based on these results, upfront intensification with a combination of an ARPI plus a PARP inhibitor in the first-line mCRPC setting seems to have superior efficacy compared to sequencing of these agents.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, there were a couple of abstracts assessing transperineal biopsy compared to the conventional transrectal biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. So let's start with Abstract 261. Neeraj, can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, in Abstract 261 titled "Randomized Trial of Transperineal versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infection Complications," Dr. Jim Hugh and colleagues led a multicenter randomized trial comparing these 2 approaches, so, transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis with transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis in patients with suspected prostate cancer. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection. Among the 567 participants included in the intention-to-treat analysis, no infection was reported with the transperineal approach, while 4 were detected with the transrectal approach, with a p-value of 0.059. The rates of other complications, such as urinary retention and significant bleeding, were very low and similar in both groups. The investigators also found that detection of clinically significant cancer was similar between the 2 techniques and concluded that the transperineal approach is more likely to reduce the risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: So the key takeaway from this abstract sounds like office-based transperineal biopsy is well-tolerated and does not compromise cancer detection, along with better antibiotic stewardship and health care cost benefits. 

Moving on to Abstract 273, also comparing these two approaches, what would be your key takeaway message, Neeraj? 

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: In this Abstract 273, titled "Difference in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Detection between Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches," Dr. Semko and colleagues found that the transperineal biopsy based on MRI fusion techniques was also characterized by a higher possibility of detecting high-risk prostate cancer and other risk factors as well, such as perineural and lymphovascular invasion or the presence of cribriform pattern, compared to the conventional transrectal method.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So we can see that the transperineal approach is gaining more importance and could be associated with more benefits compared to the conventional methods.  

Let's now switch gears to kidney cancer, Neeraj.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. Let's start by highlighting Abstract 361, which discusses patient-reported outcomes of the LITESPARK-005 study. So what can you tell us about this abstract, Jeanny? 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So as a reminder to our listeners, based on the LITESPARK-005 trial, it was a Phase 3 trial looking at belzutifan, which is an inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor 2 alpha or I’ll just call HIF-2 alpha for short, was very recently approved by the FDA as a second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma after prior progression on immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. The title of Abstract 361 is "Belzutifan versus Everolimus in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced RCC: Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Phase 3 LITESPARK-005 Study," and this will be presented by Dr. Tom Pells at the meeting. At a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median duration of treatment with belzutifan was 7.6 months, while it was only 3.9 months with everolimus. At the time of data cutoff date for the second interim analysis, 22.6% of patients remained on belzutifan while only 5% remained on everolimus. In the quality of life questionnaires, the time of deterioration to various quality of life scores, as assessed by standardized scales, was significantly longer in patients randomized to the belzutifan arm compared to those in the everolimus arm. Also, patients in the everolimus arm had worse physical functioning scores.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Jeanny. In addition to the improved outcomes associated with belzutifan, patient-reported outcomes indicate better disease-specific symptoms and better quality of life among patients treated with belzutifan compared to everolimus. This is great news for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. 

Now, Jeanny, can you please tell us about the two abstracts that reported longer follow-up of CheckMate 9ER and CheckMate 214 trials in untreated patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma?

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. So you are referring to Abstracts 362 and 363. Let's start with Abstract 362. This abstract reports the results after a median follow-up of 55 months in the CheckMate 9ER trial, comparing the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib to sunitinib in patients with advanced RCC without any prior treatment, so first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by an independent central review. So there were key secondary outcomes including overall survival (OS), objective response rates, and safety. Consistent with prior analysis at a median follow-up time of 18.1 and 44 months, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib at a median follow up of 55.6 months continues to show a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death by 42% and in the risk of death by 23% compared to sunitinib. 

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: And Jeanny, what can you tell us about the efficacy results of this combination by IMDC risk categories?

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Similar to prior results in patients with intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk category, the combination treatment maintained significant efficacy and reduced the risk of progression or death by 44% and the risk of death by 27%. To put it simply, the update now shows a 15-month improvement in overall survival with the cabozantinib-nivolumab combination compared to sunitinib, which is amazing. Also, in patients with favorable IMDC risk group, which represented truly a small number of patients in the trial, there was a strong trend for improvement of outcomes as well. I would like to point out that no new safety concerns were identified.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, it looks like the key message from this abstract is that with longer follow-up, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib maintains a meaningful long-term efficacy benefit over sunitinib, supporting its use for newly diagnosed patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.  

Let's move on to Abstract 363, which compares nivolumab with ipilimumab to sunitinib in first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. What would you like to tell us about this abstract, Jeanny?

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. The title of this abstract is "Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced RCC: Long-Term Follow-Up Data from the Phase 3 CheckMate 214 Trial." In this abstract, Dr. Tannir and colleagues report outcomes with the longest median follow-up in first-line advanced RCC setting for any clinical trial. So the median follow-up now is about 18 months. The primary endpoints were OS, PFS, and objective response rates, as assessed by an independent review according to RECIST 1.1 criteria in the intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk group, which is the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, while secondary outcomes included the same outcomes in the ITT population of patients. Although the progression-free survival was similar in both arms, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab reduced the risk of death by 28% compared to sunitinib in the ITT population of patients. When stratifying the results by IMDC risk groups, the combination arm of nivolumab-ipilimumab showed significant improvement in the intermediate to poor risk group, but there was no difference in the favorable risk group. But in the study, no new safety signals were identified.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny, for such a comprehensive description of the results of these two studies. I'd like to add that the median overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the ITT population in the CheckMate 214 trial has now reached 53 months, which would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. This is wonderful news for our patients. So the key takeaway from these two abstracts would be that immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations remain the backbone of first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment. 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. This is wonderful news for all of our patients, especially for those who are being treated for first-line therapy. 

Now, let's move on to the bladder cancer abstracts. We have two exciting abstracts from the UNITE database. What are your insights on Abstract 537, titled "Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Urethral Carcinoma Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin After Switch-Maintenance of Avelumab in the UNITE Study"?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: As our listeners know, enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that binds to a protein called Nectin 4 expressed on bladder cancer cells. In this abstract, Dr. Amanda Nizam and colleagues describe outcomes in 49 patients receiving third-line enfortumab vedotin after prior progression on platinum-based therapy and maintenance avelumab. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 7 months and the median overall survival was 13.3 months with enfortumab vedotin in this treatment-refractory setting, the objective response rates were 54%. The message of this study is that enfortumab vedotin is an effective salvage therapy regimen for those patients who have already progressed on earlier lines of therapies, including platinum-based and immunotherapy regimens.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj, for that comprehensive review. 

I want to focus on another patient population in the UNITE database, which is the use of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations. Can you tell us more about the sequencing now of erdafitinib and enfortumab vedotin in these patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, as discussed in Abstract 616?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. As a reminder, erdafitinib is a fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of therapies in these patients is unclear, especially with enfortumab vedotin being approved in the salvage therapy setting and now in the frontline therapy setting. 

So in this retrospective study, all patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma had FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations. Dr. Cindy Jiang and colleagues report outcomes in 24 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin after erdafitinib, 15 patients receiving erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, and 55 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin only. This is a multicenter national study. Interestingly, patients receiving both agents had a longer overall survival in a multivariate analysis, regardless of the treatment sequencing, than patients receiving enfortumab vedotin alone or only with a hazard ratio of 0.52. The objective response rate of enfortumab vedotin in the enfortumab vedotin monotherapy arm was 49%. When these agents were sequenced, the objective response with enfortumab vedotin was 32% after erdafitinib and 67% when used before erdafitinib.

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I think these are important real-world data results, but I would like to point out that larger and prospective studies are still needed to confirm these findings, especially regarding the outcome of erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, particularly when the latter is used in the first-line setting.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree, Jeanny. Now, let's discuss some abstracts related to disparities in the management of patients with genitourinary cancers. 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, actually, I would like to discuss 2 abstracts related to disparities in patients with prostate cancer. So the first one, Abstract 265, titled "Patient-Provider Rurality and Outcomes in Older Men with Prostate Cancer." In this study, Dr. Stabellini, Dr. Guha and the team used a SEER Medicare-linked database that included more than 75,000 patients with prostate cancer. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes included prostate cancer-specific mortality. The investigators showed that the all-cause mortality risk was 44% higher in patients with prostate cancer from rural areas who had a provider from a non-metropolitan area compared to those who were in a metropolitan area and had a provider also from a metropolitan area.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Those are very important data and highlight the healthcare disparities among the rural population with prostate cancer that still exist. 

So what is your key takeaway from Abstract 267, titled "Rural-Urban Disparities in Prostate Cancer Survival," which is a population-based study?

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Of course. This abstract discusses, actually, a very similar issue regarding access to healthcare among rural versus urban patients. In this study, Dr. Hu and Hashibe and colleagues and team at the Huntsman Cancer Institute assessed all-cause death and prostate cancer-related death risk in a retrospective study in which patients with prostate cancer based on rural versus urban residencies looked at 18,000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017. 15% lived in rural counties. Similar to the prior abstract we talked about, patients living in rural areas had about a 19% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 21% higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality in comparison to patients living in urban areas.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So Jeanny, we can say that both of these abstracts, led by different groups of investigators, highlight that patients with prostate cancer living in rural areas have inferior survival outcomes compared to those living in urban areas, and it is time to focus on the disparities experienced by the rural population with prostate cancer. 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely Neeraj. I concur with your thoughts. 

So, any final thoughts before we wrap up the podcast today?

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, before concluding, Jeanny, I want to express my gratitude for your participation and the valuable insights you have shared today. Your contributions are always appreciated, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to join us today.  

