ASCO Education

Dr. Noelle LoConte, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, presents two patient cases regarding cancer prevention. TRANSCRIPT Hello. My name is Noelle LoConte. I am a physician and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center in Madison. I am a GI medical oncologist in my clinical practice, and also the principal investigator of my state's Comprehensive Cancer Control program, and an implementation science researcher in cancer prevention and screening.  Today, we will compare two patient cases that relate to cancer prevention. These two cases have similarities yet the recommended treatments may be different. Let's look at our cases.  Patient case number one is Harold. Harold is a 55-year-old man with a history of head and neck cancer treated with curative intent with chemotherapy and radiation, which was completed about six months ago. He is seeing you for a follow-up surveillance visit. He reports he is currently drinking three to four beers per day, most days of the week. He had quit smoking at diagnosis, but prior to diagnosis had a 45 pack-year history. He recently reports that he started vaping or using e-cigarettes.  Our second patient case is Susan. Susan is a 44-year-old woman with node-negative, ER-positive, PR-positive, HER2 neu-negative breast cancer. She has also been treated with curative intent with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, and has completed her treatments about six months ago. She is seeing you for a routine follow-up visit and reports no new symptoms. She tells you she is drinking two glasses of wine per day, and she denies any history of smoking.  As you can see, both cases are very similar, but there are some differences. How would you counsel each patient about their use of alcohol? And in the case of Harold, about his use of e-cigarettes? Do either of these affect the risk of recurrence for the patient? And what are the alcohol-associated cancers?  For background, the cancer burden attributable to alcohol is significant. In 2012, an estimated 5.6 percent of worldwide cancer deaths were attributable to alcohol-associated cancers. In the United States, alcohol accounted for about 3.5 percent of cancer deaths in 2009. Both of these numbers are increasing over time as alcohol use is becoming more common both in the US and globally.  Upper airway and squamous cell esophageal cancers accounted for the majority of alcohol-attributable deaths among men. Breast cancer accounted for the majority among women. Additional cancers causally linked to alcohol include hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer. Cancer risk correlates with increasing alcohol consumption for cancers in which alcohol is implicated.  E-cigarettes are currently approved for adults as a way to decrease the harms from combustible tobacco products, but much about their risk remains unknown, particularly for cancer survivors. Although the risk appears to be lessened with e-cigarette use, they are not proven to be safe and can often serve as a gateway product for youth and nonsmokers to more traditional combustible smoking products.  In both cases, each patient has an alcohol-associated cancer. However, it is unclear for all but head and neck cancers and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma if cutting down on alcohol intake after cancer diagnosis reduces the risk of recurrence. E-cigarette use among cancer survivors is an emerging issue for clinicians, who often do not know how to counsel their patients about these products.  For Harold, with his head and neck cancer, there is clear data that supports that patients with that diagnosis who continue to drink do have higher rates of recurrence and also secondary head and neck cancers. Thus, the oncologists should counsel him to stop, or at least cut down on his alcohol drinking.  The current guidelines recommend no more than two servings of alcohol a day for men and no more than one per day for women. As a reminder, a serving of alcohol varies dependent on the product being consumed. It is roughly one 12 ounce bottle of regular beer, five ounces of wine, or 1 1/2 ounces of distilled spirits.  For Susan, who has an estrogen and progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, the data is less clear. There is a suggestion in some studies that ongoing alcohol use for hormone receptor-positive patients may increase the recurrence rates. However, the data is not definitive. It would be prudent for all health risks related to alcohol to counsel her to stick to the recommended amounts of alcohol use, however. So for her, this would be one drink per day for women.  For e-cigarette use, a 2015 ASCO and AACR statement on ENDS, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, concludes that oncologists should not recommend e-cigarettes to their patients as first-line treatment for quitting smoking. Oncologists should also be aware that more and more cancer survivors are using e-cigarettes and similar products, and they should ask about use at each visit. The unclear health risks of e-cigarettes should be discussed with patients.  Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO eLearning weekly podcast. For more information on cancer prevention, including additional patient cases and opportunities for self-evaluation, visit the comprehensive eLearning center at elearning.asco.org.  [MUSIC PLAYING]  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm interviewing Dr. Joe Mikhael from the City of Hope Cancer Center and International Myeloma Foundation, lead author on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Mikhael. It's a pleasure to be with you. So first, can you give us some context as to why this guideline was developed? Well, we had a lot of ideas when we put together this guideline, but most importantly, multiple myeloma continues to be a rare disease in the cancer world. It really only accounts for about 1% to 2% of cancers. So for the practicing oncologist, they spend perhaps 3-ish percent of their time doing multiple myeloma. And when you add to that there has been really a revolution in myeloma with new drugs approved, new treatments, new approaches, it really leaves the general oncologist with a complexity of how to treat this disease. And so we wanted to create a very practical guideline that would give very precise advice to walk through how one would care for a multiple myeloma patient, right from their diagnosis to indeed relapse disease. We felt this approach was so important now, more than ever, because of the fact that myeloma has really changed so much, and now, thankfully, we're seeing our patients live so much longer that the treatment options can become a little bit more complicated over time. Furthermore, we partnered with Cancer Care Ontario, because this was really felt to be not just an American phenomenon, but really a full North American phenomenon of how we could work together to really give practical advice as to how to treat this disease. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? In this guideline, we focused really on the treatment of the disease itself. There have been other guidelines that have focused on supportive care and bone disease and multiple myeloma, but we really focused on the treatment of patients really from induction therapy through to relapse. So we spend time helping guide the decision around whether or not a patient is transplant eligible or ineligible, because that's really the first dividing marker in myeloma, because we know that transplant still has a role in myeloma, and eligible patients should have a transplant, or at least have access to a transplant. And historically, this was really done on the basis of age. But the guidelines helps the clinician see that it's really not just an age phenomena. It's really a decision based on comorbidities and really what's best for the patient. So we spend time helping making that decision, and then provide very practical advice as to how to treat a patient who's going to transplant versus a patient who's not going to transplant. We also, then, after the transplant, or in lieu of a transplant, we discuss the importance of continuous therapy, or sometimes called, maintenance therapy in myeloma. Again, we've seen maintenance therapy, now, have an impact on both progression free and overall survival. And so we felt it was really important to be very practical in giving advice as to what maintenance therapy agents to use and how to use them. And then lastly, the guideline provides a lot of practical advice as to a patient who has relapsed with multiple myeloma. We have so many choices now with three major classes of drugs of proteasome inhibitors, immuno-modulatory drugs, and now newer monoclonal antibodies, it can be difficult sometimes to know which combination to use. We know that triplet combinations tend to be preferred. So we walk through a number of those triplets and provide advice as how to explicitly use them. We do emphasize the importance of supportive care and of risk factor analysis throughout the guideline, so that we can understand the difference between high risk and low risk myeloma, so that we can understand how important a patient's comorbidities, especially in a disease that primarily affects older patients, can be managed. And so we try to do so in a comprehensive way, but one that really distills down to the critical pieces to allow the practicing clinician some real advice. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? There are several kinds of guidelines for multiple myeloma, but I really think this is a critical guideline because it is so clinical and practical in its essence. It's really designed to not just give the utopian view or the clinical trial view of a disease, but practically in the trenches, how do we use the drugs that we know are going to benefit our patients. Myeloma is one of the few cancers where we have seen a doubling, if not a tripling of survival in the last decade, because of so many of these new agents. And so making sure that our patients are treated optimally really is important. And we want to be able to ensure that they receive the best therapy possible, so they can live a longer life, but also live it with a greater quality of life. And so finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, we really hope that this is going to help patients all across North America and the whole world, because it will give very concrete advice to the practicing clinician in how to approach the disease. And one of the things I think will directly impact patients, if you will, right away is one of the themes of these guidelines, which is that you don't treat a patient simply based on the biopsy or simply based on their age, but that it is really a complex network of comorbidities, risk factors from the disease itself, the potential side effects of certain drugs, and a patient's own very personal history. It really fits in with the ASCO modality that we have of ensuring that we bring personalized medicine to our patients. And so this will allow the person who's reading it and who's applying it to their patient to recognize the importance of general guidelines, but also of applying it to the specific patient they care for. Because as I like to say, we don't treat multiple myeloma, we treat people. And so hopefully, this will allow the clinician to have that precision to care for their patient in the best way possible. Great. Thank you for that overview of this guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Mikhael. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you very much. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Susan Chang from the University of California San Francisco, lead author on "Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults with Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Joint Endorsement of the CNS Guidelines." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Chang. Thank you so much for this opportunity. So first, can you give us the general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process? Absolutely. So one of the things we've noticed, of course, is that the incidence of newly diagnosed adult patients with brain metastases is now estimated to be in the range of about 20,000 to 40,000 per year. And this has really been increasing because of several factors. This includes improved imaging tools, the fact that there's an increase in the number of cancers that are prone to spread to the brain, and the improved survival of patients with cancer. And so the Congress of Neurological Surgeons have developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors. That includes systemic therapy, as well as supportive care. There are two guidelines that address the role of anti-convulsant abuse and steroids in the care of patients with brain tumors. Specifically, the guideline questions were do prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs decrease the risk of seizures in both non-surgical and post-surgical patients, who are otherwise seizure free? So these are patients who have never had a seizure, does it make any sense to use these drugs? The second is do steroids, which are commonly used in patients when there is increased mass effect and cerebral edema, could that help to improve neurological functioning or quality of life, compared to supportive care or other treatments? And if they are used, what sort of dose should be used? So the process of endorsing these guidelines included an initial assessment by content evaluators from ASCO and members of the Society of Neuro Oncology, or SNO guidelines committee. And subsequently, it was determined that a detailed review of the guidelines should be pursued. So in this joint effort of both ASCO and SNO, a multidisciplinary expert panel of medical and radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons, neurologists, and others providing care for adults with metastatic brain tumors reviewed the content to determine the appropriateness for endorsement by the two professional societies. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? The key recommendations of this guidelines include the fact that routine use of prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs is not recommended for patients who are seizure free, either in the non-surgical and post-surgical settings, and that steroids could be used when patients had mild, moderate, or severe symptoms that were related to mass effect in the brain. This choice of steroids that was recommended was dexamethasone, and the doses was about 4 to 16 milligrams, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Now, what they found was that there was insufficient evidence to recommend steroid use in asymptomatic patients, when they didn't have any mass effect. And one of the additional aspects that the panel provided was that the minimal effective dose should be used, and that nighttime doses should be avoided. And this is because of the known side effect of insomnia that a lot of our patients experience when taking this medication right before they go to sleep. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, these guidelines provide a basis for oncologists to avoid the over prescription of anti-epileptics and steroids in patients with brain metastases, particularly in those who are asymptomatic and those without signs of mass effect. It also highlights that if steroids are going to be administered, that clinicians should be very familiar with both the short and long term sequelae of steroid therapy, and they should have a plan to taper the steroids as fast as can be clinically tolerated. So finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, both anti-epileptics and steroids have a wide range of toxicities that can adversely affect a patient's quality of life. And so the routine use of these drugs in patients with incidentally discovered or asymptomatic brain metastases is not supported by the available medical literature. For patients with symptoms related to mass effect, the best evidence supports the temporary use of steroids are the lowest effective dose with the intent to taper them off, and if tolerated, and after a definitive treatment of brain metastases has been initiated. And because of the well known side effects of insomnia and agitation, nighttime doses of steroids should be avoided. So the hope is that this will have a direct effect on how we care for our patients. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chang. You're very welcome. It's such a pleasure to be able to provide this for patients and families. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center, lead author on "Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Biliary Tract Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you so much for having me. So what does this guideline recommend? This is a guideline that is basically looking at the role of post-operative therapy in patients who undergo surgical resection for biliary tract cancers. Biliary tract cancers are a somewhat heterogeneous group of malignancies that include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gall bladder cancer. And so the question always in most cancers are, if you are able to undergo surgical and curative treatment, is there a role for post-operative chemotherapy or radiation therapy to help improve the chance of cure and decrease the risk of recurrence? So that is exactly what we investigated as an expert panel. So our recommendations are actually twofold. The first one is that we are clearly recommending that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine for a total of six months. Within that recommendation, we do acknowledge that this is based on the BILCAP phase III randomized controlled trial and that there was a specific dosing and treatment schedule that was done in that study, but that we are allowing for institutional and regional variances that we've noted in terms of dosing of capecitabine. And so as a result, we're recommending adjuvant capecitabine, and we're allowing practitioners to determine what the best and safest dosing would be, based on their experience. The second recommendation is more specifically for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive surgical margin, which is an R1 resection. And in those patients, we are recommending that we could consider offering these patients chemoradiation therapy. Now, again, this