ASCO Lung Cancer

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

rophosabrehotruslemulotritevevagugaclohafrucrocabrihatriclagepepracrucechecrithethushicladruuamedrepopusovotritrimamatriletreshechemechosidrispujechap

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

rophosabrehotruslemulotritevevagugaclohafrucrocabrihatriclagepepracrucechecrithethushicladruuamedrepopusovotritrimamatriletreshechemechosidrispujechap

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

CHICAGO — Prominent Chinese oncologist Tony Shu-Kam Mok, MD, who presented as first author of a phase 3 non–small cell lung cancer study at ASCO 2024, made a dramatic swerve in his career path at age 36.

After 20 years in Canada — 7 spent practicing community oncology near Toronto — Dr. Mok was visiting family in his native Hong Kong back in 1996 when a job offer there enabled him to revive his early dream of doing academic research. Dr. Mok and his family moved back home just before the former British colony was returned to China in 1997.

rophosabrehotruslemulotritevevagugaclohafrucrocabrihatriclagepepracrucechecrithethushicladruuamedrepopusovotritrimamatriletreshechemechosidrispujechap

That leap of faith helped Dr. Mok play a role in the global paradigm shift on treating lung cancer. He chairs the department of clinical oncology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A leader in ushering in targeted therapies and personalized medicine in China and globally, he has helped advance the goal of transforming lung cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease.

Among Dr. Mok’s other accomplishments, he has published eight books and more than 200 journal articles. Since 2006, he has been writing a twice-weekly column in the Hong Kong Economic Times. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Dr. Mok sat down with this news organization to discuss his latest findings, his career path, and China’s ever-growing presence in multinational clinical trials, pharmaceuticals, and cancer research in general.
 

Question: At ASCO 2024 in Chicago, you presented as first author of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Can you give a short “elevator speech” summarizing those findings?

Dr. Mok: KRYSTAL-12 is a randomized phase 3 study comparing adagrasib with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer harboring a KRAS G12C-mutation. And the findings are positive, with a median progression free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months, with a significant hazard ratio [of 0.58]. And then there are also differences in their response rates of 32% versus 9%, and that gives you an [odds] ratio of 4.86. So yes, it’s significant.

Question: Now that you’ve given this presentation and perhaps taken some good, meaningful questions about it, are there any further points you’d like to make — anything you’d like to add?

Dr. Mok: You have to understand that whatever I said has been scrutinized by the pharmaceutical company, but now I can say whatever I like. I think the key point is that we actually have made the first so-called achievement in the KRAS G12C space. But this is only the beginning.

I want to note that the median progression-free survival is different, but not the best. The median 5.5 months result is good, but not good enough. So, we still have to work hard to answer the question: How can we best deliver care to patients with KRAS G12C?
 

Question: Speaking more generally about the challenges of targeting KRAS, what issues arise in terms of biomarker testing for KRAS mutations in the clinic? Dr. Mok: In colorectal cancer, there has been testing for KRAS [mutations] for a long, long time. So, most of the laboratories, as long as they are well equipped, will be able to test for KRAS. Usually, the cheaper way is to buy PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. However, these days it’s getting trendier to use NGS [next-generation sequencing]. So, one way or another, specificity is very high. I don’t think we have too much of a problem. The only difference between colorectal cancer and lung cancer is that the tissue sample may not be as good for lung cancer with a small biopsy, but otherwise testing is not an issue.

Question: What clinical trials should oncologist be watching to come into this space?Dr. Mok: There are a lot. Right now, there is the so-called first-line study that’s coming up. So, I can cite you some examples for the KRYSTAL-7 trial, which is the combination of pembrolizumab together with adagrasib in the PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%.

That’s one example. And then there is the CodeBreaK 202 trial, which is actually the combination of chemotherapy with sotorasib versus chemotherapy and I-O [immune-oncology]. That is also an ongoing study.
 

Question: I also want to ask you some background questions about yourself. Back in the day, you lived in Canada and were a community oncologist. Then you made a very big change in your life and moved back home to Hong Kong in 1996, on the eve of its return to China the following year.

Dr. Mok: Well, I was born and raised in Hong Kong, but I left for Canada for education when I was 16 and kind of stayed there and got medical school oncology training and then started my practice. At that time, I never imagined myself going back. But 1996 was a big year. Incidentally, I went back to Hong Kong then to visit my friends and was offered a job at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Then 1997 was coming. I found it very exciting that we could work with China. So that’s why I decided to return. And this was probably one of my best decisions I ever made in my life.

Question: And you went from being a community oncologist to academic research?

Dr. Mok: Here’s a personal thing that I can share with you: When I finished my oncology training at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, I thought of going into research and becoming an academic. However, my son was born. Household costs went up, and I didn’t want to be a low-income, poor PhD student, so I decided that I may as well go into private practice. Returning to Hong Kong [in 1996] gave me a second chance. I went from being a community oncologist for seven years in Canada to a totally new environment in Hong Kong, where I started my academic work at age 36. It has been a good journey.

Question: Why do you say that was the best decision you ever made?Dr. Mok: At that time, it took me about 2 weeks to make this important decision. Basically: I had to give up my big house and my big car in Canada and move back to a small apartment in Hong Kong. That was a tough decision to make. However, it was a matter of certainty versus uncertainty.

In Canada, I actually had a very stable situation. I had a big practice in the Scarborough area [of Toronto], with a lot of Chinese patients, so I had a better, more comfortable life. It was predictable. But then I asked myself what I would be like in 10 years if I stayed in Canada versus Hong Kong. My answer is that I had no idea what would happen to me 10 years later in Hong Kong. In certain parts of life, you have to decide between certainty and uncertainty. And this time, uncertainty brought me great adventure. I definitely would not have done the things I’ve done if I’d stayed in Canada.



