Dr. John Gordan discusses the newest evidence-based guideline update from ASCO on systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). He shares the updated recommendations for first-, second-, and third-line therapy for patients with Child-Pugh Class A liver disease, guidance for patients with Child-Pugh Class B liver disease. Dr. Gordan also touches on the importance of this guideline for both clinicians and patients and the outstanding questions regarding treatment options for HCC. Read the full guideline, “Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you.

Dr. Taplitz: Thank you, Brittany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Lisa Law: Good question. As per these ASCO guidelines, adults with solid or blood cancer traveling outside of the United States should follow the CDC standard recommendations for their destination. For the 2024 CDC Yellow Book, travel vaccines, in general, should be delayed until three months from the last chemotherapy or, and for those with solid tumors, ideally when the disease is in remission. Of note, hepatitis A, typhoid, inactivated polio, Hep B, rabies, meningococcal vaccine, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines are considered to be safe. In all cases of travel, patients should be counseled by their healthcare provider about the travel timing, with the additional attention to the regional seasonality of infections, for instance, influenza is more common in late summer in Australia, and also with attention to any outbreaks that may be occurring globally at the time of travel.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points for clinicians to discuss with their patients as they consider upcoming travel. 

So then, the final clinical question that the panel addressed, Dr. Taplitz, what vaccinations does the panel recommend for household and close contacts of adults with cancer? 

Dr. Randy Taplitz: Thank you. Yes, it is recommended that all household members and close contacts, when possible, be up to date on their vaccinations. And the only further thing I would say is that there are some special considerations for the use of live vaccines in household contacts, particularly in stem cell transplant recipients. Contacts of people who receive stem cell transplants should preferably receive inactivated influenza vaccines. As was mentioned, MMR and varicella vaccines are both safe to administer to close contacts. Vaccine strain transmission to immunocompromised hosts has not been associated with MMR use in family members.  

Eleven cases of the varicella vaccine strain transmission are described in the published literature, but none occurred in compromised hosts. Because the vaccine strain can cause severe and fatal varicella in profoundly immunocompromised people, precautions are advised to avoid close contact with a person with a vaccine-induced rash. For household contact travelers, MMR and yellow fever vaccines are considered safe. Oral cholera should be avoided. For smallpox vaccines, the second-generation ACAM2000 has rarely been associated with vaccinia transmission and should be avoided because of this. But the live replication-deficient MVA-based JYNNEOS vaccine is felt to be safe for household contacts of immunocompromised individuals.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing the importance of vaccination for household and close contacts, and some of those precautions that individuals should take. I appreciate you both for reviewing all of these recommendations. 

So then in your view, Dr. Law, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact both clinicians and adults with cancer?

Dr. Lisa Law: In my opinion, this is a very important guideline that is long overdue in the oncology community and will have a huge impact on both clinicians and adults with cancer. Over the years, I have often been asked by my colleagues and patients, “Can I have the flu vaccine, and if so, when?” So this guideline really is going to be helpful. More importantly, our cancer patients are living much longer. They may have years of quality of life even with third or fourth line of treatment, especially, for instance, like CAR T for myeloma and lymphoma. However, we know that with additional treatment, that carries a substantial risk of infection complication among these immunocompromised patients. So it is of paramount importance to inform our patients and colleagues to be proactive in advocating preventive therapy ahead of time, meaning trying to get the patients appropriately vaccinated as early as possible to generate immunity. 

Another case in point is the Shingrix vaccine. I used to see lots of shingles, but ever since we have the recombinant Shingrix, I have fewer encounters. And this is huge because post-herpetic neuralgia robs a patient’s quality of life. So, again, it is very important to recommend appropriate vaccines for our cancer patients. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It is key to ensure patients receive these preventative vaccines, and we hope that this guideline puts an emphasis on that for clinicians and patients. 

So finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Taplitz, what are the current gaps in knowledge regarding the vaccination of people with cancer?

Dr. Randy Taplitz: There are a number of really important gaps in knowledge and really critical unmet needs that require research and other dedicated efforts. Among these are, and I think paramount, are really the participation of people with cancer with varied types of immunocompromise in vaccine trials. Where vaccine trials are only for cancer patients, obviously is ideal, testing vaccines in the appropriate population. But when that's not feasible, pre-existing cancer should not preclude eligibility, and inclusion of cohorts of people receiving anticancer treatment should be incorporated prospectively. So that’s really critical because the quality of our guidelines is based upon the data. We use the data for developing guidelines and gathering more data in the particular patient population is really, really critical. 

Secondly, work for creating more immunogenic vaccines and research to understand the immune response to vaccines after immuno-depleting therapies, particularly with newer therapies such as CAR T and newer B cell therapies, bispecific antibodies, etc. is really critical. We need to really understand the immune response and have the most potent vaccines available to these people who may have impaired immune responses. 

Switching gears a little bit, we really need mechanisms to promote institutional commitment to integrate and sustain immunization best practices for people with cancer. This will largely be through multidisciplinary, team-based approaches, protocol-based vaccination standing orders, and leveraging data sharing so that we can all be on the same page with giving vaccines to these individuals. We also need education and evidence-based decision-making tools, emphasizing preventive care through immunization, the availability of educational resources to clinicians and patients to address commonly asked questions and also misconceptions about vaccination, that’s absolutely critical. 

And finally, I think we need to develop strategies for addressing unique challenges and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy during cancer therapy. We need to focus on patient and clinician communication, and very importantly, we need to consider health equity considerations in the development and approach to vaccines in these compromised patients.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely, we'll look forward to research and advances in these areas that you've just described to support these guidelines and increase vaccine uptake. 

So I want to thank you both so much for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz.

Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you. 

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

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

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

Dr. Ilana Braun and Dr. Eric Roeland join us on the ASCO Guidelines podcast to discuss the latest evidence-based recommendations on cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer. They discuss nonjudgmental patient-clinician communication, the relatively narrow cancer-related indications for which there is actionable clinical evidence for cannabis and/or cannabinoids, and key information for adults with cancer and their clinicians. Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland also review the limited evidence regarding cannabis and cannabinoid use in adults with cancer and the outstanding questions and importance of research in this area. Read the full guideline, “Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

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

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

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I’m interviewing Dr. Ilana Braun from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Dr. Eric Roeland from Oregon Health & Science University, co-chairs on “Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline.”  

Thank you both for being here Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland.

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thanks so much for having us, Brittany.

Dr. Eric Roeland: Thanks, Brittany.

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

Then to jump into the content of this guideline, first, Dr. Roeland, could you give us an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline? 

Dr. Eric Roeland: Sure, Brittany. I think it's important for everyone to recognize just how common the issue of cannabis or cannabinoid use is amongst people living with cancer. And I think clinicians in academia as well as through community sites, we are asked about the use of cannabis on a daily basis. And so our target audience is really to focus on clinicians providing care to adults with cancer, but also the health systems in which we work because this is a very complex issue, as well as the people living with cancer and their caregivers, as well as researchers dedicated to this field.

Brittany Harvey: So as you mentioned, this is a complex issue, and I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. This guideline provides recommendations across three clinical questions that the expert panel targeted. So, starting with the first question, what is recommended for patient-clinician communication regarding cannabis or cannabinoids? 

Dr. Ilana Braun: Given the high prevalence of medicating with cannabis or cannabinoids that Eric references, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% to over 40% of adults with cancer consume cannabis products, ASCO's guideline offers the following common-sense, good practice statement: In the clinic, providers should routinely and non-judgmentally inquire about cannabis consumption or consideration of cannabis, and either guide care or direct adults with cancer to appropriate resources. In other words, the guideline works to fully destigmatize this conversation. The guideline goes on to offer suggestions for taking a cannabinoid and cannabis history. This includes the goals of use, how the products are sourced, what formulations are being used (including the ratios of active ingredients like THC and CBD), the inactive ingredients (for instance coconut oil), whether it is herbal or synthetic, and whether the product is pharmaceutical grade or non-pharmaceutical grade. And then other questions like routes of administration, dosing schedules, perceived benefits and risks, and whether the products are being used adjunctively or as a replacement for standard treatments. It is also probably important to query potential contraindications, such as a history of cannabis use disorder or psychosis. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those good practice statements. Those are key for non-judgmental communication and taking an accurate and complete history. 

So following those statements, the expert panel next addressed the question: Does use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids by adults improve cancer-directed treatment? What recommendations did the expert panel provide for this section?

Dr. Eric Roeland: When we think about the use of cannabis or cannabinoids in treating the underlying cancer, it's incredibly important to recognize the excitement that patients and clinicians have around the potential promise. Much of this data is generated from preclinical models. However, when we're engaging patients consuming cannabis or cannabinoids to augment their cancer-directed treatment, we could find no evidence to support its use. And so we do not recommend that patients be using it to augment treatment, nor do we recommend that patients should be using it instead of their cancer-directed therapy. And I think this is a major challenge for multiple oncologists, where their patients may be using these with a goal of treating their cancer, and then present with very advanced cancer and/or multiple poorly controlled symptoms.

Dr. Ilana Braun: And I think that there are some areas of particular concern. For instance, there were two oncologic cohort studies that suggest that cannabis, which we know is an immune modulator, may actually worsen immunotherapy outcomes. These outcomes included median time to progression and overall survival. There are obvious limitations of preliminary observational data, and we now need to gather prospective, gold-standard data. But for the time being, the guideline recommends that clinicians should advise against adults receiving immunotherapy from medicating or considering medicating with cannabis and cannabinoids. And then I think there are some additional reasons for concern. First of all, this type of therapy tends to be very expensive and not covered by insurance and there are some risks for drug-drug interactions, in terms of pharmacodynamic ones, Cannabis may exacerbate neuropsychiatric side effects of opioids and even benzodiazepines. In terms of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, it's not a particularly risky substance, but there are three to be wary of in particular: warfarin, buprenorphine, and tacrolimus all have high-risk interactions with cannabinoid products. 

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you both for reviewing these recommendations and evidence regarding the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids regarding cancer-directed treatment.  

So then the last clinical question, Dr. Braun, what is recommended regarding use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids in managing cancer treatment-related toxicities and/or symptoms?

Dr. Ilana Braun: The first thing to make clear is that high-quality clinical evidence evaluating the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for adults with cancer is limited as Eric has said. The evidence that does exist weakly supports a practice of using cannabis and cannabinoids to address refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when standard treatments have failed. For other potential oncologic indications, like management of cancer-related pain, there is weak, negative, conflicting, or no evidence. But that being said, a 2017 monograph published by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic non-cancer pain, and I’m sad to say, that chronic non-cancer pain happens too in adults with cancer.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those recommendations as well. 

So you've both touched on this a little bit in that patients are often asking clinicians for recommendations regarding cannabis and/or cannabinoids, but in your view, what is the importance of this guideline, and what should clinicians know as they discuss these recommendations with their patients?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Probably one of the most important points is for clinicians to ask and to be open and to create a space where our patients are telling us about what they're using. I think we've all had patients that we’ve been surprised that have been using cannabis or cannabinoids in conjunction with other medications that may increase the risk of unwanted side effects or risks, including sedation or falls. I also find it challenging that many patients are receiving recommendations for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids directly from friends or family instead of through their medical providers. Therefore, I think one of the very first things is to just make sure that you’re asking about it and then inquiring what the goal of their use is. 