is not as strong of a recommendation, because we do not have prospective randomized phase III data to support it. This was based more on a prospective single-arm study out of the Southwest Oncology Group, as well as some other retrospective studies. And so we do go on to qualify that that recommendation should really be made in a shared decision-making approach, with a multidisciplinary conversation to decide the risks and benefits of radiation in these patients-- and that we acknowledge that a prospective study would really help clarify that question a little bit more. So can you tell us about the research that informed these recommendations? There have been a number of studies that have looked at the role of adjuvant therapy in biliary cancers. And up until very recently, a lot of these studies were small retrospective series, single-institution or multi-institution, but everything in retrospect-- no prospective or randomized data. And so I think a lot of the reasons that we decided to have these guidelines come out now is that in the last two to three years we do finally have prospective randomized data that helps guide the recommendations. And the majority of the recommendations that we made are based on one randomized phase III, which is BILCAP study. This was a study that was done in the UK and was presented at ASCO in 2018 and is currently in press. And it is basically a randomized controlled trial that compares adjuvant capecitabine by itself versus surveillance alone in patients who undergo surgery for biliary tract cancers. And so our recommendations, which include that study as well as a couple others, is primarily hinged on that, since that is the largest prospective data we have so far. And based on that study, we did in fact recommend that there was a role for adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine after complete resection for biliary tract cancers. And based on that research that was done in that trial that was completed, we do believe that the role for capecitabine for six months is pretty strong and that the data supports that now. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, I think it's going to be practice-changing because up until now there has not been a clear consensus on how we approach these patients. And I will say that even now, it's really just this one study that has helped guiding these recommendations. There were a number of other studies that we looked at as part of the expert panel. And these were all prospective studies as well that looked at things like gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting, or single-arm phase II studies that came out of the Southwest Oncology Group that also explored the role of radiation. But really, nothing was a positive study other than the BILCAP study. And so up until now, I would say it was a little bit all over the place in terms of how medical oncologists approached resected biliary cancers. I think the majority of us felt that there was probably a role for adjuvant chemotherapy or perhaps chemoradiation. But there was no rules that we could follow, and there was no clear study that we could turn to that would tell us what we should give, how long we should give it for, and whether it should be a combination of chemotherapy or chemoradiation. And so I think it will be practice-changing because now, as part of the expert panel, we are making a very clear recommendation that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a total of six months, hopefully eliminating that kind of regional or specialist-based variation that has been happening up until this point. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Again, I think that the main way it's going to affect them is that there's going to be a little bit less gray area, in terms of medical oncologists having conversations with the patients and saying, well, you know, I think that there's probably a role for agent therapy here, but I can't show you the data that supports why I think that. And as a result, I would hope that patients will have a little bit more faith and confidence in knowing that there is a large study that has looked at and proven the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine and that that decreases the chance of recurrence and improves overall survival. The improvement in overall survival was dramatic in this study. And we had not seen a survival of 51 months, which is what we saw in this study, in a very long time. So for patients, not only does it make clear what they should be doing after surgery, but I would hope it also gives them additional hope that we have really changed the bar by doing this adjuvant capecitabine, and that the chance for cure is even higher when we can offer adjuvant chemotherapy. I think the only other thing that may still be a gray area, and that is kind of what we allude to in our second recommendation, and that is in patients who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive margin or an R1 resection. And that's typically patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder cancer. In those patients, we suggest that they could be offered chemoradiation therapy, but the evidence is not as strong there. Again, it's more retrospective studies that we looked at. There is no prospective study that answers the question of whether or not there's a role for radiation. And so as a result for patients, I think that is still the one area that's a little bit of a gray zone in terms of knowing whether chemoradiation would benefit them if they undergo surgery and have a microscopically positive resection. But I do think that there is a definitive benefit to giving adjuvant chemotherapy, and that, hopefully, will clarify things not only from the physician perspective but also from the patient perspective. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

Wendy Vogel is a Nurse Practitioner and President of APSHO, the Advanced Practitioner Society for Hematology and Oncology. In this week's episode, she presents a self-evaluation question about the correct chemotherapy treatment of obese patients and provides an explanation of the correct choice.