Question: At this ASCO, you’ve spoken primarily about your latest research on non–small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C mutation.Dr. Mok: Actually, my research has been mostly on targeted therapy. My first break was on the EGFR [epidermal growth factor receptor] mutation. I was one of the first to help define personalized medicine according to the EGFR mutation in the IPASS study [2009]. That’s how I started my academic career.



Question: I read some quotes from your writing some years back about “living with imperfection,” and where you wrote about the whole continuum of cancer research. Years ago, you noted that lung cancer was moving from being a death sentence to becoming a chronic condition.

Dr. Mok: The objective is this: A lot of cancer patients, especially lung cancer patients, had a very short survival, but now we are able to identify a subgroup of patients with a driver oncogene.

And with that, we can use a tyrosine kinase inhibitor — which although it has toxicity, it’s manageable toxicity — such that you can take one pill a day and continue to live a normal life. So that would be not so different from diabetes or hypertension: You live with the disease. So that’s what we like to see: the conversion of a fatal disease into a chronic disease.
 

Question: So many countries now, including the United States and many others, are facing the challenges of cancer care in rural versus urban areas. Is this a topic you’d be willing to address? Dr. Mok: Well, in Hong Kong we don’t have rural areas! But in China, this is a major problem. There most of the cancer care is focused on the so-called three major cities [Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou]. And after that, there are second-tier cities that also have reasonably good care. But when you filter down to the third and fourth layer, the oncology care actually deteriorates. So that’s why we end up with a lot of people from the more rural areas moving and going to the city looking for care and consultation. So yes, the disparity is significant.

But China is a growing country. It takes time to change. Right now, we can see at ASCO this year, there are a lot of investigators from China sharing their new findings, which is a major development, compared to 10 years ago. Therefore, I think that when you have this type of proliferative development, eventually the good care, the high-quality care will filter down to more rural areas. So, at this moment, I think there is still a lot of work to do.
 

Question: You’ve talked about how oncologists from China are coming up in the field, and this year they have an even greater presence at ASCO, as well as oncologists from elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You’ve been coming to ASCO for many years. Can you talk about the factors behind China’s increasing presence? Dr. Mok: I think it’s a combination of factors. First of all, I had the honor of working with lung cancer researchers from China from way back, 25 years ago. At that time, we all had nothing. Then with the development of multitargeted therapies, they managed to build up a very good infrastructure for clinical trials. And then, based on that good infrastructure, they were able to do international collaborative studies and provide a supply of patient resources and high-quality data. So, they’ve learned the trick, done a good job, but they cannot have so-called independence until there is a development of pharmaceuticals in China.

And then over the past 10 years, there’s been a proliferation — actually an explosion I would even say — of high-quality pharmaceutical companies in China. First, they’ve got the resources to build the companies. Second, they’ve got the talent resources returning from the United States. So, putting all that together, these were able to go from start-ups to full-fledged functional companies in a very short time.

And with that, they actually sponsored a lot of trials within China. And you can see that putting all the components together: you’ve got high-quality researchers, you’ve got the infrastructure, and now you’ve got your drugs and the money to do the trials. As a result, you’ve got a lot of good data coming from China.
 

Question: There’s also a population with these mutations.Dr. Mok: That for one, but most have multitargeted therapies, but they also have immunotherapies that have nothing to do with the high incidence. But I think in a sense, in the beginning, they were doing `me-too’ compounds, but now I think they are starting to do ‘me-better’ compounds.

Question: Is there anything you want to say about some of the other presentations that have your name on them at ASCO this year?Dr. Mok: I think the most important one I was engaged in is the CROWN study. The CROWN study is actually a phase 3 study that compares lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer.

This is a 5-year follow-up, and we were actually able to report an outrageously encouraging 5-year progression-free rate at 60%, meaning that the patient is walking in the door 5 years later when they are on the drug, and 60% of them actually do not have progression, not death, just not progression, just staying on the same pill—which is quite outrageously good for lung cancer.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

Henry_David_H_PA_hs_web.JPG

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

Henry_David_H_PA_hs_web.JPG

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

Henry_David_H_PA_hs_web.JPG

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

DAmbruoso_Sarah_CALIF_web.jpg

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

DAmbruoso_Sarah_CALIF_web.jpg

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

DAmbruoso_Sarah_CALIF_web.jpg

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The biggest cancer conference in the world is back in person after 2 years online during the COVID pandemic. And it appears many are eager to attend the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in person now that they can.

By early May, ASCO already had 30,000 registrations, of which 80% were in person – there were 27,000 hotel reservations.

“That’s almost identical to where we were in terms of numbers in 2019 at the same point in time,” Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO, said in an interview.

These figures, which are from May 11, are likely to increase. In past years, there has been an upswing in registrations right before the meeting starts.

The annual meeting begins on Friday, June 3, and runs until Tuesday, June 7. It will be held in Chicago, yet again, in the vast McCormick Place, sections of which were transformed into field hospital wards when the pandemic hit in 2020.

But the meeting will also continue to be transmitted virtually, as it has been for the past 2 years, for those not attending in person.

“I do think that the hybrid model will move forward,” Dr. Gralow said. “We can get a lot of attendees, especially from very distant places, who can’t travel, or can’t easily travel, and we have learned how to make that experience better for them as well.”

Attendees can also change their minds if, for example, rising numbers of COVID cases as the meeting nears put them off traveling. “We are allowing people to change to virtual. So I think there may be a little bit of that, depending on what happens to COVID in different parts of the world,” Dr. Gralow commented.

