Discussion on Efficacy and Tolerability of a New Lung Cancer Treatment

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss novel approaches and key studies in lung cancer that were showcased at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the Plenary abstracts LAURA and ADRIATIC.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm joined by Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center in Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we will be discussing practice-changing abstracts and the exciting advances in lung cancer that were featured at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting.

You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode.

Nate, we're delighted to have you back on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. It was an exciting Annual Meeting with a lot of important updates in lung cancer.

Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. I'm glad to be back. And yes, it was a huge year for lung. So I'm glad that we got a chance to discuss all of these late-breaking abstracts that we didn't get to talk about during the prelim podcast.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's dive in. Nate, it was wonderful to see all the exciting data, and one of the abstracts in the Plenary Session caught my attention, LBA3. In this study, the investigators did a comparative large-scale effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in-person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. And the study is very promising. Could you tell us a little bit more about the study and your take-home messages?

Dr. Nate Pennell: Yes, I think this was a very important study. So just to put things in perspective, it's now been more than a decade since Dr. Jennifer Temel and her group at Massachusetts General Hospital did a randomized study that showed that early interventions with palliative medicine consultation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer significantly improves quality of life and in her initial study, perhaps even overall survival. And since then, there have been numerous studies that have basically reproduced this effect, showing that getting palliative medicine involved in people with advanced cancer, multiple different cancer types, really, has benefits.

The difficulty in applying this has been that palliative care-trained specialists are few and far between, and many people simply don't have easy access to palliative medicine-trained physicians and providers. So with that in mind, Dr. Temel and her group designed a randomized study called the REACH PC trial, where 1,250 patients were randomized with advanced non-small cell lung cancer to either in-person palliative medicine visits which is sort of the standard, or one in-person assessment followed by monthly telemedicine video visits with palliative medicine. Primary endpoint was essentially to show that it was equivalent in terms of quality of life and patient satisfaction. And what was exciting about this was that it absolutely was. I mean, pretty much across the board in all the metrics that were measured, the quality-of-life, the patient satisfaction, the anxiety and depression scores, all were equivalent between doing telemedicine visits and in-person visits. And this hopefully will now extend the ability to get this kind of benefit to a much larger group of people who don't have to geographically be located near a palliative medicine program.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's a great abstract, Nate and I actually was very impressed by the ASCO committee for selecting this for the Plenary. We typically don't see supportive care studies highlighted in such a way at ASCO. This really highlights the need for true interdisciplinary care for our patients. And as you said, this study will clearly address that unmet need in terms of providing access to palliative care for a lot of patients who otherwise wouldn't have access. I'm really glad to see those results.

Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. And that really went along with Dr. Schuchter's theme this year of bringing care to patients incorporating supportive care. So I agree with you.

Now, moving to some of the other exciting abstracts in the Plenary Session. So we were talking about how this was a big year for lung cancer. There were actually 3 lung cancer studies in the Plenary Session at the Annual Meeting. And let's move on to the second one, LBA4, the LAURA study. This was the first phase 3 study to assess osimertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR mutant, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. What are your takeaways from this study?

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: This is certainly an exciting study, and all of us in the lung community have been kind of eagerly awaiting the results of the study. As you know, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients who are unresectable, the standard of care has been really established by the PACIFIC study with the consolidation durvalumab after definitive concurrent chemoradiation. The problem with that study is it doesn't really answer the question of the role of immunotherapy in patients who are never-smokers, and especially in patients who are EGFR positive tumors, where the role of immunotherapy in a metastatic setting has always been questioned. And in fact, there have been several studies as you know, in patients with EGFR mutation positive metastatic lung cancer where immunotherapy has not been that effective. In fact, in the subgroup analysis in the PACIFIC study, patients with EGFR mutation did not really benefit from adding immunotherapy.