Dr. Sparano is Professor of Medicine & Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Associate Chairman for Clinical Research in the Department of Oncology at Montefiore Medical Center, and Associate Director for Clinical Research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center. He also serves as Vice Chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Research Group and Vice Chair of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium. He is former director of the Hematology-Oncology Fellowship Program at Einstein/Montefiore,  co-directs the ECOG-ACRIN Young Investigator Program, and is a faculty member of the Calabresi K12 Oncology Training Program.  He is co-principal investigator of the Montefiore-Einstein Minority/Underserved National Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) grant (in conjunction with Dr. Bruce Rapkin), which funds multicenter, NCI-sponsored clinical trials in cancer therapeutics, cancer prevention/control, and cancer care delivery research.  He is also the recipient of funding from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation that is supporting creation of a biospecimen bank designed to identify determinants of late relapse. Dr. Sparano is a practicing clinician who specializes in medical oncology and clinical and translational cancer research. His research has focused on developmental therapeutic approaches for breast cancer, lymphoma, and HIV-associated cancers, and therapeutic application of molecular profiling in cancer. TRANSCRIPT Welcome to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. My name is Joseph Sparano, and I am Associate Director for Clinical Research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center, and chief of the section of breast medical oncology at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. Today, we contrast two cases on adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The standard treatment for hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, early stage breast cancer is surgery, followed by endocrine therapy. Since the early 2000s, adjuvant chemotherapy has also been recommended to the majority of these women, but the added benefit from chemotherapy is modest for most. Many different gene expression assays have been developed to determine prognosis and identify which woman may be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy. One commercial test that is recommended in clinical practice guidelines is a 21 gene recurrence score assay. Based on the recently completed TAILORx study, it was known that woman with low recurrence scores on the 21 gene expression assay do well with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Whereas woman with high recurrence scores benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The TAILORx study clarified the best treatment option for women with an intermediate recurrence score, which was defined as a recurrence score of 11 to 25 in the trial. This is particularly important because the majority of patients fall in this intermediate risk category, up to 70%, in fact. Before we discuss the new evidence reported from this study, let's take a look at two intermediate risk cases. These two cases are very similar, yet the recommended treatments may be very different. Can you identify the key differences between these two cases? We begin with the first case. Case 1 is a 55-year-old postmenopausal woman with a node negative, ER positive, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. The size of the tumor is 1.6 sonometers. The 21-gene recurrence score is 24, which is in the upper range of the intermediate risk category. Which option would you recommend as the best systemic treatment. The choices in this case include endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. The correct answer to this question is, A, endocrine therapy alone. We will discuss the rationale for this recommendation shortly, but first let's move on to the second case. The second case is a 44-year-old premenopausal woman with node negative, ER positive, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. Like case 1, the size of the tumor is 1.6 centimeters and the 21-gene recurrence score is 24. Which option would be the best adjuvant treatment in this case? The choices here include endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy, followed by endocrine therapy. The correct answer in this case is chemotherapy, followed by endocrine therapy. Both of these cases had nearly identical clinical presentations. That is, they presented with ER, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, associated with negative axillary nodes, a primary tumor size of 1.6 sonometers, and a 21-gene recurrence score of 24. However, the key difference was the age at presentation, with one patient being in her mid 50's and postmenopausal, and the other patient being in her mid 40's and premenopausal. The TAILORx trial found that endocrine therapy was not inferior to chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy in the overall population with a mid-range 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25. However, there was an interaction between age, chemotherapy treatment, and recurrence score. About 1/3 of women who participated in the trial were 50 or younger. These women seem to have some chemotherapy benefit if the recurrence score was between 16 and 25. For those who had a recurrence score of 21 to 25, the absolute reduction in the risk of distant recurrence was approximately 7% at 9 years. For a woman who had a recurrence score of 16 to 20, the absolute reduction in distant recurrence by the addition of chemotherapy was about 2%. It remains unclear as to whether the benefit from chemotherapy in younger woman was due to a true cytotoxic effect associated with chemotherapy in eradicating micrometastatic disease, or a castration effect in inducing early menopause. Nevertheless, the findings from the TAILORx trial provide the highest level of evidence supporting the greatest level of precision in using the 21-gene assay to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer. Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. For more information on the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer, including additional patient cases and opportunities for self-evaluation, visit the comprehensive e-learning center at university.asco.org. Thank you for your attention. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Arun Singh, Co-Clinical Director of UCLA Sarcoma Clinic and Assistant Professor of Hematology and Oncology at UCLA, presents a self-assessment question from an ASCO University course focusing on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers.