As we bring this podcast to a close, I would like to highlight the significant advances happening in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers during our upcoming 2024 ASCO GU meeting. Many studies featuring practice-impacting data will be presented by investigators from around the globe. I encourage our listeners to not only participate at this event to celebrate these achievements, but to also play a role in disseminating these cutting-edge findings to practitioners worldwide. By doing so, we can collectively maximize the benefit for patients around the world. 

And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much. 

Disclaimer:

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

Find out more about today’s speakers:  

 

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal 

@neerajaiims 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching 

 

Follow ASCO on social media:  

 

@ASCO on Twitter    

ASCO on Facebook    

ASCO on LinkedIn    

 

Disclosures:   

 

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:    

 

Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences   

Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas  

 

Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: 

 

Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono 

Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,  

Speakers’ Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics. 

Drs. Eric Small, Anthony Zietman, and Eric Klein share their reflections as founders of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and discuss key moments in the Meeting’s development, its role in advancing GU cancer research, and major challenges ahead for the field as the Symposium celebrates its 20-year anniversary.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Eric Small: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Eric Small, your guest host of this ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the co-leader of the UCSF Prostate Cancer Program and deputy director and chief scientific officer at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

This year, quite amazingly, we're celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, which is hosted annually in San Francisco. The Symposium has heralded some of the biggest strides in GU oncology and has the largest multidisciplinary, global audience for GU cancer research.

I was honored to have a role in the development of ASCO GU two decades ago, along with my friends and colleagues, Dr. Eric Klein, emeritus professor and chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. And Dr. Anthony Zietman, a professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts General Hospital.

On today's episode, we'll be reflecting on key moments in the meeting's development, its role in advancing GU cancers and GU cancer research, and major challenges that lay ahead for the field. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Eric and Anthony, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to catch up with you both to discuss ASCO GU, thank you for coming on the podcast today.

Dr. Eric Klein: Thanks for having us.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: Thanks for the invitation.

Dr. Eric Small: Well, it's really exciting and it's wonderful to see the two of you. So, the ASCO GU Symposium has been a key annual event for all of us in the GU field. But to give our listeners some background, when the Symposium was first created, when we first met in San Francisco, starting on Thursday, February 17, 2005, it brought together 1,035 individuals interested in the prevention and treatment at that point of prostate cancer alone.

At that time, the meeting was co-sponsored by ASCO, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology or ASTRO, the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. It was actually the culmination of several years of planning. Clearly, it represented the first truly multidisciplinary scientific and educational meeting dedicated solely to prostate cancer, and we'll come back to talk about that.

The meeting went back and forth between San Francisco and Florida for a few years before finally, settling permanently in San Francisco. In the last 20 years, ASCO and the Symposium's co-sponsors expanded the meeting to include all genitourinary specialties. This year, ASCO received more than 875 abstract submissions and anticipates that there will be even more attendees than last year.

On a personal note, it's truly amazing to me that here we are, 20 years later, and the meeting is going stronger than we could ever have imagined. I must say that my motivation to help organize this meeting stem from two issues that were somewhat in tension with each other.

First, the field of prostate cancer and prostate cancer research was just starting to take off at the time, and we really needed, as a community, a venue where across disciplines, we could talk and meet with each other. But that was in real tension, at least at ASCO, where we were relegated at the Annual Meeting to a tiny room at the far end of the convention center on the last day of ASCO, because really, that's all we could muster.

And I do remember making a pitch, assuring folks that there was an unmet need, and that the field was going to take off, who knew? So, I'm wondering, and either of you can jump in (Dr. Klein, Dr. Zietman), tell us how you got involved in the first GU meeting, and what's the most salient feature of your involvement? Anthony, do you want to start?

Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think it's really important to discuss the historical context at which this meeting was born. Back in the 1990s, we were incredibly polarized as specialties in GU oncology. PSA had been introduced in the late '80s, early '90s, screening was everywhere. There was a tidal wave of patients and an almost reckless race to treatment.

All surgeons believed that all patients with localized early prostate cancer needed surgery and that they could do individually, a beautiful job. And all radiation oncologists believed that they could deliver morbidity-free treatment and could do it to everyone regardless of your age or stage.

And there were a few, there were a few who thought maybe we didn't need to screen everyone, and maybe there was a little bit of overtreatment, maybe we've gone a little bit too far, but those voices were really suppressed in the '90s. Those voices didn't have a voice.

Many of us also believed there was more morbidity to our treatment than we'd appreciated. And that was the media in which, us three, all young research physicians, probably all in our low forties were given the charge of this meeting. And the thing I most remember about it in the planning, is that we actually decided collectively to give voice to everyone, including maverick voices.

It wasn't just about the party line, and it wasn't just about the North American line, there were Britts and there were Swedes, and there were Dutchmen who had very important things to say as well, and very, very different perspectives. And we also chose to give voice to young people as well as just our party elders, so to speak.

I don't know which of us, if any of us, or maybe it was our society suggested but we do it all in a single room such that rad oncs and surgeons were all together, and it led to a kind of forced truthfulness, which started to break down this groupthink that we developed in our own silo.

So, when I look back, I think that that context was very important and that what we sought as young program chairs was we sort of tapped in something that was latent in our field. Eric KIein, I don't know if you remember things as I did.

Dr. Eric Klein: I do. And things were very siloed then. We had hired early in the mid-90s, I think, a young radiation oncologist named Pat Kupelian, who became a close collaborator and a good friend, and who really changed the narrative around treating prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, which was all surgical prior to that time. And he did such high-quality work, it was hard not to pay attention. And he actually took it on himself in his early years when he wasn't very busy to sit down and go through all the patients that we had treated with prostate cancer at the Cleveland Clinic, radiation versus surgery, and had the temerity to write a manuscript that showed that there was no difference in survival, based on PSA biochemical recurrence and metastasis and that sort of thing.

And that was sort of game changing. And it really clued me into the fact that for patient's sake, we needed to be talking to our colleagues. The second perspective was from the perspective of having attended a couple of Prostate Cancer Foundation meetings. And I think they really deserve credit for increasing the visibility of prostate cancer research, and funding it and recruiting really good scientists from other disciplines.

When young scientists were told, and we heard this repeatedly, "Don't spend your career researching prostate cancer, it's a dead end." And PCF did a great job of having a multidisciplinary meeting, which was smaller and not so clinically focused, but also got me excited.

Dr. Eric Small: I think you're right, Eric. And I think that the transdisciplinary nature, as Anthony pointed out was new, it was innovative. No one had really, really thought about it. It was at the margins in different meetings. Your comments about PCF, Prostate Cancer Foundation, resonate because we did take a page from their book in many ways although that meeting, as you point out, is much more basic research-focused.

I don't know if you guys recall that first year, in fact, PCF was a co-sponsor. We actually had asked Mike Milken to give a talk and he did. And obviously, once we expanded to the broader GU cancers, it was less pertinent for PCF to be involved. But absolutely, I agree with you, Eric, they deserve credit.

PCF, and the PCF involvement, was one of the things that changed. There's many things that are constant that haven't changed, even though the science clearly has evolved dramatically. And I'm wondering if you guys can comment on things that are the same.

One thing that stands out for me: I had the opportunity to look through the agenda for the 2005 meeting. And right there, very prominently, was a special lunch session that we had designed for mentorship and career development for trainees and early career investigators, and that's still ongoing and others have modeled it. And I think that was one amazing feature of this.

One of you, I think Anthony mentioned that we invited a lot of young people to speak and to be the path blazers, but we also did this career development piece, and it was a wonderful event. I wonder if either of you or both of you could comment on other things that you think are constants and you anticipate will always be there.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: I think to me that constant is that every time I go, I hear speakers I've not heard before. Often very senior speakers, I've never heard them before. But it is the practice of GU ASCO to invite people that are outside your sphere of experience, which is very challenging.

Dr. Eric Klein: Two things strike me. I think one is the international nature of the faculty. We tried very hard (and subsequent program directors have) to be very inclusive and to bring the work that was the most cutting-edge to the stage. There are lots of things that are done in Europe that started there sooner. PSMA treatment, for example, and many other ProtecT trial and many other things.

And the debates on stage and how that gave the opportunity for every subspecialty to have the opportunity to share its perspective on particular case management issues and case management conferences, I think have been around forever. And maybe, the most valuable part of it all is to hear people's perspective on how to manage a particular patient.

Dr. Eric Small: I think the other comment you made Anthony that resonated and still goes on, was it was a conscious decision to have a single session in one room where everyone attended. And not to do the usual small breakouts and concurrent sessions, but sort of the philosophy being, is we all need to hear the same thing, we all need to be in the same room at the same time. And it really fostered this transdisciplinary approach; it was truly educational for us. Now, it's sort of part of what we do, and part of what our patients expect of us. I think that bringing us all together into one room was really great.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: But it's now so part of what we do, but it's difficult certainly for younger faculty and for residents to believe we ever did it any other way. But we did, and I don't know whether ASCO GU led that or reflected that, but that was the zeitgeist among young individuals like us. And it's really become the culture of contemporary practice.

Dr. Eric Small: So, given that that's the culture now, which it is, and I think sure, we should take credit for it, at least in GU: why then is it important for people to continue to attend GU ASCO today if it's now our culture to do that?

Dr. Anthony Zietman: For me, it's because we share information as equal partners in a multidisciplinary team. And our practice is so multidisciplinary and multi-modality these days that we can't exist alone, we no longer try to.

