Podcasts

Retiring ASCO Chief Medical Officer Dr. Richard L Schilsky gives a far-reaching interview with ASCO in Action podcast host ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, who examines Dr. Schilsky’s trailblazing medical career, his leadership in ASCO and indelible mark on its research enterprise, and what he sees for the future of oncology. ASCO’s first-ever Chief Medical Officer even offers some friendly advice for Dr Julie Gralow, who starts as ASCO’s next CMO on February 15, 2021. In a touching tribute, Dr. Hudis also shares what Dr. Schilsky’s friendship and mentorship has meant to him personally, and suggests that Rich will still be supporting ASCO on critical priorities moving forward. Don’t miss this exchange with one of oncology’s greats!

Transcript

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

CLIFFORD HUDIS: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

The ASCO in Action podcast is a series where we explore the policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for-- people with cancer. My name is Dr. Clifford Hudis. And I'm the CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series.

For today's podcast, I am especially pleased to have as my guest my friend, colleague, and mentor Dr. Richard Schilsky, ASCO's chief medical officer. Now, I am sure that many of our listeners have already heard that Dr. Schilsky will be leaving ASCO in February of 2021, retiring.

However, I want to reassure everybody that even in retirement, he will continue to make contributions and provide leadership to all of us. And his illustrious and path-blazing career in oncology spanning more than four decades is not quite over thankfully.

Rich is ASCO's first chief medical officer. And as such, he has made a truly indelible mark on all of us. He started with a proverbial blank piece of paper. The position had no precedent. It had no budget. It had no staff.

But now after just eight years in the role, he has helped make the CMO a critically important position at the society. And I have to say that success is more than anything due to Rich's vision and his leadership. And that's some of what we'll be talking about today.

So Rich, thank you very much for joining me today for what I hope is going to be a great casual but informative conversation about your amazing career, your unique role at ASCO, and maybe most importantly in the end what you see for the future of oncology not just in the United States, but around the world. Thanks for coming on, Rich.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Thanks, Cliff. It's great to be here today.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So with that, let's just dive right in and start at the very beginning. Rich, tell everybody why you decided to become an oncologist and maybe share a little bit about what those early days looked like for you and, in that context, what it was like to have cancer at the beginning of your career.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, I knew from an early age that I wanted to be a doctor. And in fact, I had written a little essay when I was in sixth grade as a homework assignment called My Ambition. And my mother had tucked that away in a scrapbook. And I found it a number of years ago. And on rereading it, it was quite amazing to me to see what I was thinking about even then.

Because I said not only did I want to be a doctor, but I didn't think that was enough, that I wanted to be a medical researcher because I wanted to discover new information that would help people heal from whatever their diseases might be.

And so it was never really any doubt in my mind that I would be a physician. I went to medical school at the University of Chicago. But I was living in New York City at the time having grown up in Manhattan. And the only year we had off in medical school, the only time we had off in medical school, was the summer between the end of the first year and the beginning of the second year.

So during that time, I went back to Manhattan. And I was able to get a fellowship from the American College of Radiology that allowed me to essentially hang out in the radiation therapy department at New York University Medical Center, which was within walking distance of where I grew up. And so I would go over there every day. And I was taken under the wing of a young radiation oncologist.

And of course, I wasn't really qualified to do anything at that point except to follow him around, talk and listen to the patients. But that turned out to be a really formative experience for me because we saw the whole gamut of cancer. We saw head and neck cancers. We saw lung cancer. We saw patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer.

And in those years-- this is the early 1970s-- many of these patients have fairly locally far advanced disease and were quite debilitated by it. But listening to their stories, hearing about their hopes and their struggles, really demonstrated to me the human side of cancer.

So I went back to school and thought about this in the context of my own personal experience, which dated back to when I was in college when my mother's mother, my maternal grandmother, was diagnosed with breast cancer. This was 1968. And as you well know, there were very few therapies available for breast cancer in the late 1960s, mostly hormone therapies.

And my grandmother had the treatment that was considered standard of care at that time, which was extended radical mastectomy followed by chest wall radiation. And some years after that first mastectomy, she had a breast cancer that developed in the opposite breast and had a second extended radical mastectomy and chest wall radiation. And these were very traumatic and disfiguring procedures for her to go through.

Anyway, long story short is after another few years, she developed bone metastases and then brain metastases. And there was really very little that could be done for her other than hormone therapies. And having observed her go through that illness and realizing how limited our treatment options were and then having the experience after my first year in medical school pretty well cemented for me that I wanted to be an oncologist.

I thought actually about being a radiation oncologist. But then I did my internal medicine rotation in medical school, fell in love with internal medicine. And that sort of put me on the path to be a medical oncologist.

The clinical challenge of caring for cancer patients, the emotional attachment to those patients, and, of course, even then, the unfolding biology of cancer was so intellectually captivating that I actually applied for oncology fellowship when I was a senior medical student. So even before going off to do my medical residency, I had already been accepted as a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute to start two years hence. And that's how I became an oncologist.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So it's so interesting. Because, of course, the story I'm sure for many people interested not just in oncology, but even medical education, there are little things that don't happen nowadays that happened with you like that last little vignette about the early acceptance into an advanced training program before your fellowship among other things.

Can you remind us about the timeline? Because I think one of the things that many of our listeners often can lose sight of is just how new oncology really is as a specialty. ASCO itself founded in 1964. And the first medical oncology boards were mid-'70s, right? So you were in med school just before that second landmark, right?

RICHARD SCHILSKY: That's right. I graduated from medical school in 1975. I started my oncology fellowship in 1977. And I got board-certified in medical oncology and joined ASCO in 1980. And so that was the time frame at that point.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So the internal medicine was actually, if I heard you right, just two years, not the now traditional four.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. I was a short tracker. I did only two years of internal medicine training rather than three. I did my training at Parkland Hospital and University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas with at that time a legendary chair of medicine, Don Seldin, who I had to get permission from him to leave the program prior to completing the third year of residency because I had already been accepted into fellowship at NCI.

And he, Seldin, who was a brilliant chairman and a brilliant nephrologist, was not at all interested in cancer. And it took a bit of-- I was going to say arm twisting, but it really took bleeding on my part to get him to agree to allow me to leave the residency program to go to the NCI. But he eventually agreed.

And in those years, the first-year clinical fellowship at the NCI was like being an intern all over again. There were about 15 of us. We were on call overnight in the clinical center once every two weeks. We cared for all of our inpatients as well as had a cadre of outpatients.

We did all of our own procedures. We had no intensive care unit. So patients who were sick enough to require ventilator support, we cared on the floor in the inpatient service on our own with guidance from senior oncologists. It was a bit different from the way it is now. But, of course, it was fantastic on-the-job training because we just learned a ton and had to learn it very quickly.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So that's actually a great segue to the advances because there was a lot to learn then. But, wow, there's a lot more to learn, I think, now. And I have real sympathy for trainees and younger oncologists for the breadth of what they need to learn. Again, just testing your memory, but platinum came along pretty much in the mid-'70s as well, right? That was a pivotal expansion of the armamentarium for us.

So what do you see-- when you summarize progress in cancer research and care over these decades, what do you think are the most pivotal or revolutionary milestones that you identify over the span of your career?

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. It's really interesting to think about it historically. There were the early years of discovery in oncology from the 1950s to the 1970s when we really had the introduction of the first chemotherapy drugs and the miraculous observation that people with advanced cancer could actually obtain a remission and, in some cases, a complete remission with chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy in particular.

And so that was the formative years of oncology as a medical specialty and really proof of concept that cancer could be controlled with drugs. When we got into the 1980s, the 1980s in many respects were the doldrums of progress in clinical oncology. There really was not a lot of innovation in the clinic.

But what was happening and what was invisible to many of us, of course, was that was the decade of discovery of the fundamental biology of cancer. That's when oncogenes were discovered, when tumor suppressor genes were discovered, when it became clear that cancer was really a genetic disease. And that is what transformed the field and put us on the path to targeted therapy and precision medicine as we think of it today.

So I think that clearly understanding the biology of cancer as we do now and all that it took to lead us to that point, which was a combination of understanding biology, developing appropriate technology that would, for example, enable the sequencing of the human genome and then the cancer genome.

And the other formative technology in my opinion that really changed the way we care for cancer patients was the introduction of CT scanning. When I was still a fellow at the NCI, we did not have a CT scanner. If we needed to get detailed imaging of a patient, we did tomography. And if you remember what tomograms looked like, they were really blurry images that you could get some depth perception about what was going on in the patient's chest or abdomen. But they really weren't very precise.

When CT scanning came along, it really revolutionized our ability to evaluate patients, assess the extent of disease, stage them in a much more precise way, which then allowed for better patient selection for curative surgery, better radiation therapy planning. So we don't often point to imaging advances as some of the transformative things that paved the way in oncology, but I think imaging is really overlooked to some extent.

So I think the technology advances, the biological advances, are the things that really allowed the field to move forward very quickly. And by the time we got into the mid-1990s, we were beginning to see the introduction of the targeted therapies that have now become commonplace today.

And then it was around 2000, I think, that we saw the introduction of Gleevec. And I'm reminded always about an editorial written by Dan Longo in The New England Journal a few years ago. And Dan and I were fellows together. We worked side by side on the wards at the clinical center and became very good friends.

And Dan in his role as a deputy editor of The New England Journal wrote an editorial a few years ago that was titled "Gleevec Changed Everything." And Gleevec did change everything. It changed our entire perception of what were the drivers of cancer and how we might be able to control cancer very effectively and potentially put it into long-term remission.

Now, of course, we know now that the whole Gleevec story is more of an exception than a rule in targeted therapy. And, of course, we know that tumors become resistant to targeted therapies. But we couldn't have known any of this back in the early years of oncology because we had no real insight into what caused cancer to grow or progress. And the notion of drug resistance, while we realized that it occurred, we had no idea what the mechanisms were. So it's such a different landscape now than what it used to be. It's quite remarkable.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So as you tell the story, there's, of course, a lot of focus on technology, whether it's biology and understanding the key features of malignancy or imaging or more. But what I also note in your story and I want to come back to is the people. And I can't help but reflect on where we are in this moment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, we've moved to telemedicine. Everything can be accomplished via technology. And, yet, the human touch is so important.

When we think about being in the room with people, when we think about face to face from the context of career development and your own career, you touched on Dr. Seldin, I think, already from the perspective of internal medicine training. But are there are other mentors or important shapers of your career that you think we should know about?

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, probably, the most influential person early in my career in medical school was John Altman. John, you may know, was the inaugural director of the University of Chicago's NCI-designated Cancer Center, which was one of the very first NCI-designated cancer centers in 1973 after the National Cancer Act of 1971 created the cancer centers program.

And John, who was a leading oncologist studying Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, was a faculty member there. He was the director of our cancer center as I said. He took me under his wing even when I was in medical school and served as a real role model and mentor to me.

When I was in my internal medicine training as I mentioned earlier, Don Seldin, the chair of medicine, was never particularly interested in oncology. So, to some extent, I didn't have-- I had great internal medicine training. But I did not have good mentorship in oncology. When I got to the NCI, then my whole world really opened up.

And the two pivotal people there in my career were Bob Young, who was chief of the medicine branch and was my clinical mentor and remains a mentor and friend to this day, and then, of course, Bruce Chabner, who was the chief of the clinical pharmacology branch.

And in my second year of fellowship when we all went into the laboratory, I went into Bruce's lab. And that's where I really got interested in the mechanism of action of anti-cancer drugs and ultimately in drug development and early phase clinical trials. And both Bob and Bruce remain very close to me even today.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: So I'm concerned about time on our call today on our discussion. Because we could obviously fill lots of hours on all of these remarkable experiences and amazing people you worked with. But I'm going to ask that we fast forward a little bit.

