ASCO Education

Dr. Rodrigo Munhoz is a Melanoma/Sarcoma Oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil. In today’s ASCO eLearning Podcast, Dr. Munhoz discusses two patient cases related to challenges and barriers to treating cancer in developing countries. While the two cases are similar, the recommended treatments can vary depending on social, economic, cultural, religious, patient knowledge and other aspects. We hope you enjoy this episode. To hear the latest eLearning Podcast episodes as soon as they are available, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Google Play. We truly value your feedback, so please leave a review. To access our entire library of podcasts and other amazing eLearning content, visit elearning.asco.org   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for 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, my name is Rodrigo Munhoz, and I'm a melanoma and sarcoma medical oncologist at Hospital Sirio Libanes in Brazil. Today, we compared two patient cases treated in Brazil that describe challenges related to the access to systemic therapies for advanced melanoma in developing countries. These few cases share similarities. Yet, the recommended treatments can be largely different based upon sociocultural and religious aspects, among other variables that influence patients' choices, including enrollment into clinical trials. Let's look at the cases. Our first patient is Paolo, a 49-year-old man diagnosed with metastatic melanoma with asymptomatic CNS involvement in addition to lung and subcutaneous metastases. The patient was diagnosed with an intermediate risk primary melanoma of the right arm without nodal involvement a couple of years before. He presented for treatment considerations following disease relapse in the form of M1d disease with normal serum LDH level. Decision was made to proceed with first-line treatment with a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, a treatment covered by his private insurance plan. And he's scheduled to receive the first dose. Our second patient case is Rachel, a 65-year-old woman diagnosed with metastatic melanoma harboring a BRAF mutation. Following initial surgical treatment for a high-risk primary melanoma with nodal involvement, she developed short-interval metastasis with CNS, liver, and lung lesions. Although immune checkpoint blockers and BRAF and MAC inhibitors were not provided through the public health system, a clinical trial with a triplet combination of a BRAF inhibitor, MAC inhibitor, and an anti-PD-L1 agent was offered. Following discussions about the clinical trial implications, potential adverse events, and additional aspects described in an informed consent form, the patient declined any additional form of therapy and decided to pursue alternative treatments and healing through religion. As you can see, both cases are very similar in presentation, but with considerable differences in terms of treatment options and decisions. How can differences in access limit the treatment decision-making process and affect the patient's prognosis? How can socioeconomic and religious barriers determine one's decision about enrollment into a clinical trial? Advances in systemic treatment options for melanoma, both in the form of target therapy and immunotherapy through immune checkpoint blockade, have deeply altered the scenario for patients affected by this challenging disease. As an example, in a recent randomized trial, 52% of the patients with advanced melanoma treated with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab and 44% of those receiving single-lesion nivolumab were alive at five years. Similarly, a pooled analysis of patients receiving dabrafenib and trametinib showed robust activity of BRAF and MAC inhibitors in metastatic disease with response rates approaching 70% and almost 35% of the patients alive at five years. The efficacy of these agents was also demonstrated in patients with CNS metastases. These advances were also noted in the adjuvant setting. In randomized trials that included a majority of patients with stage III disease, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or dabrafenib and trametinib resulted in significant gains in recurrence-free survival. Yet, these major breakthroughs are not homogeneously available throughout the globe. And many countries still face restricted access and significant inequalities in the treatments made available to the population. As an example, in Brazil, systemic treatment options offered through the public health system, which covers 80% of the population, are still largely limited to cytotoxic chemotherapy with DTIC being the most frequently prescribed agent. In this setting, enrollment into clinical trials represents an effective way to partially overcome these hurdles, extend the offer of active agents, and reduce these gaps. However, the conduction of a clinical trial brings additional challenges. In the cases described here, although very similar in presentation, several aspects were determinant in both medical and patient decisions, which may lead to distinct outcomes. For patient one, a standard-of-care treatment in line with the best scientific evidence was offered and available. In the second case, optimal care was limited by access issues. In addition, despite the possibility of inclusion in a promising clinical trial, social and religious aspects were also determinant in the patient decision. Despite the advances in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of solid tumors, including melanoma, access inequalities pose major challenges and demand a global agenda. Clinical research is an effective tool in reducing gaps and disparities in developing countries, but also largely influenced by cultural, social, and religious aspects, as exemplified by the cases described in this podcast. Initiatives designed to optimize access in developing countries must encompass not only a framework adapted to provide value-based care, but also effective education and communication tailored to patient preferences, as an example, religious belief, and socioeconomic status in discussions of treatment decisions. Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO eLearning weekly podcast. For more information on the treatment of melanoma in global oncology, including additional patient cases and opportunities for self-evaluation, visit the comprehensive eLearning center at elearning.asco.org. Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO eLearning weekly podcast. To make us part of your weekly routine, click Subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive eLearning center at elearning.asco.org.