Dr. Eric Klein: Nor can we. The amount of knowledge that's being generated in each subspecialty and it's spinoffs is so great. It's impossible for a busy surgeon to stay on top of that. And this is sort of one-stop shopping for everything that's really current and appropriate to know about.

And again, I always look at these things from the patient perspective, and my ability to counsel patients about what their best treatment options might be, I thought more and more dependent, and I think today more and more depends on being knowledgeable about everything that's going on, and not just one narrow field that you happen to be an expert in. And that's why I think it's so important for youngsters to attend and even oldsters like us to attend to stay current.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: Yeah, and also, multidisciplinary means so much more these days. It does mean oncologists and radiologists, information technologists. I mean, who knows what it'll mean in the future, but it's always expanding.

Dr. Eric Small: And I think it's interesting, back when we did this, when we started it, we were worried about being able to fill one meeting with prostate cancer information - we did easily. It was not immediately clear that there was a role or room for additional GU cancers. And then there was an explosion both in kidney cancer work at first, and then bladder cancer. And now it's unbelievable how much is there. And perhaps, this meeting needs to be twice as long.

So, I agree with you guys. I think that it's the best way to stay current. The other thing that I really appreciate about this meeting and others have a hard time doing it, is that it provides, as Eric indicated, for the busy clinician. It integrates sort of the important information that's coming in terms of more basic science and makes it readily available and digestible, which isn't always the case at pure science meetings and may or may not be apparent in other meetings.

I, again, was looking at the preliminary agenda in 2005, we had asked Bill Nelson to talk about molecular targets or prevention, how forward-thinking. And that's continued to be the case that this is a meeting where you get that integration from the laboratory.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: Well, and I would add to that, not just the integration of it, it's where now you get to hear things first. I mean, it used to be that, you went the AUA or ASTRO or ASCO to hear things. Now, everyone one wants to present it first at GU ASCO.

Dr. Eric Klein: Yes, that's correct.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I think we actually made it permissible in the early days that you could present at GU ASCO and at your specialty meeting.

Dr. Eric Small: What are the challenges in the field that are going to likely shape the content of future meetings? And we've all alluded to the fact that the meeting is evolving and has done a really good job of staying current with the clinical science. But beyond that, what do you two feel are important areas that this meeting is likely to continue to address?

Dr. Eric Klein: So, biomarker development has always been an important part of this meeting, and I think we need to broaden our view of what biomarkers are now, and in the AI era, digital pathology and AI-based models that predict treatment response and outcome. My hope is that they will be studied in a rigorous fashion, and that they will end up outperforming the kind of single biomarker approach that we've used in the past.

And we need to understand that; we need to understand the science behind AI to a certain level, and we need to understand what questions AI can address, and how that might be useful. But I'm particularly excited about digital pathology where sampling error becomes less of an issue and the number of potential inputs you're looking at that are related to the output should increase exponentially.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: And I would add on the AI side of things, as a former journal editor, when AI papers came into the journal, we actually didn't have enough people who could review them, who had the understanding to review these papers and tell us, "Is this a good paper or a bad paper?"

So, we're going to need to increase our understanding of AI, Eric, as you said. So, I think that will be a push in the years to come. Also, on a very practical level, it is such a popular meeting, keeping us all under one roof and in one room, will become just difficult. But it's part of the culture of the meeting, and I think it's what people want.

Dr. Eric Small: It's a good challenge to have.

Dr. Eric Klein: Feeding everybody too. I recall one constant has always been really good breakfasts and lunches.

Dr. Eric Small: Right, that has been a standard of ours. One of the interesting things that I think has changed, we saw glimmers of it back in 2005, but it was early on and it was, I think very early on in sort of a good understanding of social determinants of health and equitable access to healthcare and the challenges posed by incredible technology development and making sure that that doesn't increase disparities. And I think that that focus has increasingly been present in meetings and is not going to be lost. And it also speaks, one of you spoke to our international audience, that increasingly, I think this meeting is going to address urologic oncology and how we address it not only in developed countries, but in lower- and middle-income countries. And I think that will be a focus as well.

I'm excited with what the future holds for ASCO GU. It has been an incredible run. I'm hoping that we'll be able to perhaps catalog some of the salient presentations that have been done at this meeting over the years, but there's no question as both of you have pointed out, this has become the venue.

Well, thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Really wonderful to see you both and talk with you.

Dr. Eric Klein: Great to be here. Thanks.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: Great to be here. Looking forward to the next 20 years.

Dr. Eric Small: That's right.

Dr. Anthony Zietman: If I'm still around.

Dr. Eric Klein: Yeah, let's do this again in 20 years. That'd be great.

Dr. Eric Small: We will. And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you.

Disclaimer:

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

Follow today’s speakers:  

Dr. Eric Small

Dr. Eric Klein

@EricKleinMD

Dr. Anthony Zietman

 

Follow ASCO on social media:   

@ASCO on Twitter   

ASCO on Facebook   

ASCO on LinkedIn   

 

Disclosures:  

 

Dr. Eric Small:

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Fortis, Harpoon Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics

Honoraria: Janssen

Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Teon Therapeutics, Fortis

 

Dr. Anthony Zietman:

Leadership: Elsevier

 

Dr. Eric Klein:
No relationships to disclose

Drs. John Sweetenham and Fred Locke discuss the FDA investigation on the risk of cancer from CAR T-cell therapy and share insights on the known number of cases and the potential implications on clinical research and patient care.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I’m Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. CAR T-cell therapies have been game changers for treating certain cancers including lymphomas and leukemias, as well as multiple myeloma, since the vast majority of patients who have received CAR-T do not have other curative options with conventional non-cellular, anti-cancer therapies.

But on November 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it is investigating whether CAR T-cell therapy can, in rare cases, cause secondary cancers. The FDA launched the probe after receiving reports from clinical trials and other data sources of T-cell malignancies in patients who received CAR T-cell immunotherapies.

Joining me to discuss the investigation and its implications for the field is Dr. Fred Locke, a medical oncologist and translational researcher and a senior member and chair in the Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida.

Dr. Locke is an internationally renowned clinical research leader in the field of CAR T-cell therapy. You'll find our disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on podcasts are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Fred, it’s great to have you on the podcast today.

Dr. Fred Locke: Thanks, John, I’m really glad to be here.

Dr. John Sweetenham: So, T-cells are the backbone of CAR T-cell therapies, and there are currently 6 CAR-T products approved by the FDA. As our listeners will know, CAR T-cell therapies manipulate a patient's T-cells, enabling them to recognize and attack antigens on cancer cells and induce potential long-standing changes in the immune system.

In its statement on November 28, the FDA said it determined that the risk of T-cell malignancies is applicable to all of the currently approved BCMA- and CD19-directed, genetically modified, autologous CAR T-cell immunotherapies. Fred, could you comment for us on the investigation: How many patients are reported to have developed second malignancies from CAR T-cell therapy, and whether there are likely to be more secondary cancers reported?

Dr. Fred Locke: Yes, so the FDA and the reports are coming out that there are 19 cases of T-cell malignancy that we're aware of that have occurred after the current FDA-approved CAR T-cell therapies were administered for the treatment of leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma. The majority of those cases were reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. And we don't know a lot of details of those 19 cases.

We think that there's probably about 13,000 to 14,000 patients who've been treated with the commercial CAR T-cell therapies. So if you kind of do some crude math, you can come up with 19 out of say, 13,500; we're at about 0.1% of patients who could have developed T-cell lymphoma after treatment with these CAR T-cell therapies. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that T-cell lymphoma could develop from gene-modified T-cells, and these are all the patient's own T-cells that have been modified outside of the body. But I would still posit that this is a really low incidence of T-cell lymphomas in these patients who really are without other great treatment options.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, and I think that's a point that we'll return to a little bit later on in the conversation around the fact that you know, clearly, there are major benefits that have been associated with CAR T-cell therapy and hematologic malignancies so far. And of course over the years, I think that many of us have become familiar with and learned a great deal about how to manage some of the more serious side effects of CAR T-cell therapy. And you, of course, have led several pivotal national trials of anti-CD19 CAR-Ts for lymphoma.

Can you comment at all on whether you've seen previous data from your own practice or others on the risk of second malignancy from CAR T-cell therapy? And can you share your insights on the data and any new emerging data that warrants our attention for the concern or risk of second malignancy? And I guess to round up that series of questions, is there anything currently in yours or others research into CAR-T to explain what's happening and why this is going on?

Dr. Fred Locke: I think what may have prompted the FDA’s announcement of this is that on the same date that they came out with announcing their investigation, there was the release of the abstracts for the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting. And within those abstracts, and unfortunately it was not selected for poster or oral abstract presentation, but discovered within those abstracts was one on a CAR+ T-cell lymphoma after ciltacabtagene autoleucel therapy for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma.

And what these investigators and the company were reporting is that a patient with refractory multiple myeloma received the cilta-cel BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy and developed a stringent complete response, and about 5 months later developed a nasal facial plaque and PET+ cervical lymph nodes. And both the lymph nodes and the plaque were biopsied and showed a T-cell lymphoma in which 90% to 100% of the cells were positive by qPCR for the CAR construct and immunohistochemistry for the CAR protein. So this was a T-cell lymphoma growth where the cells were expressing the inserted protein, the chimeric antigen receptor protein, which is obviously not natural.

And when they looked a little bit deeper at these patients, 91% of the cells have the same T-cell receptor sequence. So this was really a clonal sort of process. They did CAR integration analysis to see how the insertion of the CAR, the chimeric antigen receptor gene, could have potentially disrupted a gene within the T-cells. And what they found is that there were some dominant sort of insertions within certain genes suggesting monoclonality, but it wasn't within any sort of obvious activating genes that would be expected to lead to the T-cell lymphoma.