You and I share, I think, passion and love for ASCO. So I think that it's reasonable for us to focus a little bit on that for the time we have left here. You didn't start out obviously as chief medical officer at ASCO. But you were a really active ASCO volunteer and leader. Maybe tell us a little bit about some of the ASCO volunteer roles that you engaged in and what that meant to you at the time and how that led to this role.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, I'll be brief. I joined ASCO in 1980 at the first moment that I was eligible to join ASCO. I had attended my first ASCO meeting the year before, 1979, when I was still in my fellowship training. And it was clear to me even then when the whole annual meeting was about 2,500 people in two ballrooms in a hotel in New Orleans that that was a community of scholars and physicians that I wanted to be a part of.

And so, over the years, I did what people do even today. I volunteered to participate in whatever ASCO activity I could get involved with. Over the years-- I think I counted it up not too long ago-- I think I served or chaired 10 different ASCO committees, more often serving as a member, but in a number of those committees also serving as the chair over many years.

And as I became more deeply involved in ASCO and saw other opportunities to engage, I had the opportunity to run for election to the board and was-- after a couple of tries was elected to serve on the board and then eventually elected to serve as ASCO president in 2008-2009.

But the attraction of ASCO in many ways was a community of diverse but, in many ways, like-minded people, people who had similar passion and drive and focus. But I think what you get at ASCO in many ways is the wonderful diversity of our field. If you work in a single institution for much of your career as I did and as you did, you get to know that institution pretty well. You get to know its perspectives and its biases and its strengths and its weaknesses.

But there's a whole world of oncology out there. And you can get exposed to that at ASCO because you meet and work with colleagues from every clinical setting, every research setting, people who have remarkable skills and interests and passions. And it's just a wonderful environment to help develop your career. So I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have had the journey in ASCO that I've had culminating, of course, with ultimately my coming on the staff as ASCO's first chief medical officer.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: We often joke about that blank sheet of paper. But in retrospect, it's very obvious that you had built up that collection of LEGO blocks, and then you assembled them all into the ASCO Research Enterprise, a name you gave it.

And it really, in retrospect, builds, I think, very cleanly upon all of your prior experience, but also the vision that you developed based on that experience for how research should be conducted. Can you maybe share with everybody the scope and vision for the ASCO Research Enterprise, what the intent was, and where you see it going, and what it includes today?

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Sure. I won't claim that I came to ASCO with the whole thing fully developed in my mind. As you said, when I came, I literally did have a blank slate. Allen Lichter, who hired me, said, come on board and help me make ASCO better. And so I, in a sense, reverted to what I knew best how to do, which was clinical research.

And having in my career been a cancer center director, a hem-onc division chief, a cooperative group chair, I had a lot of experience to draw on. And it was obvious to me that ASCO was fundamentally an organization that took in information from various sources, evaluated it, vetted it, collated it, and then disseminated it through our various channels, most notably our meetings and our journals.

But ASCO itself did not contribute to the research enterprise. And that seemed to me to be a lost opportunity. We knew that ASCO had lots of data assets that could be of interest to our members and to the broader cancer community. But they were scattered all around the organization and not particularly well annotated or organized. So we began to collate those. And they are now available to ASCO members on the ASCO data library.

I recognized that we did not have an organized unit in ASCO to support or facilitate or conduct research. So, in 2017, we formed the Center for Research and Analytics and brought together staff who were already working at ASCO but scattered in different departments but all people who had an interest in clinical research or research policy and brought them into this new unit, which has really become the focal point for research work at ASCO.

We recognized that ASCO members for many years were interested in surveying their colleagues, surveying other ASCO members, to help advance research questions. But ASCO actually had a policy that prohibited that.

So that never really made good sense to me. It seemed like a lost opportunity. And we were able to create a program and have the ASCO board approve it whereby any ASCO member could opt in to participate in what we now call the Research Survey Pool.

And in doing so, they are essentially agreeing to participate in research surveys conducted by their colleagues. So that program is now up and running. There are, I think, eight surveys that have been completed or are currently in the field. And this is now a service that ASCO provides through CENTRA to its members to enable them to survey their colleagues for research purposes.

Most importantly, I think we saw an opportunity back in 2014 or 2015 to begin to learn from what our colleagues were doing in clinical practice as they began to deploy precision medicine. And there was a lot of genomic profiling that was going on at that time. It was revealing actionable alterations in roughly 30% or so of the tumors that were profiled.

But there was a lot of difficulty in doctors and patients obtaining the drugs that were thought to be appropriate to treat the cancer at that particular time because most of those drugs would have to be prescribed off label. And there was not a sufficient evidence base to get them reimbursed. And, moreover, even if they could be reimbursed, there was no organized way to collect the patient outcomes and learn from their experiences.

So that led to us developing ASCO's first prospective clinical trial, TAPUR, which really solves both of those problems. Through the participation of the eight pharmaceutical companies that are engaged with us in the study, we are providing-- at one point, it was up to 19 different treatments free of charge to patients.

These are all marketed drugs but used outside of their FDA-approved indications. And we were collecting data on the patients, the genomic profile of cancer, the treatment they received, and their outcomes in a highly organized way.

And so now this is a study that we launched in 2016. We're now almost to 2021. We have more than 3,000 patients who have been registered on the study, meaning consented to participate, more than 2,000 who have been treated on the study. And we are churning out results as quickly as we can about which drugs are used or not useful in the off-label setting for patients whose tumors have a specific genomic profile.

So we built all this infrastructure. And having this in place has also then allowed us to respond rapidly to unmet needs. So when the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed all of us, and when our members were looking for information about what was the impact of COVID-19 on their patients, one of the things we were able to do because we had CENTRA, because we had a skilled staff and an infrastructure, was to very quickly stand up the ASCO COVID-19 registry, which we launched in April of this year.

And there are now about 1,000 patients who've enrolled in the registry from around 60 practices that are participating. And we will follow these patients now longitudinally and learn from their experiences what has been the impact of the COVID-19 illness on them and their outcomes, how has it disrupted their cancer care, and ultimately how that impacts their overall cancer treatment outcomes.

So as I now contemplate leaving ASCO after eight years having started with a blank slate, I'm very proud of the fact that I think I'm leaving us with a remarkable infrastructure. We now have a clinical trials network of 124 sites around the country participating in TAPUR that we never had before. We have through the work of CancerLinQ a real-world evidence data generator that is beginning to churn out valuable insights.

We have a capacity to survey ASCO members for research purposes. We have an ability to stand up prospective observational registries to gather information longitudinally about patients and their outcomes. We have a core facility in CENTRA with highly skilled data analysts and statisticians that can support these various research activities.

So ASCO is now primed, I think, to really contribute in a very meaningful way to the gaps in knowledge that will forever exist in oncology just because of the complexity of all the diseases we call cancer. And that's what I mean by the ASCO Research Enterprise. It is in fact remarkable and, I think, powerful enterprise if we continue to use it effectively.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, that's an interesting segue to my next thought, which is really about what comes next. I'll talk about you. But let's start with ASCO first. Your successor, Dr. Julie Gralow, obviously has been announced publicly. She's an accomplished clinician and researcher. She has a known recognized passion for patients, patient advocacy, clinical research through her leadership at SWOG but also health care equity and global oncology.

So from your perspective, having created all of these assets and resources, what advice would you give Dr. Gralow publicly on how to make the position hers, what to take us to next? And I do want to acknowledge for everybody listening that the hints I've been making up until now are that Rich has agreed that he will continue to contribute as a leader to TAPUR for the short term, at least, at least the next year helping Julie get fully oriented to this program and others. So what will your advice be to Julie?

RICHARD SCHILSKY: That's a great question. She's a great selection. And congratulations on hiring her. I think there are two key issues, I think, maybe three. One is to have a broad scope and cast a wide net. Oncology care and cancer research and cancer biology are incredibly complicated and nuanced and broad in scope.

And although Julie is an accomplished breast cancer clinician and researcher, in this role at ASCO, you have to be very broad. You have to understand all of cancer care, all of cancer research, all of policy and advocacy not as an expert in necessarily in any one aspect of ASCO's work, but you have to understand the impact of all of those things on cancer care providers and on cancer patients.

And it's important to always be looking to the future. The future is going to be here before you know it. And we as a professional society have to prepare our members for that future. So that leads me to the second point, which is listen to the members.

The members are the people on the front lines who are delivering care to patients every day. And, fundamentally, ASCO's job is to be sure that our members have all the tools and knowledge and resources that they need to deliver the highest quality care to patients every day. So listening to what they need, what their struggles are, what their burdens are, is extremely important.

And then the third thing I would recommend to her is that she get to know the staff and colleagues that she'll be working with. ASCO has a remarkably accomplished, skilled, motivated, passionate staff, many of whom have been with the organization for years, if not decades, who understand what ASCO can and cannot do and who understand what our members need. And she will be well advised to spend a good portion of her first few months on the job just listening and learning from her colleagues.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: That's always good advice for anybody making a big career move. But, of course, the wisdom you bring to it is palpable and much appreciated. And I'm sure Julie will be taking your advice. And, by the way, so will I continue to do that even after you make your move. So speaking of your retirement, can you share with us a little bit about what it's actually going to look like for you? Is it about family? Or are you still going to have some professional engagement? Again, I suggest that there might be some already, but maybe you could expand on it.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Yeah. I'm still fully focused on my work at ASCO. And, of course, as you know, when I wake up on February 15, I will no longer be ASCO's chief medical officer. And it's going to be a bit of a rude awakening. Fortunately, I will be able to continue my engagement with ASCO through the TAPUR study as you mentioned. I will, of course, forever be at ASCO member and a donor to Conquer Cancer and be willing to serve the society in any way.

I have a number of activities that I've been involved with even throughout my time at ASCO. Not-for-profit boards, for example-- I'm on the board of directors of Friends of Cancer Research. I'm on the board of directors for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for FDA.

I plan to continue with those activities as long as they'll have me. I've been serving the last few years on the board also of the EORTC, the large European cooperative clinical research group. And I expect to continue in that role.

Beyond that, I will see what opportunities come my way. I think one of the things about retirement if you will that I'm looking forward to is the opportunity to pick and choose what to work on based on what interests me without having the burdens of having a full-time job.

On the personal front, of course, we're all looking forward to crawling out from the pandemic. I've basically been locked in my home outside Chicago since March. And I'm looking forward to getting back out to a little bit of a social life. As you know, I have two grown daughters and now three grandchildren, two of whom are in Atlanta, one of whom is near by us in the Chicago area. So looking forward to spending time with them as well.

So it will be a change for me to be sure after working as hard as-- I feel like I've worked for really now 45 years since I graduated from medical school. But I also feel like I'm not quite done yet and that I still have ways in which I can contribute. I just feel like at this point, maybe it's time for me to choose how I want to make those contributions and spend a little bit more time doing some other things.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, both you and my predecessor, Allen Lichter, are modeling something, have modeled something, that I think is not often discussed but can be very important. For people and for institutions, change is not a bad thing. And setting the expectation that you will pour your heart and soul into something but not necessarily do it alone or forever and not prevent others from taking that role at some point, that's a really-- I think it's a selfless kind of sacrifice in a way.

Because, of course, you could stay and do what you're doing for longer. But as you and I have discussed, there is a value for all of us collectively in having fresh eyes and new people take organizations in a new direction. That's how I ended up here frankly. And I think that's the kind of opportunity you're creating right now, something that should be celebrated in my opinion.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Well, thanks. And I couldn't agree more. When I look back at the arc of my career and having all the different kinds of leadership roles that I've had, I basically have made a job change every 8 to 10 years. I was the director of our cancer center for nearly 10 years. I was associate dean for clinical research at the University of Chicago for eight years, another position that I created from a blank slate at that institution.