When we talk about the use of cannabis, we also need to recognize the difference between the available data that can guide us in evidence-based recommendations, as well as the enthusiasm and available access that patients have to cannabis that has really outpaced our ability to research it. So it's important to recognize these tensions that we're living with in clinic day-to-day.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those points are key for clinicians as they discuss this complex issue with their patients. 

Following that, how will these guideline recommendations affect adults with cancer?

Dr. Ilana Braun: One really important takeaway from these guidelines is that they clearly state that cannabis and cannabinoids are medicinal, and for a medical community to clearly articulate this point is notable. I suspect they will provide encouragement, legitimacy, confidence, and even a script to oncology clinicians who were previously reticent to inquire, document, and provide clinical recommendations around non-pharmaceutical cannabis and cannabinoids. It may have a similar effect even at the institutional level in terms of supporting these practices. At the same time, I suspect they will encourage those who are recommending oncologic use of cannabinoids and cannabis for myriad cancer-related indications to adopt a more circumscribed approach. The reason I say this is that the cancer-related indications for which there is actionable clinical evidence at this time are quite narrow. So all this to say, I believe these guidelines will lead to greater transparency around cannabis decision-making in the clinic, as Eric mentions, but also lead to a possible narrowing of indications for which cannabis is clinically recommended. 

Dr. Eric Roeland: Another major role of the use of these guidelines in clinical care is informing clinicians and patients about cannabis. Cannabis has been used by humans as a plant for thousands of years, and although it's a very complex plant with hundreds of parts, the two parts that researchers have studied most are delta nine-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. In rough terms, THC can cause a high feeling, while CBD typically does not. And there are multiple types of products that have different ratios of THC and CBD. So it's critical for people to understand what those ratios are, how many milligrams of those things there are, as well as what are the programs within your region to measure or quantify what's actually in the products you're consuming.

If a person with cancer medicates with cannabis, most oncologists would prefer that they use it by mouth, such as an edible, rather than inhaling or smoking cannabis given concerns about potential impact on lung function. One challenge when consuming cannabis by mouth is that it can take up to two hours to have its full effect. So patients should be very careful not to take too much or to stack their doses, which can cause sedation, confusion, and even increase the risk of falls. Whereas when patients are consuming cannabis by breathing in a smoke or vapor, they typically feel the effects almost right away, which is why patients sometimes prefer smoking or vaping as their preferred route of administration.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Definitely. We hope these guidelines provide key information and clarity for both adults with cancer and their clinicians. 

So then, finally, you've both mentioned that there is limited evidence regarding cannabis and cannabinoid use in adults with cancer. So what are some of the outstanding questions regarding cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer care?

Dr. Eric Roeland: Thanks, Brittany. I think the questions also align with priorities for future research, and we need to recognize that the lack of evidence aligns with some of the challenges of funding research in this space. However, ongoing future research priorities include what is the nature of healthcare disparities pertaining to medical cannabis use by adults with cancer, and what are effective means to address these disparities? We also wonder, what are the optimal strategies to maximize communication in the oncology clinic regarding medical cannabis and/or cannabinoid use? And when we're thinking about cannabis and/or cannabinoids for cancer treatment specifically, we still need to know do cannabis and/or cannabinoids possess clinically meaningful anticancer activity in humans. We also need to understand what are the drug-drug interactions with our standard-of-care cancer treatments, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, radiation, and combinations of all the above. We also are wondering what the effect of cannabis and/or cannabinoids on outcomes in adults with cancer receiving some of our newer therapies, including antibody-drug conjugates and some of our newer vaccine therapies. 

Dr. Ilana Braun: I might add that collating the existing research as the guideline did is a very good first step and should serve to highlight where the gaps in knowledge lie. This guideline discusses some of the unique challenges to conducting cannabis and cannabinoid research, including limitations in funding source and study drug, red tape procedures, and issues around legalization. I believe it will take a group of highly determined and creative researchers to move the needle forward in this area, but we must.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thank you both so much for all of your work developing this guideline and creating these evidence-based recommendations. And thank you for taking the time to come on the podcast today and teach us all a little bit more about cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer care. And thank you for your time, Dr. Braun and Dr. Roeland.  

Dr. Ilana Braun: Thanks so much, Brittany.

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

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

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

Dr. Angela DeMichele, Dr. Lynn Henry, and Dr. Harold Burstein present the latest breast cancer rapid recommendation update impacting two ASCO guidelines. This update focuses on the new option, capivasertib plus fulvestrant, for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with activating PIK3CA or AKT1 mutations or inactivating alterations in PTEN based on data from the recent CAPItello-291 trial. They discuss the updated recommendations on lines of endocrine treatment and selecting between the options for patients with activating PIK3CA mutations. Additionally, we discuss implications for clinicians and patients, and what ongoing research is occurring in the field.

Read the latest update, “Endocrine and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer – Capivasertib-Fulvestrant: ASCO Rapid Guideline Update“ at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.24.00248

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

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Harold Burstein from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dr. Angela DeMichele from the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Michigan, co-chairs on “Endocrine and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Capivasertib–Fulvestrant: ASCO Rapid Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Burstein, Dr. DeMichele, and Dr. Henry.

Dr. Harold Burstein: We're happy to be here. 

Brittany Harvey: And before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including our guests on this episode today, are available online with the publication of the guideline update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. 

So then, to kick us off, Dr. Burstein, could you first describe what prompted this rapid update, which provides updated recommendations for two ASCO guidelines: the biomarkers for systemic therapy in metastatic breast cancer guideline, and the endocrine treatment and targeted therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer guideline?

Dr. Harold Burstein: Thanks, Brittany. Well, this team has been working, as you mentioned, actually, on two guidelines, which are clearly evolving in parallel and kind of converging, actually, when you look at data, as we'll be talking about in the next few minutes. The particular catalyst here was a large randomized clinical trial which looked at a new targeted therapy in the space of estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. That drug is capivasertib. And the trial was the so-called CAPItello study. In that trial, patients who were receiving second-line therapy with fulvestrant were randomized to that treatment alone, or that plus capivasertib. So the data from that study were the first strong signal that we needed to update the guideline because they were important clinical data.  

The other strong signal was that the drug was tested in a cohort of patients who had a specific set of mutations in their cancers. And that included PIK3CA mutations, a class of mutations for which we already had a targeted drug. But it also included some new potential targets, including mutations in the AKT gene itself, capivasertib is an AKT inhibitor, as well as loss of PTEN protein functionality, which potentially sensitizes tumors to the targeted action of this drug as well. So while we had a couple of guidelines catching up on the endocrine therapy space, which is increasingly looking like a targeted therapy space, it was clear that this major study, which had clinical and diagnostic implications, would sort of push them together and served as the impetus for updating both guidelines at the same time.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that background information.  

So then, Dr. DeMichele, based on this updated data that Dr. Burstein just described, what is the updated recommendation from the guideline panel regarding lines of endocrine treatment?

Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, I think this is where the biomarker evolution that Dr. Burstein just referred to really comes in because now we have the opportunity to perform genomic testing in patients who have ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, on either the tumor or commonly from the blood. And we can now start to tailor treatment to the specific genomic abnormalities that that patient's tumor contains. So now our guideline really marries both the genomic abnormality with the therapeutic option. First-line treatment remains endocrine therapy plus a CDK 4/6 inhibitor. But things then really start to diverge once we enter second and third-line therapy because at that point, we now have the option to test for several genomic markers: ESR1 mutations, PIK3CA mutations, AKT1 mutations, and PTEN inactivation. And based on whether the tumor has one or any of those mutations, we can then select the therapy based on that. 

So in the case of capivasertib, as you just heard, that is a therapy for patients whose tumors have PIK3CA mutations or activating mutations in AKT1 or loss of PTEN. But other patients who don't have one of those mutations may, in the second line, go on to another drug. For example, if they have an ESR1 mutation, they then may be eligible to take elacestrant. Patients who have no targetable mutations still have a targeted option in that they can use everolimus. And in all of these settings, the endocrine therapy partner for this line of therapy is typically fulvestrant. So now we're really starting to tailor therapy in the second- and third-line based on genomic changes.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. That information is helpful for choosing optimal therapy tailored to the individual patients, as you just described. 

So then, Dr. Henry, what guidance does the expert panel provide regarding choosing a PIK3CA targeted option?

Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you. So for patients whose tumors are found to have an activating mutation in PIK3CA, we now have two drug options: either alpelisib or capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant. And the problem is, these drugs have not been compared head-to-head. We can't say that one is clearly better than the other, either in terms of efficacy or in terms of side effect profile. What we do have is information from two separate trials in which they were each tested against placebo. The efficacy appears to be fairly similar based on the data that we have. It does appear that the side effect profiles may be slightly different. And so, when you have a patient sitting in front of you and you're trying to decide how best to treat her, you really have to think about, what symptoms does my patient already have? What is she more or less likely to tolerate? So what we do know is that it appears that the rates of grade 3 diarrhea and rash were slightly higher with capivasertib. It looks like hyperglycemia was higher with alpelisib, as was treatment discontinuation. So really you have to make an individualized decision when you have a patient sitting in front of you about which drug you'd like to try. Of course, if someone doesn't tolerate one drug, you can always switch to the other one. 

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that analysis and to provide guidance without a head-to-head trial and to specifically provide options based on an individual patient's profile.  

So then, Dr. DeMichele, what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations? 

Dr. Angela DeMichele: Well, first of all, I think most clinicians now are becoming more familiar with the procedures required for doing genomic testing. But this is something that now has become the standard of care. And so, it is incumbent upon all of us who treat these patients to understand what the options for genomic testing are for that patient, which companies offer this testing, how to send a sample, and how to interpret the report that comes back. So, I think this has really added a level of complexity to the therapy for patients. I also think that one can’t simply apply an algorithm to a patient. We have to really treat the whole patient and we have to take into consideration, as Dr. Henry said, the toxicities of these agents and the cost which is also a major issue. So I think that while it is more complex, really that doctor-patient relationship is so important in communicating what these genomic tests mean for a patient and for their options, and also important for the clinician to really understand what the different therapeutic agents might mean for a patient, and really try to pick the agent that’s best for that patient. Using genomic testing is just one of several different features that they’ll consider.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It’s key to obtain the data needed to select appropriate patients and to recognize the complexity.  

So then, Dr. Henry, in your view, how will this update impact patients with metastatic breast cancer?

Dr. Lynn Henry: Yes, so as we’ve discussed, I think this is really exciting. Over the last few years, we have had quite a number of new medications that have become available for patients and have been FDA-approved. And so this is yet the latest in a series. For those patients whose tumors have a PIK3CA mutation, as we discussed, there are now two options. So you have a choice depending on which one is better covered by insurance, by which one you may tolerate better. But I think the other thing is now, although it’s a smaller subset of patients, there are patients out there whose tumors have mutations in AKT1 or alterations in PTEN, and so there’s an entirely new endocrine therapy-based option available for them that wasn’t available before. So I think that thinking about the new data that are out there, the new drugs that are out there, really is exciting because there are new options available and hopefully there are more to come as well.   