They went on and did some additional analysis, and they showed that there was some existing TET2 mutations in the T-cells of this patient, prior to probably prior to the CAR T-cell manufacturer, and they weren't associated with clonal insertion. And I think, you know, it's possible that this patient who had a pre-existing mutation may have been susceptible to the development of a T-cell lymphoma prior to the CAR T-cell treatment. And TET2 was previously shown a number of years ago in a CLL patient treated with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy; it was shown that there was insertional mutagenesis, silencing the TET2 gene, and that associated with clonal expansion of the CAR T-cells in that patient and corresponded with remission of the CLL. However, the difference here is that that patient's T-cell clone went back down and contracted, and the patient remained in remission 5 years later with their T-cells still in the blood, but the minority of those T-cells had that that TET2 mutational insertional mutagenesis.

All this is something we thought was theoretically possible, that T-cell lymphoma could develop after car T-cell therapy. And in fact, a prior trial using a different method of delivery of a CAR gene; instead of using a virus to insert the car into the into the T-cells, a transposon system called piggyBac was used. And in that trial, again, CD19 CAR trial, but in this case, it was allogeneic donor cells for patients who had relapsed after an allogeneic transplant. So it's sort of an autologous, you know, analogy, but it's using the donor cells. And in that trial, 2 out of like 10 patients developed clonal T-cell lymphoma, which was CAR+, but they weren't able to identify a clear insertional mutagenesis event in those cases. So, we've known this is possible, and it would have been great if this poster or if this abstract at ASH was presented as an oral or a poster so we could get more detail, but it's possible that that's the likely reason for the FDA’s announcement.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks. The bottom line, I guess, is that for now, the jury's still out on exactly what's underlying these observations, but something which I'm sure is going to be the subject of a lot of discussion during the ASH meeting this year and moving forward.

I'd like to inform our listeners that ASCO released a statement on the FDA investigation, stating that the risk of T-cell malignancies due to CAR T-cell therapy appears to be very low. And we've just heard from Dr. Locke that, of the several thousand patients who've received CAR Ts, there are 19 cases so far, it's been reported, which puts us into some type of proportion.

The ASCO statement goes on to say that based on available data, and while such malignancies have occurred in patients who have received CAR T-cell therapy, the causal relationship, whether these cases are spontaneous or are caused by the therapy, needs to be investigated further, and we've just heard a little about the detail of that.

ASCO added that by issuing a warning but not revoking approval of these therapies, the FDA clearly believes that the current available evidence suggests the overall benefits of these products, used within their approved label, continue to outweigh the potential risks.

So Fred, the risk of secondary malignancies is already included as a class warning in the U.S. prescribing information for these CAR T-cell therapies. But do you think that the CAR-T products could eventually be taken off the market, and how would your research be impacted if this were to happen? And maybe finally, how long will patients on CAR T-cell therapy need to be monitored moving forward?

Dr. Fred Locke: I don't believe that CAR T-cell therapy will be taken off the market. As we've already talked about, the incidence is extraordinarily low and the causality is unclear. It would certainly impact my research, as I'm doing clinical trials with CAR T-cell therapies, but it would more importantly impact the way we treat patients. We did over 300 CAR T-cell therapy treatments last year here at Moffitt Cancer Center. We're one of the busiest programs in the world giving CAR T-cell therapy, and it is truly a transformative therapy for all the diseases that we administer these FDA-approved therapies for. For example, in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, we participated in the ZUMA-7 clinical trial and recently reported that patients randomized to CAR T-cell therapy had improved overall survival. They were living longer than patients randomized in the second-line setting to get conventional chemotherapy and autologous transplant.

This is clearly a therapy that can work. I would also add that the risk of secondary malignancies is real, but that's a risk for all cancer patients, particularly patients with hematologic malignancies, and for example, lymphoma patients who've gotten an autologous stem cell transplant are at a relatively high lifetime risk of developing a secondary myeloid malignancy, most commonly, treatment-related MDS or AML. And that risk is also present after CAR T-cell therapy. The degree of attribution of CAR-T versus the condition of chemotherapy for CAR-T versus the previous chemotherapy is all unclear, and more analysis needs to be done. But the risk of developing treatment-related MDS or leukemia is certainly higher than the small number of T-cell lymphomas reported.

The other thing I want to point out is that there was an analysis of the SEER database that patients with B-cell lymphomas are at about a 5-fold higher risk of developing a T-cell lymphoma than the otherwise healthy population; and vice versa, by the way, T-cell lymphoma patients are at risk for developing B cell lymphoma. And in fact, in that SEER database, it's not a wildly different percentage chance of developing a T-cell lymphoma after a B-cell lymphoma. And this data came out before the advent of CAR T-cell therapy. So I really think we need more science to be done to understand what's happening for these patients.

Will this impact the field? Well, certainly, there are treatments that are not CAR T-cell therapy that compete with CAR T-cell therapy or could; I'm a strong believer that they don't offer the same outcomes for patients, but we will certainly see people talking about this for some time. Then the other place where this could be relevant, I think, is as we look at CAR T-cell therapy for autoimmune disorders, and we're starting to see studies of that for lupus and other diseases, the risk to benefit ratio could be different in those cases. So this is something we really need to consider as we move forward with CAR T- cell therapy.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks, Fred. And as a major clinical investigator in the field of CAR-T at the moment, do you see any potential concerns about difficulties in getting patients onto the trials of CAR T-cell in the light of this information?

Dr. Fred Locke: No, I really don't. We're not seeing hesitancy, at least in the patients who are referred in for CAR T-cell therapy. Again, it may give ammunition for those who are already predisposed to not refer patients in for CAR T-cell therapy, but I don't think it should. I think that these are low risks, and these therapies clearly have benefits to patients. And we should give their patients an opportunity to get these therapies, and I don't see it impacting our clinical trials at this point.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, and your comments address what was going to be my final question to you and that is, as a referring oncologist, how would you advise a referring oncologist to talk with their patients about these data and their implications moving forward?

Dr. Fred Locke: If the patient brings it up, I think the response should be that these are very few cases of very low incidence and very low risk. There are other risks to CAR T-cell therapy that are greater, and really speaking with a cell therapist who administers the treatment is probably the best way to give the patient the option to get CAR T-cell therapy if they want to, knowing all the risks and benefits. So, I would leave it up to the CAR-T treatment center to discuss those risks with the patient.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, thanks, Fred, for sharing your insights with us on these concerning developments in CAR T-cell therapy, and I think also for putting them into context in terms of the sort of magnitude of this problem in the context of the overall number of patients who are benefiting from this therapy right now. We truly appreciate your time, and thanks for sharing your thoughts with our listeners.

Dr. Fred Locke: Thanks, John, my pleasure.

Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights you hear on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Disclaimer: 

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

 

Find out more about today’s speakers:   

 

Dr. John Sweetenham

Dr. Fred Locke

@DrFredLocke

   

Follow ASCO on social media:    

   

@ASCO on Twitter    

ASCO on Facebook    

ASCO on LinkedIn    

   

Disclosures:   

   

Dr. John Sweetenham:   

Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  

 

Dr. Fred Locke:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Celgene, Calibr, Allogene, Gerson Lehrman Group, EcoR1, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Legend Biotech, Cowen, Kite (Gilean), Umoja Biopharma, Takeda, Sana Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, A2 Biotherapeutics, Mittenyi Biotec, Caribou Biosciences, Takeda, Umoja Biopharma

Research Funding: Kite Pharma, Allogene, Novartis, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Calgene

Patients, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Double Mutant Survivin Vaccine. US010414810B2

CAR T Cells with Enhanced Metabolic Fitness; Serial Number: 62/939,727

Methods of Enhancing CAR T Cell Therapies. Serial Number: 62/892,292.

Evolutionary Dynamics of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma CAR-T cell therapy.  Serial Number: 62/879,534.

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Kite Pharma, A2 Biotherapeutics

Drs. John Sweetenham and Lawrence Shulman discuss the challenges that oncologists will be confronting in 2024 and share insights on how to build clinician resilience and optimize the oncology workforce to provide better, safer care for patients with cancer.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm thrilled to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Larry Shulman, to the podcast today.

Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine, associate director of special projects, and the director of the Center for Global Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. Dr. Shulman is also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer, and also serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

His acclaimed research has led to the development of models of clinical care to improve the patient experience and quality of care in the United States and internationally. His activities have also included innovations in health information technology, cancer survivorship care, and some other related areas.

Today, Dr. Shulman will be sharing his valuable insights on some of the growing complexities and challenges that we'll be grappling with in oncology in 2024 and beyond, and potential solutions to address these issues.

You'll find our four disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcasts are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Larry, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thank you so much, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: To start with Larry, as you know, the growth in the number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the U.S. is greatly outpacing the number of clinicians available to care for them.

The American Association for Cancer Research, for example, estimates that there will be nearly 2 million new cancer cases in the U.S. alone this year and that the number will increase significantly in the years to come. The number of cancer survivors in total in the U.S. is predicted to grow to around 20.3 million by 2026.

So, the question our community has been grappling with for some time now is: “How do we confront these realities and provide optimal care for patients, while at the same time building the resilience of the clinicians who need to care for them?”

This is an area I know that you've focused on for a long time and you've published several papers in recent years as well as the great work that you've done as co-chair of the National Cancer Policy Forum workshop on the oncology workforce. Can you share your insights into some of these challenges?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. Thank you very much. As you mentioned, the number of oncologists in this country is pretty stable. There's consistent but relatively low number entering the workforce and those of us who were really in the first wave of oncologists in the 1970s are beginning to retire.