TRANSCRIPT The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jennifer Griggs from the University of Michigan, senior author on "Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update." Thank you for being here, Dr. Griggs. And thank you for the opportunity to talk about this focused update to the guidelines on extended adjuvant therapy. I would, of course, like to thank all my co-authors in the ASCO guidelines team for their contribution to this effort. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and their research which informed this focus update? Yes. First of all, the goal of the guideline was to give an update to the previous guidelines on this topic. And we specifically focused on extended adjuvant therapy. In particular, the aromatase inhibitors in women who had completed five years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. And it goes without saying, but it's worth reminding our listeners that the guideline is restricted only to post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. And, of course, our guidelines are only as good as the data upon which we rely. So for this guideline, six phase III randomized controlled trials met the pre-specified eligibility criteria for the updated systematic review and provide the evidence base for the guideline recommendations on the duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy. Each of the trials used the standard doses of the drugs that we use in practice today. So I'm not going to say the doses of each of the medications. So I'm going to go briefly over those six trials and just describe them so everybody's up to date with how the studies were designed. So briefly, the first trial I'll describe is MA17R, which compares letrozole to placebo for five years in over 1,900 women who had already received 4.5 to six years of adjuvant therapy with an AI, proceeded in most women by treatment with tamoxifen. The second study is NSABP B-42. And this also compares letrozole to placebo in nearly 4,000 women who'd completed five years of endocrine therapy with either five years of an aromatase inhibitor or up to three years of tamoxifen followed by an aromatase inhibitor, for a total of five years. The third study that we looked at is the DATA trial, which stands for the Different Durations of Adjuvant Anastrozole Therapy. This trial compared six years of adjuvant anastrozole with three years of adjuvant anastrozole in over 1,600 women after two to three years of adjuvant tamoxifen. The fourth trial out of the six is the IDEAL trial, the Investigation on the Duration of Extended Adjuvant Letrozole. This study randomized over 1,800 women to either 2 and 1/2 or five years of letrazole after five years of tamoxifen, an AI, or a combination in sequence of tamoxifen and an AI. So very similar study designs. The fifth study is the ABCSG-16 trial, the Austrian Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 16, which randomized nearly 3,500 women following four to six years of adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen and AI or a sequence of tamoxifen and then an AI, to either two or five years of anastrozole as extended therapy. And finally, the study of letrozole extension, or the SOLE trial, randomized over 4,800 women with node-positive breast cancer who had completed five years of adjuvant endocrine therapy to receive either continuous letrozole for five years or five years of an intermittent schedule of letrozole given nine months on and three months off in years one to four and on continuously for a year or five. So I know that's a lot to take in, but I do think it was important for our audience to understand the six trials that were included. These were all large studies, randomized, and patients had completed five years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. And then, were randomized either to placebo or different durations of an aromatase inhibitor or a placebo. For all of these studies, it's important to know that the primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events where secondary outcome. Great. So given that research and those trials, what are the key recommendations for this guideline update? Five key recommendations are included in this focused update to the previous guidelines. And they are for women with node-negative breast cancer, extended adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy can be offered for up to a total of five years of adjuvant therapy. Recommendations are based on considerations of recurrence risk using our usual established prognostic factors. However, since the recurrence risk is lower, the benefits are likely narrower in node-negative patients. The guidelines panel recommends that women with low-risk, node-negative tumors should not routinely be offered extended adjuvant therapy. Now, that might sound vague. We did not make recommendations using genomic profiling results because we don't have sound data to support such views that we felt were strong enough to integrate genomic testing results. Our second recommendation is that women with node-positive breast cancer should be offered extended AI therapy for up to a total of 10 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. And that means combined tamoxifen and aromatase endocrine therapy. That's the total that we meant to recommend. Third recommendation is that women receiving extended adjuvant endocrine therapy should receive no more than 10 years of total treatment. The fourth recommendation is when given as prevention of secondary or contralateral breast cancer, the risk of second breast cancers based on prior therapy should inform the decision to pursue extended therapy. So what this means is specifically, a woman who has had a bilateral