In this month's ASCO eLearning Podcast, Dr. Helen Chew, Professor of Medicine and leader of the Clinical Breast Cancer Program at University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, brings us two patient cases on systemic therapy for metastatic triple negative breast cancer.  This podcast episode appears as a resource in ASCO eLearning's recently updated Genetics & Genomics course collection in the course Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. Click the links to learn more about these courses, including CME and MOC credit details. If you are interested in purchasing a course or the entire collection, go to shop.asco.org Transcript Hello, my name is Helen Chew. I am Professor of Medicine and leader of the Clinical Breast Cancer Program at the University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center. Today, we compare two patient cases on systemic therapy for metastatic triple negative breast cancer. Systemic therapy for metastatic triple negative breast cancer remains a challenge. The mainstay of therapy is cytotoxic chemotherapy. In March 2019, based on the Impassion130 trial, the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab, was approved in combination with nab-paclitaxel for metastatic triple negative breast cancer that expresses PD-L1.  However, for triple negative breast cancer without PD-L1 expression, immunotherapy is not an option. In addition, there are many indications for genetic counseling and testing, including patients diagnosed with breast cancer at age 45 years or younger and patients with triple negative breast cancer diagnosed at age 60 years or younger. Results of genetic testing may influence treatment options in metastatic breast cancer. Before we explore treatment options, let’s look at two similar cases where treatment choices may differ. Can you identify the key differences? Let’s begin with Case 1, a 45-year-old woman with metastatic triple negative breast cancer to the liver and lungs. Two years earlier, she had received preoperative anthracycline and paclitaxel for a stage II, triple negative breast cancer. She had a limited family history of cancer and underwent genetic counseling and testing. No pathogenic mutations were found in a panel of genes associated with hereditary cancers.  At the time of her metastatic recurrence, biopsy of a liver lesion confirmed metastatic carcinoma, consistent with triple negative breast cancer. There was no PD-L1 staining. The patient received carboplatin and gemcitabine for 6 cycles. She now has disease progression. Case 2 is a 57-year-old woman who also has metastatic triple negative breast cancer involving the chest wall, liver and bones. Three years earlier, she had received adjuvant anthracycline and paclitaxel for a stage II, triple negative breast cancer. She had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer, but underwent genetic counseling and testing revealing a pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation. At the time of metastatic recurrence, chest wall biopsy confirmed metastatic triple negative breast cancer with no PD-L1 staining. The patient received carboplatin for 6 cycles with an initial response.  Nine months later, she has disease progression. In each of these cases, what option would you recommend for subsequent therapy? The choices include additional chemotherapy, such as capecitabine, eribulin or vinorelbine, or a PARP inhibitor. In Case 1, the correct answer is chemotherapy, including any of the named options. This patient does not harbor a germline BRCA mutation so would not benefit from a PARP inhibitor. In Case 2, the correct answer is a PARP inhibitor. In both the OlympiAD and EMBRACA phase III trials, patients with germline BRCA mutations and previously treated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomized to either chemotherapy of physicians’ choice or to olaparib or talozoparib, respectively. Approximately 40-50% had triple negative metastatic breast cancer in these two trials.  Patients who received the PARP inhibitors had significantly improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy in both trials. Both PARP inhibitors, olaparib and talozoparib, are approved for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who have germline BRCA mutations.  These two cases of metastatic triple negative breast cancer share similarities. Both cases met criteria for genetic counseling and testing, including the young age at diagnosis for Case 1 and the diagnosis of triple negative breast cancer at age 60 or younger in Case 2. Both cases were treated similarly at initial presentation and on metastatic recurrence.  However, the key difference is that no pathogenic mutation was detected in Case 1. In contrast, a germline BRCA1 mutation was found in Case 2.  PARP inhibitors are associated with improved progression-free survival compared to the chemotherapy given in the OlympiAD and EMBRACA trials in patients with germline BRCA mutations and HER2 negative, previously treated metastatic breast cancer.   In addition, although both cases received a platinum-based regimen at metastatic recurrence, the TNT trial revealed that only patients with germline BRCA mutations and triple negative metastatic breast cancer had improved progression-free survival with carboplatin compared to docetaxel. No difference in progression-free survival was seen in the trial population of triple negative metastatic breast cancer without a germline mutation. Thank you for listening to this week’s episode of the ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcast. For more information on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, including additional patient cases and opportunities for self-evaluation, visit the comprehensive eLearning center at elearning.asco.org

Dr. Winston Tan, Medical Oncologist at Mayo Clinic, discusses the recent FDA approval of erdafitinib and enfortumab for second-line treatment of metastatic bladder cancer.