A number of years ago we thought, well, we need to figure out ways to recruit more medical students and trainees into the field of oncology, but that's clearly not going to happen.

And as you also mentioned, the number of cancer patients is rapidly increasing in this country, partly because of the aging population and partly because frankly we're better at treating them. The cure rates are better, and the number of survivors is going up.

So, the math is pretty straightforward. We have a relatively stable number of oncology providers trying to care for a rapidly increasing number of patients and that's just not going to change.

So, we need to have plan B; we need to figure out how we can better meet the needs in this country. And I think all of us who practice are feeling the strain of trying to take care of these increasing number of patients.

I think there are a few things that are contributing to this as well. One—the good news is we have lots of new therapies, we have lots of genomics, which are leading us to better tailor therapies for our patients.

But this is all complicated and it's a lot for us all to learn and keep abreast of and to manage on a day-to-day basis in the middle of a busy clinic.

But the other thing is that I believe our care has become progressively more inefficient, making it harder every day that we go to clinic to care for the number of patients we need to.

And that really has to change. For those of us who've been doing this for a long time, and I know you have as well, this has been a trend really over decades. It's gone in the wrong direction. It was a lot easier to practice a number of decades ago.

Now, the requirements for documentation and pre-authorization and many other administrative tasks has just grown progressively over these years. And we need to figure out how to change that.

And in addition, our electronic health records, which is where we live in clinic, have been remarkable and wonderful in many ways, but are also inefficient to use and we need to do a better job in optimizing their functionality.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thanks Larry. I do agree with you there and I think that in addition to the challenges of running the electronic health record and using that at the point of care, of course the other thing that many of our clinicians face now is an increasingly complex treatment landscape and a greater need for clinical decision support tools, which of course are not always at the moment quite as facile as we would like them to be.

And I think partly because of that, many oncologists are feeling overburdened partly with these various administrative tasks they have, partly with frankly keeping up with their own specialty areas or if they're community-based general oncologists, just keeping up in general with the new information that's coming at them.

And then add on top of all of that the emotional toll of caring for patients with cancer. And not surprisingly, perhaps I think we have started to see, certainly we have experienced an exodus of some oncologists in recent years who've decided to pursue careers outside of direct patient care and oncology. And those included some moving into other areas of academia, some going into industry, some going into various tech companies and so on.

Are you concerned that we all struggle in the effort of building and support a resilient oncology workforce to meet the needs of this growing population that you mentioned?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Yeah, I'm very concerned about that, John. And I think one way to think about this is that as you say, the practice of oncology inherently is a stressful and difficult, though quite rewarding way to spend your professional career.

But we layer on top of that a lot of frustration and difficulties that really don't need to exist. And when I think about this, I think about really two buckets.

There's a bucket of factors that are within our control in an individual institution or an individual practice, and I'll come back to that in a minute.

The other bucket are external forces, things that are required by the government regulators, by the payers that need to be done in routine practice. We have less direct influence over those, though I think it's a profession, we need to think hard about how to influence the external factors as well.

At the practice level, there are a lot of things that we can do. One has to do with optimizing our electronic health record, which does have, in most cases, the ability to have it customized by institution in a way that would make it optimal.

And some of that again, is external because we're dealing with a vendor product that has some limited ability to be customized, but we need to do a better job of the technology that underlies our practice every day when we go to clinic.

The other major factor in support, whether it's advanced practice providers, nurses, medical assistants, navigators, and other personnel who can in fact help to support the patients, help to support their families, and help to support the clinicians who are on the front line trying to care for these patients.

And we all use the term, practicing at the top of your license and aspire to that. But I think frankly we don't do a great job in that regard, and we need to really think harder about how we do have the appropriate team around us.

In addition, I would say that there are a lot of other things at the practice level that we need to think about, including the facility of ordering radiologic studies and consultations and so on, all of which are often more cumbersome than they should be. We really need to not put these obstacles in the way of our clinicians.

Externally, I think we need to get the payers and to get the government CMS to understand that the current state, it's just not going to be viable going forward and they need to make some big changes. And I think one of the ways to think about this is that rather than doing something differently, you want to do a different thing.

I mean, they really need to make some paradigm changes and what's required day in and day out from our clinicians.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, I want to pick up on something that you mentioned there, which is the role of navigators and the benefits that navigation, patient navigation, can have in several domains, but certainly it can help to reduce the burden on oncologists and strain in the system in general.

But to take that a little bit further, I wonder if we could talk a little bit about how navigation can help in reducing care disparities. You were saying before we came on the podcast today, the concept of using patient navigators to reduce disparities in care is not new. It's been around for many, many years, but it seems like we almost have to keep relearning that they really help in terms of reducing various disparities which may be rural disparities, racial and ethnic and so on.

There are plenty of data out there, as you've mentioned, just to quote a couple of studies, there was the ACCURE trial published a couple of years ago now, which was really a multi-pronged intervention to help Black patients overcome obstacles to completion of treatment.

And it included navigation along with a number of other interventions, electronic health record flags to alert caregivers to missed appointments, providers to missed appointments, I should say. It also included physician champions to help engage the health care teams and some educational interventions as well with a significant impact on the access to care from Black patients.

The Levine Cancer Institute in the Carolinas conducted a study in my own world, in aggressive large B-cell lymphoma a number of years ago, where they showed that they were able to navigate all of their patients into guideline-concordant care, which essentially eliminated the disparity in outcome between Black and White patients in their population.

And then more recently, a study from the University of Maryland looked at Black men with prostate cancer and demonstrated that with the intervention from a navigator, the number of those patients who had their appropriate genetic testing was increased enormously to levels which were comparable with the White patients in their community.

No clear evidence yet that that's impacted outcome, although intuitively, I think it would, but nevertheless, as you've already pointed out, there is a ton of evidence that navigation can help us to eliminate disparities.

Could you talk a little bit about your own insights into that area and the work that you've done?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure. A few years ago, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop on navigation in cancer and we spent a couple of days in Washington going over many of the studies you've mentioned.

And one of our speakers was Harold Freeman, who was a surgeon in Harlem. About 60 years ago, he showed that patient navigation could reduce disparities in cancer care in his setting. And I think the surprising and somewhat disappointing aspect of this is, well, we have a new therapy, whether it's immunotherapy or whatever that is shown to improve overall survival and outcomes. We adopt that, and we start using it. And yet here something that's relatively straightforward, patient navigation, which has been shown as you say, to improve access to care, to improve guideline-concordant diagnostics, guideline-concordant treatment, patient satisfaction, and ultimately improve outcomes and reduce disparities, but has not been embraced in the same way that new therapies have been embraced.

And from my point of view, these factors are equally important. They translate in the patient outcomes ultimately just like the therapies that we choose to. And we need to really buy into that. We need to understand that this really affects our patient outcomes as much as our therapies do.

So, a couple of things. One is that you've already mentioned the different ways that navigation might improve outcomes, and that's clearly the case.

But there are other aspects which are really critical to a lot of conversations we've been having, and that is that navigators fill vital roles that when they're not present are often filled by the treating physician, trying to make sure that the diagnostic tests, the genomics are all done, trying to make sure that the patient is getting their radiologic studies on time, trying to make sure that the appropriate appointments are being set up.

Navigators are very, very good at doing this. They're very good at bonding to the patients and helping the patients feel secure through this cancer journey. But if they're not there, either those things don't get done or the clinician, the treating physician or the advanced practice provider is doing that.

And so, it has the dual effect of both burdening clinicians who really have another role in the care of the patients doing these other scheduling and navigation functions as well as improving the overall care.

I will say that in my own experience, it's important to have navigators who are skilled in their areas, that understand the diseases that we're treating, that understand the patient's needs in relation to those diseases and the treatments and diagnostics that we have to offer. So, there is a real skill to navigation, but a skilled navigator really makes a huge difference to the patient.

And again, not only in the very tangible ways that you mentioned, but also frankly in the psychological security of the patient. And patients will tell you this and there are surveys out there that show this, that patients who are undergoing a new diagnosis of cancer are terrified, do much better psychologically when they have a navigator at their side through this journey. But it has tremendous benefit to the clinicians as well.

And why haven't we embraced navigators? I can only speculate, but one of the comments that I get from health system administrators is, “Well, they cost a lot of money, and their work is not reimbursed as part of health care reimbursement.”

But there is, again, overwhelming evidence to show that the return on investment for navigators is substantial. And it's substantial because it keeps patients in your practice, it provides more efficient care at all levels.

And we published out of the National Cancer Policy Forum work, an article that basically shows from a variety of different centers, including mine at Penn, that there is a tremendous ROI for having navigators.

So yeah, it's a little bit of money upfront to hire them, but ultimately, it's a good thing financially as well as clinically.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. So often with these kind of wraparound services that are so important to our patients showing and being able to clearly demonstrate the kind of downstream revenue from those services is difficult, but is I think probably evident to those of us who are in the clinic and see what happens.

So, maybe we need some more sophisticated financial models to be able to highlight that to our leaders in the health systems, I think that the evidence is really quite clear.

So, Larry, one of the disparities that you've mentioned, and perhaps we haven't focused on quite so much in this discussion, has been the issue of cancer care for rural versus urban communities. And I think it's important that we highlight the challenges that oncologists are facing in rural communities across the country in caring for patients who live many miles away from a hospital or clinical practice and where the oncologists do not have the kind of support system that you'd find in an academic center in a major city. Can you comment a little on that?

Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. This is a real problem. I and others have published on cancer survival statistics in rural settings and in small community hospitals and they are in fact inferior to larger academic cancer centers, probably for a multitude of reasons.

And one of our colleagues, Dr. Otis Brawley, made the comment a number of years ago and still repeats it, that your likelihood of surviving cancer in the U.S. is more tightly linked to your ZIP code than your genetic code. And there is some truth to that.

Now, there are tremendous challenges for providing cancer care in a small, rural hospital. We practice in academic medical centers; I'm a breast cancer doctor and I spend all of my time trying to stay current in breast cancer. And it's a field that's changing rapidly. It's hard for me to imagine how my colleagues who are generalists in the community are keeping up with the advances in so many different diseases. And I think frankly, it's really, really hard to do that.

In addition, all of us at academic centers have weekly tumor boards. We get to ask our colleagues what their thoughts are about our difficult cases. We get a lot of input from pathologists, radiologists, and other colleagues.

And frequently clinicians, physicians, oncologists, practicing in rural hospitals don't have that constituency around them for them to bounce difficult patients off of to try to figure out what the best approach might be for a patient.

So, the differences are terrific, and the support is just not there. This is something that our country has not really confronted. We have a very big country geographically. Some of the areas of the country are quite rural. A patient can't be expected to travel four hours in each direction to an academic cancer center.

We need to figure out how to better partner between our academic cancer centers and our community colleagues to support their care in ways that we've not done routinely up to this point. I know that the National Cancer Institute is very interested in this and trying to figure it out.

But again, I think we have to feel a collective responsibility to support our colleagues in the community. They try really hard, they're working really hard, they're doing the best they can, but they just don't have the support that we have in academic cancer centers.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, sure. Before we wrap up the podcast today, I'd like to circle back a little to something that you said earlier and a topic that I know that you've published about quite extensively in the past and that's the issue of health care technology.

And I think we probably all agree that health care's been a little bit slow to capitalize on technology to improve our care processes and outcomes. And your research has highlighted that technology can facilitate patient-clinician interactions in a number of ways through augmented intelligence, texting, chatbots, among other things.

Can you tell us a little bit about this, how you think that AI might be able to help us in the future to streamline the management of some of these medical and administrative issues that we've been talking about today?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. It's hard to turn the TV on or read a newspaper without an article on artificial intelligence. But the word you used is the word that I use, which is augmented intelligence. I don't think we're looking to replace clinicians with technology, but we're looking to in fact make their jobs easier, to remove some of the tasks that they don't need to do themselves as really an assistant, if you will, another assistant.

We have used technology extremely poorly in the medical profession overall. I'm not quite sure why that is. But if you look at the banking industry or other industries, they've used technology tremendously well with great benefit, benefit not only for the people who are using the services, in our case, the patients, but also those who are providing the services, in our case, the clinicians.

So, I think we need to do a better job. We need to have electronic health records that are in fact helping rather than sometimes hindering or making frustrating the care of the patients. We need to use artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence to interact with patients and help to manage them.

We're using augmented intelligence chatbots to manage patients who are on oral chemotherapy able to do a lot of the tasks that normally the clinicians would be doing without in any way jeopardizing the safety or the well-being of the patients.

The patients actually tell us that they like this, that it's just another way to feel connected to their practice in a way that's efficient and easy for them through texting rather than sometimes trying to call the practice, which can be frustrating.

But there are lots of other things as well in analyzing data, bringing data forward that will help us to make the appropriate decisions. And one of the things that I often use as an example is the airline industry.

And they have a remarkable safety record as we all know, thank goodness. But if you sit in the cockpit of an airplane and you look at the instruments, all the critical data is right in front of them, unencumbered and very clearly presented because they need those data to fly the plane, and they need those data to be rapidly and easily accessible.

They can get all the data they need; you look at the cockpit ceiling, it's got a thousand switches on, everything they need is there, but the critical data is never hidden and always presented. I don't think that that in fact is the way our electronic health records are set up. In fact, quite the contrary. And all of us spend a fair amount of time looking for data and so on because the records are complicated, and they're used by a lot of different specialists.

But we can use augmented intelligence to bring all the critical data up, just like the cockpit in an airplane, to make sure that we have what we need rapidly accessible, and we don't miss anything. We don't go looking for the genomic test and can't find them and then assume they weren't done and make a decision without critical data when in fact they were done, but the data is hidden.

So, I think we have a lot of options to use technology to improve our daily lives. I think it will take away some of the frustrations that lead to burnout, and we'll also make practice not only more efficient, but frankly also much safer.

I think we have to work hard on this. We could partner with that technology colleagues. We at Penn are trying to do that. I know others are trying to do it as well. And I think the patients will benefit, will all benefit. Practice will be better, safer, less frustrating, and the outcomes of the patients will be better.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks Larry. I think your analogy with an aircraft cockpit is so perceptive and I think that that's something if we could unclutter our electronic health records and what we're seeing in front of us in at the points of care in the clinic, I agree 100% that will be such a step forward. So, thanks for sharing that.

Thanks also, Larry, for discussing some of these challenges that we're going to be confronting in the next year and beyond, as well as the potential solutions.

I think one thing that is really important to remember despite these challenges is something that I mentioned in the introduction to the podcast today. So, when we are all feeling a little bit disheartened because of the challenges ahead of us, it's important to remember that in 2026 there will be an estimated 20.3 million cancer survivors in the United States, which really does underline how far we've come, certainly in the time that you and I have been practicing oncology, and really important not to lose sight of that. We had a lot of challenges, but really the achievements of the last 50 years or so are pretty remarkable.

It's been a real pleasure to have you on the podcast today, so thank you again for joining us and for sharing your thoughts with us.

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thanks so much for having me, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

For more information on Dr. Shulman’s research discussed in this episode, please see the articles below:

The Future of Cancer Care in the United States—Overcoming Workforce Capacity Limitations | Health Care Workforce | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network

Developing and Sustaining an Effective and Resilient Oncology Careforce: Opportunities for Action - PubMed (nih.gov)

Re-envisioning the Paradigm for Oncology Electronic Health Record Documentation by Paying for What Matters for Patients, Quality, and Research | Health Care Reform | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance - PubMed (nih.gov)

Establishing effective patient navigation programs in oncology - PubMed (nih.gov)

Patient Navigation in Cancer: The Business Case to Support Clinical Needs

Cancer Care and Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States: Will We Be Able to Care for These Patients in the Future? - PMC (nih.gov)

Disclaimer:

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

Find out more about today’s speakers:  

  

Dr. John Sweetenham 

Dr. Lawrence Shulman 

  

Follow ASCO on social media:   

  

@ASCO on Twitter   

ASCO on Facebook   

ASCO on LinkedIn   

  

Disclosures:  

  

Dr. John Sweetenham:  

Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  

 

Dr. Lawrence Shulman:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech

Research Funding (Inst.): Celgene, Independence Blue Cross

Drs. Cardinale Smith and Raymond Osarogiagbon discuss key research featured at the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including the role of AI in quality measurement and solution-focused approaches addressing care delivery, financial toxicity, and clinician well-being.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Hello. I'm Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the chief scientist at the Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation and director of the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program and the Thoracic Oncology Research Group at the Baptist Cancer Center here in Memphis, Tennessee. I have the distinct delight of serving as co-chair of the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. And I am delighted to welcome my colleague, Dr. Cardinale Smith, who served as chair of the Symposium.

Dr. Smith is a professor in the Department of Medicine and Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Today, we'll be discussing solutions and key research to advance high-value, high-quality cancer care that were featured at the Symposium.

You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Dr. Smith, it's great to be speaking to you today.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you. I'm excited to be speaking with you as well.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: The Quality Care Symposium featured many novel approaches in care delivery, including innovative ways to advance health equity through supportive oncology. As a specialist in geriatrics and palliative medicine, your work has focused on supporting the needs of patients with cancer. What are the innovations in supportive oncology that you were excited about at the meeting?

Dr. Cardinale Smith: I think we had several really fantastic sessions [on supportive oncology] at the meeting. One of the key things that came up around innovations in palliative care delivery was a roundtable discussion (“Innovations in Palliative Care Delivery for Structurally Marginalized Populations: A Roundtable Discussion”), and the speakers really focused on community-engaged approaches to the delivery of palliative and supportive care interventions. During the discussion, the speakers talked about utilizing the community voice and incorporating that into work to describe and enhance models of care delivery. 

Dr. Manali Patel discussed her work on the transformative impact of patient navigators who focused on palliative care skills, in particular, communication, symptom discussions, and how that contributed to the improved outcomes of patients with advanced cancer. They saw reductions in mortality, lower acute care use, greater palliative care and hospice use, and lower total costs.

Dr. Mao discussed a virtual mind-body fitness program to reduce unplanned hospitalizations among patients undergoing active cancer treatments. And Dr. Irwin presented her results of a randomized trial of patient-centered collaborative care for adults with serious mental illness who were newly diagnosed with cancer. I think these discussions just really centered on centering patients and focusing on supporting their care.

And then finally, I was really excited to hear Dr. Deborah Mayer of UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, who received the Joseph Simone Quality Care Award, and she spoke about her distinguished career and how we can do better for our patients and ourselves (“Reflections on Improving Cancer Care: How Can We Do Better for Our Patients and Ourselves”). And what stood out for me was her recognition of the importance of “teaming,” and she really talked about acknowledging that before there was terminology for it. And it struck me because it remains so critically important in terms of how we advance the science and delivery of cancer.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, that Joseph Simone Award was amazing; I’ve got to tell you that Manali Patel's presentation blew me away. The video of the veterans talking about end-of-life care and the tough decisions, how they got to work, man, chills down my spine. 