For those who do attend, the organization is “doing the best that we can to keep people safe,” said Dr. Gralow, who was previously a professor of global health and is now a breast medical oncologist and clinical trialist.

To attend in person, ASCO is mandating proof of vaccination (which in the United States means two doses of the COVID vaccine). “If you prove in advance that you are vaccinated, we will send you your badge, so you don’t have to stand in line,” she added.

“As far as masks go, we are saying right now that we are complying with Chicago’s rules, which mean there is no mandatory indoor masking,” she continued. “We are recommending masking because this is a group of physicians who treat immunocompromised patients. So we are recommending that.”

This stance has gotten some push-back on Twitter from both physicians and patient advocates, with some surprised that masking is not mandatory.

“I know that ‘mask-optional’ meetings mean most will omit masks; I literally just saw this at my last meeting as one of the few masked MDs,” commented radiation oncologist Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD. She appealed to the organizers with a plea: “There’s still time to change #ASCO22 policies. We’re in it for patient health.”

Patient advocate Manju George, MVSc, PhD, a rectal cancer survivor, was also campaigning for a change in policy by setting up a letter that others could sign, adding that “ASCO leadership is being flooded with pleads from concerned HCPs.”

When asked whether it was considering a change in mask policy, ASCO replied: “As far as health and safety go, the protocols we’ve put in place meet or exceed current [World Health Organization, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and city of Chicago guidelines. ASCO is also closely coordinating with both the city and the convention center and we are actively monitoring local conditions.”

“To protect the health and safety of all meeting attendees, our protocols require attendees to be fully vaccinated and self-test negative for COVID-19 within 48 hours prior to their arrival at the meeting. In addition, we expect all attendees to be masked when indoors and are encouraging regular self-testing. We fully expect members of our community to do their part to help keep everyone safe, and we’re making it easy for attendees to comply with our policies by providing medical-grade masks as well as both rapid antigen and [polymerase chain reaction] COVID-19 tests,” the organization said.

There will also be a notification system so attendees can select how they identify for closeness, with red meaning stand back, no hugs, no handshakes; yellow signifying something more intermediate; and green signaling the person is okay with contact with a handshake or a hug. This system has already been used during smaller ASCO subspecialty meetings earlier this year, and feedback from delegates was positive, Dr. Gralow commented.
 

Advancing equitable care

The theme of the 2022 meeting, chosen by ASCO President Everett Vokes, MD, is advancing equitable cancer care through innovation.

It builds on the theme of equity from 2021, chosen by previous president Lori Pierce, MD, which was “Equity: Every Patient. Every Day. Everywhere.”

Some of this relates to disparities in equity, commented Dr. Gralow. This is the focus of a premeeting press briefing on May 26 that will highlight a few abstracts that focus on disparities and what can be done to address them. One study (abstract 6511) focuses on telemedicine, which was increasingly used during the pandemic, but the results show not all U.S. patient populations could access the specialty care they needed in this way.
 

De-escalation of therapy

De-escalation of therapy is another theme running through the meeting.

“There are some cancers where we have achieved such good outcomes that it is time to look at de-escalating therapy because we know that we are probably way overtreating a component of those patients. ... So we are looking at whether we can find subpopulations where we can back off on therapy,” commented Dr. Gralow.

One example is the LUMINA trial in breast cancer (abstract LBA501), which looked at omitting radiotherapy after surgery. “In standard practice we have already been doing this, not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses and similar evidence,” commented Dr. Gralow. This trial tested the approach prospectively, lowered the age range of patients, and better defined which patients were likely to benefit.

Another example is the DYNAMIC trial in colorectal cancer (abstract LBA-100), which looks at omitting chemotherapy based on levels of circulating tumor DNA after surgery. These patients had stage 2 disease and generally do very well with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Gralow stated. This trial aims to find the subset of patients who could do just as well without the chemotherapy; it may also identify those patients at the other end of the scale, who perhaps need a bit more treatment, she added.
 

Spotlight on innovation

The focus on innovation includes exploring drugs developed outside the United States. One example is nimotuzumab, which is already approved in China for use in nasopharyngeal cancer but is also being explored in other cancer types. At ASCO, data will be presented in patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer (abstract 4011). This study, like the other trials with nimotuzumab, was conducted in China.

This brings up an important point about the data the Food and Drug Administration requires for new drug approvals, commented Dr. Gralow.

She noted that the FDA recently rejected an application for sintilimab, a drug also developed in China, on the basis that all trial data submitted for approval were from China. The agency said it would like to see multiregional clinical trials and trials that reflect the U.S. cancer population.
 

Advice for attendees

A large trial in a rare cancer promises to establish a new standard of care, where previously a number of different regimens have been used in various parts of the world, and even at different hospitals within the same country. These are the results from an international trial in children and adolescents/young adults with Ewing’s sarcoma (abstract LBA-02). “I have been told by experts in the field that these results will change practice ... [and] will have a global impact,” commented Dr. Gralow.

In addition to the scientific sessions that will see new data, there are a number of educational sessions that will tackle tricky issues that clinicians sometimes face. “Microaggressions, Bias, and Equity in the Workplace” will be discussed in one session, while another promises, “Strategies to Address Moral Distress in Clinicians: What Should We Do When We Don’t Know What to Do?”

There is also a special session featuring the “Cancer Groundshot: Addressing the Global and National Inequities in Cancer Care.” This is a move spearheaded by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was reacting to the lofty goals of the presidential Cancer Moonshot, including the aim of “ending cancer as we know it.” In a blog post in 2016 he suggested “forget the moon; let’s get back to blood and flesh reality on the ground ... [and] research that can be immediately applied to every global community.” He recounts the journey from ‘Blog Post to ASCO Session’ in a recent commentary.