An interview with Dr. Scott Eggener of University of Chicago Medicine on "Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline." This guideline provides recommendations for available tissue-based prostate cancer biomarkers geared toward patient selection for active surveillance, identification of clinically significant disease, choice of postprostatectomy adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy, and to address emerging questions such as the relative value of tissue biomarkers compared with MRI.  Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines 

An interview with Dr. Melissa Dillmon on the Patient-Centered Standards for Medically Integrated Dispensing: ASCO/NCODA Standards. The interview covers the findings of the systematic review, which were consistent with the NCODA patient-centered standards for patient relationships and education, adherence, safety, collection of data, documentation and other areas. NCODA standards were adopted and used as basis for these ASCO/NCODA standards. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/mid-standards.

An interview with Dr. Naren Ramakrishna from University of Florida Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health on the guideline update which addresses management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive advanced breast cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines 

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. Shlomo Koyfman from the Cleveland Clinic, lead author on "Management of the Neck in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Koyfman. It's a pleasure. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yeah, so this is an exciting guideline because it covers a topic that we don't usually think about in head and neck cancer in a formal way, and that is management of the neck in squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and the oropharynx. So there's a lot of literature and guidelines out there on how to manage oropharynx cancer, which is becoming a more and more common cancer, especially in the HPV-positive era, less so on oral cavity. But a lot of times it's focused on people who don't get surgery, chemoradiation, or people who do get surgery and TORS, Transoral Robotic Surgery, and different approaches. But rarely do we have something focus on management of the neck per se, which is really, really important in these cancers and often overlooked in favor of the primary tumor itself. So these guidelines really take us through some salient questions in how to manage the neck in these two cancers. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? The recommendations came off of six fundamental questions, three in oral cavity and three in oropharynx. There are some commonalities between the two and some differences. A lot of the fundamental questions revolve around surgical quality, and neck dissection is the standard surgical approach for management of the neck in these patients. And as we enter the quality era, how do we define benchmarks of surgical quality, which is one thing that it deals with. The other is when to do adjuvant therapy like adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation. We also deal with when to do surgery for the neck or to do nonoperative approaches like radiation or chemoradiation. And then lastly, how do you follow patients after you've treated them? So those are kind of the salient issues that we dealt with. And what we came out with was nothing earth shatteringly new, but I think the way it was organized and systematically put together, I think it's going to be really, really helpful for people. So some of the most important findings that this recommendation does, I think this is the first that incorporates surgical quality, as I mentioned before. So specifically neck dissection should have 18 or more nodes as multiple studies have shown that that's associated with better outcomes. And similarly we define for different diseases of oral cavity and oropharynx, and depending on what kind of tumor it is and where, what nodal levels should be dissected or treated, whether surgically or nonsurgically, and when to do just one side of the neck versus both sides of the neck. So I think there's a lot of good guidance there in terms of the surgical quality. From a standpoint of adjuvant therapy, we define pretty clearly indications for when after surgery for oral cavity cancer, for example, when radiation should be added and when chemoradiation should be added, and I think that's very helpful. And especially for the neck itself, there's been confusion about what happens if I have 30 nodes taken out and they're all negative but I have a big, large primary tumor. What do I do with the neck? Do I radiate it? Do I not radiate it at one side, both sides? And this guideline gives some pretty clear guidance in different scenarios about how to think about that, which is pretty novel and really important, I think. I get questions about this all the time. It comes up in tumor boards all the time, and it's pretty practical. And mostly what we say is if you have a primary tumor that's like a T3 or T4 oral cavity cancer or it approaches midline, either a contralateral neck dissection should be done or radiation should be done to the contralateral neck. And even if you have a lot of lymph nodes taken out and they're negative, if you have very high-risk primary tumor features like very large tumor or multifocal perineural invasion, those kinds of things, even with a negative neck dissection we still typically do treat the neck. So the next recommendation that's really helpful is who can be observed after surgery? And specifically low-volume N1 you can consider observing in oral cavity cancer, whereas N2 or N3 patients all need radiation or chemoradiation in the setting of extranodal extension and positive margins. We did come out pretty firmly advocating for bolus cisplatin 100 milligrams per meter squared every three weeks as recent studies suggest that weekly cisplatin or other regimens are not as effective, and we were pretty clear about that. We were pretty synchronized with recent ASCO-endorsed guidelines in oropharynx cancer that say similar things. In addition, one of the very important questions that comes up is a surgeon will say, well, I'm cutting out the neck tumor, and I know it comes to midline and he's got a bunch of nodes on the right side, but do I really need to do a left neck dissection? Aren't you going to radiate it anyway? And that comes up all the time. Is radiation adequate to manage a clinically negative neck in oral cavity cancer and oropharynx cancer? I think in oropharynx cancer everybody feels pretty comfortably yes. I think in oral cavity cancer it's been somewhat controversial. We favor neck dissections when possible, but if radiation is known to be happening, especially to an elective contralateral neck, that that is adequate therapy. However, we're pretty strong in the fact that neck dissections are the tried and true way to treat oral cavity cancer and that in a T2 or above tumor where a neck dissection is indicated, just resecting the primary and leaving the neck to elective radiation is not something that we thought there was enough evidence for to