The exception was serving 15 years as a CALGB group chair. But that was a position I really loved and enjoyed and felt like at the end of the first 10 I hadn't quite accomplished everything I wanted to accomplish.

But the point is that I think it is both necessary for organizations to have regular leadership change. And it's also refreshing for us as individuals. There gets to a point where you feel like you can do your job in your sleep. And I actually think that's a good time to make a change.

Because if that's the way you feel, you're not being sufficiently challenged. And you're probably not being sufficiently creative. And so it's a good time to move on and refresh your own activities and give your organization a chance to bring in someone to hopefully build on whatever you've created and bring it to the next level.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: Well, I agree with all that, although I think your comment there about doing the job in your sleep would not apply because I'm pretty confident that the environment and opportunities have continued to evolve in a way that has made it interesting from beginning to end. But you don't have to rebut me on that. I just want to thank you very, very much, Rich.

As we set up this podcast, I expected that we would have a really fun and enlightening conversation. And, of course, you did not disappoint. We could talk for much, much longer if we only had the time.

On a personal note to you and for the benefit of our listeners, I want to share that Rich has been for me a remarkable friend and mentor and colleague. I first met Rich at the very beginning of my career when my mentor, Larry Norton, pushed me out from Memorial into the larger world. And he did that first and primarily through ASCO and the Cancer and Leukemia Group. Those are really the two places where I was exposed to the world.

And through the CALGB, Rich really began to offer me and others, many others, opportunities that shaped careers plural, mine and others. So when I got to ASCO as CEO, Rich was there. And I knew I could always depend on you to be clearheaded, intellectually precise, constructive, visionary. And the thing about you, Rich, is that you never would say yes to anything unless you knew for sure you could do it and indeed, I think, how you could do it.

I always share this story which your staff at CENTRA pointed out to me. And I have to admit that I hadn't picked it up myself. But in all the years of now working down the hall from Rich, probably hundreds and hundreds of hours of meetings, he never has taken a note in front of me. And, yet, everything we talk about, every action item we conclude to pursue, they all get done.

So I don't know, Rich. You have a remarkable way of organizing your thoughts and your plans, keeping it together, and getting things done. And I'm going to miss that tremendously in the years ahead.

So, Rich, I want to say congratulations. Congratulations on reaching this really important milestone in your life. Thank you on behalf of ASCO and the broader oncology community and the patients we care for and their families for making the world a better place. And just as a small thing, thank you for joining me today for this ASCO in Action podcast.

RICHARD SCHILSKY: Thank you, Cliff. It's been great.

CLIFFORD HUDIS: And, for all of you, if you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And, while you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The ASCO in Action podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all of the shows at podcast.asco.org. Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast.

In the latest ASCO in Action podcast, ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis shares a quick preview of what's to come for the 2020 ASCO Advocacy Summit and Week of Action, which will take place September 14-18.

Typically, ASCO volunteers from across the country gather in Washington, D.C. to advocate for policies that will improve access to high-quality, equitable care for people with cancer and ensure robust funding for cancer research through in-person meetings with their Members of Congress. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 ASCO Advocacy Summit will be a virtual event, but participants can expect the same important advocacy and education opportunities that the event provides every year. All ASCO members are encouraged to participate in the Congressional Week of Action by signing up with the ACT Network (through the Advocacy Center on ASCO.org).

Subscribe to the ASCO in Action podcast through iTunes and Google Play.

 

Transcript

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

Dr. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to the ASCO in Action Podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of 9 programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at “Podcast dot ASCO dot org” (podcast.asco.org)

The ASCO in Action Podcast is ASCO’s podcast series that explores the policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for—people with cancer.

I’m Dr. Clifford Hudis, CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For this podcast, I wanted to share with listeners a preview of the 2020 ASCO Advocacy Summit and Week of Action taking place September 14-18.

Typically, ASCO gathers volunteer advocates in Washington, D.C., in September for education sessions and in-person meetings with their Members of Congress.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic—like so many events scheduled to take place this year—the 2020 ASCO Advocacy Summit will be a virtual event, but that said, participants can expect the same advocacy and education opportunities that the event provides every year.

ASCO volunteers will meet with Members of Congress and their staff by phone or video to advocate for policies that will improve access to high-quality, equitable care for people with cancer and ensure robust funding for cancer research.

Advocacy Summit attendees will also attend webinars to receive education and training on lobbying Congress and the current political landscape.

What is different this year is our online Week of Action, which will give all ASCO members an opportunity to advocate on critical issues of great importance to the cancer care delivery system in the United States.

Participants in the Week of Action will amplify the Advocacy Summit’s messages through email and social media messages to Members of Congress using ASCO’s ACT Network. And, it’s easy to get involved and make your voice heard. You just need to click on the link to the ACT Network in the Advocacy Center on ASCO.org and sign up to receive ASCO ACT Network emails. Then, you’ll get all the information on the fastest and easiest ways to contact lawmakers delivered directly to your inbox. We hope you will participate as much as you can—the effort will take just minutes. Even one message a day by every ASCO member to your representatives in Congress will have a tremendous impact.

During the virtual Advocacy Summit, which will be held in the middle of the Week of Action on September 16, ASCO volunteer advocates will have their virtual meetings with Members of Congress and their staff. The three issues or “legislative asks” that they will be discussing will be the same asks that ASCO members will contact their Members of Congress about during the Week of Action.

One, we will ask Congress to support legislation—The CLINICAL TREATMENT Act, which will give all Medicaid beneficiaries coverage of routine costs when enrolled in clinical trials—coverage Medicare and private insurance plans already provide. The importance of improving health equity has become even more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this legislation takes us one step closer to that goal.

Two, ASCO volunteer advocates will request lawmakers to co-sponsor the Safe Step Act, which will help protect patients from harmful step therapy protocols, which ASCO believes is never appropriate in the treatment of cancer.

And three, we’ll address the impact COVID-19 has had on cancer practices and research. Specifically, advocates will ask Congress to endorse maintaining reimbursement flexibilities for telehealth, as many oncology practices have rapidly transitioned to telehealth to ensure patients continued receiving treatment during the pandemic.  We’ll also be asking Congress to provide emergency funding to the National Institutes of Health to mitigate disruptions caused to labs and clinical trials by COVID-19, and to restart research across the county.

These are the same issues that participants in the Week of Action will be advocating for all week long in their outreach to Congress.

The goals of the Advocacy Summit and Week of Action are to advance priority legislation, amplify the collective voice of the cancer care community on Capitol Hill, and to get ASCO members involved in advocacy initiatives.

Members of Congress and their staff have grown accustomed to virtual constituent meetings, and personal stories continue to be the most effective form of advocacy, so the Advocacy Summit and Week of Action—even virtually—remain critical to ASCO’s larger advocacy efforts.

In addition to the meetings and messages between advocates and lawmakers, the ASCO Advocate of the Year and the Congressional Champion for Cancer Care will be named during the Advocacy Summit.

In closing today, I encourage everyone listening today to follow the Advocacy Summit through social media by way of the hashtag ASCO Advocacy Summit (#ASCOAdvocacySummit) on Twitter AND to participate in the Week of Action through the ACT Network.

A link to the ACT Network and all the information you’ll need to participate in the Week of Action is available at ASCO dot org slash ASCO Action (www.asco.org/ascoaction).

Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast and if you enjoyed what you heard today, don’t forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and while you are there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

The ASCO in Action Podcast is just one of ASCO’s many podcasts; you can find all of the shows at “Podcast dot ASCO dot org” (podcast.asco.org).

ASCO President Lori J. Pierce, MD, FASTRO, FASCO, joins ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis in the latest ASCO in Action podcast to discuss how her childhood inspired her to become an oncologist and how the theme of her presidential year, “Equity: Every Patient. Every Day. Everywhere.” is more important than ever as the country responds to a healthcare pandemic that is disproportionately impacting people of color.

“Every patient, no matter who they are, deserves high-quality care and every patient has the right to equitable care,” says Dr. Pierce. “We have to get to the root causes to understand the barriers that patients face if we’re going to really make a difference, so it’s important to me that equity be front and center of everything that we do."

Subscribe to the ASCO in Action podcast through iTunes and Google Play.

 

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis is joined by Dr. Piyush Srivastava, the past chair of ASCO’s Clinical Practice Committee, in the newest ASCO in Action Podcast to discuss the recently released ASCO Special Report: A Guide to Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Dr. Srivastava was instrumental in developing the report, which provides detailed guidance to oncology practices on the immediate and short-term steps that should be taken to protect the safety of patients and healthcare staff before resuming more routine care operations during the COVID-19 public health crisis.

Subscribe to the ASCO in Action podcast through iTunes and Google Play.

 

Dr. Ko Un “Clara” Park and Dr. Mylin Torres present the latest evidence-based changes to the SLNB in early-stage breast cancer guideline. They discuss the practice-changing trials that led to the updated recommendations and topics such as when SLNB can be omitted, when ALND is indicated, radiation and systemic treatment decisions after SLNB omission, and the role of SLNB in special circumstances. We discuss the importance of shared decision-making and other ongoing and future de-escalation trials that will expand knowledge in this space.

Read the full guideline update, “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

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 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-00099      

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. Ko Un "Clara" Park from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Dr. Mylin Torres from Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, co-chairs on “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.”

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Park and Dr. Torres.

Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you, it's a pleasure 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 Dr. Torres and Dr. Park, 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.

To start us off, Dr. Torres, what is the scope and purpose of this guideline update on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer?

Dr. Mylin Torres: The update includes recommendations incorporating findings from trials released since our last published guideline in 2017. It includes data from nine randomized trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus sentinel lymph node biopsy with a completion axillary lymph node dissection. And notably, and probably the primary reason for motivating this update, are two trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy with no axillary surgery, all of which were published from 2016 to 2024. We believe these latter two trials are practice changing and are important for our community to know about so that it can be implemented and essentially represent a change in treatment paradigms.

Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear about these practice changing trials and how that will impact these recommendation updates.

So Dr. Park, I’d like to start by reviewing the key recommendations across all of these six overarching clinical questions that the guideline addressed. So first, are there patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted?

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes. The key change in the current management of early-stage breast cancer is the inclusion of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with small, less than 2 cm breast cancer and a negative finding on preoperative axillary ultrasound. The patients who are eligible for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy according to the SOUND and INSEMA trial are patients with invasive ductal carcinoma that is size smaller than 2 cm, Nottingham grades 1 and 2, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative in patients intending to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy, and no suspicious lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound or if they have only one suspicious lymph node, then the biopsy of that lymph node is benign and concordant according to the axillary ultrasound findings. The patients who are eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy omission according to the SOUND and INSEMA trials were patients who are undergoing lumpectomy followed by whole breast radiation, especially in patients who are younger than 65 years of age. For patients who are 65 years or older, they also qualify for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in addition to consideration for radiation therapy omission according to the PRIME II and CALGB 9343 clinical trials. And so in those patients, a more shared decision-making approach with the radiation oncologist is encouraged.

Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you outlining that criteria for when sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted and when shared decision making is appropriate as well.

So then, Dr. Torres, in those patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy is omitted, how are radiation and systemic treatment decisions impacted?

Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. I think there will be a lot of consternation brought up as far as sentinel lymph node biopsy and the value it could provide in terms of knowing whether that lymph node is involved or not. But as stated, sentinel lymph node biopsy actually can be safely omitted in patients with low risk disease and therefore the reason we state this is that in both SOUND and INSEMA trial, 85% of patients who had a preoperative axillary ultrasound that did not show any signs of a suspicious lymph node also had no lymph nodes involved at the time of sentinel node biopsy. So 85% of the time the preoperative ultrasound is correct. So given the number of patients where preoperative ultrasound predicts for no sentinel node involvement, we have stated within the guideline that radiation and systemic treatment decisions should not be altered in the select patients with low risk disease where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted. Those are the patients who are postmenopausal and age 50 or older who have negative findings on preoperative ultrasound with grade 1 or 2 disease, small tumors less than or equal to 2 cm, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who undergo breast conserving therapy.

Now, it's important to note in both the INSEMA and SOUND trials, the vast majority of patients received whole breast radiation. In fact, within the INSEMA trial, partial breast irradiation was not allowed. The SOUND trial did allow partial breast irradiation, but in that study, 80% of patients still received whole breast treatment. Therefore, the preponderance of data does support whole breast irradiation when you go strictly by the way the SOUND and INSEMA trials were conducted. Notably, however, most of the patients in these studies had node-negative disease and had low risk features to their primary tumors and would have been eligible for partial breast irradiation by the ASTRO Guidelines for partial breast treatment. So, given the fact that 85% of patients will have node-negative disease after a preoperative ultrasound, essentially what we're saying is that partial breast irradiation may be offered in these patients where omission of sentinel node biopsy is felt to be safe, which is in these low risk patients.

Additionally, regional nodal irradiation is something that is not indicated in the vast majority of patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is prescribed and recommended, and that is because very few of these patients will actually end up having pathologic N2 disease, which is four or more positive lymph nodes. If you look at the numbers from both the INSEMA and the SOUND trial, the number of patients with pathologic N2 disease who did have their axilla surgically staged, it was less than 1% in both trials. So, in these patients, regional nodal irradiation, there would be no clear indication for that more aggressive and more extensive radiation treatment.

The same principles apply to systemic therapy. As the vast majority of these patients are going to have node-negative disease with a low risk primary tumor, we know that postmenopausal women, even if they're found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, a lot of the systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy decisions are driven by genomic assay score which is taken from the primary tumor. And therefore nodal information in patients who have N1 disease may not be gained in patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is indicated in these low risk patients. 14% of patients have 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes in the SOUND trial and that number is about 15% in the INSEMA trial. Really only the clinically actionable information to be gained is if a patient has four or more lymph nodes or N2 disease in this low risk patient population. So, essentially when that occurs it's less than 1% of the time in these patients with very favorable primary tumors. And therefore we thought it was acceptable to stand by a recommendation of not altering systemic therapy or radiation recommendations based on omission of sentinel nodes because the likelihood of having four more lymph nodes is so low.

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think one thing to add is the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors to that and when we look at the NATALEE criteria for ribociclib in particular, where node-negative patients were included, the bulk majority of the patients who were actually represented in the NATALEE study were stage III disease. And for stage I disease to upstage into anatomic stage III, that patient would need to have pathologic N2 disease. And as Dr. Torres stated, the rate of having pathologic N2 disease in both SOUND and INSEMA studies were less than 1%. And therefore it would be highly unlikely that these patients would be eligible just based on tumor size and characteristics for ribociclib. So we think that it is still safe to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy and they would not miss out, if you will, on the opportunity for CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you describing those recommendations and then also the nuances of the evidence that's underpinning those recommendations, I think that's important for listeners.

So Dr. Park, the next clinical question addresses patients with clinically node negative early stage breast cancer who have 1 or 2 sentinel lymph node metastases and who will receive breast conserving surgery with whole breast radiation therapy. For these patients, is axillary lymph node dissection needed?

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: No. And this is confirmed based on the ACOSOG Z0011 study that demonstrated in patients with 1 to 3 positive sentinel lymph node biopsy when the study compared completion axillary lymph node dissection to no completion axillary lymph node dissection, there was no difference. And actually, the 10-year overall survival as reported out in 2017 and at a median follow up of 9.3 years, the overall survival again for patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus those who were treated with axillary lymph node dissection was no different. It was 86.3% in sentinel lymph node biopsy versus 83.6% and the p-value was non-inferior at 0.02. And so we believe that it is safe for the select patients who are early stage with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes on sentinel lymph node biopsy, undergoing whole breast radiation therapy to omit completion of axillary lymph node dissection.

Brittany Harvey: Great, I appreciate you detailing what's recommended there as well.

So then, to continue our discussion of axillary lymph node dissection, Dr. Torres, for patients with nodal metastases who will undergo mastectomy, is axillary lymph node dissection indicated?

Dr. Mylin Torres: It's actually not and this is confirmed by two trials, the AMAROS study as well as the SENOMAC trial. And in both studies, they compared a full lymph node dissection versus sentinel lymph node biopsy alone in patients who are found to have 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes and confirmed that there was no difference in axillary recurrence rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. What was shown is that with more aggressive surgery completion axillary lymph node dissection, there were higher rates of morbidity including lymphedema, shoulder pain and paresthesias and arm numbness, decreased functioning of the arm and so there was only downside to doing a full lymph node dissection.

Importantly, in both trials, if a full lymph node dissection was not done in the arm that where sentinel lymph node biopsy was done alone, all patients were prescribed post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment and therefore both studies currently support the use of post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment when a full lymph node dissection is not performed in these patients who are found to have N1 disease after a sentinel node biopsy.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you.

And then Dr. Park, for patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not have nodal metastases, can completion axillary lymph node dissection be omitted?

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes, and this is an unchanged recommendation from the earlier ASCO Guidelines from 2017 as well as the 2021 joint guideline with Ontario Health, wherein patients with clinically node-negative early stage breast cancer, the staging of the axilla can be performed through sentinel lymph nodal biopsy and not completion axillary lymph node dissection.

Brittany Harvey: Understood.

So then, to wrap us up on the clinical questions here, Dr. Park, what is recommended regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in special circumstances in populations?

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: One key highlight of the special populations is the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of the axilla in clinically node negative multicentric tumors. While there are no randomized clinical trials evaluating specifically the role of sentinel lymph nodal biopsy in multicentric tumors, in the guideline, we highlight this as one of the safe options for staging of the axilla and also for pregnant patients, these special circumstances, it is safe to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnant patients with the use of technetium - blue dye should be avoided in this population.

In particular, I want to highlight where sentinel lymph node biopsy should not be used for staging of the axilla and that is in the population with inflammatory breast cancer. There are currently no studies demonstrating that sentinel lymph node biopsy is oncologically safe or accurate in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And so, unfortunately, in this population, even after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, if they have a great response, the current guideline recommends mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate your viewing both where sentinel lymph node can be offered in these special circumstances in populations and where it really should not be used.

So then, Dr. Torres, you talked at the beginning about how there's been these new practice changing trials that really impacted these recommendations. So in your view, what is the importance of this guideline update and how does it impact both clinicians and patients?

Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. This update and these trials that inform the update represent a significant shift in the treatment paradigm and standard of care for breast cancer patients with early-stage breast cancer. When you think about it, it seems almost counterintuitive that physicians and patients would not want to know if a lymph node is involved with cancer or not through sentinel lymph node biopsy procedure. But what these studies show is that preoperative axillary ultrasound, 85% of the time when it's negative, will correctly predict whether a sentinel lymph node is involved with cancer or not and will also be negative. So if you have imaging that's negative, your surgery is likely going to be negative.

Some people might ask, what's the harm in doing a sentinel lymph node biopsy? It's important to recognize that upwards of 10% of patients, even after sentinel lymph node biopsy will develop lymphedema, chronic arm pain, shoulder immobility and arm immobility. And these can have a profound impact on quality of life. And if there is not a significant benefit to assessing lymph nodes, particularly in someone who has a preoperative axillary ultrasound that's negative, then why put a patient at risk for these morbidities that can impact them lifelong? Ideally, the adoption of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy will lead to more multidisciplinary discussion and collaboration in the preoperative setting especially with our diagnostic physicians, radiology to assure that these patients are getting an axillary ultrasound and determine how omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy may impact the downstream treatments after surgery, particularly radiation and systemic therapy decisions, and will be adopted in real world patients, and how clinically we can develop a workflow where together we can make the best decisions for our patients in collaboration with them through shared decision making.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have these evidence-based updates for clinicians and patients to review and refer back to.

So then finally, Dr. Park, looking to the future, what are the outstanding questions and ongoing trials regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer?

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think to toggle on Dr. Torres’s comment about shared decision making, the emphasis on that I think will become even more evident in the future as we incorporate different types of de-escalation clinical studies. In particular, because as you saw in the SOUND and INSEMA studies, when we de-escalate one modality of the multimodality therapy, i.e., surgery, the other modalities such as radiation therapy and systemic therapy were “controlled” where we were not de-escalating multiple different modalities. However, as the audience may be familiar with, there are other types of de-escalation studies in particular radiation therapy, partial breast irradiation or omission of radiation therapy, and in those studies, the surgery is now controlled where oftentimes the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging.

And conversely when we're looking at endocrine therapy versus radiation therapy clinical trials, in those studies also the majority of the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging. And so now as those studies demonstrate the oncologic safety of omission of a particular therapy, we will be in a position of more balancing of the data of trying to select which patients are the safe patients for omission of certain types of modality, and how do we balance whether it's surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, endocrine therapy. And that's where as Dr. Torres stated, the shared decision making will become critically important.

I'm a surgeon and so as a surgeon, I get to see the patients oftentimes first, especially when they have early-stage breast cancer. And so I could I guess be “selfish” and just do whatever I think is correct. But whatever the surgeon does, the decision does have consequences in the downstream decision making. And so the field really needs to, as Dr. Torres stated earlier, rethink the workflow of how early-stage breast cancer patients are brought forth and managed as a multidisciplinary team.

I also think in future studies the expansion of the data to larger tumors, T3, in particular,reater than 5 cm and also how do we incorporate omission in that population will become more evident as we learn more about the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Dr. Mylin Torres: In addition, there are other outstanding ongoing clinical trials that are accruing patients right now. They include the BOOG 2013-08 study, SOAPET, NAUTILUS and the VENUS trials, all looking at patients with clinical T1, T2N0 disease and whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is safe with various endpoints including regional recurrence, invasive disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival.

I expect in addition to these studies there will be more studies ongoing even looking at the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. And as our imaging improves in the future, there will be more studies improving other imaging modalities, probably in addition to axillary ultrasound in an attempt to accurately characterize whether lymph nodes within axilla contain cancer or not, and in that context whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy even in patients with larger tumors post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be done safely and could eventually become another shift in our treatment paradigm.

Brittany Harvey: Yes. The shared decision making is key as we think about these updates to improve quality of life and we'll await data from these ongoing trials to inform future updates to this guideline.

So I want to thank you both so much for your extensive work to update this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Park and Dr. Torres.

Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you.

Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: 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/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. Irene Su and Dr. Alison Loren present the latest evidence-based recommendations on fertility preservation for people with cancer. They discuss established, emerging, and investigational methods of fertility preservation for adults and children, and the role of clinicians including discussing the risk of infertility with all patients. Dr. Su and Dr. Loren also touch on other important aspects of fertility preservation, including the logistics of referral to reproductive specialists, navigating health insurance, and costs. They also discuss ongoing research and future areas to explore, including risk stratification, implementing screening, referral, and navigation processes in lower resource settings, fertility measurements, and health care policy impacts.

Read the full guideline update, “Fertility Preservation in People with Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines."

TRANSCRIPT

This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/survivorship-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-24-02782

 

In this guideline, the terms "male" and "female" were defined based on biological sex, specifically focusing on reproductive anatomy at birth. "Male" refers to individuals born with testes, while "female" refers to those born with ovaries. The guideline, and this podcast episode, we will refer to individuals as "males" or "females" based on this definition.