Dr. Gyawali also has some advice for those attending the ASCO annual meeting: Reach out to people you respect, trust that connections will happen, scrutinize the data, listen critically for jargon, and perhaps most importantly, have fun.

“There’s more to life than your job,” he wrote. “Don’t stress. Think about the bigger picture. Think about your patients. And remember, life is beautiful, even when it feels like it isn’t.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer conference in the world is back in person after 2 years online during the COVID pandemic. And it appears many are eager to attend the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in person now that they can.

By early May, ASCO already had 30,000 registrations, of which 80% were in person – there were 27,000 hotel reservations.

“That’s almost identical to where we were in terms of numbers in 2019 at the same point in time,” Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO, said in an interview.

These figures, which are from May 11, are likely to increase. In past years, there has been an upswing in registrations right before the meeting starts.

The annual meeting begins on Friday, June 3, and runs until Tuesday, June 7. It will be held in Chicago, yet again, in the vast McCormick Place, sections of which were transformed into field hospital wards when the pandemic hit in 2020.

But the meeting will also continue to be transmitted virtually, as it has been for the past 2 years, for those not attending in person.

“I do think that the hybrid model will move forward,” Dr. Gralow said. “We can get a lot of attendees, especially from very distant places, who can’t travel, or can’t easily travel, and we have learned how to make that experience better for them as well.”

Attendees can also change their minds if, for example, rising numbers of COVID cases as the meeting nears put them off traveling. “We are allowing people to change to virtual. So I think there may be a little bit of that, depending on what happens to COVID in different parts of the world,” Dr. Gralow commented.

For those who do attend, the organization is “doing the best that we can to keep people safe,” said Dr. Gralow, who was previously a professor of global health and is now a breast medical oncologist and clinical trialist.

To attend in person, ASCO is mandating proof of vaccination (which in the United States means two doses of the COVID vaccine). “If you prove in advance that you are vaccinated, we will send you your badge, so you don’t have to stand in line,” she added.

“As far as masks go, we are saying right now that we are complying with Chicago’s rules, which mean there is no mandatory indoor masking,” she continued. “We are recommending masking because this is a group of physicians who treat immunocompromised patients. So we are recommending that.”

This stance has gotten some push-back on Twitter from both physicians and patient advocates, with some surprised that masking is not mandatory.

“I know that ‘mask-optional’ meetings mean most will omit masks; I literally just saw this at my last meeting as one of the few masked MDs,” commented radiation oncologist Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD. She appealed to the organizers with a plea: “There’s still time to change #ASCO22 policies. We’re in it for patient health.”

Patient advocate Manju George, MVSc, PhD, a rectal cancer survivor, was also campaigning for a change in policy by setting up a letter that others could sign, adding that “ASCO leadership is being flooded with pleads from concerned HCPs.”

When asked whether it was considering a change in mask policy, ASCO replied: “As far as health and safety go, the protocols we’ve put in place meet or exceed current [World Health Organization, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and city of Chicago guidelines. ASCO is also closely coordinating with both the city and the convention center and we are actively monitoring local conditions.”

“To protect the health and safety of all meeting attendees, our protocols require attendees to be fully vaccinated and self-test negative for COVID-19 within 48 hours prior to their arrival at the meeting. In addition, we expect all attendees to be masked when indoors and are encouraging regular self-testing. We fully expect members of our community to do their part to help keep everyone safe, and we’re making it easy for attendees to comply with our policies by providing medical-grade masks as well as both rapid antigen and [polymerase chain reaction] COVID-19 tests,” the organization said.

There will also be a notification system so attendees can select how they identify for closeness, with red meaning stand back, no hugs, no handshakes; yellow signifying something more intermediate; and green signaling the person is okay with contact with a handshake or a hug. This system has already been used during smaller ASCO subspecialty meetings earlier this year, and feedback from delegates was positive, Dr. Gralow commented.
 

Advancing equitable care

The theme of the 2022 meeting, chosen by ASCO President Everett Vokes, MD, is advancing equitable cancer care through innovation.

It builds on the theme of equity from 2021, chosen by previous president Lori Pierce, MD, which was “Equity: Every Patient. Every Day. Everywhere.”

Some of this relates to disparities in equity, commented Dr. Gralow. This is the focus of a premeeting press briefing on May 26 that will highlight a few abstracts that focus on disparities and what can be done to address them. One study (abstract 6511) focuses on telemedicine, which was increasingly used during the pandemic, but the results show not all U.S. patient populations could access the specialty care they needed in this way.
 

De-escalation of therapy

De-escalation of therapy is another theme running through the meeting.

“There are some cancers where we have achieved such good outcomes that it is time to look at de-escalating therapy because we know that we are probably way overtreating a component of those patients. ... So we are looking at whether we can find subpopulations where we can back off on therapy,” commented Dr. Gralow.

One example is the LUMINA trial in breast cancer (abstract LBA501), which looked at omitting radiotherapy after surgery. “In standard practice we have already been doing this, not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses and similar evidence,” commented Dr. Gralow. This trial tested the approach prospectively, lowered the age range of patients, and better defined which patients were likely to benefit.

Another example is the DYNAMIC trial in colorectal cancer (abstract LBA-100), which looks at omitting chemotherapy based on levels of circulating tumor DNA after surgery. These patients had stage 2 disease and generally do very well with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Gralow stated. This trial aims to find the subset of patients who could do just as well without the chemotherapy; it may also identify those patients at the other end of the scale, who perhaps need a bit more treatment, she added.
 