mastectomy will not reap the benefit of preventative therapy with endocrine therapy. The fifth recommendation is that extended therapy carries ongoing risks and side effects, and these should be weighed against the potential absolute benefits of longer treatment in a shared decision-making process between the clinical team and the patient. Specifically, to date, none of the studies have shown improvement in overall survival with longer duration aromatase inhibitor therapy. As such, the recommendations, therefore, an extended adjuvant AI therapy are based on benefits that include prevention of distant recurrence and prevention of second breast cancers. So why is this guideline so important and how will it change practice? The importance of this guideline rests in the fact that it supports what many clinicians and patients are already doing in practice. The second is it recommends against durations of endocrine therapy longer than 10 years in the absence of data supporting such a practice. So it's our thought that doctors and patients and other care providers, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, primary care doctors, are already practicing what we're recommending, and it supports doing so. And the second is that for those providers and patients who aren't sure that 10 years is enough, this guideline suggests that 10 years is sufficient. We don't have any data supporting giving more than 10 years. And the third recommendation is that this guideline really supports the need for shared decision-making, given the absence of data supporting an improvement in overall survival. So finally, since you did mention shared decision-making, how does this guideline recommendation affect patients? Well, the panel strongly believes that the tailored decision-making process is key in the decision to recommend extended adjuvant therapy. So tailoring on disease factors plays a role in the recommended duration of therapy. Obviously, since we stratified by high-risk and low-risk and what treatment's been received specifically. And if a woman's had bilateral mastectomy, she's not going to benefit from the risk reduction that's achieved with giving somebody extended therapy. But in addition to disease factors, patient preferences and tolerance of therapy should inform clinician and patient decision-making. Again, since none of the studies have shown improvement in overall survival with longer duration of AI therapy, patients and their medical providers need to make decisions based on an awareness that the benefits include, specifically prevention of distant recurrence and prevention of second breast cancers. And the importance of those benefits is going to vary according to a patient and how she views her life going forward and how bad her side effects have been, how well she tolerates the therapy. From my own personal point of view, as a breast oncologist, I believe two things. Number one, we should provide aggressive support for managing symptoms in patients who are most likely to benefit from extended therapy. That is, we should not stop therapy early if she is very likely to benefit if we haven't maximized control of her symptoms. There are many things we can do to improve symptoms and we shouldn't just stop therapy because she's not tolerating treatment if we haven't done the most that we can to improve her quality of life and her symptoms. Conversely, my hope is that we are not doggedly persisting in recommending prolonged therapy in a patient who has a fear of recurrence but who has little to gain from extended therapy. In the latter case, high quality information support is more therapeutic than extended therapy with a medication that's proven, in randomized controlled trials and in her own personal experience, to decrease her quality of life with marginal, if any, medical benefit. Thank you so much for the overview of this guideline today and thank you for your time. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

Dr. Daniel George is Professor of Medicine and Surgery, Director of GU Oncology for the Duke Cancer Institute, and Co-Chair of the DCI Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers. Dr George’s primary areas of interest are in drug development and optimizing care for patients with GU cancers, particularly prostate and kidney cancers. In this week's episode, Dr. George presents two contrasting cases with nephrectomy as a possible treatment path. Can you determine the best course of treatment for each patient? If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information. TRANSCRIPT Welcome to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. My name is Dr. Daniel George. And I'm a professor of medicine and surgery at Duke University. I'm also the director of GU oncology at the Duke Cancer Institute and co-chair of the DCI Center for Prostate and Neurologic Cancers. Today we'll discuss two similar cases of patients presenting with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in our multidisciplinary management options. Without any standard screening procedures, 20% to 30% of kidney cancer patients today present with metastatic disease. Historically, debulking nephrectomy has been our standard of care. And this has been based on old trials from the interferon era of treatments. Since then, many drugs have been approved for the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, many of which have improved the progression free survival and overall survival of patients with metastatic disease, which may have had an impact on the landscape and role for debulking nephrectomy. Furthermore, metastatic kidney cancer patients can be risk stratified. There's a number of criteria used. But historically the most commonly used criteria