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. Irene Su from the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Alison Loren from the University of Pennsylvania, co-chairs on “Fertility Preservation in People With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.”

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren.

Dr. Irene Su: Thanks for having us.

Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks for having us.

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. Su and Dr. Loren, 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 here, Dr. Loren, this is an update of a previous ASCO guideline. So what prompted this update to the 2018 guideline on fertility preservation? And what is the scope of this particular update?

Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, thanks, Brittany. So, yeah, a couple of things, actually. I would say the biggest motivation was the recognition that the field was really moving forward in several different directions. And we felt that the previous guidelines really hadn't adequately covered the need for ongoing reproductive health care in survivorship, including the fact that fertility preservation methods can be engaged in even after treatment is finished. And then also recognizing that there is increasing data supporting various novel forms of fertility preservation in both male and female patients. And we wanted to be able to educate the community about the wide array of options that are available to people with cancer, because it really has changed quite a bit even in the last six years. And then lastly, as I'm sure this audience, and you definitely know, ASCO tries to update the guidelines periodically to make sure that they're current. So it sort of is due anyhow, but I would say motivated largely by those changes in the field.

Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate that background information.

So then I'd like to dive a little bit more into those updates that you discussed. So, Dr. Su, I'd like to review the key recommendations across the main topics of this guideline. So starting with what are the recommendations regarding discussing the risk of infertility with patients undergoing cancer treatment?

Dr. Irene Su: Thanks, Brittany. So for every child, adolescent, and adult of reproductive age who's been diagnosed with cancer, the recommendation remains that healthcare clinicians should discuss this possibility of infertility as early as possible before treatment starts, because that allows us, as reproductive endocrinologists and fertility specialists, to preserve the full range of options for fertility preservation for these young people. Where it's possible, I think risk stratification should be a part of the clinical infertility risk counseling and then the decision making. And then for patients and families who have an expressed interest in fertility preservation, and for those who are uncertain, the recommendation is to refer these individuals to reproductive specialists. And it turns out this is because fertility preservation treatments are medically effective for improving post-treatment fertility and counseling can ultimately reduce stress and improve quality of life, even for those who don't undergo fertility preservation. And as Dr. Loren said, a change in the guideline is specifically about continuing these discussions post-treatment yearly or when cancer treatments change because that changes their infertility risk or when pregnancy is being considered.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Discussing that risk of infertility at the beginning, before any treatment is initiated, and when treatment changes, is key.

So then talking about the options for patients, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for males?

Dr. Alison Loren: There has been a little bit of an evolution in options for male patients. The standard of care option which is always recommended is cryopreservation of sperm, or otherwise known as sperm banking. And this is something that should be offered ideally prior to initiating cancer directed therapy. The guideline does reflect the fact that we're starting to understand in a little bit more depth the impact of cancer-directed treatments on the health and quantity of sperm. And so trying to understand when, if ever, it's appropriate to collect sperm after initiation of treatment, but before completion of treatment remains an area of active research. But the current understanding of the data and the evidence is that sperm banking should be offered prior to initiating cancer-directed therapy. And all healthcare clinicians should feel empowered to discuss this option with all pubertal and post-pubertal male patients prior to receiving their treatment.

We do offer a little bit more information about the ideal circumstances around sperm banking, including a minimum of three ejaculates of sufficient quality, if possible, but that any collections are better than no collections. We also talk about the fact that there is a relatively new procedure known as testicular sperm extraction, which can be offered to pubertal and post-pubertal males who can't produce a semen sample before cancer treatment begins. There remains no evidence for hormonal protection of testicular function - that has been a long-standing statement of fact and that remains the case. And then we also begin to address some of the potential risk of genetic damage in sperm that are collected soon after initiation of cancer-directed therapy. We are starting to understand that there is a degradation in the number and DNA integrity of sperm that can occur even after a single treatment. And so, really highlighting the fact that collecting samples, again, to Dr. Su's point, as early as possible and as many as possible to try to optimize biological parenthood after treatment.

Brittany Harvey: Yes. Thank you for reviewing those options and what is both recommended and not recommended in this scenario.

So then, following those recommendations, Dr. Su, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for female patients?

Dr. Irene Su: There are a number of established and effective methods for fertility preservation for people with ovaries, and this includes freezing embryos, freezing oocytes, freezing ovarian tissue. For some patients, it may be appropriate to do ovarian transposition, which is to surgically move ovaries out of the field of radiation in a conservative gynecologic surgery, for example, preserving ovaries or preserving the uterus in people with gynecologic cancers. We do recommend that the choice between embryo and oocyte cryopreservation should be guided by patient preference and clinical considerations, their individual circumstances, including future flexibility, the success rates of embryo versus egg freezing that we detail more in the guideline, and legal considerations.

And what is new in this guideline, as Dr. Loren alluded to earlier, is consideration of post-treatment fertility preservation for oocyte and embryo freezing. And this is going to be because, for some females, there's going to be a shortened but residual window of ovarian function that may not match when they are in their life ready to complete their families. And so for those individuals, there may be an indication to consider post-treatment fertility preservation. We clarify that gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists, GNRH agonists, while they shouldn't be used in the place of established fertility preservation methods, e.g., oocyte and embryo freezing, they can definitely be offered as an adjunct to females with breast cancer. Beyond breast cancer, we don't really understand the benefits and risks of GNRH agonists and feel that clinical trials in this area are highly encouraged. And also, that for patients who have oncologic emergencies that require urgent chemotherapy, these agonists can be offered because they can provide additional benefits like menstrual suppression.

What's emerging is in vitro maturation of oocytes. It's feasible in specialized labs. It may take a little bit shorter time to retrieve these oocytes. There are cases of live births following IVM, in vitro maturation, that have been reported. But these processes remain inefficient compared to standard controlled ovarian stimulation. And therefore, it's really being treated as an emerging method.

Finally, uterine transposition. It's experimental, but it's a novel technique for us. It's really moving the uterus out of the field of radiation surgically. We recommend that this is done under research protocols.

So taken together, there are improvements in fertility preservation technology, and consideration of which of any of these methods really depends on tailoring to what is that patient's risk, what is the time that they have, what is feasible for them, and what is the effectiveness comparatively among these methods for them.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations and considerations of patient preferences, the clarification on GNRH agonists, and then those emerging and experimental methods as well.

So then the next category of recommendations, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for children?

Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks, Brittany. This remains a very challenging area. Certainly for older children and adolescents who have begun to initiate puberty changes, we support proceeding with previously outlined standard methods of either sperm or oocyte collection and cryopreservation. For younger children who are felt to be at substantial risk for harm to fertility, the really only options available to them are gonadal tissue cryopreservation, so ovarian tissue or testicular tissue cryopreservation. As Dr. Su mentioned, the ovarian tissue cryopreservation methods are quite effective and well established. There's less data in children, but we know that in adults and older adolescents that this is an effective method. Testicular cryopreservation remains experimental, and we suggest that if it is performed, that strong consideration should be given to doing this as an investigational research protocol. However, because these are the only options available to children, we understand there may be reasons why there might need to be some flexibility around this in the proper setting of informed consent and ascent when appropriate for children.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And so we've discussed a lot of recommendations on fertility preservation options. So, Dr. Loren, what is recommended regarding the role of clinicians in advising people about these fertility preservation options?

Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, this is a really important question, Brittany, and I think that we really hope to empower the entire oncology clinical team to bring these issues to the forefront for patients. We know from qualitative studies that oncology providers sometimes feel uncomfortable bringing these issues up because they feel inexpert in dealing with them or because it's so overwhelming. Obviously, these are usually younger patients who are not expecting a cancer diagnosis, and there can be quite a lot of distress, understandably, around the diagnosis itself and the treatment plan, and it can be sometimes overwhelming to also bring up fertility as a potential risk of therapy. We are seeing that as patients are becoming more familiar and comfortable kind of speaking up, I think, social media and lots of sort of online communities have raised this issue, that we're seeing that young people with cancer do spontaneously bring this up in their visits, which we really appreciate and encourage. But I think sometimes clinicians feel it's sometimes described as a dual crisis of both the cancer diagnosis and a risk to future fertility and it can be a really challenging conversation to initiate.

I feel, and we hope that the guidelines convey, that the whole point is just to bring it up. We do not expect an oncology clinician of any kind, including social workers, nurses, to be able to outline all of the very complex options that are articulated in this guideline. And in fact, the reason that the co-chairs include myself, a hematologist oncologist, and Dr. Su, who's a reproductive specialist, is because we understand that the complex reproductive options for our patients with cancer require expert conversations. So we do not expect the oncology team to go into all the guideline options with their patients. We really just want to empower everyone on the team to bring up the issue so that we can then get them the care that they need from our colleagues in reproductive endocrinology so that they can be fully apprised of all of their options with enough time before initiation of treatment to be able to embark on whichever therapies they feel are most suited to their family planning wishes.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then jumping off of that, as a reproductive endocrinologist, Dr. Su, what do you think clinicians should know as they implement these updated recommendations?

Dr. Irene Su: I wholly echo what Dr. Loren has said about- this is a team effort and it's been really fun to work as a team of various specialties on this guideline, so we hope that the guideline really reflects all of the partnerships that have occurred. I think that what clinicians should know is it may be well worth spending some time in identifying a pathway for our patients. So that starts off with the oncology team. How are we going to screen? How are we going to screen with fidelity? And then from the time of screening, really anybody who has an interest or potentially is unsure about their future fertility needs, who are the reproductive specialists, male and female, that you are in the community with to refer to? What is that referral process going to be like? Is it emails? Is it a phone? Is it a best practice advisory in your electronic health record system?

From our standpoint as fertility specialists, we need to spend some time implementing in this system a way to receive these referrals urgently and also be able to support insurance navigation. Because actually, what is really exciting in this field is for the purpose of equitable access, there is increasing insurance coverage, whether it is because employers feel that this is the right thing to do to offer, or 17 states and the District of Columbia also have state mandates requiring fertility preservation coverage by many insurances, as well as, for example, federal employees and active military members. So more than ever, there is a decreased cost barrier for patients and still early days, so navigating health insurance is a little bit challenging. And that is the role, in part, of navigators and fertility clinic teams to help support these patients to do that.

Dr. Alison Loren: Forming these relationships and reinforcing them so early and often is really key. Because although these patients come up with some infrequency, when they occur, they're really emergencies and we want to make sure that there's a well-established path for these patients to get from their oncology clinicians to the reproductive specialists. And as Dr. Su said, whatever works best for your system - there's a lot of different ways that people have tackled these challenging referrals - but it is really important to have an expedited path and for the receiving reproductive specialist office to understand that these are urgent patients that need to be expedited and that the oncology clinician's responsibility is to make sure that that's communicated appropriately.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thinking in advance about those logistics of referral and navigating health insurance and cost is key to making sure that patients receive the care that they want and that they'd like to discuss with clinicians.

So then, Dr. Loren, you touched on this a little bit earlier in talking about the dual crisis, but how does this guideline impact people diagnosed with cancer?

Dr. Alison Loren: Well, what we're hoping is that this is sort of a refresher. I think that many or hopefully most or all oncology clinicians are aware that this is a potential concern. And so part of our hope is that, as this guideline rolls out, it'll sort of bring to the top of people's memories and action items that this is an important part of oncology care is the reproductive health care of our patients. And it's a critical component of survivorship care as well. We want to remind people that the field continues to advance and progress. In oncology, we're very aware of oncologic progress, but we may not be so aware of reproductive healthcare progress. And so letting people know, “Hey, there's all these new cool things we can do for people that open up options, even in situations where we might have thought there were no options before.” It's a reminder to refer, because we're not going to be able to keep up with all the advances in the field. But Dr. Su and her colleagues will be able to know what might be an option for patients. I want to highlight that communication piece again because our reproductive colleagues need to know what treatments are going to be given, what the urgency is, what the risks are. And so part of our responsibility as part of the team is to make sure that it's clear to both our patients and our reproductive specialist colleagues what the risks are.