Spotlight on innovation

The focus on innovation includes exploring drugs developed outside the United States. One example is nimotuzumab, which is already approved in China for use in nasopharyngeal cancer but is also being explored in other cancer types. At ASCO, data will be presented in patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer (abstract 4011). This study, like the other trials with nimotuzumab, was conducted in China.

This brings up an important point about the data the Food and Drug Administration requires for new drug approvals, commented Dr. Gralow.

She noted that the FDA recently rejected an application for sintilimab, a drug also developed in China, on the basis that all trial data submitted for approval were from China. The agency said it would like to see multiregional clinical trials and trials that reflect the U.S. cancer population.
 

Advice for attendees

A large trial in a rare cancer promises to establish a new standard of care, where previously a number of different regimens have been used in various parts of the world, and even at different hospitals within the same country. These are the results from an international trial in children and adolescents/young adults with Ewing’s sarcoma (abstract LBA-02). “I have been told by experts in the field that these results will change practice ... [and] will have a global impact,” commented Dr. Gralow.

In addition to the scientific sessions that will see new data, there are a number of educational sessions that will tackle tricky issues that clinicians sometimes face. “Microaggressions, Bias, and Equity in the Workplace” will be discussed in one session, while another promises, “Strategies to Address Moral Distress in Clinicians: What Should We Do When We Don’t Know What to Do?”

There is also a special session featuring the “Cancer Groundshot: Addressing the Global and National Inequities in Cancer Care.” This is a move spearheaded by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was reacting to the lofty goals of the presidential Cancer Moonshot, including the aim of “ending cancer as we know it.” In a blog post in 2016 he suggested “forget the moon; let’s get back to blood and flesh reality on the ground ... [and] research that can be immediately applied to every global community.” He recounts the journey from ‘Blog Post to ASCO Session’ in a recent commentary.

Dr. Gyawali also has some advice for those attending the ASCO annual meeting: Reach out to people you respect, trust that connections will happen, scrutinize the data, listen critically for jargon, and perhaps most importantly, have fun.

“There’s more to life than your job,” he wrote. “Don’t stress. Think about the bigger picture. Think about your patients. And remember, life is beautiful, even when it feels like it isn’t.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer conference in the world is back in person after 2 years online during the COVID pandemic. And it appears many are eager to attend the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in person now that they can.

By early May, ASCO already had 30,000 registrations, of which 80% were in person – there were 27,000 hotel reservations.

“That’s almost identical to where we were in terms of numbers in 2019 at the same point in time,” Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at ASCO, said in an interview.

These figures, which are from May 11, are likely to increase. In past years, there has been an upswing in registrations right before the meeting starts.

The annual meeting begins on Friday, June 3, and runs until Tuesday, June 7. It will be held in Chicago, yet again, in the vast McCormick Place, sections of which were transformed into field hospital wards when the pandemic hit in 2020.

But the meeting will also continue to be transmitted virtually, as it has been for the past 2 years, for those not attending in person.

“I do think that the hybrid model will move forward,” Dr. Gralow said. “We can get a lot of attendees, especially from very distant places, who can’t travel, or can’t easily travel, and we have learned how to make that experience better for them as well.”

Attendees can also change their minds if, for example, rising numbers of COVID cases as the meeting nears put them off traveling. “We are allowing people to change to virtual. So I think there may be a little bit of that, depending on what happens to COVID in different parts of the world,” Dr. Gralow commented.

For those who do attend, the organization is “doing the best that we can to keep people safe,” said Dr. Gralow, who was previously a professor of global health and is now a breast medical oncologist and clinical trialist.

To attend in person, ASCO is mandating proof of vaccination (which in the United States means two doses of the COVID vaccine). “If you prove in advance that you are vaccinated, we will send you your badge, so you don’t have to stand in line,” she added.

“As far as masks go, we are saying right now that we are complying with Chicago’s rules, which mean there is no mandatory indoor masking,” she continued. “We are recommending masking because this is a group of physicians who treat immunocompromised patients. So we are recommending that.”

This stance has gotten some push-back on Twitter from both physicians and patient advocates, with some surprised that masking is not mandatory.

“I know that ‘mask-optional’ meetings mean most will omit masks; I literally just saw this at my last meeting as one of the few masked MDs,” commented radiation oncologist Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD. She appealed to the organizers with a plea: “There’s still time to change #ASCO22 policies. We’re in it for patient health.”

Patient advocate Manju George, MVSc, PhD, a rectal cancer survivor, was also campaigning for a change in policy by setting up a letter that others could sign, adding that “ASCO leadership is being flooded with pleads from concerned HCPs.”

When asked whether it was considering a change in mask policy, ASCO replied: “As far as health and safety go, the protocols we’ve put in place meet or exceed current [World Health Organization, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and city of Chicago guidelines. ASCO is also closely coordinating with both the city and the convention center and we are actively monitoring local conditions.”

“To protect the health and safety of all meeting attendees, our protocols require attendees to be fully vaccinated and self-test negative for COVID-19 within 48 hours prior to their arrival at the meeting. In addition, we expect all attendees to be masked when indoors and are encouraging regular self-testing. We fully expect members of our community to do their part to help keep everyone safe, and we’re making it easy for attendees to comply with our policies by providing medical-grade masks as well as both rapid antigen and [polymerase chain reaction] COVID-19 tests,” the organization said.