So this is an interesting study where they looked at patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III patients and they randomized the patients 2:1 to osimertinib versus placebo following concurrent or sequential tumor radiation. The primary endpoint for the study was progression free survival, and a total of 216 patients were enrolled and 143 patients received a study treatment, which is osimertinib, and 73 received placebo. And 80% of the patients on the placebo arm crossed over to getting treatment at the time of progression.

So most of us in the lung cancer community were kind of suspecting this would be a positive trial for PFS. But however, I think the magnitude of the difference was truly remarkable. The median PFS in the osimertinib arm was 39.1 months and placebo was 5.6 months and the hazard ratio of 0.16. So it was a pretty striking difference in terms of DFS benefit with the osimertinib consolidation following chemoradiation. So it was truly a positive study for the primary endpoint and the benefit was seen across all the subgroups and the safety was no unexpected safety signals other than a slight increase in the radiation pneumonitis rates in patients receiving osimertinib and other GI and skin tox were kind of as expected. In my opinion, it's truly practice changing and I think patients with EGFR mutation should not be getting immunotherapy consolidation post chemoradiation.

Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think that this really just continues the understanding of the use of osimertinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer in earlier stages of disease. We know from the ADAURA trial, presented twice in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, that for IB, stage II and resectable IIIA, that you prolong progression free or disease free survival. So this is a very similar, comparable situation, but at an even higher risk population or the unresectable stage III patients. I think that the most discussion about this was the fact that the osimertinib is indefinite and that it is distinct from the adjuvant setting where it's being given for three years and then stopped. But I think all of us had some pause when we saw that after three years, especially in the stage III patients from ADAURA, that there were clearly an increase in recurrences after stopping the drug, suggesting that there are patients who are not cured with a time limited treatment, or at least with 3 years of treatment.

The other thing that is sobering from the study, and was pointed out by the discussant, Dr. Lecia Sequist, is if you look at the two-year disease-free survival in the placebo arm, it was only 13%, meaning almost no one was really cured with chemo radiation alone. And that really suggests that this is not that different from a very early stage IV population where indefinite treatment really is the standard of care. I wonder whether you think that's a reasonable approach.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree with you, Nate, and I don't think we cure a majority of our patients with stage III, and less so in patients who have EGFR-mutant, stage III locally advanced. As you just pointed out, I think very few patients actually make it that far along. And I think there's a very high rate of CNS micrometastatic disease or just systemic micrometastatic disease in this population that an effective systemic therapy of osimertinib can potentially have long term outcomes. But again, we perhaps don't cure a vast majority of them. I think that the next wave of studies should incorporate ctDNA and MRD-based assays to potentially identify those patients who could potentially go off osimertinib at some point. But, again, outside of a trial, I would not be doing that. But I think it's definitely an important question to ask to identify de-escalation strategies with osimertinib. And even immunotherapy for that matter, I think we all know that not all patients really require years and years of immunotherapy. They're still trying to figure out how to use immunotherapy in these post-surgical settings, using the MRD to de-escalate adjuvant therapies. So I think we have to have some sort of strategy here. But outside of a clinical trial, I will not be using those assays here to cite treatments, but certainly an important question to ask.

Moving on to the other exciting late-breaking abstracts, LBA5, the ADRIATIC study. This is another study which was also in the plenary session. This study was designed to address this question of consolidation immunotherapy, post chemo radiation for limited-stage small cell cancer, the treatment arms being durvalumab tremelimumab, and durvalumab observation. So what do you think about the study? This study also received a lot of applause and a lot of attention at the ASCO meeting.

Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. It was remarkable to be there and actually watch this study as well as the LAURA study live, because when the disease free survival curves and in the ADRIATIC study, the overall survival curves were shown, the speakers were both interrupted by standing ovation of applause just because there was a recognition that the treatment was changing kind of before our eyes. I thought that was really neat. So in this case, I think this is truly a historic study, not necessarily because it's going to necessarily be an earth shakingly positive study. I mean, it was clearly a positive study, but more simply because of the disease in which it was done, and that is limited-stage small cell lung cancer. We really have not had a change in the way we've treated limited-stage small cell lung cancer, probably 25 years. Maybe the last significant advances in that were the advent of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation and then the use of PCI with a very modest improvement in survival. Both of those, I would say, are still relatively modest advances.