And Dr. Su mentioned this earlier, but one really important open question is risk stratification. We know that not all cancer treatments are created equal. There are some treatments, such as high dose alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide or busulfan, or high doses of radiation directly to the gonadal tissue, that are extremely high risk for causing permanent gonadal harm very immediately after exposure. And there are other therapies, particularly emerging or novel therapies, that we really just have no idea what the reproductive impact will be. And in particular, as patients are living longer, which is wonderful for our patients, how do we integrate reproductive care and family building into the management of perhaps a younger person who's on some chronic maintenance therapies, some of which we know can harm either the developing fetus or reproductive health, and some of which we really don't know at all. And so there's a very large open question around emerging therapies and how to counsel our patients. And so we hope that this guideline will also raise to the forefront the importance of addressing these questions moving forward and helping our patients to understand that we don't necessarily have all the answers either, which we hope will enrich the discussion and really have it be a good example of shared decision making between the clinical teams and the patient, so that ultimately the patients are able to make decisions that make the most sense for them and reduce the potential for decision regret in the future.

Dr. Su, I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about this.

Dr. Irene Su: Yeah. I really echo this notion that not all cancer treatments are going to be toxic to future reproductive function. And as clinicians, I and colleagues know that patients want to know as much when there is no effect on their fertility, because that feels reassuring in that that prevents them from having to go through the many hoops that sometimes it can be to undergo fertility preservation, as it is to know high risk, as it is to know we don't know. This is key and central, and we need more data. So, for example, we often chat about, wouldn't it be great if from the time of preclinical drug development all the way to clinical trials, that reproductive health in terms of ovarian function, testicular function, fertility potential, is measured regularly so that we are not having to look back 30, 40, 50 years later to understand what happened. And so this is one of our key research questions that we hope the field takes note of going forward.

Dr. Alison Loren: This is an important point. We focus greatly, as we should, on potential harms to fertility, making sure that there's access to all the reproductive options for young people with cancer. But to Dr. Su's point, not all therapies are created equal, and there are some therapies that are somewhat lower risk or even much lower risk, including, I'm a blood cancer specialist and so certainly in the patients that I take care of, the treatments related to AML, ALL, and some lymphomas are actually fairly low risk, which is why the post-treatment fertility preservation options are so important. And particularly for patients who potentially present acutely ill with acute leukemia do not have the time or the ability to engage in fertility preservation because of their medical circumstances, it's important to have that conversation. I want to emphasize to oncology clinicians that even if you know medically that this patient is unable to undergo fertility preservation techniques at the time of diagnosis of their cancer, that it's still appropriate to talk about it and to say, “We're going to keep talking about this, this is something that we're going to raise again once you're through this initial therapy. I'm not forgetting about this. It may not be something we can engage in now, but it's a future conversation that's important in your ongoing care.” And then to think about pursuing options when possible, particularly for patients who may require a bone marrow transplant in their future, either due to higher risk disease at presentation or in the event of a relapse, we know that generally bone marrow transplants, because of the high intensity conditioning that they require for most patients who are young, that permanent gonadal insufficiency will be a fixture. And so there can be a window of time in between initial therapy and transplant where a referral might be appropriate.

So my public service announcement is that it's never the wrong time to refer to a reproductive specialist. And sometimes people make assumptions about chemotherapy that, “Oh, they've already been treated, so there's nothing we can do,” and I want to make sure that people know that that's not true and that it's always appropriate to explore options.

Dr. Irene Su: I think we talk a lot about how important screening and referral is and I can imagine that it's hard to actually know how to implement that. One of our other research questions to look out for is that we see a lot of tertiary care centers that have put together big teams, big resources, and that's not always feasible to scale out to all kinds of settings. And so what's emerging is: What are the key processes that have to happen and how can we adapt this screening, referral, financial navigation process from larger centers to smaller centers to less resource settings.

So I guess my public service announcement is there's research in this area, there's focus in this area, so keep an eye out because there will be hopefully better tools to be able to fit in different types of settings. And more research is actually needed to be able to trial these different screening, referral, navigation processes in lower resource settings as well.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to think about the research questions on how to improve both the delivery of fertility preservation options and the discussion of it, and it's important to recognize, as you mentioned, the different fertility risks of different cancer directed treatment options and the importance to have the conversations around this.

So then just to expand on this notion a little bit, Dr. Su, we've touched on the research needed here in terms of discussing fertility options with patients and referring and then also in some of the experimental and emerging treatment options. So, what are the other outstanding research questions regarding fertility preservation for people with cancer?

Dr. Irene Su: A couple others I'd like to add and then have Dr. Loren chime in in case I missed anything in all of our discussions, there's so many wants. So head to head comparisons of which method is best for which patient and what the long term outcomes are: How many kiddos? Do we complete family building? That is still missing. Being able to invest in novel methods from - there’s fertoprotective agents that are being tested, potentially spermatogonial stem cell transplant. These are closer to clinical trials to really early research on ovarian, testicular, uterine biology. This is needed in order to inform downstream interventions. One of the questions that is unanswered is: After treatment starts, when is it safe to retrieve oocytes? And so this is a question because, for example, for our leukemia patients who are in the middle of treatment, when is it safe to retrieve eggs? And we don't know. And then post-treatment, for people who have a reduced window, when do you optimally have the most number of eggs or embryos that you can cryopreserve? That's unknown. But I think the question around once treatment has started, is recent exposure of anti-cancer treatments somehow mutagenic or somehow toxic to the oocytes with regard to long term offspring health? That is unanswered.

I'm going to scope out a little bit and maybe policy nerd this a little bit. It's been very exciting to see advocacy, advocacy from our patients, from our clinicians on trying to improve health care policy. Like how can we use mandates to improve this delivery? But we actually don't know because actually the mandates from states that require health insurance coverage for fertility preservation, they vary. And so actually what are the key ingredients and policies that will ultimately get the most patients to the care they need? That is in question and would be really interesting. And so what is a part of this guideline which is not often seen in clinical guidelines, is a call for what we think are best practices for health insurance plans to help patients be able to access. And so this means that we recommend being specific and comprehensive in the coverage of these established fertility preservation services that have been recommended. And this means, for example, an egg freezing covering the whole process from consultation to office visits, to ultrasounds and laboratories, to medicines, to the retrieval, and then to long term storage. Because particularly for the youngest of our patients, these gametes could be frozen for a number of years and may not always be so affordable without health insurance coverage.

We think that fertility preservation benefits really should be at parity, that you should not be having more cost sharing on the patient compared to other medical services that are covered. This is an inequity and where possible we should eliminate prior authorization because that timing is so short between diagnosis and needing to start anti-cancer treatment. And so prior authorization having to go through multiple layers of health insurance is really a key barrier because we all know that health insurance literacy is limited for all of us. And so whatever we can do to support our patient for the intent of these benefits would be recommended.

Dr. Alison Loren: That was so well said, Dr. Su. I'll take the oncology perspective and say that from our side, really being able to understand the risks of infertility and understanding better measurements of fertility capacity, understanding where our patients are - every patient is different. These conversations are very different for a 37-year-old than they are for a 17-year-old. And so what we haven't really talked about is the fact that certainly at least female patients, as they age, their reproductive potential declines naturally. And so their infertility trajectory may be accelerated, they may have a shorter timeline or have less reserve than younger patients. And so being able to tailor our risk discussions not just based on the specific treatments, but on the reproductive age of the patient sitting in front of us and really being able to tailor those to very personalized risks would be really helpful. Because, as Dr. Su mentioned, and I think, as many people know, undergoing fertility preservation techniques can be really arduous. Even if they're covered and paid for, and all of those logistics are easy, which they seldom are, the physical drain of having to do injections, go for labs, all of the parts of those therapies can be really difficult for patients. And so being able to really understand who needs to have these interventions and who could pass, and understanding what the risks are, as I mentioned earlier, for these novel and emerging therapies would be really helpful.

Another really important aspect of future research questions is we would like to encourage all clinicians, both reproductive specialists and oncology clinicians, and also our young people with cancer, to participate in clinical studies pertaining to fertility measurements and preservation. We also exhort our industry colleagues to consider including important reproductive endpoints, including biomarkers of ovarian and testicular reserve, if possible, in clinical trials. It will enhance our ability to provide counseling and support for these therapies in the future to be able to understand what the true impact of infertility, family building and health of offspring to be able to include these data in prospective databases and trials.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And I want to thank you both for raising those really important points. So we'll look forward to this ongoing research and optimizing policies for covering fertility preservation benefits for all patients with cancer.

I want to thank you both so much for your work to update this critical guideline and talk about these important needs of people with cancer. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren.

Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks so much for having us.

Dr. Irene Su: You're welcome. This was really fun.

Dr. Alison Loren: It was fun. And I just will add that the team at ASCO is amazing and really made this a pleasure.

Dr. Irene Su: I couldn't agree more. And from the point of being a fertility specialist, being invited to be a part of this with ASCO and with all of our colleagues, it's been really amazing. And so thanks for allowing us to contribute.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And a big thanks to the entire panel as well.

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/survivorship-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. Mellar Davis discusses the joint guideline from MASCC, ASCO, AAHPM, HPNA, and NICSO on opioid conversion in adults with cancer. He reviews the limited evidence, and the formal consensus process used to develop the guideline. He shares the key recommendations on pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including opioid conversion ratios, and post-conversion assessment. We touch on gaps and questions in the field and the impact of these new recommendations. 

Read the full guideline, “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: MASCC-ASCO-AAHPM-HPNA-NICSO 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 in the Supportive Care in Cancer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-025-09286-z

 

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. Mellar Davis from Geisinger Medical Center, lead author on “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: Multinational Association of Supportive Care and Cancer, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, Network Italiano Cure di Supporto and Oncologia Guideline.”

Thank you for being here today, Dr. Davis.

Dr. Mellar Davis: Thank you. I'm glad 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. Davis, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline, which is linked in our show notes.

So then, to dive into the content here, Dr. Davis, can you provide an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline on opioid conversion in people with cancer?

Dr. Mellar Davis: This is an important topic in management of cancer pain and this topic came up as a result of a survey that MASCC had done, which involved 370 physicians in 53 countries. They were queried about how they change or convert one opioid to another, which is a common practice, and we found that there was quite a divergence in opioid conversion ratios. To step back a little bit, about two thirds of patients with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and most of the time they're managed by opioids. But about 20% or 40% require a switch either because they have an adverse reaction to it or they don't respond to it, or the combination of both. Rarely, it may be that they need a route change, perhaps because they have nausea or vomiting. So, the opioid conversion works basically because of the complexity of the new opioid receptor which has at least four exons to it as a result of that non-cross tolerance between opioids.

As a result of the survey, we convened a group of specialists, 14 international specialists, to look to see if we could develop an international guideline. And we did a systematic review which involved viewing 21,000 abstracts and we came up with 140 randomized trials and 68 non-randomized trials. And after reviewing the data, we found that the data was really not strong enough to provide a guideline. As a result, ASCO, MASCC, the AAHPM, the HPNA and the Italian Group formed a supportive network that allowed us then to do a Delphi guideline based upon ASCO modified criteria for doing Delphi guidelines.