There will also be a notification system so attendees can select how they identify for closeness, with red meaning stand back, no hugs, no handshakes; yellow signifying something more intermediate; and green signaling the person is okay with contact with a handshake or a hug. This system has already been used during smaller ASCO subspecialty meetings earlier this year, and feedback from delegates was positive, Dr. Gralow commented.
 

Advancing equitable care

The theme of the 2022 meeting, chosen by ASCO President Everett Vokes, MD, is advancing equitable cancer care through innovation.

It builds on the theme of equity from 2021, chosen by previous president Lori Pierce, MD, which was “Equity: Every Patient. Every Day. Everywhere.”

Some of this relates to disparities in equity, commented Dr. Gralow. This is the focus of a premeeting press briefing on May 26 that will highlight a few abstracts that focus on disparities and what can be done to address them. One study (abstract 6511) focuses on telemedicine, which was increasingly used during the pandemic, but the results show not all U.S. patient populations could access the specialty care they needed in this way.
 

De-escalation of therapy

De-escalation of therapy is another theme running through the meeting.

“There are some cancers where we have achieved such good outcomes that it is time to look at de-escalating therapy because we know that we are probably way overtreating a component of those patients. ... So we are looking at whether we can find subpopulations where we can back off on therapy,” commented Dr. Gralow.

One example is the LUMINA trial in breast cancer (abstract LBA501), which looked at omitting radiotherapy after surgery. “In standard practice we have already been doing this, not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses and similar evidence,” commented Dr. Gralow. This trial tested the approach prospectively, lowered the age range of patients, and better defined which patients were likely to benefit.

Another example is the DYNAMIC trial in colorectal cancer (abstract LBA-100), which looks at omitting chemotherapy based on levels of circulating tumor DNA after surgery. These patients had stage 2 disease and generally do very well with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Gralow stated. This trial aims to find the subset of patients who could do just as well without the chemotherapy; it may also identify those patients at the other end of the scale, who perhaps need a bit more treatment, she added.
 

Spotlight on innovation

The focus on innovation includes exploring drugs developed outside the United States. One example is nimotuzumab, which is already approved in China for use in nasopharyngeal cancer but is also being explored in other cancer types. At ASCO, data will be presented in patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer (abstract 4011). This study, like the other trials with nimotuzumab, was conducted in China.

This brings up an important point about the data the Food and Drug Administration requires for new drug approvals, commented Dr. Gralow.

She noted that the FDA recently rejected an application for sintilimab, a drug also developed in China, on the basis that all trial data submitted for approval were from China. The agency said it would like to see multiregional clinical trials and trials that reflect the U.S. cancer population.
 

Advice for attendees

A large trial in a rare cancer promises to establish a new standard of care, where previously a number of different regimens have been used in various parts of the world, and even at different hospitals within the same country. These are the results from an international trial in children and adolescents/young adults with Ewing’s sarcoma (abstract LBA-02). “I have been told by experts in the field that these results will change practice ... [and] will have a global impact,” commented Dr. Gralow.

In addition to the scientific sessions that will see new data, there are a number of educational sessions that will tackle tricky issues that clinicians sometimes face. “Microaggressions, Bias, and Equity in the Workplace” will be discussed in one session, while another promises, “Strategies to Address Moral Distress in Clinicians: What Should We Do When We Don’t Know What to Do?”

There is also a special session featuring the “Cancer Groundshot: Addressing the Global and National Inequities in Cancer Care.” This is a move spearheaded by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was reacting to the lofty goals of the presidential Cancer Moonshot, including the aim of “ending cancer as we know it.” In a blog post in 2016 he suggested “forget the moon; let’s get back to blood and flesh reality on the ground ... [and] research that can be immediately applied to every global community.” He recounts the journey from ‘Blog Post to ASCO Session’ in a recent commentary.

Dr. Gyawali also has some advice for those attending the ASCO annual meeting: Reach out to people you respect, trust that connections will happen, scrutinize the data, listen critically for jargon, and perhaps most importantly, have fun.

“There’s more to life than your job,” he wrote. “Don’t stress. Think about the bigger picture. Think about your patients. And remember, life is beautiful, even when it feels like it isn’t.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dr Thomas Stinchcombe, from Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina, highlights key abstracts in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 

First, he reviews the IMpower010 trial, which compares atezolizumab vs best supportive care in patients with surgically resected NSCLC who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. 

He then discusses surgical outcomes from the CheckMate 816 trial in patients with resectable NSCLC who had been treated with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. 

Finally, Dr Stinchcombe discusses the IMPACT trial, which looked at adjuvant gefitinib vs cisplatin/vinorelbine in completely resected NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.
--

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research funding from: Genentech/Roche; Blueprint Medicines; AstraZeneca
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Takeda; AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Foundation Medicine; Pfizer; EMD Serono; Novartis; Daiichi Sankyo; Eli Lilly and Company; Medtronic.
 

Dr Thomas Stinchcombe, from Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina, highlights key abstracts in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 

First, he reviews the IMpower010 trial, which compares atezolizumab vs best supportive care in patients with surgically resected NSCLC who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. 

He then discusses surgical outcomes from the CheckMate 816 trial in patients with resectable NSCLC who had been treated with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. 

Finally, Dr Stinchcombe discusses the IMPACT trial, which looked at adjuvant gefitinib vs cisplatin/vinorelbine in completely resected NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.
--

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research funding from: Genentech/Roche; Blueprint Medicines; AstraZeneca
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Takeda; AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Foundation Medicine; Pfizer; EMD Serono; Novartis; Daiichi Sankyo; Eli Lilly and Company; Medtronic.
 

Dr Thomas Stinchcombe, from Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina, highlights key abstracts in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 

First, he reviews the IMpower010 trial, which compares atezolizumab vs best supportive care in patients with surgically resected NSCLC who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. 