has been the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. Which included five factors, including KPS score less than 70, a calcium score greater than 10, A serum hemoglobin of less than the lower limit of normal, and LDH greater than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal, or having their primary tumor in place, meaning no prior nephrectomy. If patients had zero of these factors they were considered good risk with the best survival. Patients with one or two of these factors are considered intermediate risk. And patients with three or more of these factors historically have been very poor risk, with median survivals of six months or less. The Carmena Study was a prospective, multi-center, randomized, non inferiority trial comparing upfront nephrectomy followed by sunitinib therapy, compared to upfront sunitinib therapy alone in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma amenable to cytoreductive nephrectomy. We'll get to these results in a moment. But the study population included, importantly, patients with e cog performance status zero or one. And 40% plus of these patients were considered poor risk, with the average sum of metastatic tumor burden being greater than five centimeters. So now, let's get to some modern cases. The first case we'll discuss is George. He's an 83-year-old man who presented with gross hematuria and a hemoglobin of 13.8 in the normal range. A CT scan revealed an eight centimeter right renal mass and multiple pulmonary mets, up to two centimeters in size. His e cog performance status is zero. And his calcium was 8.4, and LDH was normal as well. Our second case, for comparison, is Philip, a 76-year-old man who was found to have a 16 centimeter left renal mass incidentally on a spine MRI. This was confirmed by CT scan, along with some pulmonary nodules measuring up to 1.8 centimeters, as well as enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes up to two centimeters, and an eight millimeter liver lesion. His calcium score was 10.4. And his hemoglobin was 12.5, which was below the limit of normal. He had a normal LDH and an absolutely zero performance status. So for these two cases, we have four choices. The first choice is for both cases a nephrectomy followed by systemic treatment, our historical approach. The second is systemic therapy first, with plus or minus a subsequent nephrectomy for both cases. Our third choice would be to treat case number one with a nephrectomy, followed by systemic therapy, and case number two with systemic therapy first. And our fourth option would be systemic therapy first for case one and a nephrectomy first for case two. Now, to me, when I look at these cases, the correct answer is three. Nephrectomy first for case one, and systemic therapy first for case two. Let me explain. Even though these cases are fairly similar in age, gender, performance status, and had the presence of a large primary tumor, for case one this is an intermediate risk patient. This patient has lung only disease that's relatively low volume, a good performance status, and normal labs. In addition, he's symptomatic with gross hematuria. For these reasons, a debulking nephrectomy is really indicated. And because of his good performance status, he's very likely to recover well from the surgery, despite the fact that he's 83 years old. Case two is subtly different. This is actually a poor risk patient. Even though his e cog performance status is zero, he has an elevated calcium, a decreased hemoglobin, and he's got his primary tumor still in place. That puts him into a poor risk category. And some of these patients never recover from surgery well enough to get systemic therapy. He also has multi organ involvement, involving his lungs and nodes, and possibly even his liver. This is a patient that really mirrors the patient population of Carmena. Based upon this, I think systemic therapy first is a reasonable treatment option for this patient. If we actually look at the results of Carmena, the study confirmed that sunitinib therapy alone, systemic therapy, was non inferior, and actually trended towards improved survival compared to cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by sunitinib. The results suggest that for poor risk or for high volume metastatic patients, that systemic therapy first should be the standard of care. But, importantly, not included in a Carmena study were patients that had low volume metastatic disease and intermediate risk features, or good prognosis. These patients not included in the Carmena study might still benefit first from a debulking or cytoreductive nephrectomy. So thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. For more information on the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy, including additional patient cases and opportunities for self-evaluation, visit the Comprehensive eLearning Center at university.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Yosef Landman is a graduate of the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. He is currently a medical oncology resident at Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tiqva, Israel. In today's episode, he discusses the recent approval of larotrectinib for tumor-agnostic treatment of advanced solid tumors containing NTRK gene fusion. Dr. Landman, a co-author on the journal paper Rapid Response to Larotrectinib (LOXO-101) in an Adult Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced Triple-Negative Secretory Breast Cancer Expressing ETV6-NTRK3 Fusion (Clinical Breast Cancer, June 2018), provides background on the recent approval as well as a case-based example of larotrectinib treatment. If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information.