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, and I think what's even more incredible is that the folks who were helping to lead those conversations were not people who spent an incredible amount of time going to school to learn how to do this. They were folks from the community who were just engaging with people and conversations about their values.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: What an original way to tackle the wicked problem. Just amazing.

So improving clinician well-being was also a key topic at the meeting. Speakers addressed oncology workforce shortages and novel approaches for improving team-based care delivery. So, Cardi, what are your key takeaways from these sessions (“Building Clinician Well-Being Through Team-Based Care Delivery”)

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Improving team-based care delivery is essential as the health care system can feel fragmented for patients, and, honestly, for us as clinicians as well. I think my takeaway [from this session] is that there has to be an organizational and systems-based approach to really improving this issue if we're going to make meaningful and impactful change. We were presented with data that shows that this really isn't a one size fits all approach, and what might work for physicians as a group does not work for APPs or nursing. And we really have to think about all of these different groups based on what they need.  

Caroline Schenkel from the ASCO Center for Research and Analytics (CENTRA) presented impactful data on the state of the oncology workforce. And that data really assessed changes in the well-being of US-based ASCO physician members and compared the responses today in 2023 to a decade ago. And unfortunately, burnout and satisfaction with work life integration appears to have significantly worsened. And while that's not really surprising, it's disappointing. There were some factors that contributed to joy in work life, and that was speaking with and advising patients, as well as enhanced practice support inclusive of administrative patient care and staffing. So I do think that gives us some information that we can use to go forward to focus on strategies we should be really encouraging and leaning in towards.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: I think it was Dr. Subbiah in this session who made the point – it's not just yoga, right? Don't tell people, “Go do yoga and get happy at work again.” You have to tackle the fundamental cause of the problem, which is this crazy workload and additional tangential obligations that we have that have taken over the core mission of patient care.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Absolutely. No one needs another pizza party.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Isn't that the truth?

Dr. Cardinale Smith: I want to ask you some questions. I'm going to turn the tables on you now. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Sure.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: So let's talk about some emerging technologies. We had a session on artificial intelligence at the meeting that specifically focused on how AI will potentially impact quality care. Ray, tell me, what are some of your takeaways from these presentations?

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, so AI, obviously, is a hot topic in this day and age. I had the privilege of chairing the session, “The Promise and the Perils of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Oncology.” So we had a nice group of speakers. We had Danielle Bitterman from Dana-Farber telling us what AI is and what it promises to be for us. And then Andrew Hantel, who co-chaired the session with me, did a wonderful job describing for us the perils of AI. And then Julian Hong told us how AI promises to do all kinds of wonderful things in radiation oncology, so the huge promise of AI from back office to front office across this full spectrum of oncology, be it radiology, radiation oncology and so on and so forth, were covered. 

And I would strongly urge that anybody who listens to this podcast should go to that session. Andrew Hantel talked about perils, for example, this AI black box. We don't really understand when [the AI black box] tells us this is the thing, this is the answer to your question, how does it arrive at that? How can we tell that the answers we're getting are correct or incorrect? And if we were wanting to validate, how do we go back, to do so is a real problem. And then one of the take-homes was, “You can call it all the things you want, but it's still fundamentally garbage in, garbage out.”

So this machine learning, if the material fed into the machine is garbage, the answers you'll get back will still be garbage. And we had Dawn Hershman present a wonderful panorama of how AI is just another tool. It's not a panacea. We’ve still got the same problems. It's a new tool and we're still going to have to apply it using the same frameworks as we have always applied in all of science today. 

And then there was an abstract that was presented from the UK as the young lady Bea Bakshi presented a paper, Abstract 74, “Accuracy of an AI Prediction Platform in Predicting Tumor Origin in a Real-World Study.” I would urge anybody who's interested in this to go back and watch that.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: I was waiting a bit for them to talk to me about how the bots were going to take over, but I guess we're not quite there yet. And Dr. Lee Fleisher also added a lot of commentary. He was the former chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). And he gave the keynote lecture, “Measuring and Driving Quality in the Future.” What did you think about some of what he had to add to this conversation?

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah, it was an interesting keynote. It was certainly one of the highlights of the program. He talked about measuring and driving quality of care in the future. And the thing that struck me was how he covered the full spectrum of the topics that we dealt with in the Symposium, including AI, which was quite remarkable. 

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, I agree. I think he really did add an incredible amount to the conversation, and I think as much as we think CMS has control over so much of what we do, so much of it is controlled and regulated that in the end, they are just a body that oversees. And I think he really talked about that and hit that home. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: The one thing that struck me one of the throw away comments he made was how few physicians there were at CMS. What was it he said? Was it 30 something, 40 something on the regulatory side?

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah, it was less than 40, high 30s.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Surprising.  

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah. There aren't that many physicians that actually work there and yet they are driving so much of the decision-making. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah. Wow. So Cardi, let's talk about the session, the very beginning. I think you introduced that session on day one, “The Perfect Storm of High Cost Novel Therapeutics: Are We Leaving Patients Out?

Dr. Cardinale Smith: It was an incredible way, in my opinion, to start the conference. I think that the speakers really came out strong, setting the stage on really the perfect storm. I think as we are developing more high-cost novel therapeutics, the first speaker, Haley Moss, talked about how all of these approvals are leading to these accelerated pricing of drugs and how really this is unsustainable. We continue to get new and new drugs that are working, right? I mean, we have longer life expectancies for patients with cancer. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: That's the good news, but somebody has to pay for it.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Correct. And the longer you live, the harder it is to be able to sustain this and people are going into bankruptcy for it. And then Arjun Gupta came in and talked about really thinking about these supportive care drugs and supportive care meds, and how we tend not to think about those medications, but they are medications that are not highly regulated and yet also are very costly. And I think what stood out for me most from the panel and this discussion was really the patient herself, Dr. Kelly Shanahan. She is a physician, an OBGYN who no longer practices and was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. And she really talked about how cancer put her into near bankruptcy and the cost implications to someone who we would consider in the top echelon of the financial spectrum. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yeah. You want to know what my favorite abstract was at this? It was Abstract 300, titled “Nationwide analysis of legal barriers impacting patients with cancer and caregivers.”

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Okay, tell me about it.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Qasim Hussaini talked about how he had access to a unique data set of patients calling in for free legal assistance after diagnosis of their cancer. I was in awe of the uniqueness of his [and his co-authors’] approach. I don't think I've ever seen anybody tackle this problem in such an original way. I learned a lot from it, and I would definitely recommend that people go take a look at this Rapid Oral Abstract. 

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Yeah. In fact, while we were sitting there in the conference, I was texting the director of oncology social work at my own institution and asking her if she heard of the organization that he worked with.  

Dr. Osarogiagbon:  Yeah. 

Dr. Smith: I'd like to highlight the last great session for our listeners. And it was really the last session of the conference, “Promises and Pitfalls of Liquid Biopsy Cancer Detection Tests in the Asymptomatic Population.” And I know sometimes folks don't always get to see or hear the last session. So, I would strongly encourage folks to check it out. I liked the session because it highlighted where we are in terms of thinking about diagnosing cancers among those who are asymptomatic. And it also highlighted a lot of questions that we have in terms of what we do with those results and who should be the responsible parties for that information? Does it fall to the primary care group? Does it fall to oncologists? And I think it was good to know that this is something that's top-of-mind for NCI and that they're really putting together a toolkit to think through this and to package that together for clinicians. 

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: I have to give you credit, Cardi. This was fabulous. The meeting was from end to end, just superb, and the attendance was record-breaking. Congratulations. 

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you. You are a fabulous partner. We had wonderful committee members, and the ASCO staff, as usual, is amazing.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Yes. We have to do this again in San Francisco next year. 

Dr. Cardinale Smith: I'm looking forward to it.  

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: Thank you, Dr. Smith, for coming on the podcast to give us these highlights from the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. Our listeners will find the links to the sessions that we discussed on the transcript of this episode.

Dr. Cardinale Smith: Thank you, Ray. It was my pleasure.

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you.

 

Disclaimer: 

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

 

Follow today’s speakers: 

Dr. Cardinale Smith

@cardismith

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon

@ROsarogiagbon

 

Follow ASCO on social media:

@ASCO on Twitter

ASCO on Facebook

ASCO on LinkedIn

 

Disclosures:

Dr. Cardinale Smith:

Honraria: AstraZeneca

Speakers’ Bureau: Teva

Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon:

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly, Pfizer, Gillead

Honoraria: Medscape, Biodesix

Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, American Cancer Society, Triptych Health Partners, Genetech/Roche, National Cancer Institute, LUNGevity

Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: 2 US and 1 China patents for lymph node specimen collection kit and metho of pathologic evaluation

Other Relationship: Oncobox Device, Inc.

Drs. Shaalan Beg and Priyanka Kanth discuss the readiness, logistics, and barriers to implementing universal germline multigene panel testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) following new guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that recommend genomic testing for all individuals with CRC younger than age 50. The experts also address other areas of unmet needs as new data emerge on moderate-risk genes and their association with CRC.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm the vice president of oncology at Science 37 and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Last year, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, updated its guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC), recommending that all patients with colorectal cancer who receive a diagnosis before the age of 50 have multigene panel testing and that multigene testing should also be considered for patients 50 years of age and older with colorectal cancer, regardless of a personal or family history or other criteria.

This represents a huge paradigm shift in the screening and care of patients with inherited cancers. And today, I'm joined by Dr. Priyanka Kanth, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the GI Cancer Prevention Program at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, DC, to discuss new research that explores the readiness, logistics, and barriers associated with the implementation of universal germline testing in clinical practice. 