In this case, the addition of immunotherapy, which we know helps patients with small cell lung cancer - it's of course the standard of care in combination chemotherapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer - in this case, patients who completed concurrent chemo radiation were then randomized to either placebo or durvalumab, as well as the third arm of durvalumab tremelimumab, which is not yet been recorded, and co primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. And extraordinarily, there was an improvement in overall survival seen at the first analysis, with a median overall survival of 55.9 months compared to 33.4 months, hazard ratio of 0.73. So highly clinically and statistically significant, that translates at three years to a difference in overall survival of 56.5%, compared to 47.6%, or almost 10% improvement in survival at three years.

There was also a nearly identical improvement in progression-free survival, also with a hazard ratio of 0.76, suggesting that there's a modest number of patients who benefit. But it seems to be a clear improvement with the curves plateauing out. In my opinion, this is very comparable to what we saw with the PACIFIC study in stage III, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, which immediately changed practice back when that first was reported. And I expect that this will change practice pretty much immediately for small cell as well.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think it's an exciting advance in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. For sure, it's practice-changing, and I think the results were exciting.

So one thing that really intrigued me was in the extensive-stage setting, the benefit was very mediocre with one-to-two month overall survival benefit in both the PACIFIC and in IMpower trial. Here we are seeing almost two-year of median OS benefit. I was kind of puzzled by that, and I thought it may have to do with patients receiving radiation. And we've seen that with the PACIFIC, and makes you wonder if both the CASPIAN and the IMpower studies actually did not allow consolidation thoracic radiation. Hypothetically, if they had allowed consolidation thoracic radiation, perhaps we would have seen better outcomes. Any thoughts on that?

Dr. Nate Pennell: We've been trying to prove that radiation and immunotherapy somehow go together better for a long time. Going back to the first description of the abscopal effect, and I'm not sure if I necessarily believe that to be the case, but in this setting where we truly are trying to cure people rather than merely prolong their survival, maybe this is the situation where it truly is more beneficial. I think what we're seeing is something very similar to what we're seen in PACIFIC, where in the stage IV setting, some people have long term survival with immunotherapy, but it's relatively modest. But perhaps in the curative setting, you're seeing more of an impact. Certainly, looking at these curves, we'll have to see with another couple of years to follow up. But a three-year survival of 56% is pretty extraordinary, and I look forward to seeing if this really maintains over the next couple of years follow up.

Moving beyond the Plenary, there were actually lots of really exciting presentations, even outside the Plenary section. One that I think probably got at least as much attention as the ones that we've already discussed today was actually an update of an old trial that's been presented for several prior years. And I'm curious to get your take on why you thought this was such a remarkable study. And we're talking about the LBA8503, which was the 5-year update from the CROWN study, which looked at previously untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small cell in cancer patients randomly assigned to lorlatinib, the third generation ALK inhibitor, versus crizotinib, the first generation ALK inhibitor. What was so exciting about this study, and why were people talking about it?

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree, Nate. We've seen the data in the past, right? Like on the CROWN data, just first like a quick recap. This is the CROWN study, like the phase 3 study of third generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib. So global randomized phase 3 study in patients with metastatic disease randomized to lorlatinib versus crizotinib, which is a controller. So the primary endpoint was PFS, and we've seen the results in the past of the CROWN readout quoted, with a positive study and the lorlatinib received FDA approval in the frontline setting. But the current study that was presented at the ASCO annual meeting is a kind of a postdoc analysis of five years. The endpoint for the study with central review stopped at three years, and this is actually a follow up beyond that last readout. Interestingly, in this study, when they looked at the median PFS at five years, the lorlatinib arm did not reach a median PFS even at five years and the hazard ratio is 0.19, which is kind of phenomenal in some ways. At 5 years, the majority of the patients were still on the drug. So that's quite incredible. And the benefit was more profound in patients with brain mets with a hazard ratio of 0.08. And again, speaking to the importance of brain penetrant, small molecule inhibitors, and target therapy, the safety profile, there were no additional safety signals noted in the study. We kind of know about the side effects of lorlatinib already from previous studies readouts. No unusual long-term toxicities.