advocate, and we still advocate classic neck dissection first followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as indicated. One area of controversy that we did touch on is the issue of early stage tongue cancers and whether they need a neck dissection at all. And we came down pretty consistently with all of the co-authors on the guideline that we advocated for a neck dissection for all patients with oral cavity cancer unless it is a very small tumor that we define with very compliant patient who is amenable to very rigorous follow-up that has been done in Europe and in some other places with, specifically, people trained in careful neck ultrasound techniques. So all of those really help guide, both in early stage and more advanced stage, how to manage the neck and oral cavity cancer. And in oropharynx cancer, again, many of the same quality metrics apply. We have some guidance about when doing transoral robotic surgery how to reduce bleeding risk by ligating feeding blood vessels, which is an important addition. We also discuss the fact that, as opposed to lateralized oral cavity patients where a unilateral either neck dissection of radiation is often indicated, in oropharynx cancer the group felt very strongly that bilateral neck should be treated. And typically if tumors extend to midline or involve the posterior oropharyngeal wall, which has bilateral drainage, that either bilateral neck dissection should be performed in those cases or a unilateral neck dissection can be done as long as adjuvant radiation is planned to both necks. Finally, a couple of very important questions of who should not be treated surgically and who should be treated with a nonoperative chemoradiation based approach. In oral cavity cancer, as long as they were not metastatic, we felt people should be resected as long as they were surgically resectable and medically operable. In oropharynx cancer, however, anybody who had unequivocal extranodal extension of nodes into soft tissues or involvement to the carotid artery or extensive cranial-nerve involvement or skull-based involvement by extensive nodal disease are not good candidates for surgery and should be preferentially treated with chemoradiation. That was pretty strong. And finally, the other thing we gave clarity on is when we treat oropharynx cancer with chemoradiation, how do we follow them and when do we decide to do a neck dissection or not? And essentially we recommended a PET CT scan at 12 weeks. And as long as that was negative, a neck dissection should not be done. If you don't have a PET scan and you just have high quality CT or MRI but all of the neck disease has resolved, similarly there should be no neck dissection. And then most importantly, the situation we all face which is very complex is what happens when you have a PET CT done three to four months after treatment and you have small nodes that are still there? You have a little bit of uptake. The FDG avidity is much less than it was. There still is a lesion there, but it's much better and the patient is feeling well. And we felt pretty comfortable not doing a standard neck dissection on those patients but rather following them closely with a follow-up CT scan two to three months later and continual assessment and reserving surgery for obvious progressive disease. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? So this guideline is really important because head and neck cancer being not the most common cancer, and especially because head and neck cancer is not really one disease-- there's so many different diseases. Even oral cavity and oropharynx, there's quite a bit of variability in how we think about it. There's not a one size fits all recipe for how to manage people properly, and that leads to a lot of confusion and sometimes doubt as to what the best thing to do is in these patients. And that is a very common thing. So I think the most important reason why these guidelines are helpful is they're really clear. They give really clear guidelines of if you're going to do surgery, here's the expectations of what nodal levels to take out and how many nodes to take out. Here's when you should do adjuvant radiation. Here's when you should do adjuvant chemoradiation. Here's when you should treat one side of the neck. Here's when you should treat both sides of the neck. If you're not going to do surgery, here's when you do radiation. And for oropharynx cancer, here's when you can consider surgery. Here's where surgery is not the best idea. And when you treat them and if you do surgically, here's how you do it. If you do with radiation, here are the nodes that should be treated, the nodal levels. And finally, after you do that, how do you watch and act to make sure that people don't fail? So I feel like all of those things lend a lot of clarity to some complicated decision-making processes for these patients, and this really lends clarity to that, which should help kind of lend consistency of practice. That's really our goal. Our goal was there a lot of great docs taking care of these patients out there, but patients are treated in very different ways depending on who they're seeing and where you go. Our goal was to try to increase the consistency of how people are treated no matter where they are. And if practitioners, surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists see this guideline and kind of follow it and, of course, reach out with any questions at any time, then what we'll be able to do is kind of harmonize the way patients are treated in this country, which should help, I think, the quality of care. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? They're going to affect patients because right now a lot of patients get great care, but there are some patients that are not getting ideal care either because maybe they're in parts of the country that don't have the same access to resources or they're in places where the volume of these kind of very complicated and yet not so common diseases aren't seen as high and there's confusion about how to manage them or what the quality metrics are. I think patients are going to be affected knowing, hey, if I'm going to have a neck dissection, here's what I should be asking to make sure my surgeon knows to do and does consistently to make sure it's of high quality. Here's where I think I should be treated with surgery, maybe I shouldn't be treated with surgery, and here's how to follow me. Because there is a lot of variability in how patients are treated, and sometimes there's too many surgeries being done, not enough surgeries being done. If they're being done, maybe they're not the best quality. Even if we don't treat with surgery and we do chemoradiation, we're watching them and we may not be following them as closely, and then people may be recurring and we're not picking it up closely enough. So I think it's going to harmonize, for patients, the way they're ultimately treated. If everybody in the country is treated relatively compatible with this guideline, I think the standard of care will go up across the board. Great. Thank you so much for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Koyfman. Thank you so much. 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 the show to a colleague.