You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Dr. Kanth, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Thank you, Dr. Beg. It's wonderful to be here today and discuss this very exciting topic.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: As a gastroenterologist who sees patients and families with a high risk for GI cancer, including medically underserved populations, can you comment on the significance of the expanded NCCN guidelines for colorectal cancer?

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, absolutely. So this is, I would say, a big change from NCCN recommending pretty much every colorectal cancer patient can undergo multigene panel testing or universal. So everyone who's younger than age 50 and has colon cancer should get multigene panel testing. But we are also expanding it to pretty much anyone who may have colorectal cancer, and we can offer multigene panel testing. So, we are broadening the pool of patients who can get tested, and this will bring in more patients from very different demographics. So I think it will expand to every arena of patients with different insurance profiles, underserved, and, as more insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid picks up, I think this will help a lot more patients in not only following on their genetic testing, but also their family members. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Medical oncologists are very familiar with the challenges of implementing somatic molecular testing for people who have cancer. I can only imagine that implementing universal germline testing also has significant logistical challenges and barriers. You recently published a study in JCO Precision Oncology along with your colleagues and captured some interesting perspectives from clinicians on their practice of implementing universal genomic testing for colorectal cancer. Can you tell us more about this?

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Absolutely. So I would first like to thank the lead authors and senior authors of this study. They are Linda Rodgers-Fouche and Sanjeevani Arora and Rachel Hodan, who literally wrote the study and created and did all the legwork. And as you know how hard it is to do these big survey studies, so really thank them. 

The study is a cross-sectional survey of the members of this Community Collaborative Group of America, IGC, which I would say comprises a lot of genetic counselors, gastroenterologists, oncologists, and colorectal surgeons who take care of these patients. So these are highly specialized groups that work in the field of GI genetics. Roughly 300 plus members were sent the survey to get their take on how they think [multigene panel testing] can be implemented for all colorectal cancer patients.  

So to give you a synopsis of the study, the majority of members who participated, 70% or more, they supported this universal germline testing for colorectal cancer patients. But interestingly, more than 50% also thought that it will require a change in their practice or how this will be delivered. So that's the major takeaway, I would say. We are all supportive but how to really deliver to the patient would be the biggest challenge or barrier for us in the future. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, your study reported concerns on knowledge among non-genetics providers. I would assume that includes a lot of clinicians who are the first people to be in contact with potential patients who would require testing. How can the field mitigate this problem? And what are some alternate delivery service models for increasing awareness and making the process of ordering and following up on the results more efficient for practices?

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: We all know the biggest barrier I would say is resources like who's going to deliver the added pool of patients that get genetic testing. So most of the current scenario, they're all seen by genetic counselors, but we have a limited number of genetic counselors and they cannot truly deal with this big influx. So how to educate non-genetic providers would be the biggest barrier. But also implementing in the system itself, like can we do pretest counseling as the first contact with the patient to deliver to discuss like you should undergo genetic testing. So that contact, can that be done with a non-genetic provider or even by other modes like telemedicine? Or can we do something like an online chat box or something which could just not only go over all the types of testing but opens the door for the patient to ask questions. So if there are alternate modes of delivery where the pretest is taken care of, that would be one big change required.  

The other part is like when the test is done, who returns the results? So where does it go and who explains the results? So at that point, we surely need more genetic and even non-genetic providers if they are comfortable. So how to educate them would be the biggest barrier. At that point, I think, we are still figuring out the biggest change is in the system and requiring a take from all the stakeholders who are part of taking care of these patients. So not only genetic counselors, but oncologists, gastroenterologists, pathologists who are taking care of this patient to be on board and have a really clear-cut flow of how these are delivered, how these results are returned, and how they are explained to family members.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: The workflows and the resources that you have in a high-risk GI clinic at a center like Georgetown’s, I think it's safe to say, are much more than what typical resources a practicing provider will have in the clinic. How do you envision clinics resourcing for this type of test either through training or retraining their existing staff or by adding additional resources? 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: At the community setting, it is really hard to educate essentially everyone as well. So, I feel like taking the load off the genetic counselor at the pretest level is the biggest implementation or change that can be done. And if we can remove that because not every patient is going to be positive for the gene mutation either; it does filter many patients who eventually will need returns. So at that place, how do you implement and where do you implement is the key and it is so system-based that I cannot even pinpoint. But I agree, bigger academic centers have better advantages and a knowledge base as compared to smaller community cancer centers or practices.

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yeah, and I noticed that many of the respondents in your survey agreed with offering multigene panels, but there was variability by profession, and I was wondering if that resonated with you and that was an expected finding or not.

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, and it was more so in terms of standardized multigene panel versus customized panel. So, this is fairly understandable because the genetic counselor is so well versed in offering which genes should be tested based on family history, but a non-genetic provider may not be fully equipped with the knowledge. So for example, myself, I do GI genetics, but if I have a patient with a lot of breast cancer in the family, I do defer them to a high-risk breast team. So there are nuances, too. The major difference here was also in standardized multigene panel, most of the gastroenterologists, oncologists were all for it compared to customized, which were more heavily leaned by the genetic counselor based on family history. And I can see why it's different because standardized, I would say, is much easier to implement and compared to customizing, which is based on family history or other cancer history and family. That's the major difference in the study. It comes down to education and experience and the follow-up based on what comes back from it.

 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: You've highlighted many factors, both from the pre-test, sort of preparing and selecting the right individuals, to ordering the right test based on the participant's risk factor profile and then optimal ways of following up on the results of these genomic tests. What are other areas of unmet needs when it comes to genomic testing for colorectal cancer?

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: We know a lot about high-risk genes that are associated with colorectal cancer. We still are finding and learning about many genes, many moderate-risk genes, and their association with colorectal cancer. We don't have enough data or long-term cohort data to understand how they truly affect their lifetime risk for colorectal cancer and how do we truly surveil these patients. So that's one of the big barriers. Genetics still cannot explain all colorectal cancers. So as we get more data, we may discover more things and more genes that may be associated. But understanding these moderate-risk genes and their association with colorectal cancer would be, I think, one of the key areas to be looked into in the future.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: And I would imagine as new biomarkers are identified, there will need to be a strategy to retest people who may have had genomic testing in the past.

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Absolutely. We are already encountering that in a practice. I have patients who have been tested maybe 10 years ago and just had Lynch mutation tested and were negative for that or so, and now we have so many other genes which are associated and also to understand family history changes. So, as family history changes, there might be clues to say that, “Okay, we should expand the panel or we should add these patients.” So it is a very dynamic situation. There could be a scenario in which we have a lot of patients who may need to be retested based on their current situation or even based on changing family history and the availability of genetic information. So, when I see a patient, I also tell them if we don't find anything or we are not doing anything major, we say, “Let's regroup in 3 to 5 years, let's see where we are,” or even with the risk mutation for some of the moderate-risk genes, we may change in a few years. So, revisiting that with these patients is highly useful.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, is it safe to say that as of 2023, if we're seeing people in our clinic who have not had testing in the last 3 to 5 years, that they should have a discussion for repeat testing today?

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, in terms of certain, I would say, newer polyposis genes in the GI world that have been included, some other moderate gene mutation which we have a little bit more sense of now and it has not been tested, I think that can be expanded. Five years is a safe bet. Last 2 to 3 years, maybe not so much, but you can revisit this. Also, some patients were tested for a smaller gene panel. So not 2 genes, but maybe 10 genes were included. That would probably still stand true. They may not need 70 gene panels, so it's still good to review that in the current scenario, and every few years, every 5 years, I would say.

 

Dr. Shaalan Beg: Whenever I think about any type of new test that has logistical challenges, has costs associated with it, and has operational demands of the clinic, I think about its disparate effect across different populations based on race, ethnicity, geography, demographics. Can you talk a little bit about how these guideline changes, what type of impact they may have, positive or not, for comprehensive genomic testing for colorectal cancer across different populations? 

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Yes, I think this is more positive than negative. This will include more patients and include more family members who were not being included, who were being missed. As we know that one of the reasons to do this multigene panel testing was the criteria, the family history criteria or the risk prediction models are not perfect. And the recent studies have shown that not every family member, every patient, is going to fit in these criteria. So we are getting more and more data in recent years that I think the much better, long-term option is to do a multi-chain panel and find it because we are missing patients. So it will increase the pool [of patients to be tested], and that will surely increase patients from all demographics. And as we do it more, there will be more buy-in from the payers and hopefully, this will decrease disparity.

The problem, I think the negative part is how do we deliver it to everyone? If it is there but we are not able to deliver and that there is disparity on who gets the test and who does not, then that will create another disparity in a sense that it's there and we could have used it, but it's not being delivered. So the pros are we can include everyone, but how to include everyone is the big question.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: So, Dr. Kanth, there are indeed challenges ahead in our pursuit for universal germline testing for colorectal cancer. I'd like to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: Thank you very much for having me here. It was great to talk to you, Dr. Beg.

Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Disclaimer: 

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

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

Find out more about today’s speakers:

 

Dr. Shaalan Beg

@ShaalanBeg

 

Dr. Priyanka Kanth

@priyanka_kanth

 

Follow ASCO on social media:

@ASCO on Twitter

ASCO on Facebook 

ASCO on LinkedIn 

 

Disclosures:

 

Dr. Shaalan Beg:

Employment: Science 37

Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine

Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals

Dr. Priyanka Kanth: 
Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Methods and Compositions for Predicting a Colon Cancer Subtype