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have these new options. 

So, finally, Dr. Burstein, Dr. Henry just mentioned what's to come. Could you touch on what some of the outstanding questions are regarding endocrine therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer? 

Dr. Harold Burstein: A couple of things to say. First, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer is the most common kind of metastatic breast cancer, roughly three quarters of metastatic cases of breast cancer will be hormone receptor-positive cancers. So this is a very big public health issue around the world, actually, breast cancer being the number one most commonly diagnosed cancer of women around the world. So minor or major improvements in treatment for advanced ER-positive breast cancer really have a tremendous impact. 

The second thing is it’s been remarkable to see the progress in the past decade. We’ve gone from simply targeting the hormonal access itself with medicines like tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors or an injectable selective estrogen receptor degrader like fulvestrant to incorporating targeted therapies at the same time. And this whole class of drugs called CDK4/6 inhibitors has emerged which we use in either first- or in second-line therapy. Those drugs have transformed our standard of care, improved survival for patients with advanced ER-positive disease, now with median survival nearly 50% longer than what we had seen in the past.  And if you’ve heard, we have a wealth of opportunities. We can target PIK3CA, we can target ESR1 mutations. Other drugs emerging in the space include PROTACs which is another way of degrading the estrogen receptor. And so there’s going to be more progress in the years to come.  

So one of the biggest challenges has been to try and understand, is there really an optimal way to use these drugs, or can we be smarter about the particular sequence of all these particular things that are happening.  So one example of this was a recent study that is on a drug, not as yet FDA-approved, called inavolisib, which is a PIK3CA targeted drug used in first line in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. And that study, for a high-risk group of women with ER-positive metastatic disease, actually showed a dramatic improvement in overall survival, asking the question if combining some of these targeted therapies together might yet further improve outcomes. 

And as you’ve heard from the diagnostic space, one of the other interesting things is that tumors evolve over time. And so acquisition of the estrogen receptor mutations, ESR1 mutations, which are typically not found early in the course of advanced breast cancer but otherwise later, now have targeted treatments. So there’s a whole bunch of stuff going on all at the same time, including multiple ways of targeting things, serial testing to look for acquisition of ESR1 mutations and new pathways to explore. It’s an embarrassment of riches in some respects because it has meant it’s actually really hard to write a guideline as you’ve heard, which says, “Do this first, do this second, and do this third.” I suppose that’s a good problem to have under the circumstances, but it’s going to require really thoughtful clinical trials and careful analysis to help guide specific lines of treatment recommendations like that. 

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. We’ll look forward to these exciting, continuing developments for patients with metastatic breast cancer. And I want to thank you all so much for your work to develop this rapid recommendation update for these two guidelines. And thank you for taking the time on this podcast today.

Dr. Harold Burstein: Thanks.

Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you so much. 

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

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

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, 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.

Dr. Natash Leighl and Dr. Jyoti Patel are back on the podcast to discuss the update to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. This guideline includes recommendations for first-, second-, and subsequent-line therapy for patients with driver alterations including: EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAFV600E, MET exon skipping mutation, RET rearrangement, NTRK rearrangement, HER2, and KRAS G12C. They highlight the key changes to the recommendations, addition of recent trials, the importance of biomarker testing, and the impact of this guideline for clinicians and patients living with advanced NSCLC. Stay tuned for future updates to this continuously updated guideline. Read the full update, “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02744.   

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

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Jyoti Patel and Dr. Natasha Leighl, co-chairs on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl. 

And before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.

So, to start us off on this living clinical practice guideline, Dr. Leighl, this guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage four non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is being routinely updated. What new data was reviewed in this full update to the living guideline?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: Thanks so much, Brittany. So, we looked through the literature for publications between February and the end of October 2023, and also any novel agents that were approved, in particular by the United States FDA, to really incorporate this update in the current guidelines. In particular, we had updates in EGFR-driven tumors, BRAF and RET-driven tumors. And we also worked very hard to make this more digestible. In particular, it was turning into a bit of a laundry list of all of the things that we had ever recommended. So we really wanted to shorten things, pare them down, and really make them helpful and very, very current for the treatment of people with lung cancer in 2023 and 2024.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing that overview of the evidence reviewed and the key updates that we will address in this guideline. So then I would like to talk about some of those key updated recommendations from the expert panel. You mentioned both EGFR, BRAF, and RET. So starting with patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR alterations, Dr. Leighl, what are the key changes to those recommendations?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: So, as I said, we really started to get quite a long list of things we recommended, including drugs that, to be honest, we no longer think are what we should lead with first-line. So we updated the recommendation to recommend first-line osimertinib in patients with sensitizing mutations. We were also able to capture in this update for patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutant lung cancer, the data from the randomized PAPILLON trial, recommending amivantamab plus chemotherapy for progression-free survival benefit. Not yet an overall survival benefit, but we will see how these data mature. 

The other thing that we did was we moved all of the- I don't want to call them "legacy agents" because, in many countries, these are still very important. But older agents such as gefitinib, approaches such as gefitinib plus chemotherapy, and drugs like dacomitinib and other agents where we truly believe as an international panel that we would prefer a third-generation kinase inhibitor like osimertinib. We moved all of those to our discussion, just to recognize that, around the world, not everybody may have access. And we also specified that things are different in different countries. So, for example, in China, there are other third-generation kinase inhibitors with randomized data to support their use. And those are approved and used in China. And also, for example, in Korea, there are other agents that are used. So, we have really tried to be both inclusive and yet keep things simple at the same time. And hopefully, we have succeeded. 

One of the challenges was that, with all of the updates that we made, we did not have all of the publications out yet at the end of October to make recommendations about moving beyond osimertinib in the first-line setting. So, please stay tuned for the next guideline update, where we’re going to tackle whether we should give osimertinib alone or combination therapy.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing those updates and clarifications for those patients with non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration. And we will look forward to the guideline panel's review of that evidence and future updates as well.

So then, Dr. Leighl, you had previously mentioned that additional recommendations were updated, such as those for patients with BRAF alterations and RET alterations. So, Dr. Patel, what are the other key updated recommendations from the expert panel?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much, Brittany. So certainly, I think we have seen many of these trials mature over time, which has been fantastic. I think one remarkable achievement was the reporting of a phase III selpercatinib trial. This was a trial in the front-line setting, in which patients who were RET-positive were randomized to selpercatinib versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy. And the selpercatinib significantly outperformed platinum-based chemotherapy, and I think really demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival. So, based on that phase III trial, the recommendation for selpercatinib was elevated. Many of these agents that are used in clinical practice are approved initially on smaller phase I or phase II trials. And so, seeing the maturity of these phase III trials gives clinicians and patients greater certainty that these agents are really effective. And so, the evidence was increased for that, and that's now a preferred agent over another TKI, pralsetinib, in which there is only phase II data. So, certainly, those kinds of real things that we can explain to patients are important in these guidelines. 

Another thing that we were able to update was another doublet for BRAF V600E non-small cell lung cancer. So, the combination of the two TKIs, encorafenib and binimetinib, was also included in the guidelines. 

One thing that we tried to help was really identifying the best therapy post-progression on these first-generation TKIs. And again, there is a paucity of data, but often we went back to carboplatin-based doublets, and there is some data regarding whether or not patients with driver alterations should get immunotherapy in the second-line setting. And so, certainly, I think we have a number of randomized studies for patients with classical EGFR mutations, and our recommendation is generally avoidance of immunotherapy for these patients and treating many of these patients with carboplatin and pemetrexed when appropriate. I do not think we have the data for a lot of other subsets of patients. So, again, stay tuned as these data evolve.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those updated recommendations and the supporting evidence. I think it's helpful for our listeners to understand the level of evidence behind these recommendations as well. 

So then, Dr. Leighl, what should clinicians know as they implement these new and updated recommendations?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: It's really important, first of all, to make sure that you have the information that you need to get your patients to these great new treatments as part of the shared decision-making process. So your patients need biomarker testing. You need to get that as quickly as you can. As Dr. Patel has highlighted, you really want to get that before they start their first-line therapy, if at all possible. We also really tried to bring out in this guideline that when things are delayed, I mean, this is the real world that we live in, just to be very cautious of immunotherapy with chemotherapy for that first cycle. That obviously, again, is a discussion with your patient, but this concept that the approach of a cycle of chemotherapy while you wait for the next-generation sequencing testing. And then if the patient does not have a driver alteration, adding any other therapy as appropriate is okay. It's something that people do. We believe it's important as we talk about the balance between benefits and harms. And so I think that's in there for clinicians, and I hope that they and patients can really benefit from that to avoid toxicity and also to really improve the ability to get molecular testing results first line. 

Also, I think it's really important that when people read the wording of the guidelines, that this really follows GRADE, which is a type of system that we use to develop our recommendations. And so things like "may" do not mean that you shouldn't do it. So sometimes we'll hear back from clinicians and say, "Well, you said that they may use alectinib or lorlatinib, for example, with ALK, and I can only get coverage for one or the other." And so I think it's really important that clinicians and patients recognize that all of the things that we do recommend, even if we do use the word "may" or the recommendation is more conditional, we do think that these agents should be available for patients and clinicians, and that they go through this shared decision-making process together. 

And so I think that's something that clinicians, we hope, can help take forward as they advocate for their patients to get access to these different and new and emerging treatments that have clearly shown benefit. Even when we say patients and clinicians may use this or that, there may be excellent reasons for using something newer, that’s emerged, perhaps for toxicity benefits or benefits in terms of efficacy, even though we can't compare directly. And so we really want clinicians and patients to be empowered to access these new compounds and these new exciting agents that are in our guidelines.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you for reviewing those key points. And, yes, that's a great comment that the level of obligation in the recommendations may be based on the evidence quality, but that doesn't mean that clinicians and patients shouldn't have access to all of the recommended treatment options to offer patients based off their individual patient and clinical characteristics. 

So then, Dr. Patel, in your view, how will these changes affect patients with non-small cell lung cancer, with driver alterations? 

Dr. Jyoti Patel: A lot of this echoes the points made by Dr. Leighl. I think there are opportunities for patients to assess toxicity or what it means for intensification of therapy. So, particularly for EGFR patients, for example, we have data that chemotherapy with osimertinib can improve progression-free survival, or the incorporation of a bispecific antibody, amivantamab, can improve progression-free survival over the TKI alone. It certainly comes with increased toxicity. And so how we weigh this in the absence of a known survival benefit at this juncture is one that, again, really gives patients the opportunity to prioritize what's important for them. And so I think this guideline affects patients and that we have multiple options, we help with the weight of the evidence so they may be able to better discern what treatment makes sense for them.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Yes, this guideline provides lots of options for different patients based off their driver alterations. So it's helpful to have that information for shared decision-making with their clinicians. 

So then finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Leighl, what current research is the living guideline expert panel monitoring for updates to the guideline recommendations?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: This process of the living guidelines has really been to help us stay on top of the amazing and incredibly rapid progress that we're making in lung cancer and other cancers. And even with this process, where we're trying to stay up-to-the-minute, there have already been some changes in the literature between the start of November and now. And so we're already working on some additional commentary and options for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer. Also, the subsequent treatment of patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, depending on what they've had before. Also, a great new study in patients with ROS1 fusion-driven lung cancer. And so these are some of the things that we're looking at.  