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. Randy Taplitz from UC San Diego Health, lead author on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Adult Patients With Cancer-Related Immunosuppression: ASCO and IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline Update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Taplitz. Thank you. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yes. I mean, I think we're all aware that infection in the setting of neutropenia associated with cancer chemotherapy is really a major cause of morbidity in these patients. And it's also important to be aware that prevention and appropriate management of febrile neutropenia and infection should thus be a critical focus in cancer care. So the focus of this particular guideline was to evaluate the risk and benefits of antimicrobial prophylaxis in these patients and really to determine evidence-based best practices for prevention of infection and how to go about doing that. So In this guideline, what we do is we identify the groups at risk for febrile neutropenia and really recommend settings for which prophylaxis with antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral medications are indicated. And then as well make recommendations for consideration of vaccination and other measures such as respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene, and the like that will help reduce the risk of infection in these vulnerable patients. So since this is an update of a 2013 guideline, what are the major changes? And can you tell us a little bit about the research that informed this update? Yes. Really, when you update a guideline, one is informed by review of articles that encompass, in this setting, randomized clinical trials as well as meta analysis of interventions to prevent microbial infections in patients with neutropenia or other types of immunosuppression. And one example of this-- I think one of the better examples-- is we reviewed a large meta analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients after chemotherapy that showed that for fluoroquinolone prophylaxis resulted in really significant reductions in all cause mortality and febrile episodes, particularly in patients who were high risk, meaning the hematologic malignancy population and stem cell transplant population. And in that particular population, in fact, the number needed to treat to prevent one death was 29. So therefore, in that high risk population, really as with prior guidelines, the fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is recommended. However, we also reviewed other articles that include emerging data on some of the risks of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis. So for instance, the effect of fluoroquinolone on the intestinal microbiome and its association with selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria such as Gram-negative rods, as well as selection of organisms such as Clostridium difficile and enterococcus. And then we also reviewed fluoroquinolone toxicities. So what is added to this guideline are some qualifying statements alerting clinicians to really be aware for these concerns and to consider what the clinical spectrum of things like Clostridium difficile infection, et cetera, look like. In terms of antifungal prevention, including pneumocystis prevention, we really haven't made any major changes to this guideline with the exception that in this new guideline, the panel has also started looking at complications associated with immunotherapy and actually makes a suggestion that people consider pneumocystis prophylaxis in the setting of prolonged steroid use when it's used to treat immune-related adverse events that we've begun to see in increasing numbers associated with agents like checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies. In terms of viral infections, the updated guidelines recommend risk assessment for hepatitis B reactivation and then treatment in accordance with other ASCO guidelines and yearly influenza vaccine, as well as really endorsing other vaccines as described in the Infectious Disease Society of America Guideline for Vaccination in Immunocompromised Hosts. So really, those are the main new events since 2013. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? So the key recommendations-- the first thing is what we call a risk assessment. So after-- what one does is carefully assess, really, what the risk of febrile neutropenia is. And that includes assessment of patient, what the cancer is, and what the treatment-related factors are. And then after they're risk adjusted and risk assessed, then we take, in turn, different forms of prophylaxis that we consider. And so the first one that we always consider is antibiotic prophylaxis against bacterial infections. And the recommendation is still with the fluoroquinolone. And that's recommended for most patients who are at high risk for febrile neutropenia or profound, really prolonged neutropenia, such as those getting therapy for AML, or myelodysplastic syndrome, or stem cell transplant recipients, particularly with myeloablative regimens. In the lower risk groups, such as those with most solid tumors, fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is not recommend. In terms of antifungal prophylaxis, what is recommended is an oral triazole or Micafungin-- for patients, again, at risk for profound protracted neutropenia such as that AML, MDS, stem cell transplant group during that period of neutropenia. When the risk of invasive aspergillus is high, such as in patients with AML or MDS during the neutropenia period while getting chemotherapy, then the consideration of a mold-active triazole is recommended and in addition should be considered in the context of stem cell transplant recipients with graft versus host disease. In terms of PCP prophylaxis, PCP preventive therapies are recommended for those at high risk for PCP, which include those on greater than what we say 20 milligrams of prednisone equivalent a day for over a month, or based on purine analog use. Viral prophylaxis for HSV is recommended for seropositive patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplant or leukemia induction. And then as I mentioned before, patients at risk for hepatitis B reactivation are recommended treatment with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. And this is more carefully discussed in the ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion on Hepatitis-B Virus Screening for Patients With Cancer Before Therapy. It's also recommended that a yearly flu vaccine is given to patients as well as given to family, household contacts, and health care workers. Other vaccination recommendations are as per the Infectious Disease Society of America Guidelines for Vaccination of Immunocompromised Hosts. And then the other things that are recommended are really review and repeat recommendation of adherence with hand hygiene, with respiratory etiquette, which is recommended and really required for all health care workers. And that out patients with neutropenia from cancer chemotherapy should avoid high risk activities, which include really contact with environments that have high concentration of fungal spores such as construction and demolition, high intensity gardening, et cetera. So those are really a summary of the key recommendations of this guideline. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? I think it's important to remember that to ensure best practices on infection prevention, the literature needs to be reviewed frequently and guidelines need to be updated. I don't think that these current guidelines will dramatically change the preventive strategies that are used for patients, with the exception of perhaps a few extra vaccines-- some newer indications for pneumocystis prevention, hepatitis B reactivation prevention, those kinds of things. However, I think in reviewing the literature, it becomes clear what will we will need to be thinking about in the coming years, what we will need to be assessing. And a couple of those things are the dramatic increase in the use of immune-based therapies and how that will affect infection risk in patients with or without neutropenia. We need to be considering the effects of routine antibiotic prophylaxis on the microbiome and the risks that that might incur. And we need to really understand how new vaccines can be utilized. So yeah, I think these areas are really ripe for research and need to be followed closely to ensure optimization of these preventive strategies for our patients in the future. Thank you for your time today, Dr. Taplitz. You're quite welcome. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

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. Manish Shah from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, senior author on "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shah. Thank you, it's a pleasure and honor to be here. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yes, absolutely. So the "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer" is a resource-stratified guideline. And it focuses on the management of patients with early-stage colon cancer. It's different than the surveillance and screening guideline that was written simultaneously for ASCO as another resource-stratified guideline. We felt that this was a big enough topic that we should keep it separate. So it really talks about the management of pre-malignant lesions, as well as early-stage colon cancers, as well as rectal cancers. And the other aspect of this is that we really focused on how the guideline may apply in settings where there-- they don't have maximal resources, so basic or limited settings as well. So I would like to talk a little bit about how the guideline was created, because I think that's an important aspect. And it distinguishes it from typical other ASCO Guidelines. So the management of colon cancer or colorectal cancer, there's a lot of literature on this. And there are several guidelines that have been produced by colorectal cancer societies, or surgical societies, or from other countries like the EORTC, or Japan, or Korea, or even the UK. So in fact, there were, I think, 30 to 40 different guidelines that we reviewed. And we felt that, instead of doing a new literature search to kind of rehash much of the same information, we reviewed all the guidelines for certain quality measures to then select a handful of guidelines that we would use as the reference for each of our key questions or key points. And this was done in a formal process, the first by ASCO and Sarah, who was the ASCO staff who wrote the guideline, along with the members of the guideline panel. And in this process, I think that we have a pretty comprehensive guideline that covers the questions with the best evidence available. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? Yeah, so we addressed some several questions with regard to key recommendations. The first question, for example, was, what's the optimal treatment for patients with colon cancer that would be clinical stage 1 through 3c? And we distinguish that from a non-obstructing cancer to obstructing cancers as well, because the management would be very different. And what we really sort of focused on is that these patients should have resection following oncologic principles. Then ideally, they should have an en bloc resection by a surgical oncologist to give the patients the best chance of care. But I think what's unique to resource-stratified guidelines, and what we have to do is sort of highlight the care that would be achieved in settings that have less resources. So a non-obstructing colon cancer in a basic setting should still have surgery and should still undergo an en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles. So that was, for example, one of the key points that was uniform across all the settings. Other things were how to manage [INAUDIBLE] colon cancer. So in more enhanced and maximal settings, sometimes there might be opportunity to place a colonic stent, for example, by either a colorectal surgeon or by someone who has specialized training in the placement of these stents. And that would be a preferred approach in both the enhanced and maximal guidelines, whereas in a more basic setting, the recommendation was to perform a resection and possibly, if required, if a resection was not possible, a diversion to overcome the obstruction in that localized setting. There were other recommendations that were also important. So for example, in early-stage rectal cancer, so clinical stage 1, T1 and 0 rectal cancer, in a maximal setting, these are sort of low-risk cancers without adverse features like high-grade or involvement of lymphovascular structures. The surgical oncologist and/or colorectal surgeon might consider a local excision such as the TEM procedure, which is a transendomucoscal resection. And in basic or limited settings, we would still recommend surgery in that setting following TME principles to achieve clear margins and a good surgical outcome, because we felt that, in basic-limited settings, the skill and the equipment necessary to do a local excision may not be available. Another recommendation that might highlight the differences between basic and limited settings versus a more maximal setting is the optimal strategy for post-treatment surveillance. So this is after resection of the stage 1 to 3 colorectal cancer. What would be the best way to monitor and surveil patients? And this is the recognition that the purpose of surveillance is to identify recurrence early at a time point where the patient may still be amenable to having local regional resection or resection of the metastatic lesion to change the outcome. So the current ASCO guidelines are to perform a medical history, and physical examination, and a CEA every six months for three to five years, have an abdominal and chest CT scan, in