He then discusses surgical outcomes from the CheckMate 816 trial in patients with resectable NSCLC who had been treated with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. 

Finally, Dr Stinchcombe discusses the IMPACT trial, which looked at adjuvant gefitinib vs cisplatin/vinorelbine in completely resected NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.
--

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research funding from: Genentech/Roche; Blueprint Medicines; AstraZeneca
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Takeda; AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Foundation Medicine; Pfizer; EMD Serono; Novartis; Daiichi Sankyo; Eli Lilly and Company; Medtronic.
 

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

A HER3-targeted therapy has demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, according to results of a phase 1 study.

Patritumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting HER3, had an overall response rate (ORR) of 39% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months in a phase 1 study that included patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and chemotherapy, the results show.

The efficacy was seen across EGFR TKI resistance mechanisms in this very difficult-to-treat patient population, according to investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“There is not one category of individuals that are having a response, or not having a response,” Dr. Jänne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9007).

“Responses are observed in patients with identifiable resistance mechanisms, and in patients that do not have an identifiable resistance mechanism, but have progressed on prior EGFR TKI therapy,” he added.

More than 80% of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors express HER3, and of note, HER3 alterations do not appear to confer resistance to EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, according to Dr. Jänne.
 

Study details

Also known as HER3-DXd, patritumab deruxtecan consists of a fully human anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase inhibitor payload by a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

The antibody-drug conjugate is also being evaluated in metastatic breast cancer and colorectal cancer, Dr. Jänne said.

In the present phase 1 dose escalation and dose expansion study, a total of 57 patients were treated with patritumab deruxtecan at 5.6 mg/kg, the recommended dose for the expansion phase.

The median age of these patients was 65 years, and the majority (63%) were women, Dr. Jänne reported. About half had a history of central nervous system metastases.

The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was four, making this a heavily pretreated patient population, Dr. Jänne said. All patients had received prior EGFR TKI therapy, and 86% specifically had prior osimertinib. Ninety-one percent had prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and 40% had received immunotherapy.
 

Spectrum of responses

The confirmed ORR of 39% included 1 complete response (2%) and 21 partial responses (37%), Dr. Jänne reported. The disease control rate was 72%, and median duration of response was 6.9 months at a median follow-up of 10.2 months.

The median PFS was 8.2 months in 57 patients overall and in a subset of 44 patients who had received prior osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the report.

Activity of patritumab deruxtecan was seen not only across patients with diverse mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance, but also regardless of prior number of treatments, and regardless of history of brain metastases, the investigator said.

In addition, clinical responses were seen across a spectrum of baseline HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry, the investigator added.

Safety was assessed in 81 patients treated at a range of doses in the phase 1 trial. The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events, observed in 5% or more of patients, included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia, while other side effects such as fatigue and dyspnea were observed, Dr. Jänne said. About 9% of the adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in the safety cohort.

Interstitial lung disease was observed in four patients, or 5% of the safety cohort. Three of these were grade 1-2 and one was grade 3, according to the report.
 

Questions to explore

The efficacy of patritumab deruxtecan was “high” in this phase 1 study, based on the reported response rate and median PFS, said discussant Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Paris.

However, the most striking finding of the study was the efficacy of the antibody-drug conjugate across all reported resistance mechanisms, Dr. Girard said in his remarks.

Questions that remains to be explored, according to Dr. Girard, include the impact of previous treatment sequencing with TKIs and chemotherapy on patient outcomes with patritumab deruxtecan, as well as the assessment of intracranial response and PFS for patients treated with the agent.

In addition, antitumor activity was seen across a wide range of baseline HER3 expression levels in this study, suggesting that a predictive biomarker remains to be identified, according to Dr. Girard.

“HER3 immunohistochemistry does not seem to be the candidate in this setting,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Jänne reported disclosures related to Daiichi Sankyo, as well as Araxes Pharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Jänne is also coinventor on a Dana Farber Cancer Institute–owned patent on EGFR mutations licensed to Labcorp and receives postmarketing royalties from this invention.

Dr. Girard reported disclosures related to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

A HER3-targeted therapy has demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, according to results of a phase 1 study.

Patritumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting HER3, had an overall response rate (ORR) of 39% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months in a phase 1 study that included patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and chemotherapy, the results show.

The efficacy was seen across EGFR TKI resistance mechanisms in this very difficult-to-treat patient population, according to investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“There is not one category of individuals that are having a response, or not having a response,” Dr. Jänne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9007).

“Responses are observed in patients with identifiable resistance mechanisms, and in patients that do not have an identifiable resistance mechanism, but have progressed on prior EGFR TKI therapy,” he added.

More than 80% of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors express HER3, and of note, HER3 alterations do not appear to confer resistance to EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, according to Dr. Jänne.
 

Study details

Also known as HER3-DXd, patritumab deruxtecan consists of a fully human anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase inhibitor payload by a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

The antibody-drug conjugate is also being evaluated in metastatic breast cancer and colorectal cancer, Dr. Jänne said.

In the present phase 1 dose escalation and dose expansion study, a total of 57 patients were treated with patritumab deruxtecan at 5.6 mg/kg, the recommended dose for the expansion phase.

The median age of these patients was 65 years, and the majority (63%) were women, Dr. Jänne reported. About half had a history of central nervous system metastases.

The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was four, making this a heavily pretreated patient population, Dr. Jänne said. All patients had received prior EGFR TKI therapy, and 86% specifically had prior osimertinib. Ninety-one percent had prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and 40% had received immunotherapy.
 