Also, a bit more discussion about the importance of molecular testing. In our companion article, the Journal of Oncology Practice, along with Dr. Patel, we're going to be talking a bit more about new ways to genotype, for example, using both liquid biopsy and tumor tissue at the same time, and some of the support for that and how it gets us with our patients to the answers that they need faster. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. The pace of research in non-small cell lung cancer has moved quite quickly. So we definitely appreciate the panel's efforts to review all of this evidence on a continuous basis and take the time to develop these guideline recommendations for both clinicians and patients with non-small cell lung cancer. 

So I want to thank you so much for your work to update these guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl.

Dr. Natasha Leighl: Thanks so much. It's a real pleasure to be here.

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thank you. 

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

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

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

Dr. Jyoti Patel and Dr. Natasha Leighl discuss the latest full update to the stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations living guideline. This guideline addresses first-, second-, and subsequent-line therapy for patients according to their histology (squamous cell and nonsquamous cell carcinomas) and PD-L1 expression. They discuss the streamlined recommendations, incorporation of recent evidence, and the highlights for implementation of these recommendations in the treatment of advanced non-small lung cancer. Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl also point out ongoing trials that will inform this continuously updated guideline as we look ahead.  Read the full update, “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02746.   

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts  delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all of our shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jyoti Patel and Dr. Natasha Leighl, co-chairs on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl.

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

So, to start us off on the content of this episode, Dr. Patel, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is being updated on a regular basis. Could you provide some background information on the process for these living guidelines?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: The ASCO Living Guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on review of systemic randomized controlled trials. We bring a panel of experts together that includes representatives from Ontario Health as well as ASCO patient representatives. We review phase III studies and other published studies between the times from July 2022 and October 2023 for this most updated guideline. We think about the size of the populations that are being tested, what kind of interventions we have, the outcomes. We certainly look at PFS, as well as OS, but also toxicity, and overall response rates. We prioritize randomized trials and really look for studies that have large sample sizes. We exclude studies that were only meeting abstracts and really look at those that are published in peer-reviewed journals. 

When we weigh the evidence, we really think about a number of factors. So what is the strength of the evidence, what’s the sample size, and how we can make recommendations for our patients based on the totality of the data. Certainly, because this is such a rapidly evolving field, one of the things we are looking at is how to update in real-time these guidelines. So for this coming year, for example, these guidelines are published and we look forward to quarterly updates and, again, incorporate the latest evidence.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that explanation on the background and how these living guidelines are developed. 

So, Dr. Leighl, could you describe what the key changes are from the expert panel?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: So what we try to do in the guidelines for this latest publication, was really try and streamline the way we set up a format to make it much easier for people to use. In terms of new recommendations, we made sure to include more recent studies of additional PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, for example, cemiplimab in combination with chemotherapy, or the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab with chemotherapy, both of these in unselected patients, so with any PD-L1 expression, of course, this continues with pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy, atezolizumab with chemotherapy combinations, and, of course,  nivolumab and ipilimumab with and without chemotherapy. And so it really is just an update on all of the potential options. In the discussion, we’ve really tried to go through some of the nuances in the trials just to help when you’re discussing with patients or discussing with your oncologists, how to figure out which of these is best for you.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It's helpful to have all of the recommendations listed out together so that clinicians and patients know all of the available options available to them. 

So then, Dr. Patel, what should clinicians know as they implement these changes into their clinical practice?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: I think it's important to stress that our decision-making in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer is really reliant on adequate biomarker testing. And so the way we approach this is our assumption that all appropriate patients undergo molecular testing and have PD-L1 testing to help us get the best therapies. And the other assumption is that patients and physicians are engaging in a dialogue to better assess patient preferences to have a better understanding of performance status, for example, as we think about allocating therapy. One thing that we’ve been able to do is to take the evidence and break it up by histology as well as PD-L1 expression for patients who don’t have driver alterations. Based upon that, think about the toxicity data with, for example, dual immunotherapy versus chemo-immunotherapy for subsets of patients, and so hopefully get some guidance to clinicians as they are going through this process.

The other part of the guideline was to, once again, look at second-line and subsequent therapies. So, again, for patients who get immunotherapy alone, the recommendation is that patients get a carboplatin-based doublet in the second-line setting. We still do not know if patients should get immunotherapy after that initial exposure, that is the subject of ongoing randomized studies. We also have stronger evidence than ever that docetaxel is an appropriate second-line agent, but there are other options there, so docetaxel and ramucirumab, as well as other single-agent chemotherapies.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Those are key points for informed and shared decision-making and are helpful for clinicians to know. 

So then, Dr. Leighl, in your view, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients with non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations?

Dr. Natasha Leighl: Thanks. So, we’re really hoping that with all of the focus in the first-line setting, that more patients will receive immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the first-line setting to really bring it forward and really make sure that patients can start benefiting as soon as possible. As Dr. Patel said, one of the challenges, of course, is to understand who might benefit most with a chemotherapy-free approach and have treatments in sequence versus who really needs everything together. And so, we’ve really tried in the discussion to try and help with that discussion both from a provider and patient perspective. So, we want more people to get immunotherapy to help improve their outcomes and also to potentially get it earlier.

I think the other thing, and Dr. Patel has brought this up, but when we looked at what happens after first-line therapy, we really have very limited recommendations. And so it’s our real hope that this will spur the community on to do even more studies to help us figure out what’s next and how do we really improve outcomes for our patients after all of these great first-line options have stopped working.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you touching on those key points for improved outcomes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.  

Finally, Dr. Patel, you have mentioned some ongoing randomized clinical trials and so has Dr. Leighl. So, what are the ongoing developments that the living guideline expert panel is monitoring for future updates?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: We will continue to update guidelines based on available literature, but certainly, there are a number of trials that we should be reading out in the next year or so, looking at combinations of immunotherapy in the second-line setting. Certainly comparing novel agents to docetaxel in the second-line settings, and things like antibody-drug conjugates. So certaintly that’s evidence that we hope to incorporate this evidence within the guideline with the idea that  we can really help clinicians and patients recognize or at least identify the best options for treatment for them. 

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Well, we’ll look forward to the expert panel's review and interpretation of this evidence as those trials read out. And appreciate all of your work on this guideline update and we’ll hear more as these guidelines are continuously updated. Thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Patel and Dr. Leighl. 

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thank you.

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

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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.

Dr. Banu Arun and Dr. Sana Al Sukhun share recommendations from the newest ASCO resource-stratified guideline on systemic treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. They describe the importance of this new guideline, the four-tier resource setting approach, key recommendations, and implementation considerations. Recommendations are discussed for systemic therapy for HER2-positive, triple-negative, and hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer, across Basic, Limited, and Enhanced resource settings. Drs. Arun and Al Sukhun highlight the importance of this guideline for clinicians and patients in regions with limited resources to optimize cancer care.

Read the full guideline “Systemic Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline” at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines."

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the JCO Global Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/GO.23.00285 

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Banu Arun from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr. Sana Al Sukhun from Al Hayat Oncology Practice in Amman, Jordan, co-chairs on “Systemic Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.” 

Thank you for being here, Dr. Arun and Dr. Al Sukhun.

Dr. Banu Arun: Thank you for having us. 

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you. Pleasure to join you.

Brittany Harvey: And before we discuss this guideline, I'd just like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including the guests who have joined us today on this episode, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the JCO Global Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  

Then, to jump into the content of this guideline, Dr. Al Sukhun, can you first provide an overview of the scope and the purpose of this guideline? 

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Sure. And again, thank you, Brittany. Pleasure to join you. This guideline is really interesting and very important. It addresses the care and treatment of the most common cancer worldwide, particularly metastatic breast cancer, taking into consideration different availability of resources, particularly in countries with limited resources. As you know, most of us are aware of the importance of clinical practice guidelines improving outcomes for patients in medicine, not only in oncology, but most of those guidelines are developed in countries that are highly resourced. So their applicability in countries of limited resources that lack infrastructure and resources is definitely limited because they cannot really adopt and adapt to those guidelines, which makes resource adapted or resource stratified guidelines quite important and helpful. First, to clinicians caring for patients so that they can properly allocate resources, prioritize how to use therapy for patients, but also even policymakers to allocate resources and plan graduated implementation of science to improve outcomes for their patients according to the progressive availability of resources. 

So we're talking about breast cancer, the most common cancer worldwide. And not only is it the most common cancer worldwide, but also more than two-thirds of new cases are diagnosed in countries of limited resources. Unfortunately, they also carry the burden of more than 70% of the mortality attributed to breast cancer. Another challenge is that the median age for the patients affected with breast cancer in countries of limited resources is indeed at least a decade younger than Western societies, which adds to the burden, not only the social, but also the economic burden of cancer. And unfortunately, presentation in these countries is mostly locally advanced, metastatic breast cancer, therefore comes the focus on helping our colleagues in countries of limited resources to care for patients according to the resources available, not only in countries of limited resources, even colleagues practicing in less fortunate areas within countries that are highly resourced.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing that background information for this guideline. 

So then you've just described how many countries and areas have different resources. So, Dr. Arun, could you describe the four-tier resource setting approach that this expert panel used?

Dr. Banu Arun: Yeah, Brittany, that's a good question. I think it's important to know where we started and what infrastructure we used. So for developing resource stratified guidelines, ASCO has adopted its framework from the four-tier resource setting approach, which was actually developed by the Breast Health Global Initiative, and we employed modifications to that framework based on the disease control priorities. What this framework emphasizes is also that variations can be present not only between countries, but actually within countries with disparities, for example, differences between rural and urban areas within one country.  

So the four settings are obviously basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal settings. The basic setting includes core resources or fundamental services that are really absolutely necessary for any public health, primary health care system to function at all. These include services that are typically applied in a single clinical interaction. For example, vaccination is feasible for highest need populations.  

The next tier would be the limited setting. That includes countries or settings with second-tier resources or services that are intended to produce major improvements in outcomes, such as incidences and cost effectiveness. Unlike the basic setting, it can involve single or multiple interactions with providers or healthcare services.

Then the third tier is the enhanced setting, where the services are optional but important, and these services should ideally produce further improvements in outcome and increase the number of quality of options and also individual choices, maybe countries having the ability to track patients and links to registries. 

And then the last one is of course, the maximal setting that includes high-level, state-of-art resources and services that are available in some high-resource countries.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for describing that framework and the approach that the panel used.

So then I'd like to move on and talk about the key high-level recommendations of this guideline for systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer across those three lower tiered resource settings - the basic, limited, and enhanced resource settings. So, Dr. Al Sukhun, could you start with the recommendations across these settings focusing on HER2-positive breast cancer? 