high-risk patients, every 6 to 12 months for three years, and a colonoscopy one year after the surgery, and then every five years or so after that, as indicated, up to age of 75. And that's what we recommended in the maximal and enhanced settings. But in a more basic setting, the recommendation was similarly medical history and physical exam every six months for three years, a CEA every six months for three years, a chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound twice in the first three years, and a colonoscopy once i the first two years. And then if a colonoscopy is not available, we recommended a double-contrast barium enema or, for left-side tumors, a sigmoidoscopy to try to surveil the local regional extent of the the disease. So I think what we're trying to highlight is that we think that we can help patients for the management of localized early-stage colon cancer, both for treatment as well as for surveillance, and that these recommendations may vary a little bit in more limited settings, but with these recommendations, we can provide the best care for patients overall. And so why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? I think that the guideline is really important, because we recognize that we're practicing medicine in the United States, or in Europe, or wherever you practice, but the levels of resources that are available to us are not uniform. And so we really are getting to the aspect that cancer care is a global proposition. And ASCO should reflect that. And so the intention of these resource-stratified guidelines is to try to provide guidance into the best management for the indication across the spectrum of resources that are available. Interestingly, we've also heard from many people who practice in more resource-limited settings that they can use these guidelines to sort of advocate for their own area, to say that, based on our availability, we fit in a criteria that's basic or limited, but we really want to be an enhanced setting, and lobby their governments or their local officials to say, these are areas that we can improve on to take us to the next level, literally. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we remind ourselves that we're doing this to improve patient care overall. I think, in maximal and enhanced settings, the guidelines kind of reiterate the best practices across [INAUDIBLE] of guidelines that were reviewed. So I think that's a very important thing. And they unify the treatment plan across different practices. But I think most importantly, in basic and limited settings, it provides a benchmark for what should be done. I think, for me, one key thing was that, even in basic and limited settings, we don't want to compromise oncology principles for a surgical resection. You know, it's not appropriate to just resect the tumor but leave some tumor behind to relieve an obstruction. We still need to manage that appropriately. And that is the expectation in a basic setting, for example. So I think that, overall, wherever you are, this guideline provides recommendations to help manage the patient across the resources that are available to you. I think that's very important, because we live in a heterogeneous environment where resources are not uniform across the world. Great, thank you for your discussion of this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Shah. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. 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 the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Lynn Henry from University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute on "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline." This guideline update includes data from the MINDACT and TAILORx trials to clarify the recommendations for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 not overexpressed, axillary node-negative early breast cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines  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. Lynn Henry from the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, lead author on "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Henry. Thank you very much for the invitation. So this guideline was updated to incorporate new data from the TAILORx and the MINDACT trials. So can you give us an overview of these trials and their results? Sure. So patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, are generally treated with anti-estrogen treatment and are sometimes also recommended to have chemotherapy. Since these tumors don't always respond well to chemotherapy, tests have been developed that provide more information about how much benefit, in terms of reduction of the likelihood of cancer coming back, an individual patient is likely to get from treatment with chemotherapy. It is important that the benefit of a treatment outweighs the risk of toxicity from the treatment. Two of those tests are called Oncotype DX and MammaPrint. And they have recently been tested in large clinical trials. So TAILORx is a large prospective trial that tested the Oncotype DX assay. In the Oncotype DX assay, a tumor is tested to get more information about how likely a cancer is to return and how much benefit the patient is likely to get from chemotherapy. Scores on this assay can range from 0 to 100. Previously, a study showed that patients whose tumors had scores of 10 or less, and who received five years of anti-estrogen treatment, were very unlikely to have their tumors return. So chemotherapy is not recommended for them. For patients with higher scores, above 30, we also already knew that chemotherapy is likely to decrease the chance of cancers in those patients, and, so, therefore, we generally recommend chemotherapy for women with higher scores. In the TAILORx trial, the recently reported trial, more than 6,700 women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer had their tumors tested and were found to have Oncotype DX recurrent scores between 11 and 25, which is in that intermediate range or at the higher end of the low range. Before this trial was conducted, many people with tumors like these, in the intermediate range, were treated with both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy because we weren't sure how much benefit they would obtain from chemotherapy, and we didn't want to leave out a potentially helpful treatment. In this trial, patients were randomized, or randomly assigned by a computer, to treatment with chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy or to treatment with endocrine therapy alone. The trial was mainly looking at whether leaving out chemotherapy would increase the likelihood of invasive cancer returning. And, luckily, overall, the trial showed that the likelihood of cancer returning in those patients who got endocrine therapy alone, without chemotherapy, wasn't significantly different compared to those who were treated with chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. They