Spectrum of responses

The confirmed ORR of 39% included 1 complete response (2%) and 21 partial responses (37%), Dr. Jänne reported. The disease control rate was 72%, and median duration of response was 6.9 months at a median follow-up of 10.2 months.

The median PFS was 8.2 months in 57 patients overall and in a subset of 44 patients who had received prior osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the report.

Activity of patritumab deruxtecan was seen not only across patients with diverse mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance, but also regardless of prior number of treatments, and regardless of history of brain metastases, the investigator said.

In addition, clinical responses were seen across a spectrum of baseline HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry, the investigator added.

Safety was assessed in 81 patients treated at a range of doses in the phase 1 trial. The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events, observed in 5% or more of patients, included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia, while other side effects such as fatigue and dyspnea were observed, Dr. Jänne said. About 9% of the adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in the safety cohort.

Interstitial lung disease was observed in four patients, or 5% of the safety cohort. Three of these were grade 1-2 and one was grade 3, according to the report.
 

Questions to explore

The efficacy of patritumab deruxtecan was “high” in this phase 1 study, based on the reported response rate and median PFS, said discussant Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Paris.

However, the most striking finding of the study was the efficacy of the antibody-drug conjugate across all reported resistance mechanisms, Dr. Girard said in his remarks.

Questions that remains to be explored, according to Dr. Girard, include the impact of previous treatment sequencing with TKIs and chemotherapy on patient outcomes with patritumab deruxtecan, as well as the assessment of intracranial response and PFS for patients treated with the agent.

In addition, antitumor activity was seen across a wide range of baseline HER3 expression levels in this study, suggesting that a predictive biomarker remains to be identified, according to Dr. Girard.

“HER3 immunohistochemistry does not seem to be the candidate in this setting,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Jänne reported disclosures related to Daiichi Sankyo, as well as Araxes Pharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Jänne is also coinventor on a Dana Farber Cancer Institute–owned patent on EGFR mutations licensed to Labcorp and receives postmarketing royalties from this invention.

Dr. Girard reported disclosures related to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

A HER3-targeted therapy has demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, according to results of a phase 1 study.

Patritumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting HER3, had an overall response rate (ORR) of 39% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months in a phase 1 study that included patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and chemotherapy, the results show.

The efficacy was seen across EGFR TKI resistance mechanisms in this very difficult-to-treat patient population, according to investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“There is not one category of individuals that are having a response, or not having a response,” Dr. Jänne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9007).

“Responses are observed in patients with identifiable resistance mechanisms, and in patients that do not have an identifiable resistance mechanism, but have progressed on prior EGFR TKI therapy,” he added.

More than 80% of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors express HER3, and of note, HER3 alterations do not appear to confer resistance to EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, according to Dr. Jänne.
 

Study details

Also known as HER3-DXd, patritumab deruxtecan consists of a fully human anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase inhibitor payload by a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

The antibody-drug conjugate is also being evaluated in metastatic breast cancer and colorectal cancer, Dr. Jänne said.

In the present phase 1 dose escalation and dose expansion study, a total of 57 patients were treated with patritumab deruxtecan at 5.6 mg/kg, the recommended dose for the expansion phase.

The median age of these patients was 65 years, and the majority (63%) were women, Dr. Jänne reported. About half had a history of central nervous system metastases.

The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was four, making this a heavily pretreated patient population, Dr. Jänne said. All patients had received prior EGFR TKI therapy, and 86% specifically had prior osimertinib. Ninety-one percent had prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and 40% had received immunotherapy.
 

Spectrum of responses

The confirmed ORR of 39% included 1 complete response (2%) and 21 partial responses (37%), Dr. Jänne reported. The disease control rate was 72%, and median duration of response was 6.9 months at a median follow-up of 10.2 months.

The median PFS was 8.2 months in 57 patients overall and in a subset of 44 patients who had received prior osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the report.

Activity of patritumab deruxtecan was seen not only across patients with diverse mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance, but also regardless of prior number of treatments, and regardless of history of brain metastases, the investigator said.

In addition, clinical responses were seen across a spectrum of baseline HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry, the investigator added.

Safety was assessed in 81 patients treated at a range of doses in the phase 1 trial. The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events, observed in 5% or more of patients, included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia, while other side effects such as fatigue and dyspnea were observed, Dr. Jänne said. About 9% of the adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in the safety cohort.

Interstitial lung disease was observed in four patients, or 5% of the safety cohort. Three of these were grade 1-2 and one was grade 3, according to the report.
 

Questions to explore

The efficacy of patritumab deruxtecan was “high” in this phase 1 study, based on the reported response rate and median PFS, said discussant Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Paris.

However, the most striking finding of the study was the efficacy of the antibody-drug conjugate across all reported resistance mechanisms, Dr. Girard said in his remarks.

Questions that remains to be explored, according to Dr. Girard, include the impact of previous treatment sequencing with TKIs and chemotherapy on patient outcomes with patritumab deruxtecan, as well as the assessment of intracranial response and PFS for patients treated with the agent.

In addition, antitumor activity was seen across a wide range of baseline HER3 expression levels in this study, suggesting that a predictive biomarker remains to be identified, according to Dr. Girard.

“HER3 immunohistochemistry does not seem to be the candidate in this setting,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Jänne reported disclosures related to Daiichi Sankyo, as well as Araxes Pharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Jänne is also coinventor on a Dana Farber Cancer Institute–owned patent on EGFR mutations licensed to Labcorp and receives postmarketing royalties from this invention.

Dr. Girard reported disclosures related to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.