I should note though, about 40% of patients did have CNS, AEs grade 1, 2 CNS toxicities on the lorlatinib arm. And the other interesting thing that was also reported in the trial was dose reduction of lorlatinib did not have an impact on the PFS, which is interesting in my opinion. They also did some subgroup analysis, biomarker testing, biomarker populations. Patients who had P53 cooperation did much better with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. So overall, the other thing that they also had shown on the trial was the resistance mechanisms that were seen with lorlatinib were very different than what we are used to seeing with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors. The majority of the patients who develop resistance have bypass mechanisms and alterations in MAP kinase pathway PI3K/MTOR/PTEN pathway, suggesting that lorlatinib is a very potent ALK inhibitor and on target ALK mutations don't happen as frequently as we see with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors.

So I think this really begs the question, should we offer lorlatinib to all our patients with metastatic ALK-positive tumors? I think looking at the long-term data, it's quite tempting to say 'yes', but I think at the same time we have to take into consideration patient safety tolerability. And again, the competitor arm here is crizotinib. So lorlatinib suddenly seems to be, again, cross trial comparisons, but I think the long-term outcomes here are really phenomenal. But at the same time, I think we've got to kind of think about patient because these patients are on these drugs for years, they have to live with all the toxicities. And I think the patient preferences and safety profile matters in terms of what drug we recommend to patients.

Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think the right answer, is that this has to be an individual discussion with patients. The results are incredibly exciting. I mean, the two-year progression free survival was 70%, and the five-year, three years later is still 60%. Only 10% of people are failing over the subsequent three years. And the line is pretty flat. And as you said, even with brain metastases, the median survival is in reach. It's really extraordinary. Moreover, while we do talk about the significant toxicities of lorlatinib, I thought it was really interesting that only 5% of people were supposedly discontinued the drug because of treatment related AEs, which meant that with dose reduction and management, it seems as though most patients were able to continue on the drug, even though they, as you mentioned, were taking it for several years.

That being said, all of us who've had experience with the second-generation drugs like alectinib and brigatinib, compared to the third-generation drug lorlatinib, can speak to the challenges of some of the unique toxicities that go along with it. I don't think this is going to be a drug for everyone, but I do think it is now worth bringing it up and discussing it with the patients most of the time now. And I do think that there will be many people for whom this is going to be a good choice, which is exciting.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, completely agree. And I think there are newer ALK inhibitors in clinical development which have cleaner and better safety profiles. So we'll have to kind of wait and see how those pan out.

Moving on to the other exciting abstract, LBA8509, the KRYSTAL-12 study. LBA8509 is a phase 3 study looking at adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced metastatic non-small cell cancer with KRASG12C mutation. Nate, there's been a lot of hype around this trial. You've seen the data. Do you think it's practice-changing? How does it differentiate with the other drug that's already FDA approved, sotorasib?

Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this is an interesting one. I think we've all been very excited in recent years about the identification of KRASG12C mutations as targetable mutations. We know that this represents about half of KRAS mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and there are two FDA-approved drugs. Sotorasib was the first and adagrasib shortly thereafter. We already had seen the CodeBreaK 200 study, which was a phase 3 study of sotorasib versus docetaxel that did modestly prolong progression free survival compared to docetaxel, although did not seem to necessarily translate to an improvement in overall survival. And so now, coming on the heels of that study, the KRYSTAL-12 study compared adagrasib, also the KRASG12C inhibitor versus docetaxel and those with previously treated non-small cell with KRASG12C. And it did significantly improve progression free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. Although when you look at the median numbers, the median PFS was only 5.5 months with the adagrasib arm compared to 3.8 months with docetaxel. So while it is a significant and potentially clinically significant difference, it is still, I would say a modest improvement.