also looked, specifically, at the group of women who were 50 years of age or younger. So mostly premenopausal women. Now, this was an exploratory question, meaning it provides information that may be correct, but it hasn't been as fully tested as the main question about what do we do for all women? In these younger women, there appeared to be some benefit from chemotherapy in those whose tumors had scores from 21 to 25, and, also possibly, in those whose tumors had scores from 16 to 20. Therefore, we still consider giving chemotherapy to younger women with Oncotype DX scores in the middle range, from 16 to 25, but not to women over age 50. So that was the TAILORx trial. The MINDACT trial was a bit different. It was testing the MammaPrint assay and the trial also included primarily women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. But in this case, most women's sorry lymph nodes were negative, although a few women had up to three lymph nodes involved. In that trial, patient's risk of disease recurrence was assessed in two ways. First, it was assessed based on clinical factors. So the size of the tumor, how many lymph nodes were involved, and the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptors. Second, it was assessed based on genomic factors-- that was using the MammaPrint test. So if patients were low for both clinical factors and genomic factors, they only were treated with anti-estrogen therapy. If they were high for both clinical factors and genomic factors, then they were treated with chemotherapy followed by anti-estrogen therapy. However, if they were high for one and low for the other, then they were randomized to either endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. So it was a little bit of a confusing trial. In the MINDACT trial, those patients who were thought to be high risk based on their clinical risk, so the size of the tumor, the number of lymph nodes, but then found to be low risk on the MammaPrint assay. They found that there was no benefit to treatment with chemotherapy in terms of how likely a woman was to develop distant metastatic disease. And if they were low risk, based on the clinical assessment, then there didn't appear to be a benefit of actually doing the test, the assay, because chemotherapy wouldn't be recommended for the patient, regardless of the results. So that was the MINDACT trial. So what are the new and updated recommendations for the guideline? Yes, so in this guideline, we, based on the TAILORx trial, we made new recommendations for use of the Oncotype DX results. All of these results apply to women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer. So for women older than age 50, if they have an Oncotype score of 25 or lower, then clinicians may offer endocrine therapy and no chemotherapy. However, for women age 50 or under, if they have an Oncotype score of 15 or lower, 15, then, clinicians may offer endocrine therapy and no chemotherapy. But if the score is 16 to 25, then chemotherapy can be considered in addition to endocrine therapy. So it made a difference in that gray area in the middle. For all women with score 26 to 30, chemotherapy may be considered. And for scores above 30, chemotherapy should definitely be considered. The data from the MammaPrint trial actually aren't that new. Results from that trial were originally published in 2016. However, that was after the original guideline was published, so we wanted to add these results to these updated guidelines for completeness. For a patient with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative, node-negative breast cancer, who is thought to be at high clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence, if the MammaPrint assay shows low genomic risk, then treatment with chemotherapy can be avoided. If a patient is thought to be at low clinical risk, the MammaPrint should not be used as chemotherapy can be avoided regardless. And for a patient with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, but who has one to three positive lymph nodes, who is thought to be at high clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence, if the MammaPrint assay shows low genomic risk, then it is possible that chemotherapy could be avoided, especially if only one lymph node is involved. So I think the bottom line for this part is that both of these tests-- there are now women who previously would have been recommended to have chemotherapy that maybe now we can avoid chemotherapy based on using these assays on their tumors. So why are these changes so important and how will they affect practice? Yes, that's a good question. Before the publication of the TAILORx trial, we had good information about how to treat patients who had either very low or very high Oncotype scores. But we really weren't sure how best to treat those patients who scores fell in the middle. Now, we have important information to guide decisions about chemotherapy for patients with intermediate scores. For many patients with scores in this range, these new results mean they will be able to avoid chemotherapy and just get endocrine therapy. While these results don't give us answers for every patient, they do provide more information that oncologists can use when having discussions with patients about the benefits and risks of chemotherapy. And what does this mean for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer? And what should they talk to their doctors about? So as a result of both of these trials, we now have additional tools that can help oncologists provide more individualized treatment recommendations for patients and really assess whether or not chemotherapy, in addition to endocrine therapy, is likely to provide benefits. Knowing which patients' tumors will respond to chemotherapy can help some patients avoid unwanted side effects from a treatment that's not likely to actually give them much benefit. Now, these tests aren't appropriate for everyone and don't provide all the answers, but they are an important step in the right direction for providing more personalized treatment for women newly-diagnosed with certain types of breast cancer. Patients should talk with their doctors about whether these tests are right for them when they're making important decisions about whether or not they should receive treatment with chemotherapy. Great. Thank you, Dr. Henry, for this informative overview of the guideline. Keeping these clinical practice guidelines updated is really crucial and it takes a lot of careful thought to ensure these recommendations represent the evidence. So thank you for coming on the podcast to discuss the "Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision-Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer: Update of the ASCO Endorsement of CCO Guideline." Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk with you today. 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/breast-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.