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Sure. You know, HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer is one of the most aggressive subtypes of breast cancer. However, its outcome has been transformed with the introduction of HER2-targeted therapy. So, apart from patients who suffer from congestive heart failure or limited compromised ejection fraction, which can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, patients are candidates for HER2 targeted therapy. When we made the recommendations according to the availability of resources, we started in a gradual approach. So, in a maximal setting, you treat patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the frontline setting using the combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxanes or endocrine therapy if patients have limited disease burden, or if they have the recurrence after a long disease-free interval. Usually, the combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab with taxane is used. But then again, clinicians can use navelbine, considering good data from the HERNATA trial about its efficacy as compared to taxanes and even also, we recommended platinum therapy according to availability.  

However, if pertuzumab is not available, you go to the next level where we recommend offering, again, chemotherapy, be it taxane, navelbine, platinum, with trastuzumab, or even without trastuzumab if trastuzumab is not available. So, something to keep in mind, chemotherapy is not without efficacy in this aggressive subtype. It is not as good as when you use the combination with HER2-targeted therapy, but it still works. Patients and clinicians in this era of biologic therapy immunotherapy tend to think only pricey medications are the ones that can be used for treatment and improving outcome. However, definitely adding help with targeted therapy is great whenever it's available. But if it's not available, chemotherapy still could be used in a sequential manner. We listed all possible chemotherapeutic options starting with taxanes, navelbine, platinums, even CMF, capecitabine.  

When it comes to second-line therapy, including those patients who relapse within 12 months of adjuvant therapy, the optimal line of treatment would be trastuzumab deruxtecan. However, if it's not available, we recommend to be offered with successive or progressive preference, if it's not available, T-DM1 could be used. If it's not available, capecitabine and lapatinib could be used. If it's not available, trastuzumab with chemotherapy could be used. If it's not available, we go back to the sequential use of chemotherapy, including adriamycin, taxanes, platinums, capecitabine, or even CMF. 

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations for HER2-positive breast cancer. 

So then, moving along, Dr. Arun, what are the recommendations for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer?

Dr. Banu Arun: Thank you, Brittany. Triple-negative breast cancer, of course, is one of the serious subgroups of breast cancer. About 10 to 15% of patients have triple-negative breast cancer. What I will do is I will divide it into the three-tier settings as well as first-, second-, and third-line therapies. 

For patients with triple-negative PD-L-negative metastatic breast cancer in the limited settings and even enhanced settings, single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy should be recommended as the first-line. However, if patients are symptomatic or have immediate life-threatening disease, combination chemotherapy can be offered. 

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer that are PD-L1 positive, they may be offered in addition to chemotherapy, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, as first-line therapy, most probably in enhanced settings and in basic and limited, of course, chemotherapy. When you move on to the second-line for metastatic breast cancer in patients with or without previous PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, clinicians can offer palliative or best supportive care in the basic setting. In the limited setting, chemotherapy with anthracyclines, taxanes, platinums are options. And in the enhanced setting if sacituzumab govitecan is not available, chemotherapy would be an option.

Now, when we move on to the third-line setting for triple-negative breast cancer, clinicians can actually offer chemotherapy and/or palliative care, depending really on the status of the patient.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing those recommendations for triple-negative breast cancer. As you mentioned, it's one of the rarer forms of breast cancer. So then, Dr. Al Sukhun, I'd like to move into the last section of patients, actually the most common, but hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. What are those recommendations? 

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you, Brittany. As you mentioned, it's the most common subtype worldwide. The rule of the thumb is sequential hormonal therapy, depending on availability. So, whatever you have hormonal therapy, sequential hormonal therapy unless pending visceral crisis or symptomatic disease, it's recommended that you offer sequential single-agent chemotherapy, unless it's a real visceral crisis, where we recommend combination chemotherapy. That's a classic in all our guidelines. 

When considering frontline hormonal therapy, again, I will start from the maximal level and gradually recommend according to availability. So in enhanced levels in many countries now, we have generic CDK4/6 inhibitors, which increase their availability. So we do recommend hormonal therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Upon progression or when they are not available, on progression, you move to the second line of hormonal therapy. If you have liquid biopsy, check for PIK3CA mutation. Sometimes you do have the liquid biopsy, but you do not have alpelisib to offer to your patients with hormonal therapy, then it's okay, you still can move to second-line fulvestrant with everolimus. Sequentially, you can move forward to fulvestrant by itself if you do not have everolimus. And even you can sequence tamoxifen until your patient stops responding to hormonal therapy then you can offer sequential single-agent chemotherapy. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Al Sukhun for providing those recommendations. 

So then, Dr. Arun, what should clinicians do when we do not have access to receptor assessment? What is recommended for best practices for management of those patients?

Dr. Banu Arun: So, Brittany, that's an important question. There are some basic settings where unfortunately, immunohistochemistry for ER/PR HER2neu determination is not available. Our group really recommends in these cases that clinicians may presume hormonal receptor positivity and offer tamoxifen in most cases. It is expected that IHC would be available in limited and, of course, enhanced settings.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for providing that information. 

So further, what else should clinicians know as they implement these recommendations, Dr. Arun? 

Dr. Banu Arun: It's very important that we, all healthcare provider clinicians, really know the data. I think reading the guidelines or knowing about first and second line therapies is obviously important, but the devil is in the details. And I think knowing the publications and subgroup analyses, if needed, because every patient is different and sometimes the recommendations cannot go by the books. You really need to do an assessment of the patient and see in which setting you are and then make the most of the guidelines that are recommended. It's to guide. The name is guidelines. It's to guide. And ultimately, it's the clinician's responsibility to find the best available therapy for the patient. And sometimes that includes no treatment and supportive care.

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Totally agree with Dr. Arun. They are there to support the clinician decision. After all, the clinician is the one who sees the patient, who can evaluate the patient from all aspects — social aspect, physical aspect, the tumor aspect. So it's not just about the tumor, it's about the patient and the environment where the clinician is treating the patient. However, I believe there is support to the clinician not only in treating the patient, but also on addressing priorities for research to improve outcomes for patients in different resource settings. There is also support for the clinicians to help them advocate for improving care for patients in a strategic way, where they prioritize resource allocation. So they are there to support the clinician at all levels, not only when treating patients, but when advocating for patients, when helping patients to make decisions, when they're discussing with their health officials and policymakers.  

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are excellent points that you both made about individualizing patient care for the specific person in front of you. So then, finally, Dr. Al Sukhun, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients with metastatic breast cancer globally? 

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: The ultimate goal for anything we do, including guidelines, is to improve outcomes for patients worldwide. They are there to support clinician decisions, empower clinicians to optimize care for their patients, to advocate for improving outcomes for patients by strategically allocating resources according to the most impactful strategy. They help clinicians to identify areas for research that are needed according to the resources available to them. They are there to guide policymakers, again, also implementing strategies to implement science that could improve outcomes in an efficient way for their societies. So hopefully, all these, with our research, with our advocacy, with our health policy, with our treatment decisions, hopefully all these will improve outcomes for breast cancer patients and ultimately reduce mortality, particularly in less fortunate, limited resource settings for patients everywhere.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We hope that these guidelines improve outcomes and quality of life for patients worldwide. 

So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this guideline. There's certainly a large amount of recommendations, so I encourage our listeners to read the full guideline, which is linked in the show notes. And I want to thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Al Sukhun and Dr. Arun.

Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you for having us.

Dr. Banu Arun: Thank you, Brittany.

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

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

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

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian and Dr. Mark Robson discuss the new guideline from ASCO and SSO on germline testing in patients with breast cancer. They discuss the framework for which patients should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, and what additional moderate- and high-penetrance genes may be considered for inclusion in germline testing. They highlight key aspects of personal and family history, recommendations surrounding counseling for genetic testing, and the impact for patients and their families. They close the conversation with a discussion of gaps in the research. Read the full guideline, Germline Testing in Patients with Breast Cancer: ASCO-SSO Guideline

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02225

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

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian from the University of Texas MD Anderson and Dr. Mark Robson from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, co-chairs on “Germline Testing in Patients with Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline.” 

Thank you for being here, Dr. Bedrosian and Dr. Robson.

Dr. Mark Robson: My pleasure.

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Thank you, Brittany.

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

So then, to jump into the content of this particular guideline, Dr. Bedrosian, could you give us a general overview of both the scope and the purpose of this guideline?

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, sure. So, in the last decade or so, the whole area of clinical cancer genetics has become incredibly complicated, driven, I think, predominantly by the development of extended gene testing. And in the midst of this complexity, our goal here was to try to give providers a framework through which they can think about the application of germline testing within their patient population. And really, this framework was to help them think through how testing can best be applied to patients that were both newly diagnosed with breast cancer or had a history of breast cancer, and also to help them think through the scope of that testing as well, be it BRCA testing or testing in a more extended fashion that may help inform longer-term decisions such as risk management.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We appreciate your efforts to provide recommendations in this framework in this complicated space. 

So then, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline developed by the expert panel. So first, Dr. Robson, who should be offered BRCA1/2 testing?

Dr. Mark Robson: Thank you. I think this is perhaps one of the most important things that comes out of the guideline is that we, and the group, are now recommending that anyone who is either newly diagnosed with breast cancer at or before the age of 65, or if they're over 65 and have suggestive personal or family history criteria, or alternatively, if they are eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy, that they all be offered BRCA1 or BRCA2 testing. And the same would hold for women who had a personal history of breast cancer but were not currently under active treatment if their diagnosis had been made at or before 65 or older than that, with certain criteria then they should be offered testing. This is a much simpler way to look at things than the rather complicated existing criteria, which are perhaps a bit both difficult to remember and unfortunately inadequately sensitive in a setting where there is such critical, both therapeutic and risk management implications to the identification of a BRCA mutation.

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, I would just also add there's one other, albeit a much smaller group of women for whom BRCA testing could be considered, and those are women who develop a second primary breast cancer. That's another group that I think we can think about offering BRCA1/2 testing to.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you both reviewing those recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing. 

So, Dr. Bedrosian, which additional genes does the panel recommend including in germline testing?

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah. So, in this area, outside of BRCA genes, Brittany, I think the panel didn't make any definitive recommendations or any specific genes that should be tested for. I think the panel felt that the decision to test for additional high penetrance genes and also for some moderate penetrance genes should be guided by the specifics of the individual case, whether the identification of germline mutations makes sense in the context of the patient's personal history and family history. So, in other words, is there a worrisome pattern in the family that might warrant more in-depth testing beyond BRCA, and also considerations around the implications of those test results. Would it change the management for the patient themselves? Either in the treatment of the index malignancy, which, in the case of most of these non-BRCA genes, there really is not changes to the management of the breast cancer that would be offered based on the finding of non-BRCA germline mutations. But potentially, the finding of a non-BRCA germline mutation in a breast cancer patient might help better understand risks of second malignancies that would then be addressed. And certainly for families as well of the patients, identifying those that are carriers could offer opportunities for risk assessment, risk mitigation.

Dr. Mark Robson: I totally agree with Dr. Bedrosian. One thing I think it's important to understand is that most commercial testing done in the United States now does involve panels of genes. And the group certainly did not intend to suggest that that practice not continue. So, I think if somebody has a history of breast cancer, I think the panel felt that it would at least be reasonable to test for breast cancer susceptibility genes. However, this issue of do you test for all of the high penetrance genes when the family history doesn't suggest it, was certainly something we left open and we did not want to imply that it was obligatory to test for a large number or large panel of genes that weren't related to the patient's personal and family history. So, in other words, didn't want to imply that it was obligatory to do an extremely large panel just as a target of opportunity, if you will.

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: I think really a key part of these guidelines was that we wanted to afford the oncologist flexibility. It's very difficult beyond BRCA to be prescriptive. There are so many considerations about testing, and those considerations will be applied differently in every patient context. So, we really wanted to let providers know that while they have to think about these other genes, and oftentimes there'll be good reason to do these other genes as part of the overall germline testing, again, that it's not obligatory to do so. It's not a fixed set that needs to be tested for. And really, the understanding of the patient's personal history, family history, therapeutic goals, and risk assessment goals should be used to determine kind of the ultimate scope of the testing.

Brittany Harvey: It sounds like these decisions will be individualized, based on patient characteristics and with working between both patients and their clinicians. So that leads into my next question. But, Dr. Robson, how should patients with breast cancer considering genetic testing be counseled?

Dr. Mark Robson: With this recognition and emphasis on the therapeutic implications for patients with breast cancer, both surgical and potentially systemic using PARP inhibitors, the approach has gradually moved away from the concept of testing for personal utility, in other words, just wanting to know, and more towards the idea of this being a clinically useful test that's to some extent necessary for the appropriate management of a fair number of patients. And so the counseling is usually- the pre-test counseling is perhaps more educational than we have used in the past, rather than this extensive discussion of whether or not somebody wants to know. Obviously, it's always the patient's ultimate decision whether or not to be tested, and we have to give them the same elements of education that we would have given back in the day. But it can be delivered in a more didactic type of context rather than necessarily the back and forth that takes place with formal genetic counseling. 

Now, for patients who have complicated or extensive family histories or who have histories that may suggest predispositions other than those for breast cancer, the type of thing that Dr. Bedrosian was talking about earlier, they could certainly benefit, again, from a more formal evaluation by a provider experienced in cancer genetics to help select what the scope of the testing should be, for instance, and also to help interpret those results. And certainly anybody who had a pathogenic variant or a likely pathogenic variant identified should be considered for meeting with somebody who's experienced in clinical cancer genetics both to interpret and also to help with family expansion when appropriate. 

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations from the expert panel. So, Dr. Robson just touched on this a little bit, but Dr. Bedrosian, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with breast cancer and their families?

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, so from a patient perspective, I think there are two ways that these recommendations can impact care. For those women that are identified as germline carriers, specifically with BRCA, it will open the door for receipt of PARP inhibitors, which are currently recommended for patients that are high-risk primary cancer or those with metastatic disease. The other ways that patients will be affected by a germline testing is really in this idea of second cancer risks. Some of these germline mutations are well established to carry risks of either second primary breast cancer or non-breast malignancies. And understanding those risks will allow the patients and their providers to create management strategies, be they surgical or with more intensified screening that will help them mitigate the effects of that germline-driven risk. 

And I think similarly for the families of patients, the ones the proband has identified, I think that family now has a very real opportunity to better understand their cancer risks and again be able to more effectively manage those risks through either surgical or non-surgical means. And it would really underscore the family component of this. I think oftentimes oncologists are very much focused on the patient and admittedly so that is the person that has the most immediate needs. But I think there's a real opportunity to extend efforts at prevention and early detection by identifying the at-risk family members and allowing them the opportunity to access care that mitigates their cancer risks and hopefully will improve survival outcomes in so doing. So, I think the opportunities for families here to understand risks of germline testing is a really important one to underscore from these recommendations.

Dr. Mark Robson: Just to expand a little bit on what Dr. Bedrosian was saying, I think this is a very important place for collaboration between the oncology community and the clinical cancer genetics providers because the oncologist is pretty occupied taking care of all of their cancer patients, and the approach to people who are unaffected is a little bit different. People who are unaffected perhaps do need a little bit more pretest counseling to understand the pros and cons of choosing to be tested for the familial mutation. And certainly that idea of family expansion is something that's well known to clinical cancer genetics providers and that's really very much something that they can help the primary oncologists do.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, these recommendations have impacts beyond just the individual patient, but also for their families as well. 

So then, finally, Dr. Robson, what are the outstanding questions regarding germline testing in breast cancer?

Dr. Mark Robson: Oh, there are so many. Where should I start? I think over the years we've become, as a community, pretty comfortable managing individuals who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. There are certainly some questions left, but there's a lot of familiarity with that. I think the challenges expand into these what we call moderate penetrance genes and how to guide people with alterations in those genes. Because except for PALB2, which is relatively uncommon, many of the other genes don't really have the same implications for therapy because it's not clear that they confer PARP sensitivity. It's not at all clear that they have high risks of contralateral breast cancer. And even in the unaffected setting, we know that there's a wide distribution of risk for people who carry these alterations. And some individuals with these alterations probably are not at increased risk at all because they have protective factors. So the management of breast cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 is still very much in evolution. They can't be handled exactly the same way as a woman with a BRCA carrier.  

And then, of course, this issue of how much should we test and what do we do with some of the alterations that we find, if you will, out of context, what are the implications for that and what's the most appropriate management? Those still remain very much open questions. So I think there's still plenty of work to do.

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, I agree. I think one of the enormous challenges has been the disconnect between how rapidly our technology has advanced and can sequence alterations, and our ability to really understand the biologic and clinical implications, which really is a time-dependent issue. We need to see over time how patients do for us to understand the implications of some of these germline findings. So that disconnect is a very difficult one to bridge, particularly, I think, for surgical oncologists because they are oftentimes referred patients who don't have a cancer history, necessarily, or have a distant history, and really the concern is “I'm at risk and I would like to reduce my risk.” And it becomes very difficult to counsel patients as to the benefits of risk reduction when we don't have such a great handle on the degree to which they are actually at risk. So that really is a significant gap, I think, for surgeons in particular to have to contend with.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to answering some of those questions as we learn more and get more data to address those gaps.

 So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this framework for genetic testing in breast cancer, and thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Robson and Dr. Bedrosian.

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Thank you, Brittany. 

Dr. Mark Robson: Thank you for having us.

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

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

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

Dr. Rohan Garje reviews the latest rapid recommendation update for the ASCO guideline on systemic therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). He reviews what prompted the guideline update and the latest recommendation from the expert panel. Dr. Garje also discusses future updates to the guideline that are currently underway, and outstanding questions regarding systemic therapy for mCRPC. Read the latest update, “Systemic Therapy Update on 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update” at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02128 

Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rohan Garje from Miami Cancer Institute Baptist Health South Florida, lead author on “Systemic Therapy Update on 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update. 

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Garje.

Dr. Rohan Garje: Thank you so much for having me, Brittany.

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

So then, to dive into the content of this rapid update, first, Dr. Garje, what prompted this rapid update to the guideline on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer?

Dr. Rohan Garje: So, last year, when we did a rapid update on ASCO prostate cancer guidelines, we recommended the addition of 177Lutetium-PSMA-617, also called as PLUVICTO, as a treatment choice for patients who have PSMA-positive metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. After that approval, the primary imaging modality at the time of this initial drug approval was based on gallium-68, which was used in that clinical trial, which was VISION. Since then, we have access to a couple of new radiotracers, one of them being piflufolastat, also called as PYLARIFY, and the newer one called flotuflastat F-18, which is also called as POSLUMA, as additional imaging agents to detect PSMA-positive lesions. So, our expert panel group, along with my co-chairs, we thought to add these additional choices for patient selection because this provides the treating physicians additional options because there really are nuances involved in these imaging agents. So this helps broaden the access to  177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for patients.

Brittany Harvey: Excellent. I appreciate you providing that background that the panel was reviewing.  

So then, based on this updated information, what is the updated recommendation from the expert panel?

Dr. Rohan Garje: So, for the new recommendation, the guideline expert panel recommends use of one of these three radio tracers, that is Ga-68PSMA-11, or piflufolastat F-18, or flotufolastat F-18 as one of the radiotracer choices to screen for PSMA-positive lesions on a PSMA scan, and potentially select the patients for PSMA 177lutetium. This way, we can use one of these three agents rather than previously recommended, as per FDA approval of gallium 68. Now, the reason behind these additional agents, as I was just alluding in my initial comment, is each institution may have access to one of these agents. For example, if a patient had a testing done by piflofolastat or flotufolastat, if they are PSMA-positive, it has shown PSMA-positive lesions as per VISION criteria, we do not suggest the patients to undergo gallium-68 assisted imaging again to have selection for PSMA lutetium therapy. This is unnecessary imaging. We have evidence now, based on the studies which were done with PYLARIFY, which is the piflofolastat, or the flotufolastat, which is POSLUMA, that they are equally good in detecting PSMA-positive lesions. This way we can avoid additional imagings for patients who are being screened for lutetium therapy.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. Thank you for reviewing the expansion of this recommendation to avoid additional or unnecessary screening. 

So then, Dr. Garje, the article mentions complete updates to the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer guideline are underway. At a high level, could you review what new evidence the panel will look at to update their evidence-based recommendations?

Dr. Rohan Garje: There have been a lot of developments in the last year, at least, in the treatment strategies for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Earlier this year, we have seen three big updates about the first-line metastatic CRPC setting, where the combination of PARP inhibitors and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors were tested. For example, in the TALAPRO-2 study talazoparib and enzalutamide, and in the MAGNITUDE study, it was niraparib along with abiraterone. And in the PROpel study, the combination of olaparib and abiraterone was studied. Now, all these combinations have recently received FDA approval with specific nuances with regards to folks who have biomarker positive disease, specifically BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. So it is very important to refine this information so that it is utilized by practicing oncologists so that it is widely adapted in their day to day practice.

Now, in addition, we also are focusing on addressing the need for utilizing biomarkers. The biggest thing for us to offer a biomarker driven therapy is to do biomarker testing. So we are focusing on making sure patients with advanced prostate cancer get biomarker testing so that we can identify who are the patients who get selected. So this particular guideline update is addressing those needs. 

And then most recently at the recent ESMO meeting, we also noted the positive data from a study called PSMAfore, which evaluated PSMA 177lutetium prior to chemotherapy. This study showed positive data based on progression free survival benefit. So we will review additional data from that and see if a guideline update can be done based on this. So it is very exciting. Now, obviously, we are also waiting on survival data on all the studies. So we are closely monitoring all the updates on these studies so that we can provide more rational guidance based on not only progression-free survival benefit in a specific cohort and also to see if it helps with overall survival improvement.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to the panel's review of this evidence and then future updates to this full guideline. 

So then, finally, Dr. Garje, you've alluded to awaiting some data. So could you expand on what are some of the outstanding questions regarding systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer?

Dr. Rohan Garje: I would put that in two boxes. Number one, sequencing. So we are excited that we have a broad spectrum of options; androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, chemotherapy options, radium-223. We have lutetium based options and then biomarker selected patients with PARP inhibitor combinations and select patients with benefit for checkpoint inhibitors. Now, the biggest question we need to answer is how to sequence them, which drug or which combination strategy is ideal for one particular patient. Now, obviously, when we do not have clinical trials which have addressed sequencing, we as an expert panel would want to come up with some mechanism of consensus to identify what treatment sequence would work best for patients. So that is an important question this guideline panel wants to address where we can give some generic information as a consensus, based on the experience of the panel to give guidance for practicing physicians the best sequencing. 