And so we then involved 27 additional international experts informing the guideline to it. And this guideline is then the result of the Delphi process. It consists basically of a pre-conversion ratio recommendations, conversion ratios, which is actually a major contribution of this guideline, and then what to do after converting someone to another opioid. Our target audience was not only oncologists, but also we wanted to target nurses, pharmacists, hospitalists, primary care physicians, patients and caregivers.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that background information, particularly on the evidence that is underpinning this and the lack of quality of evidence there, which really transformed this into a formal consensus guideline. We're glad to have all of these organizations coming together to collaborate on this guideline.

So then next I'd like to review the key recommendations. So starting with, what is recommended for pre-conversion assessment?

Dr. Mellar Davis: In regards to pre-conversion, physicians and clinicians need to be aware of pain phenotypes. That is, there are pains that are more opioid refractory than others, such as neuropathic pain, hence, they may be more resistant to the opioid that you're converting to. One needs to be aware of the fact that patients may not be compliant, they're either afraid of opioids not taking what was prescribed, so it's important to query patients about whether they are taking their opioid as prescribed. Occasionally, there are patients who will divert their medication for various reasons. Pain may be poorly controlled also because of dosing strategies that are poorly conceived, in other words, giving only ‘as needed’ opioids for continuous cancer pain. And there are rare circumstances where an opioid actually induces pain and simply reducing the opioid actually may improve the pain. The other issue may be cancer progression. So that poorly controlled pain or rapidly increasing pain may actually be a result of progressive cancer and changing treatment obviously will be important. And you need to assess the pain severity, the quality of the pain, the radiating localizing effects, which does require not only a physical exam but also radiographic examinations.

But the other thing that's very important in opioid conversions are pain scales with function. A significant number of patients don't quite understand a numerical scale which we commonly use: 0 to 10, with 10 being severe pain and 0 being no pain. They may in fact focus more on function rather than on pain severity or pain interference with daily activities or roles. Sometimes patients will say, “Oh, my pain is manageable,” or “It's tolerable,” rather than using a numerical scale. Choices of opioids may be based on cost, drug-drug interactions, organ function, personal history or substance use disorder so that one will want to choose an opioid that's safe when converting from one to another. And obviously social support and having caregivers present and understanding the strategy in managing pain will be important.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Davis, for reviewing those pre-conversion assessment considerations and particularly the challenges around some of those.

So, following this pre-conversion assessment, what are the recommendations on how opioid conversion should be conducted?

Dr. Mellar Davis: Opioid conversions are basically the safe dose. People have used the term ‘equianalgesia’, but the panel and the consensus group felt that that would be inappropriate. So a conversion ratio is the dose at which the majority of patients will not experience withdrawal or adverse effect. It would be the safe dose. Thereafter, the dose will need to be adjusted. So, in converting, that's only the first step in managing pain, the doses need to be adjusted to the individual thereafter. There are a significant number of conversions that are done indirectly, that is that there has not been a study that has looked at a direct conversion from one opioid to another in which one needs to convert through another opioid. We call that a ‘morphine equivalent daily dose’. So, most of the time a third opioid is used in the conversion. It allows you then to convert when there hasn't been a direct study that has looked at conversion between those two opioids, but it is less accurate and so one has to be a little bit more careful when using morphine daily equivalents.

We found, and I think this is the major advantage to the guideline, is that commonly used opioids - oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone - we did establish conversion ratios to which we found in the MASCC guideline they were widely divergent and hope that actually, internationally, they will be adopted. We also found some conversion ratios for second-line opioids. However, we felt also that an opioid like methadone, which has a unique pharmacology, should be left to experts and that experts should know at least several ways of converting from morphine usually to methadone. There is what appears to be a dose-related increased potency of methadone relative to morphine, which makes it more difficult, particularly at higher doses, to have an accurate conversion ratio. Most patients will have transient flares of pain. We came up with two suggestions. One is using a 10 or 15% of the around-the-clock dose for the breakthrough dose, but we also realized that there was a poor correlation between the around-the-clock dose and the dose used for transient flares of pain. And so the breakthrough dose really needs to be adjusted to the individual responses.

There was also a mention of buprenorphine. One of the unique things about buprenorphine is that if you go from high doses of a drug like morphine to buprenorphine in a stop-start dosing strategy, you can precipitate withdrawal. And so one has to be careful and have some experience in using buprenorphine, which can be an effective analgesic.

Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think that the conversion ratios that you mentioned that are in Table 3 in the full guideline are a really useful tool for clinicians in practice. And I appreciate the time that the panel and the additional consensus panel went through to develop these. I think it's also really key what you mentioned about these not being equianalgesic doses and the difficulties in some of these conversions and when people need to really look to specialists in the field.

So then, following opioid conversion, what assessments are recommended post-conversion?

Dr. Mellar Davis: Post-conversion, probably the cardinal recommendation is close observation for response and for toxicity. And I think that probably summarizes the important parts of post-conversion follow up. So assessment should be done 24-48 hours after conversion and patients followed closely. Assessment scales should include patient personalized goals. Now, it used to be in the past that we had this hard stop about a response being below 4 on a 0 to 10 scale, but each patient has their own personal goals. So they gauge the pain severity and their function based upon response. So a patient may function very well at “a severity of 5” and feel that that is their personal goal. So I think the other thing is to make sure that your assessment is just not rote, but it's based upon what patients really want to achieve with the opioid conversion. The average number of doses per day should be assessed in the around-the-clock dose so those should be followed closely. Adverse effects can occur and sometimes can be subtle. In other words, a mild withdrawal may produce fatigue, irritability, insomnia and depression. And clinicians may not pick up on the fact that they may be actually a bit under what patients have or they're experiencing withdrawal syndrome.

It's important to look for other symptoms which may be subtle but indicating, for instance, neurotoxicity from an opioid. For instance, visual hallucinations may not be volunteered by patients. They may transiently see things but either don't associate with the opioid or are afraid to mention them. So I think it's important to directly query them, for instance, about visual hallucinations or about nightmares at night. Nausea can occur. It may be temporary, mild, and doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to stop the second opioid. It may actually resolve in several days and can be treated symptomatically. Pruritus can occur and can be significant. So close observation for the purposes of close adjustments are also necessary. As we mentioned, you want to start them on an around-the-clock of breakthrough dose, but then assess to see what their response is and if it’s suboptimal then you'll need to adjust the doses based both upon the around-the-clock and the breakthrough dose or the dose that's used for breakthrough pain. Also looking at how patients are functioning, because remember that patients frequently look at pain in terms of function or interference with their roles during the day. So, if patients are able to do more things, that may, in fact, be the goal.

Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations across pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including conversion ratios, and what assessments are recommended after opioid conversion. I think it's really important to be watching for these adverse events and assessing for response and keeping in mind patient goals. So, along those lines, how will these guideline recommendations impact both clinicians and people with cancer? And what are the outstanding questions we're thinking about regarding opioid conversion?

Dr. Mellar Davis: I think it's important to have a basic knowledge of opioid pharmacology. There's, for instance, drugs that are safer in liver disease, such as morphine, hydromorphone, which are glucuronidated. And there are opioids that are safer in renal failure, such as methadone and buprenorphine, which aren't dependent upon renal clearance. I think knowing drug-drug interactions are important to know. And sometimes, for instance, there may be multiple prescribers for a patient. The family physician's prescribing a certain medication and the oncologist is another, so being aware of what patients are on, and particularly over-the-counter medications which may influence opioid pharmacokinetics. So complementary medications, for instance, being aware of cannabis, if patients are using cannabis or other things, I think, are important in this.

There are large gaps and questions and that's the last part of the guideline that we approach or that we mentioned that I think are important to know. And one is there may be ethnic differences in population in regards to clearance or cytochrome frequencies within communities or countries, which may actually alter the conversion ratios. This has not been explored to a great extent. There's opioid stigmata. So we are in the middle of an opioid crisis and so people have a great fear of addiction and they may not take an opioid for that reason, or they may have a relative who's been addicted or had a poor experience. And this may be particularly true for methadone and buprenorphine, which are excellent analgesics and are increasingly being used but may in fact have the stigmata.

There are health inequalities that occur related to minority groups that may in fact not get the full benefit of opioid conversions due to access to opioids or to medical care. Age, for instance, will cause perhaps differences in responses to opioids and may in fact affect conversion ratios. And this may be particularly true for methadone, which we have not really explored to a great extent. And finally, the disease itself may influence the clearance or absorption of an opioid. So for a sick patient, the opioid conversion ratio may be distinctly different than in a healthy individual. This is particularly seen with transdermal fentanyl, which is less well absorbed in a cachectic patient, but once given IV or intravenously has a much longer half life due to alterations in the cytochrome that clears it. And so conversion ratios have frequently been reported in relatively healthy individuals with good organ function and not that frequently in older patient populations. So just remember that the conversion ratios may be different in those particular populations.

Brittany Harvey: Yes. So I think a lot of these are very important things to consider and that managing cancer pain is key to quality of life for a lot of patients and it's important to consider these patient factors while offering opioid conversion.

I want to thank you so much for your work to review the existing literature here, develop these consensus-based recommendations and thank you for your time today, Dr. Davis.

Dr. Mellar Davis: 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. Jyoti Patel is back on the podcast to discuss the updates to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. She shares updated recommendations in the first- and second-line settings for patients with stage IV NSCLC and classical EGFR mutations, and the impact of these updates for clinicians and patients. We also look to the future to discuss ongoing developments in the field.

Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” 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-24-02785  

 

Brittany Harvey: 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. Jyoti Patel from Northwestern University, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.”

It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Patel.

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. Happy to be here.

Brittany Harvey: And 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. Patel, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline and in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.

So then, to dive into the content of this update, Dr. Patel, this clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is living, meaning that it's continuously reviewed and updated. So what data prompted this latest change to the recommendations?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. So it's really been an exciting time in the treatment of EGFR lung cancer, particularly this past year has required us to rethink approaches to front- and second-line therapy. In this particular update, we examined what patients in the front-line setting may be offered by their clinicians. And so we're talking about the population of classical EGFR mutations, so exon 19 and exon 21 L858R substitution. And so certainly for this population, osimertinib has a high level of evidence and should be offered to all patients at the time of diagnosis when they present with advanced disease. Our last update included a recommendation that patients could also get platinum doublet chemotherapy with osimertinib or osimertinib alone. This current recommendation also introduces another alternative therapy and that's the combination of amivantamab plus lazertinib. And so now, clinicians are faced with three really good options for their patients with EGFR exon19 deletion or L858R.

Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear that there's this advance in the space, particularly for patients with these classical EGFR mutations that you mentioned.

So what should clinicians know as they implement these new first-line recommendations?

Dr. Jyoti Patel:  I think it's become more complex than ever. Certainly, we know again that patients should get osimertinib in the frontline setting. But we've been kind of stuck at progression-free survival that's between a year and a half and two years. And so we've really been looking at opportunities to intensify therapy. So one could certainly be with chemotherapy or switching over to amivantamab, the bispecific antibody that targets EGFR and MET plus lazertinib, an oral TKI that's very similar in structure to osimertinib. And when you're talking to a patient, it's really a conversation about balancing efficacy with toxicity. Unfortunately, as we know, there aren't that many free lunches. And so if we think about what a patient is hoping for in their therapy and how we can further personalize treatment options, really is important to look at some of the analyses for this study.

So in the study of amivantamab plus lazertinib, we know that there were increased toxicities with a combination of both therapies. In fact, up to 75% of patients had over grade 3 toxicities, versus about 43% of patients with osimertinib monotherapy. And we know if we look back at FLAURA2, almost two thirds of patients with osimertinib and chemotherapy had grade 3 toxicities, compared to 27% of patients with osimertinib alone. So we certainly see an increase in toxicities. Then we have to ask ourselves, are those paper toxicities or ones that really impact patients? And we know that amivantamab, for example, causes significant cutaneous toxicities. With both of these therapies, whether it's chemotherapy or adding amivantamab, there's the burden of infusional visits and increased time in the doctor's office. Certainly with chemotherapy, there can be an increased incidence of myelosuppression. And so when we're thinking about advising our patients, certainly we need to talk about the toxicities.