And there were some pretty broad improvements across all the different subgroups, including those with brain metastases. It did improve response rate significantly. So 32% response rate without adagrasib, compared to only 9% with docetaxel. It's about what you would expect with chemotherapy. And very importantly, in this patient population, there was activity in the brain with an intracranial overall response rate among those who had measurable brain metastases of 40%. So certainly important and probably that would distinguish it from drugs like docetaxel, which we don't expect to have a lot of intracranial toxicity. There is certainly a pattern of side effects that go along with that adagrasib, so it does cause especially GI toxicity, like diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, transaminitis. All of these were actually, at least numerically, somewhat higher in the adagrasib arm than in docetaxel, a lot more hematologic toxicity with the docetaxel. But overall, the number of serious adverse events were actually pretty well matched between the two groups. So it wasn't really a home run in terms of favorable toxicity with that adagrasib.

So the question is: "In the absence of any data yet on overall survival, should this change practice?" And I'm not sure it's going to change practice, because I do think that based on the accelerated approval, most physicians are already offering the G12C inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, probably more often than chemotherapy, I think based on perceived improvement in side effects and higher response rates, modestly longer progression-free survival, so I think most people think that represents a modest improvement over chemotherapy. And so I think that will continue. It will be very interesting, however, when the overall survival report is out, if it is not significantly better, what the FDA is going to do when they look at these drugs.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks so much. Very well summarized. And I do agree they look more similar than dissimilar. I think CodeBreaK-200 and the KRYSTAL-12, they kind of are very identical. I should say, though I was a little surprised with the toxicity profile of adagrasib. It seemed, I mean, not significantly, but definitely seemed worse than the earlier readouts that we've seen. The GI tox especially seems much worse on this trial. I'm kind of curious why, but if I recall correctly, I think 5% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea. A significant proportion of patients had grade 3 nausea and vomiting. And the other complicating thing here is you can't use a lot of the antiemetics because of the QT issues. So that's another problem. But I think it's more comparable to sotorasib, in my opinion.

Dr. Nate Pennell: While this is exciting, I like to think of this as the early days of EGFR, when we were using gefitinib and erlotinib. They were certainly advances, but we now have drugs that are much more effective and long lasting in these patients. And I think that the first-generation inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, while they certainly benefit patients, now is just the beginning. There's a lot of research going on, and we're not going to talk about some of the other abstracts presented, but some of the next generation G12C inhibitors, for example, olomorasib, which did have also in the same session, a presentation in combination with pembrolizumab that had a very impressive response rate with potentially fewer side effects, may end up replacing the first generation drugs when they get a little bit farther along.

And then moving on to another one, which I think potentially could change practice. I am curious to hear your take on it, was the LBA8505, which was the PALOMA-3 study. This was interesting in that it compared two different versions of the same drug. So amivantamab, the bispecific, EGFR and MET, which is already approved for EGFR exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer, in this case, in more typical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in combination with osimertinib with the intravenous amivantamab, compared to the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab. Why would this be an important study?

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I found this study really interesting as well, Nate. And as you know, amivantamab has been FDA approved for patients with exon 20 mutation. And also, we've had, like two positive readouts in patients with classical EGFR mutations. One, the MARIPOSA study in the frontline setting and the MARIPOSA-2, in the second-line post osimertinib setting. For those studies, the intravenous amivantamab was used as a treatment arm, and the intravenous amivantamab had a lot of baggage to go along with it, like the infusion reactions and VTEs and other classic EGFR related toxicity, skin toxicities. So the idea behind developing the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab was mainly to reduce the burden of infusion, infusion time and most importantly, the infusion related reactions associated with IV formulation.