Now, second thing, very equally important, is biomarkers. This particular guideline update is also focusing on making sure biomarker testing is universal. There has been a lot of evidence that biomarker testing happens very late in the course of the disease, which precludes a lot of patients from these combination strategies. So this particular guideline also is focusing on what biomarkers to be tested and at what time frame, so that they can be optimally utilized for the patient treatment so that the patients will have the best cancer outcomes.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely, those are important questions for personalized care for people with prostate cancer.  

I want to thank you so much for your work on this rapid update and your ongoing work on the updates to the full guideline, Dr. Garje, and thank you for your time today.

Dr. Rohan Garje: Sure, thank you so much.

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

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

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

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian joins us on the ASCO Guideline Podcast to discuss the newest ASCO – Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Guideline on systemic therapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). He reviews the evidence-based recommendations from the panel, including guidance on systemic therapy options for resected, limited-stage, extensive-stage, and relapsed SCLC, and NSCLC with an EGFR mutation that has transformed to SCLC, recommendations for older adults with poor performance status, the role of biomarkers, and the use of myeloid supportive agents. Dr. Kalemkerian also highlights future research for systemic therapy options for SCLC, and the impact of guidelines on both clinicians and patients with SCLC. Read the full guideline, “Systemic Therapy for SCLC: ASCO-OH (CCO) Guideline” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines."

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.01435 

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

My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Greg Kalemkerian from the University of Michigan, co-chair on “Systemic Therapy for SCLC: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Ontario Health Guideline.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Kalemkerian. 

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Thank you.

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

So then, to move into what we're here today to discuss, Dr. Kalemkerian, can you provide an overview of both the scope and the purpose of this guideline?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So, the guideline is meant to update the systemic treatment for small-cell lung cancer. There have been several changes in the last couple of years. For the first time in quite a few decades, we actually have some newer drugs that have demonstrated benefits in this disease. So we're really focusing on the systemic therapy. And ASCO does endorse the ASTRO guidelines for the radiotherapy involved in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

Brittany Harvey: Great. That's great to hear that there's new systemic therapy options for patients with small-cell lung cancer. 

So then I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. This guideline reviews eight clinical questions in total, so we can go through the key points of the recommendations for each question. So let's start with what is recommended for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with resected small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So, to start with, only fewer than 5% of people have what would be considered resectable small-cell lung cancer, and that's stage I small-cell lung cancer. So tumors less than 5 cm in size without any lymph node involvement, either hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement. So purely the very early stages, which are rare in small-cell. And if patients undergo surgical resection for such tumors, the recommendation afterward is to provide adjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of either cis-or carboplatin plus etoposide in order to try and improve longer-term survival for those patients. 

The other part of the recommendation is we do recommend that treatment be started within eight weeks of surgery. There is little data on timing in small-cell lung cancer, but that's derived from extrapolating from non-small cell lung cancer as well.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations for resectable small-cell lung cancer. 

So then, moving along, what does the panel recommend for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So, the treatment with limited-stage small cell lung cancer unfortunately has not changed in quite some time. We recommend that patients receive four cycles of either cisplatinum or carboplatin and etoposide concurrently with radiotherapy. Preferably the radiotherapy should be given early and concurrently with the chemotherapy, though we do not recommend that people wait for the radiation to get started in order to start the chemotherapy. So we do recommend that the chemotherapy get started as soon as possible and then the radiation can be added in on the second cycle of chemotherapy.

Brittany Harvey: Then to follow that up, what is recommended for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So, extensive stage small-cell lung cancer now is probably the most straightforward of the portions of this. Based on the data from two trials thus far, the IMpower 133 trial and the CASPIAN trial, we now recommend chemotherapy with immunotherapy. The chemotherapy should be cisplatinor carboplatin plus etoposide along with concurrently either atezolizumab or durvalumab as the immunotherapy for four cycles of the combined chemo-immunotherapy followed by maintenance with the immunotherapy drug of choice. With regard to the choice of either cisplatin or carboplatin, meta-analysis has demonstrated that there is no significant difference between the two and our belief is that carboplatin is likely the more reasonable drug in the palliative treatment situation based on its better non-hematologic toxicities.

Brittany Harvey: Appreciate you sharing those recommendations and some of the rationale behind those. 

So then moving along, what options are available for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So relapsed small-cell lung cancer gets a little more potentially complicated. One of the main drivers of outcome in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer is the time since they completed their initial chemotherapy. Patients who have had a longer time since chemotherapy do better and have better responses to subsequent therapy. For patients who relapse with a short interval within 90 days or three months of completion of prior chemotherapy, our recommendation is that they be treated with single-agent chemotherapy. There are two drugs that are currently FDA approved for use in relapsed small cell lung cancer, topotecan and lurbinectedin, and either one of those is the preferred agent as a single-agent treatment in this scenario.

For people with a longer chemotherapy-free interval, so beyond the 90 days or three months, one could either use combination chemotherapy, so reinitiation or re-induction with the regimen such as carboplatin and etoposide, or one could use single-agent chemotherapy with the preferred agents being topotecan or lurbinectedin again. The use of combination chemotherapy has been shown to improve response rates in this situation over topotecan alone. However, we have not been able to demonstrate that there is a significant improvement in overall survival. So one has to look at the individual patient and make some judgment on whether you think that the added potential toxicity of combination chemotherapy is beneficial for that individual. 

For people who have progression of disease while they are on maintenance therapy with immunotherapy for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer, we do not recommend continuation of the immunotherapy. So if people progress while they're on the immunotherapy, even if they're nine months out on that, then treatment with second-line chemotherapy, either with the combination agent or with single agents, would be what we would recommend, and not continuing the immunotherapy. If patients had previously been treated for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer where immunotherapy is not part of the initial treatment at this time, and they relapse, say, six months or nine months out from their initial chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatment, then it would be reasonable to perhaps initiate carboplatin etoposide and one of the immunotherapy agents as appropriate treatment, because that patient is immunotherapy naive. 

However, the single-agent immunotherapy does not have a role in the treatment of patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. It sounds like some of the treatment options are individualized to the specific patient then. 

So the next question also addresses specific groups of patients. So what did the panel recommend for older adults with small cell lung cancer or for those with poor performance status?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Approximately half of people who have small-cell lung cancer are over the age of 70 years old, so it is a disease of older smokers. Many of these people have comorbidities that can limit our ability to use standard treatments. Many of these individuals also have poor performance status because the disease is an aggressive disease that causes a lot of problems for people. So the issue of older individuals and people of poor performance status is something that we run into on a regular basis in treating people with small-cell lung cancer. 

For patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer who are older and have a performance status of 0 to 2, it is very reasonable to utilize standard treatment with standard chemo and radiotherapy with curative intent. For people with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer who have a performance status of 3 or 4, and this would include people who might be in an ICU with an obstructive airway, then it is reasonable to initiate chemotherapy in order to try and shrink the cancer down and improve their situation.

Small-cell lung cancer is a disease that is very sensitive to chemotherapy initial treatment, so many of these people will have shrinkage of tumor and improvement of their symptoms. If the poor performance status is due to the small-cell lung cancer, it has potential to get better. So we do recommend for people at limited-stage small-cell lung cancer and a poor performance status that is felt to be due to the disease, the cancer, then it is reasonable to initiate treatment with chemotherapy. And depending on the person’s response and recovery and improvement in their performance status, then one could add radiotherapy later on or do it sequentially with the definitive radiotherapy for the limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. 

For older individuals with extensive stage small cell lung cancer who have a performance status of 0-2, it is very reasonable to utilize the standard chemotherapy and immunotherapy as we outlined previously in treating that. For individuals who have a poorer performance status, so performance status 3 or 4, one really needs to individualize the situation. If the poor performance status is due to the cancer, then again, it would be reasonable to attempt chemotherapy in an effort to try and shrink the cancer. There is no data on the use of chemo plus immunotherapy in this patient population. But the use of standard chemotherapy, obviously, in the older individuals preferring carboplatin over cisplatinum with etoposide would be a reasonable option, taking into account abnormalities in organ function that may require dose adjustments or reductions.

Because small-cell lung cancer is a disease that is quite sensitive and responds well to  chemotherapy, then one can individualize in those situations for patients with poor performance status to see if they can improve their overall situation and have some period of time of optimized quality of life. Clearly, it is a very individualized decision-making whether or not to treat these patients. That requires clearly the patient’s input as well, as a primary driver of what is done. 

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That nuance is helpful for patient-clinician shared decision-making, depending on the factors that you mentioned. 

So then, switching to the next topic that the expert panel addressed, what does the panel recommend for patients with non-small cell lung cancer with an EGFR mutation that has then transformed to small-cell lung cancer? 

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: The EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer transformation to small-cell lung cancer is relatively rare. I think in the real world, this probably is occurring in 2%-3% of people with EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer, but we do see it. Now, these patients are initially being treated with EGFR inhibitor therapy for their mutant non-small cell lung cancer and then they develop a more aggressive progression of disease. It is important to note that when people progress in that situation, it is important to get a biopsy in order to see whether or not transformation has occurred and whether or not there are any other new driver mutations that might be targetable. If the patient has a small cell lung cancer transformation, then the recommendation is to treat them as we treat patients with small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy consisting of platinum and etoposide for four to six cycles, as we usually do.

It does not appear that there is a role for immunotherapy in this situation, though we clearly have a paucity of data on these patients. So we do not yet have any trials that have looked at the management of this population. We do have several series that have presented these individuals and what their outcomes are with treatment. And their outcomes are very similar to people with de novo small-cell lung cancer. So not a very good situation, but we do recommend that they be treated with standard chemotherapy, platinum plus etoposide. 

Another question that arises is do you continue with the targeted therapy with the EGFR inhibitor. And the honest answer is we don't know. We don't have data on that. We do know from case reports, the series, and from personal experiences, that some people, in fact, I think many people, if not most of these individuals, have a mix of both EGFR mutant adenocarcinoma and small-cell lung cancer at the time that they transform. So not every tumor in their body is transforming, so that EGFR mutant tumor is still present in their body. So even though the small-cell lung cancer component, because it's progressing, is clearly not responsive to the EGFR inhibitor any longer, the adenocarcinoma component most likely is still sensitive to the EGFR inhibitor. So it is not unreasonable to continue with the EGFR-targeted therapy along with the small cell lung cancer-directed chemotherapy. Even though we don't have any strong data supporting one way or the other.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that guidance, even with the dearth of data in this relatively rare scenario. 

So then we've talked a bit about individualized treatment, and often in that conversation, biomarkers come up. So what does the guideline say regarding the role of biomarkers for patients with small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: This is pretty straightforward. Thus far, in people with de novo small-cell lung cancer - so we're not talking about the transformed patients from EGFR mutant, we're talking about people who present with small-cell lung cancer - we have no evidence that molecular diagnostic testing would help guide treatment or improve patient outcomes at this time. So we do not support obtaining molecular diagnostic testing for the routine care of patients with de novo small-cell lung cancer. I would love to talk for the next half hour about what's coming down the pipeline in small-cell lung cancer with regard to identifying subsets of patients and trying to identify the vulnerabilities within those subsets of patients that may lead to better-targeted therapy based on molecular diagnostics, but in the current environment, there is no role for molecular diagnostics. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. We'll look for that in future guideline updates instead, then. 

So then the last clinical question that the guideline addressed - what myeloid supportive options may be offered for patients with small cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So this has to be couched initially with whether or not one thinks that myeloid suppressive agents are necessary in the treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer. So in extensive-stage disease with the use of chemotherapy, say, carboplatin and etoposide, the majority of patients likely don't require myeloid supportive agents. However, if one believes that the patient, because of their own individual characteristics, or in a patient who has already developed myelosuppressive problems, then one could either utilize trilaciclib, which was FDA-approved a couple of years ago and was shown to improve the blood counts in people with small cell lung cancer treatment, or one could utilize G-CSF. So either trilaciclib or G-CSF could be utilized to support the patient's bone marrow.

In patients who have limited-stage disease, for many years, we have recommended against using G-CSF in combination with chemotherapy and radiotherapy due to concerns for increasing toxicities, including thrombocytopenia. Recent data suggests that this may not necessarily be a hard and fast rule and that if one feels that the patient requires or would benefit from some myeloid support, then G-CSF may be offered to patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy. I do not think that the standard patient that we see who is starting on treatment requires such support, but some subsets of patients or patients who have already proven that they're getting into trouble with their counts, G-CSF could be utilized in this situation. 

So with regard to this recommendation, overall, it's that for patients with extensive stage disease, trilaciclib or G-CSF could be used if one feels they're necessary. And for limited-stage small cell lung cancer, G-CSF could be utilized if you feel it's necessary. 

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those options and all of these recommendations. The panel was certainly hard at work reviewing the evidence and developing these recommendations. 

In your view, Dr. Kalemkerian, what is the importance of this guideline for both clinicians and for patients with small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Well, I think it's not just small-cell lung cancer, but when you look at guidelines overall, I think they are very important to have evidence-based guidelines as well as expert consensus-based guidelines because, quite honestly, the field is moving very quickly, the field of oncology. Now, small-cell lung cancer hasn't moved as quickly as we would like compared to other aspects of oncology, but it's very hard for the clinician who is trying to care for patients with lots of different tumor types to keep up with all of the flood of literature, the flood of new FDA approvals that are coming out every week. So I do think that utilizing the guidelines is important in order to see what the standard approach might be. 

Now, I also have to couch that with saying that guidelines are never enough. We have to look at the individual sitting across the exam table from us. We have to personalize the treatment to that individual. I will say that in my own practice, there are very few people who walk in the door who are the optimal patient, who are the person who has outstanding physical function. And in lung cancer, that's even more true because patients tend to be older smokers, and they have a lot of comorbidities and other things that you have to personalize therapy towards in them. So the guidelines are a very good starting point in order to know what the optimal treatment might be and then to adjust that accordingly to the person sitting in the room with you. 

Brittany Harvey: Definitely, we hope guidelines are a place that clinicians can turn to for evidence-based recommendations and succinct recommendations, but individualized patient and clinician decision-making is paramount to each of our guidelines.  

So then, Dr. Kalemkerian, we've already talked about this a little bit when you mentioned molecular testing advances down the road. So maybe I'll ask what are the most pressing, unanswered questions about systemic therapy for small-cell lung cancer?

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Yeah, so one of them I'll come back to limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. So, obviously, in the extensive stage, we've now incorporated immunotherapy. And yet I didn't talk about immunotherapy in the limited-stage setting, and neither do the guidelines because thus far we don't have any data on the use of immunotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. We are expecting data to be coming down the line within the next year hopefully, definitely, within the next two years, because a number of trials that are either ongoing or have recently been completed looking at incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment of limited-stage small-cell either concurrently with chemoradiation or as consolidation after chemoradiotherapy. So that data is anxiously anticipated. And we're hoping that that might move the needle a little bit further in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer and hopefully improve that long-term survival or cure rate that we see in that disease. 

Other avenues coming down the line – many of us have made a career of doing negative trials in small-cell lung cancer, myself included, and a lot of that has had to do with trying to target therapies to specific molecular abnormalities, and none of those have really panned out thus far. But coming down the line, as we start to molecularly subtype lung cancers, and the best molecular subtyping that we have thus far is not based on mutational analysis, but more based on expression, gene expression analysis, expression of particular transcriptional factors within different subsets of small cell lung cancer, we're now starting to see some vulnerabilities. So one of these subsets in the small cell lung cancer array has a high expression of DLL3, which is part of the Notch pathway, and we can target that. We haven't figured out how to target it as far as its activity goes, but we can target it as a homing device in order to get either drugs delivered by use of antibody-drug conjugates, or to use a BiTE—a T-cell engaging type molecule—that targets both DLL3and T cells in order to try and amplify that immune response in small cell lung cancers. So recently a compound called tarlatamab had data presented at ASCO and also published in JCO that shows some response, about 20-25% response, in people with relapse small cell lung cancer. These were heavily pretreated patients. So that's moving the needle a bit in favor of a specific targeted therapy. And we're hoping that will lead to further avenues to look at the vulnerabilities of different subsets and be able to develop newer targeted treatments for these diseases, trying to amplify that immunotherapy response as well. 

Small cell lung cancer is a little bit of an outlier in that it does not respond well to immunotherapy compared to other tumors. Not what we expected based on the high tumor mutational burden and the aggressiveness of the disease. But we know that it does not express a lot of PD-L1. We know that it doesn't have MHC class I molecules. So there are a number of reasons why it doesn't respond, and there is work going on to try and amplify that immune response as well. So I think those three things: the use of immunotherapy in limited-stage, the development of targeted therapies based on subsets, and trying to amplify that immune response are the things that I look forward to in the next few years.

Brittany Harvey: That's great to hear. We'll await the data to provide answers to those outstanding questions. 

So I want to thank you so much for your work to develop these evidence-based guidelines, and thank you for sharing your perspective with me today, Dr. Kalemkerian. 

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Thank you, Brittany. And thanks to ASCO for getting these guidelines together and getting the outstanding group of people we had to work on it and getting them out in a timely manner so they can help our patients.

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

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

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

Dr. Eric Singer highlights the recent rapid recommendation update from ASCO on the management of metastatic renal cell cancer (ccRCC), based on the review of evidence from the phase III COSMIC 313 trial. Dr. Singer reviews the discussion from the Expert Panel and emphasizes clinicians should continue to follow the previously issued recommendations for the management of metastatic ccRCC. He also mentions future directions, ongoing clinical trials, and outstanding questions for these evidence-based guidelines. Read the latest update, “Management of Metastatic Renal Clear Cell Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update” at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSCRIPT

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Eric Singer from the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, lead author on the “Management of Metastatic Renal Clear Cell Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.” 

Thank you for being here, Dr. Singer.

Dr. Eric Singer: Brittany, great to be with you. Thank you for the invite. 

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

So then, Dr. Singer, to dive into this rapid update, can you tell me a little bit about what prompted this rapid update to the Management of Metastatic Renal Clear Cell Cancer Guideline, which was previously published in 2022?

Dr. Eric Singer: Sure. One of the big motivators for this was the fantastic work done by Toni Choueiri and colleagues in publishing the COSMIC-313 trial, which looked at triplet therapy for the management of metastatic kidney cancer: a combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and cabozantinib versus patients with placebo plus ipi and nivo. And this was a much-awaited trial, and these results came out. And certainly, there was a lot of interest amongst providers as well as patients to help understand the results of this important study and whether or not we should be changing our practice. So, the guideline group who wrote the initial guideline in 2022 felt that this was a significant enough study to warrant a rapid update.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then, based on this new data from COSMIC-313, what is the updated recommendation from the Guideline Expert Panel?

Dr. Eric Singer: So, the recommendations largely do not change. Unfortunately, while there was some fantastic information gleaned from COSMIC-313, the survival outcomes that were seen at this point, in context with the toxicity signals that were seen at this point, led the Guideline Committee to recommend against adopting triplet therapy as a standard option. However, the Guideline Committee did encourage patients and providers to continue to refer to and accrue to clinical trials that will be again asking similar questions about the combinations that we should be using to treat metastatic kidney cancer going forward. So essentially, we felt that the survival benefit was not adequate to recommend first-line treatment adoption of this triplet regimen in context with the toxicities that were seen in the triplet regimen. 

Brittany Harvey: Understood. That's helpful to know. 

So then, what should clinicians know as they implement this guidance into practice? 

Dr. Eric Singer: I would recommend that we continue to follow the original guideline as published. There are multiple doublet agents or doublet therapeutic combinations that are available, which we found to have strong survival outcomes and more manageable toxicity profiles than the triplet regimen studied in COSMIC-313.

Brittany Harvey: Great. Additionally, what does this update mean for patients with metastatic renal clear cell cancer?

Dr. Eric Singer: Yeah, as we all think about how best to manage patients with metastatic kidney cancer, a lot of the things that we're thinking about are, will this treatment make people live longer, and will this treatment make patients live better, balancing both efficacy and also looking at toxicity. And I think in this case, there wasn't the survival endpoints or the survival benefit we were hoping for, again, sort of a surprisingly low number of complete responses seen in this study compared to prior pivotal trials, and quite a bit of toxicity because we're combining three different drugs. And when we do combine medications, we're always hoping for synergy in terms of the efficacy so the combination working better than what we'd expect just by adding those outcomes together. But unfortunately, we also got quite a bit of additive toxicity in the combination as well. So, I think that we still have many excellent options to choose from and that, unfortunately, at this time, there didn't seem to be the survival benefits in light of the toxicity to warrant a change.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That balance of benefit and harms is crucial. 

So then, finally, you mentioned that this guideline encourages enrollment in clinical trials, but I want to also ask you, what are the outstanding questions that we're looking forward to regarding the management of metastatic renal cell cancer?

Dr. Eric Singer: Brittany, I think there's a lot of important questions for us to work on answering. Like we were sort of alluding to in a study like this, we want to know not only which patients are likely to benefit from a combination of therapies, but we also want to begin to learn more about which patients are at an especially high risk of toxicity from combined treatments. So, not only can I counsel a patient about what we think this will do for disease control, but also to identify potential risk factors for adverse events because that can help us choose between the multiple different options we have available. We also have a lot of options at our disposal now in terms of combining different types of therapy: How should we integrate surgery, radiation, systemic therapy? What order should we do them in? What is the best combination to use at each of these steps, so that we can continue to help patients live longer and live better on their kidney cancer journey?

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Well, I want to thank you so much for your work to update this guideline very rapidly, and thank you for sharing your insights with me today, Dr. Singer.

Dr. Eric Singer: Brittany, my pleasure. And again, I really appreciate the work of everyone who's been on the metastatic kidney cancer panel, such fantastic professionals in terms of their clinical expertise, and then also the fantastic ASCO staff, where we really wouldn't be able to do this work without the amazing dedication and hard work of our ASCO team members.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely a big thank you to the entire expert panel. 

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

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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.