But one thing that we've been able to do is to look at the patients that were included in this trial. And what we really find is that in higher risk cohorts, particularly those that we know historically have done less well with standard osimertinib, so patients, for example, with CNS metastasis, for those patients with co-mutations, it may be that that additive benefit is significant. And so one example I think would be from the MARIPOSA study, again, the study of amivantamab and lazertinib versus chemotherapy. What we can say is that patients who had co-mutations, so patients with EGFR mutations as well as TP53, lazertinib and amivantamab led to a hazard ratio of 0.65 compared to osimertinib alone. So that was 18.2 months versus 12.9 months. And so this may be really important to patients. And we also see conversely that patients with wild type TP53, so those patients who didn't have the mutation, probably had equivalent survival regardless of therapy.

So certainly, we need to prospectively study some of these high-risk cohorts. We've only seen progression-free survival in these studies. And so at this juncture, we can advise our patients about toxicity, the improvements in certain categories of progression-free survival, but we really still don't know how this pans out in overall survival. In many of these studies, all patients do not necessarily cross over to the study arm and so they may have lost the benefit of subsequent therapy.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's very important to talk about that balance of benefits and risks and particularly those toxicities that you discussed.

So I appreciate reviewing that recommendation and the considerations for clinicians for first-line therapy. This update also included a second-line treatment update. What is that update for patients with EGFR alterations?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: So this is where it gets super tricky because we have a frontline option with amivantamab and now we've had an update in the second line option. So what we said is that for patients who have progressed on an EGFR TKI, and in the United States, certainly that's predominantly osimertinib, or those in other parts of the world that may have gotten an earlier generation TKI, but do not have evidence of T790M or other targetable mutations, we can offer patients chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And so certainly we have seen that this again leads to improved survival.

There have also been a number of studies looking at incorporation of PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapies. And what we can say, I think pretty clearly is that multiple phase 3 trials have really shown no benefit of the addition of PD-1 to platinum chemotherapy. But there are some emerging bispecific antibodies that may target PD-1 as well as VEGF, or combinations of antibodies that target both of those pathways that may improve outcome. At this juncture, I think we feel that the evidence surrounding chemotherapy plus amivantamab is strongest, but there is certainly work in this space that will be of interest.

Now, what happens if your patient received amivantamab and lazertinib in the frontline setting and then has progression? And so we're trying to understand resistance mechanisms and opportunities for treatment. What the panel decided to recommend, based on the available evidence, was that certainly those patients should get platinum-based chemotherapy, but there may also be a role for antivascular endothelial growth factor targeting therapy such as bevacizumab in patients in whom it would be safe.

Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you detailing those recommendations when it gets complicated in the second-line setting.

So what should clinicians know as they implement these second-line recommendations too?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly the frontline setting matters significantly. So if a patient gets osimertinib in the frontline setting, we generally suggest that patients undergo repeat testing to see if they have another targetable mutation. If they don't, then I think preferred therapy would be chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And amivantamab leads to a significant improvement in progression-free survival and response rate at the cost of increased risk of toxicity. For patients who get FLAURA2 in the frontline setting, chemotherapy plus osimertinib, it's a little bit of an unclear space. Those patients most likely would get docetaxel with or without ramucirumab. But there are other agents that we hope to have available to our patients in the near future.

For patients who receive amivantamab and osimertinib, we recommend that those patients get chemotherapy probably with anti-VEGF as demonstrated by multiple trials that have shown the improved progression-free survival with introduction of an anti-VEGF agent. And we've seen evidence of amivantamab in the third line setting, so it is likely that this question about sequencing really takes center stage in our next set of trials. When you're talking to a patient, I think again, it's absolutely important to discuss: What are their goals? How symptomatic or how fast is their progression? Are there ways in which patients may benefit from spot treatment oligoprogression such as radiation? When is the right time for introduction of amivantamab and when do we think patients need chemotherapy? Is it up front or predominantly in the second-line setting?

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just touched on the goals of treatment for individual patients. So in your view, what does this update mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: For patients, this is a time in which shared decision making really needs to take center stage. So our best patients are those patients that are best informed not only about their disease but also have a good understanding about what is important to them and their families in terms of care. And so bringing that shared understanding to the table again helps us think about this particular cancer as more of a journey rather than just a one off treatment. Therapy will hopefully be prolonged, and so it's absolutely important that we address toxicities, make therapies more tolerable, again, with the shared goal of living long and living well.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points to making sure that patients are living both longer and have a good quality of life during that time as well.

So then, before you mentioned the possibility of future sequencing trials and other ongoing developments. What additional studies or future directions is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline?

Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly we're thinking about trials that look at, for example, cfDNA clearance. So are there patients that do well and can we detect that early on without having to intensify therapy on day 1 so it may be that we add chemotherapy a little bit later. I think really exciting are some of the new bispecific. The HARMONi-A trial was a trial in China of a novel bispecific, ivonescimab. And this drug targets both PD-1 and VEGF and it was combined with chemotherapy. And this trial found almost a doubling of progression-free survival with this drug in combination chemotherapy in an EGFR patient population. That study is being planned and being run in the United States to see if we have similar outcomes with a more diverse population. So certainly that's exciting.

There are a number of antibody drug conjugates that are being studied in the post-chemotherapy setting as well. And I think we'll likely soon see a better understanding of what co-mutations and burden of disease really mean when we're thinking about assigning treatment. So which patients, again, need intensification of therapy and which patients may do really well on just an oral agent that they're taking at home with more tolerable toxicity than dual treatment.

Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to continued developments in these fields and seeing some of those studies come to fruition.

So with that, I want to thank you for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Patel.

Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much, Brittany. It's really an exciting time for lung cancer and we hope that these updates really help physicians decide the best treatments for their patients. Again, it's a rapidly evolving landscape which is fantastic, but it does become more cumbersome to stay ahead of the literature.

Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And so we appreciate your time and the panel's time spent reviewing this literature and providing this much needed information to clinicians everywhere.

So finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into 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 to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

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

 

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova joins us again to share the newest changes to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. She discusses new evidence reviewed by the panel and changes to second-line recommendations for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression, and what these updates mean in practice. We discuss ongoing evidence generation as we await further updates to these living guidelines.

Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” 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-24-02786    

Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.”

It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Bazhenova.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It's my pleasure to be here as always.

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

So then to dive into the content here, first, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations has frequent updates to the recommendations. What prompted this latest update?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO guidelines are created to keep up with rapidly changing evidence which affect treatment of our patients with lung cancer. As a committee, we review published literature on a specific topic at the regular intervals and determine if it alters any recommendations. This time, upon our literature review, we felt that there are new data that requires an update in the guidelines and therefore the guidelines were updated.

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

So then it looks like the panel updated recommendations for second line and subsequent treatment options for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression. What is that updated recommendation from the panel?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Yes, this is correct. We now added an extra recommendation for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer who have overexpression of the protein called HER2. HER2 overexpression with 2+/3+ level via immunohistochemistry is seen in approximately 8% to 20% of patients with lung cancer. And the data behind our recommendation comes from the DESTINY-Lung01 trial where patients with HER2 overexpression were treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan. And we saw that if patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer had a HER2 IHC score of 3+, overall response rate was seen at 53% and median duration of response was 6.9 months and, therefore, that in our opinion qualified for updated recommendation. We are still waiting for additional results that will be released later on another clinical trial where we see preliminary data presented at the World Conference of Lung Cancer in 2024. They looked at 36 patients also with HER2 overexpression and saw the overall response rate of almost 45%. It is important to highlight in this smaller study that a majority of the patients in the study were actually having EGFR mutation and the response rate in those patients who had an EGFR mutation was higher than the response rate in patients without EGFR mutations who just had a HER2 overexpression. So for now this is updated in the guidelines, but we will wait for additional data or formal publication of a World Lung Conference presentation and see if those recommendations need to be changed.

Brittany Harvey: Understood, and I appreciate you providing the context of some of those ongoing developments as well.

So then what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Number one, we should all start from remembering to test for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. There is a slight difference in what considers HER2 positive in lung versus breast. In lung, we use what's called the gastric scoring and the difference is the circumferential versus non circumferential staining of the membrane. And number two, immunohistochemistry is not always included in next generation sequencing panels. So when you order your next generation sequencing, I think it's important to know if your company that you're using is testing for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. And if it's not, make sure that you find a company that does or work with your local pathology department to make sure that this testing is offered. It is also important to know the difference between HER2 overexpression and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutation even though the treatment for those two abnormalities is the same, which is trastuzumab deruxtecan. But the benefit that you can cite your patients and the rigor of the literature supporting the usage of trastuzumab deruxtecan in mutation versus overexpression is different.

Brittany Harvey: Yes. And as you mentioned, it's essential that, in the first place, patients are actually receiving the testing so that we know if they're eligible for these treatment options.

So what additionally does this change mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and HER2 overexpression?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So for patients, it adds another treatment modality which is now FDA approved. So if there are patients listening to me, make sure that your physician has tested your tumor for HER2 overexpression. So I think proactive asking of your physician would be very appropriate in this situation.

Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then earlier you mentioned an ongoing trial that the panel was looking to for the future. But what other additional trials did the panel review during this guideline update and what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So at this point we reviewed three additional studies. The results of those studies did not make it into a change in guidelines. So we reviewed the HARMONi-2 trial.  HARMONi-2 trial so far does not have an official publication and, as per our strategy on how we come up with ASCO guidelines, we need to wait for an official publication. So this is one thing we're going to be expecting in the future. Once this is published, we will review it and decide if we need to make an additional change in recommendations. For those of you who are not aware, HARMONi-2 trial used bispecific monoclonal antibody against VEGF and PD-1 and was a phase III randomized trial comparing their investigational product which is called ivonescimab over pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1 more than 50. And again, we are waiting for the final publication to make our recommendation.

The second trial we reviewed was a LUNAR trial and the LUNAR trial looked at addition of tumor treating fields to chemotherapy or immunotherapy in patients whose cancer progressed with platinum doublet. The key point about this study is that immunotherapy was not required to be administered in a first line setting which is a current standard of care in the United States. And even though the study met their primary endpoint of overall survival, there were more benefits in patients who were immunotherapy naive in the second line. And we felt that given the potential lifestyle implication of wearing a device for 18 hours per day, and the lack of evidence in immunotherapy-pretreated population, and the absence of data in the first-line setting where we currently using immunotherapy in the United States, we felt that there is insufficient data to definitely recommend addition of tumor treating fields to systemic chemotherapy for most patients. And we are waiting for additional trials that are ongoing in this setting to formalize or change our recommendations.

And we also reviewed- the final study that we reviewed was TROPION-Lung01. TROPION-Lung01 study was a phase III study in post platinum doublet setting which compared efficacy of Dato-DXd and docetaxel and trials showed improvement in progression free survival but not in overall survival. And progression free survival benefit was more pronounced in non-squamous carcinoma histology subgroup and we felt that the results do appear promising, but the strength of evidence which was based on unplanned subgroup analysis was not sufficient enough to make a change in treatment recommendation at this time.

Brittany Harvey: I appreciate your transparency on why some of that data did not prompt a change to recommendations at this time. And additionally, we'll look forward to those future published results and potential incorporation of new data into future versions of this living guideline.

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

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It is my pleasure. 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/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 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.