In a smaller phase 2 study, the PALOMA study, they had looked at various dosing schemas like, subcutaneous formulation, and they found that the infusion related reactions were very, very low with the subcutaneous formulation. So that led to the design of this current study that was presented, the PALOMA-3 study. This was for patients who had classical EGFR mutations like exon 19, L858R. The patients were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous amivantamab with lazertinib versus IV amivantamab plus lazertinib. The endpoints for the study, it's a non-inferiority study with co primary endpoints of C trough and C2 AUC, Cycle 2 AUC. They were looking at those pharmacological endpoints to kind of demonstrate comparability to the IV formulation. So in this study, they looked at these pharmacokinetic endpoints and they were essentially identical. Both subcutaneous and IV formulations were compatible. And in terms of clinical efficacy as well, the response rate was identical, no significant differences. Duration of response was also identical. The PFS also was comparable to the IV formulation. In fact, numerically, the subcutaneous arm was a little better, though not significant. But it appears like, you know, the overall clinical and pharmacological profile of the subcutaneous amivantamab was comparable. And most interestingly, the AE profile, the skin toxicity was not much different. However, the infusion reactions were substantially lower, 13% with the subcutaneous amivantamab and 66% with IV amivantamab. And also, interestingly, the VTE rates were lower with the subcutaneous version of amivantamab. There was still a substantial proportion of patients, especially those who didn't have prophylactic anticoagulation. 17% of the patients with the subcutaneous amivantamab had VTE versus 26% with IV amivantamab. With prophylaxis, which is lower in both IV and subcutaneous, but still subcutaneous formulation at a lower 7% versus 12% with the IV amivantamab.

So overall, I think this is an interesting study, and also the authors had actually presented some interesting data on administration time. I've never seen this before. Patients reported convenience using a modified score of patient convenience, essentially like patients having to spend a lot of time in the infusion site and convenience of the patient getting the treatment. And it turns out, and no surprise, that subcutaneous amivantamab was found to be more convenient for patients.

So, Nate, I want to ask you your take on this. In a lot of our busy infusion centers, the time it takes for those patients to get the infusion does matter, right? And I think in our clinic where we are kind of fully booked for the infusion, I think having the patients come in and leave in 15, 20 minutes, I think it adds a lot of value to the cancer center operation.

Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, I completely agree. I think the efficacy results were reassuring. I think the infusion related reaction difference, I think is a huge difference. I mean, I have given a fair amount of amivantamab, and I would say the published IRR rate of 66%, 67% I would say, is maybe even underestimates how many patients get some kind of reaction from that, although it really is a first dose phenomenon. And I think that taking that down to 13% is a tremendous advance. I think fusion share time is not trivial as we get busier and busier. I know our cancer center is also very full and it becomes challenging to schedule people, and being able to do a five-minute treatment versus a five-hour treatment makes a big difference for patients.

It's interesting, there was one slide that was presented from an efficacy standpoint. I'm curious about your take on this. They showed that the overall survival was actually better in the subcu amivantamab arm, hazard ratio of 0.62. Now, this was only an exploratory endpoint. They sort of talk about perhaps some rationale for why this might be the case. But at the very least, I think we can be reassured that it's not less effective to give it and does seem to be more tolerable and so I would expect that this hopefully will be fairly widely adopted.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. I think this is a welcome change. Like, I think the infusion reactions and the resources it takes to get patients through treatments. I think it's definitely a win-win for patients and also the providers.

And with that, we come to the conclusion of the podcast. Nate, thank you so much for the fantastic insights today. Our listeners will find all the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of the episode. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Pennell.

Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thanks for inviting me. It's always fun to talk about all these exciting advances for our patients.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.

Disclaimer:

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

Find out more about today's speakers:

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti

@VamsiVelcheti

Dr. Nathan Pennell

@n8pennell

Follow ASCO on social media:

@ASCO on Twitter

ASCO on Facebook

ASCO on LinkedIn

Disclosures:

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:

Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics

Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus

Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Nathan Pennell:

Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron

Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi