ASCO Daily News

Drs. Shaalan Beg and Shiraj Sen discuss notable advances in GI cancers featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the PROSPECT and PRODIGE-23 trials in rectal adenocarcinoma, the MORPHEUS study in uHCC, and the NORPACT-1 trial in pancreatic head cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, your guest host for the podcast today. I'm the vice president of oncology at Science 37, and I'm an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center. My guest today is Dr. Shiraj Sen. He is a GI medical oncologist and the director for clinical research at NEXT Oncology in Dallas. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing studies and other key advances in GI cancers that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Shiraj, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Shiraj Sen: Thanks so much for having me today, Shaalan. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We saw exciting new data and great progress in GI oncology at the ASCO Annual Meeting. I was hoping we could talk about LBA2. This was the PROSPECT study that was presented during the Plenary Session. It's a randomized, phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant FOLFOX chemo, followed by the selective use of chemoradiation, followed by TME or total mesorectal excision for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. This is the Alliance N1048 trial. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. Shiraj Sen: Thanks, Shaalan. It was great to see another GI study presented in a Plenary Session, and I thought this was a great trial that really took us back to thinking about why we do chemoradiation as well as chemotherapy perioperatively in locally advanced rectal cancer. And asking the important question of is there a select patient set or subset where we might be able to safely omit the chemoradiation piece. To me, the impressive part was this study enrolled from 2012 to 2018. In 2012, when this treatment really started enrolling, the standard of care was long-course chemoradiation for five and a half weeks, followed by surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX. During this time, a lot of the practices of these patients have shifted from that to giving total neoadjuvant therapy, where we bunch the chemotherapy and chemotherapy upfront prior to the patient undergoing surgery. And this study really asked us to take a look at both practices and ask the question of which one is better and is it possible to de-escalate care for patients who get upfront chemotherapy and omit the chemoradiation and still have similar outcomes. I thought it was very interesting that this was done in a non-inferiority-type manner, and we can talk more about that in a few minutes as well. But taking that all into context, the fact that in this study, that the non-inferiority endpoints were met for both disease-free survival as well as overall survival in the patients who were able to omit chemoradiation, I think in the big picture sense told us that there truly might be a patient subset where—this is in patients with T2 node-negative disease or T3 node-negative or T3 node-positive disease—where we might be able to safely exclude the chemoradiation and still have similarly effective outcomes for these patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Those are great points, especially when we have started to think about colon cancer and rectal cancer as many different diseases based on their location. And we know that in some instances their biology can be different as well. Can you talk a little bit about who those patients are that were enrolled on this trial? Because when I think about the German rectal study that led to us using neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the data was really around pelvic control of disease and sphincter preservation. So how did the patients who enrolled in this trial relate to the typical person with rectal cancer who walks through your doors? Dr. Shiraj Sen: Yeah, great point. I think we should point out the inclusion-exclusion criteria for this study. These patients were only those who were, again, T2 node-positive or T3 node-positive or negative, patients for whom chemoradiation would be indicated in the setting, and patients for whom they'd be good candidates for sphincter-sparing surgeries. So, tumors that are quite up high. These are not for individuals who have tumors requiring an APR. These are not for patients who have clinical T4 tumors. And this is not applied, again, to those high-risk patients who have 4 or more pelvic lymph nodes that are 1 cm in size or larger in the short access. And so, patients who need essentially an APR and the high-risk T4 tumors who are, I think, better suited by something like we'll talk about later in the PRODIGE study. I think one last point that might be worth making here on the PROSPECT trial is that it was a non-inferiority trial. And in my opinion, this was really a great use of a non-inferiority study. I believe that when there's a new treatment under consideration used in a non-inferiority study, it should be because that therapy or modality of treatment is safer, more cost-effective, or could help increase access to care without compromising efficacy, and ideally maybe more than one of the above. And in this case, I think really all of those checkboxes are met. In urban settings where we work, we think about access to radiation being quite plentiful, but when we get to more rural areas, or parts of the world where they may not have access to radiation like we may, I think this data can help drive care for a number of patients there. It can certainly be more cost-effective as it allows the omission of radiation. And certainly, from some of the PRO data that they presented, it certainly can be felt to be safer and help omit some toxicities as well. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, you mentioned a total neoadjuvant therapy and we seem to be entering this space in rectal cancer where the decision on which modalities an individual person will need for the management of their disease and what sequence they will need is all up for debate, whether that's chemotherapy or radiation, long-form, short-form radiation. And we also heard some results at earlier ASCO meetings around the omission of surgery in people who've had complete clinical responses as well. And you mentioned total neoadjuvant therapy and at ASCO this year we heard the results from LBA3504, which is a PRODIGE-23 trial. The investigators reported 7-year results of this phase 3 study from the UNICANCER group in France. This study is really pushing the envelope. What are your key takeaways here? Dr. Shiraj Sen: Great point. I think this study, especially when taken in conjunction with the PROSPECT trial, highlights the fact that these patients really can have heterogeneous diseases and ones that really require careful consideration and discussion at multidisciplinary tumor boards. Unlike the patient population in the PROSPECT trial, the PRODIGE study did treat patients with higher-risk disease. So these were patients with clinical T3, T4 tumors and so higher risk, and asked the question now with more mature 7-year follow-up of, when compared to receiving the standard of care at the time, which was a chemoradiation followed by TME, followed by adjuvant FOLFOX for 12 cycles or the capecitabine, does TNT giving again now modified full FOLFIRINOX for six cycles followed by chemoradiation followed by TME and then adjuvant FOLFOX, do the improvements in both disease-free survival, overall survival, and metastatic relapse rate, do they hold up, and/or are there any differences in local control? And again, here they demonstrate that even with longer-term follow-up, that the improvements in OFS, DFS, and metastatic relapse rate, really do hold up even with longer-term follow-up. And so, for these patients with higher risk disease, it does seem that giving induction chemotherapy with modified FOLFIRINOX before chemoradiotherapy really might be kind of best practices. The safety profile, even with longer-term follow-up was unchanged. There was not any increase in local recurrences. And again, looking at quality of life metrics there seemed to be similar or maybe improved quality of life for patients who receive the TNT approach. And now again, I think the next step is, as the presenter mentioned, investigating this even in a more tailored fashion, as was done with the PROSPECT study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Let's change gears and talk about liver cancer. Abstract 4010 showed the results of the MORPHEUS-liver study. This was a phase 1b/2 randomized trial of tiragolumab in combination with atezolizumab and bevacizumab for people with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular cancer. It's really exciting to see innovations with immune therapy changing how we've managed hepatocellular cancer in the last few years. And here, we're seeing an addition of a third agent to an already approved regimen of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. I was really curious to hear what your take-home message is from this study. Dr. Shiraj Sen: Yeah, this was another very interesting abstract that was presented at ASCO this year. It's hard to believe that it was only 3 years ago that we first got the approval of atezo plus bev, and that it took more than a decade to really have us as a field improve on outcomes for patients with liver cancer above and beyond giving sorafenib. And here we are just 3 years later, already launching new phase 3 studies from these sorts of early-phase adaptive signal-seeking studies. The investigators as a whole should be commended for the speed at which new drug development has really progressed in liver cancers after, again, quite a lull we had in the pre-I/O days. It's encouraging to see that in just 3 years that there's another phase 3 study now being launched in HCC on the heels of this data combining the atezo-bev backbone to the anti-TIGIT molecule tiragolumab. Now, I know there was a lot of discussion and some criticism of this study and what the real effects of adding tiragolumab to atezo-bev might be because of the underperformance of the control arm. In this study, the atezo-bev control arm, it should be noted that was only 18 patients, had a response rate of only 11%. And of course, with longer-term follow-up of the IMbrave150 study, we know that with the atezo-bev, we expect a response rate of about 30%. And so how a real-world population of individuals receiving atezo-bev would compare to those receiving tiro-atezo-bev has been discussed. But I think the only real way to answer that question would be with a large, randomized phase III study. And it's encouraging to see that one is being launched to ask that question. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Absolutely. Let's change gears and talk about pancreatic cancer. LBA4005 explored short-course neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for people with resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma in the NORPACT-1 study. This is a multicenter randomized phase 2 trial and we're starting to see the reporting of clinical trials evaluating the sequencing of systemic therapies for resectable disease. We've heard studies for neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable as well as resectable trials in previous meetings. But there's a lot of discussion around the NORPACT-1 trial which may be causing some people to pause on our current understanding of treatment sequencing for resectable disease. I'm curious to hear what your take homes are. Dr. Shiraj Sen: Thanks. Yes, I thought this was a very interesting study as well. Depending on which institution one practices in, in recent years, many have shifted their practice for individuals with resectable pancreatic cancer from administering full FOLFIRINOX or adjuvant therapy only after surgery to giving it in the neoadjuvant setting based on, again, a number of smaller studies, some that are single institution. This is one of the first studies that in a randomized fashion has asked the question in just resectable pancreatic cancer. So we're not talking about borderline resectable or other patients. But in resectable pancreatic cancer, whether there are differences now comes if patients receive surgery first, followed by FOLFIRINOX-only adjuvant setting or essentially getting perioperative FOLFIRINOX and so neoadjuvant, followed by surgery, followed by, as tolerated, four cycles of adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. And I was a little surprised by some of the results and to me some of these data were a little intriguing. Specifically, I think if we take a deeper look like the discussant had after the presentation, there are, I think, some unanswered questions. Specifically, half the patients were randomized to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and half of them received upfront surgery. But in the group of individuals who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, it looked like only half of them completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy. And some answers into kind of why that was, and what it was about those patients then who were in the neoadjuvant arm, is one thing that comes to mind. Secondly, what I thought was interesting was this study was that it was designed very well to try to take out as much heterogeneity as possible. However, in both arms, there was actually quite a substantial number of individuals who ended up receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. And that's even in the patients who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, and individuals who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, only 25% post-op went on to receive adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. And 75% almost received gemcitabine-based therapy. And again, why so many patients received off-protocol adjuvant therapy is something that kind of struck me. I think the third and final thing that really struck me was, in the patients that received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, there was a higher rate of R0 resections. 56% of patients had an R0 resection compared to those who got upfront surgery, where there was only a 39% rate and similarly kind of higher levels of N0 resection. And yet, despite all of this, again, the authors did show quite clearly that there were not any significant improvements in outcomes for patients that received neoadjuvant therapy, but kind of how improved surgical endpoints do not translate to overall survival and overall endpoints; I think there are still some questions there. However, I do agree overall that despite these limitations with the conclusions of the author, that at this time at least, it's not clear; the results don't support the widespread use of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX as a standard of care for resectable pancreatic cancer. Fortunately, there are studies ongoing, like the Alliance [for Clinical Trials in Oncology] study and the PREOPANC-3 study that hopefully will kind of help settle this verdict. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, it's a stark reminder that we need better treatments. I think we've been shifting the sequencing of these treatments and slicing them in as many ways as we can. And the core challenge is in finding better systemic therapies that have been found to be effective in advanced stage as well as in curative stages like this. And one of the points that bothered me about this trial was the drop-off that they saw at the beginning when the biliary system was being drained, or they were getting biopsies because folks who went for surgery upfront didn't always require those procedures. They didn't require histologic diagnosis either. But as is standard practice, before we give systemic therapy, we require psychologic confirmation. And that may have introduced a delay of a couple of days or a couple of weeks, which could have resulted in some imbalances in how survival is measured and how folks were doing. Because, as you know, a lot of times people diagnosed with this disease can be fairly sick, and a matter of a couple of days or weeks can make a big difference in terms of treatment with those. I'm really excited to wait and hear how the Alliance study and the PREOPANC follow-up trials pan out and as a very important cautionary note for everyone, both the folks who have adopted neoadjuvant therapy and those that have not followed the data. And kudos to the investigators for completing that trial. Dr. Shiraj Sen: Yeah, I fully agree. I'm glad to see that these trials are being run. I think we should not take anything away from the fact that these are very challenging trials to run. I think we certainly owe a big kudos to the patients who enroll in these studies who have resectable disease, but they're still willing to go through the process of an extra consent form, an extra kind of screening process, additional testing required to go into a clinical trial. And it's only because of them that we're able to run these studies and, as a field, get some answers on how to best take care of our patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Shiraj, thank you so much for coming to the podcast today and sharing your valuable insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Shiraj Sen: Thank you so much for having me, and to all of the ASCO staff for having this podcast. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Shaalan Beg @ShaalanBeg Dr. Shiraj Sen @ShirajSenMDPhD Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Shaalan Beg: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ispen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Genmab/Seagen Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (An Immediate Family Member): ImmuneSensor Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Delfi Diagnostics, Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune Dr. Shiraj Sen: Employment: Roche/Genentech Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche/Genentech Research Funding (Institution): ABM Therapeutics, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Parthenon Therapeutics, Pyxis Oncology, Georgiamune Inc.

Drs. Rana McKay and Jonathan Rosenberg highlight key advances in genitourinary cancers featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the THOR study in mUCC, VESPER in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, CONTACT-03 in mRCC, and TALAPRO-2 in mCRPC. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rana McKay: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Rana McKay, your guest host for the podcast today. I'm a GU medical oncologist at the Morris Cancer Center at the University of California in San Diego and an associate professor at the University of California in San Diego School of Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg, the chief of the Genitourinary Oncology Service at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. We'll be discussing practice-changing studies and other key advances in genitourinary cancers that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests featured on the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Jonathan, it's great to have you with us today. How are you? Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: I'm doing very well. Thanks so much for hosting today. Dr. Rana McKay: Oh, of course. It's always fun to step back from ASCO and reflect on all the practice-changing and practice-informing studies that were presented. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Absolutely. Dr. Rana McKay: Maybe we can dive right in with LBA4619. This is the much-talked-about THOR study of erdafitinib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations. What are your key takeaways from this study? Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: It is indeed a study we've been waiting for, for quite some time, to see the results in the confirmatory study after the accelerated approval of erdafitinib. This is half of the THOR trial. There were 2 cohorts of patients. One cohort were patients who previously received a checkpoint inhibitor randomized to chemotherapy or erdafitinib, and those data were reported at ASCO this year. The other cohort was randomized against a checkpoint inhibitor in patients who have not received a checkpoint inhibitor, and we'll see those data in a future meeting. The bottom line for the THOR study is that FGFR3 inhibition improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy, and the chemotherapy in this study was a taxane. The overall survival was 12.1 months for erdafitinib compared to 7.8 months for chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 0.64. This led to the DMC to stop the study and blind the data and cross people over. There was also a PFS advantage. There really weren't a lot of new toxicity signals seen; the usual suspects in terms of mucositis, hyperphosphatemia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and onycholysis. And so, what it tells us ultimately is that in a patient who's progressed on a checkpoint inhibitor, we can feel comfortable about using erdafitinib knowing it provides a survival advantage in patients who've been previously treated for advanced urothelial cancer and have an FGFR alteration, either an FGFR2 or 3. And hopefully, we'll see more data in the future from the study, maybe not too long in the future from the other part of the study, comparing it to checkpoint inhibition. Dr. Rana McKay: That's really exciting. I think it's exciting to see the data about the positivity of erdafitinib versus chemotherapy in this context. Looking at the phase 3 data is going to be really important. Looking at the data in the IO naive context is going to be really important. I feel like this sort of reaffirms what we've been doing in clinical practice. But how do you feel that the study is practice-changing? Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: I think it gives us reassurance that for these patients, erdafitinib is an appropriate option. There's no randomized data between erdafitinib and other choices, such as sacituzumab, which is also based on an accelerated approval, or enfortumab, which is based on randomized phase 3 trial. But it gives us level-1 evidence. I do wonder whether the comparison against the checkpoint inhibitor may turn out differently, but we'll see. Those data aren't in evidence. And I do think it was interesting that the majority of patients who were enrolled on the trial were PDL-1 low. We'll see what the comparison to a checkpoint inhibitor is like and whether those patients have similar characteristics. Dr. Rana McKay: Yeah, you're almost kind of selecting for people that were not primed to respond. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Exactly. Dr. Rana McKay: Well, that's really exciting, I think. Moving on to localized bladder cancer, Dr. Pfister presented the results of the VESPER trial. That's LBA4507. I think this study was really important. This was a trial that explored dose-dense MVAC with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin or gemcitabine-cisplatin as a perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. I think there's always been some discussion around these regimens and how they pair up against one another. Can you tell us about these data? Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: It's a very interesting study. It was designed back when it was felt that we could not give patients neoadjuvant therapy. And it was designed as either a neoadjuvant or adjuvant approach. Although, in reality, almost everybody who was enrolled in the study got neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which I think speaks to the shift in practice over the last 10 to 15 years towards neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant therapy. It's an interesting trial in that it used a duration of chemotherapy for the MVAC regimen, the dose-dense MVAC regimen that we don't usually use, which is 6 cycles. And functionally, about 40% of patients couldn't make it to 6 cycles and had to stop sooner, versus 4 cycles of q3-week gemcitabine and cisplatin. And what the data show is that the progression-free survival for the entire intent-to-treat population didn't reach significance. But if you looked at the neoadjuvant population only, there was an improvement in progression-free survival as well as overall survival. So, it's sort of a negative positive trial. Negative for the primary endpoint, but positive for key secondary endpoints. They did a very interesting analysis looking at the number of cycles that patients received regardless of arm, but looking at it by arm. And it's clear from that analysis that the more chemotherapy they got, the better they did. Although, the flaw in that analysis is that the healthier patients are, the more chemotherapy they're able to tolerate, and therefore that may translate to an improved overall survival irrespective of the amount of chemotherapy. And this was not necessarily a pre-specified analysis. I think some of the statisticians were clutching their chests during the report of this trial, having talked to several afterward. On the other hand, it does say to me that for a fit, younger patient, it is important to consider dose-dense MVAC instead of gemcitabine and cisplatin. I'll also note, reading the publication from the first part of the trial, that it appears that nobody over 70 was enrolled from everything I could tell. And so, I question the validity of the tolerability of the results for the average 75-year-old that I see in my practice. Although age is not a bright line cut-off for anybody in terms of cancer treatment. But my own experience has been that dose-dense MVAC has been harder to tolerate for a lot of patients in their 70s, whereas I think we should feel quite comfortable giving it to patients in their sixties. And if you ask me how many cycles I would give, I probably wouldn't say 6, for dose-dense MVAC, I would probably say 4. Dr. Rana McKay: Was there a predilection that there was a more aggressive disease like nodal disease or other things to prompt the 6 versus 4? Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: I think that they stopped primarily for toxicity reasons, but it wasn't clear to me that it was a disease-based issue. And for the neoadjuvant therapy, everyone was supposed to be clinically node-negative on entry, so that probably wouldn't have explained it. Dr. Rana McKay: Very exciting. I know that the data were quite provocative, but I think it's always difficult to interpret these sorts of subgroup of subgroup analyses, and there's a lot of bias in why people may get more versus less. And I think trying to reduce these data to clinical practice is going to be really important, as you've stated. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Rana, I'd also like to talk about some key advances in renal cell carcinoma that were reported at ASCO. Dr. Choueiri presented data on LBA4500, the CONTACT-03 study, which really was the first study of its kind in solid tumors because it addressed a major question in the kidney cancer field and in other fields: Is there a role for immunotherapy rechallenge after progression on immunotherapy? Specifically, the study looked at the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib alone after progression with prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic RCC. I'd like you to tell me what you think of this study and the results and how they may affect our practice. Dr. Rana McKay: Absolutely. This was a critically important study looking at the role of IO post-progression on IO. It was a large phase 3 trial that enrolled patients with clear cell and non-clear cell patients. It actually allowed patients with papillary RCC, unclassified RCC, to enroll in the study, whereas most of these studies are excluding patients with non-clear cell disease. Patients had to have progressed on an immune checkpoint inhibitor given either as adjuvant first line or second line, given either as a single agent or in combination with one of the other combos, whether a VEGF or IO. And patients were randomized one-to-one to receive the combination of atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib alone. And the dosing of the cabozantinib here is at 60 milligrams in the combination, which is the standard dosing of cabozantinib monotherapy. And the primary endpoints for the trial included PFS and OS. And in essence, this trial was a completely negative study. The primary endpoint, which was centrally reviewed, rPFS, was negative. The hazard ratio there was 1.03. Overall survival was also negative with a hazard ratio of 0.94. And when you look at the subgroup analyses, there really wasn't any specific subgroup that seemed to derive any benefit, potentially those that had a prior response to an immune checkpoint inhibitor, but in essence, a negative study. And I think these data are really informative because the discussion at ASCO was conducted by Dr. David Braun, and he actually had conducted a very highly scientific Twitter poll to help guide how to interpret the data and what people do. And from that, about 30% of individuals that completed the poll were actually layering on IO therapy, and continuing IO therapy after somebody progressed on therapy layering in a TKI while keeping the IO backbone going. And I think what this study proves is that we really don't have any really robust data to guide doing that at the present time. And what we may end up doing is compromising the efficacy of the oral TKI or dose-compromising the oral TKI to try to maintain an ineffective IO. And so, I think at the present time these data, while negative, were truly practice-informing. There are other studies that are looking at this strategy as well. I think one of the criticisms here is that atezolizumab really has not had a great track record in renal cell carcinoma in every single context where it was tested, either alone or in combination. It has not met its primary endpoint and it's not utilized as a treatment in RCC. So, there's some discussion that could this be the fact that this is a PDL-1 inhibitor and that it's atezolizumab. And additionally, I think the thing to point out for is that in the modern era if we look at the cabozantinib control arm, cabozantinib in the refractory setting had a PFS of 10.8 months, which is pretty impressive for a later line PFS, if you will. So, there is another study currently ongoing called the TiNivo-2 study that's looking at tivozanib plus nivolumab versus tivozanib alone in a similar patient population. That trial is enrolling only clear cell patients that had progressed on prior IO. So, I think we'll have additional data, but very, I think, informative. I think this question comes up in a lot in other tumor sites as well because of the broad use of checkpoint inhibitors across hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: I think this was the most informative negative study and the most negative trial I've seen in a while as well. But it did highlight the importance of asking these questions where people assume they know the answer already, and in fact, we often don't, and our assumptions are wrong. So, I thought that was fascinating and very well described. Staying in the kidneys arena. I'd like to talk to you also about the phase 2 KEYNOTE-B61, that's Abstract 4518. It looked at first-line lenvatinib and pembrolizumab across non-clear cell carcinomas. Tell me what you thought of the trial and what your takeaways were. Dr. Rana McKay: This is an important study. I think the treatment of non-clear cell RCC has lagged. I guess the advances have lagged behind clear cell RCC, and really robust phase 3 randomized studies in people with non-clear cell histologies are very limited. This was a single-arm phase 2, so I think we need to kind of take that for what it's worth, that enrolled patients who had non-clear cell RCC per investigator that had received no prior systemic therapy. So, this was a frontline study, and patients received pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib until disease progression or toxicity. The study enrolled a very robust 158 patients, which is pretty impressive for a modern-day non-clear cell cohort. We've seen data from nivo-cabo that had gotten presented previously by Dr. Lee. That study was a single institution, about 40 patients or so if you will. The primary endpoint of this study was objective response rate, and the bulk of the patients that were enrolled were papillary RCC. As you would imagine, around 60% of patients were papillary. It did include around 18% with chromophobe RCC. And when we break things down by IMDC risk category, about 44% of patients were favorable-risk disease. I think the percentage of patients who were favorable is higher than if we were to take an all-comer metastatic RCC patient population. But the objective response rate was pretty impressive at 49% with this combination. The CR rate was right around 5.7%. So, I think certainly a pretty solid signal of efficacy. But again, this is a single-arm phase 2 study. I think what's also really interesting, and I think we have to take subset analyses with a grain of salt if you will, but there were responses that were seen across all histologies. And the prior nivo-cabo study that I had shared with you had previously done a futility analysis for patients with chromophobe RCC, and that cohort actually closed down. And in this study, the response rate for the chromophobe patients, though it wasn't a lot of patients, 29 patients with chromophobia RCC, was around 27.6%, so I think these data are certainly informative. If you look at the waterfall plot, there were some deep responses that were certainly observed, and the bulk of patients had some degree of tumor shrinkage with very little patients that had primary PD. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: It's really provocative. So, are we getting to a point where we might start thinking about randomized trials in the non-clear cell population to try to establish the best standard of care? Dr. Rana McKay: Well, I think PAPMET2 is currently enrolling patients. That study is looking at the combination of cabozantinib with atezolizumab versus cabozantinib alone for frontline papillary. PAPMET1, which was led by Dr. Pal, I mean, these studies are really magnanimous because it takes all hands on deck to get these patients enrolled because they're few and far between. So, I definitely think we need to be moving in that direction. And I think we need to be moving away from lumping all non-clear cells into one bucket because I think what we're seeing is that, one, the biology of these tumors is very distinct and unique, and they don't all behave the same to any one given therapy. So, we really need to move away from just lumping all non-clear cells into one bucket and try to actually conduct studies for each specific subtype. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Understood and agree. Let's switch gears for a second and talk about prostate cancer. Can you talk about the data from Abstract 5004, the TALAPRO-2 study of talazoparib and enzalutamide compared to placebo and enzalutamide as a first-line treatment with metastatic CRPC that have HR homologous recombination repair gene alterations? Dr. Rana McKay: Absolutely. So the TALAPRO-2 study is one of three studies that have looked at the combination of PARP inhibitors with an ARSI in the frontline mCRPC setting. And this trial randomized patients to talazoparib and enzalutamide versus placebo enzalutamide. And again, this was first-line mCRPC. Patients were allowed to have received prior docetaxel or prior abiraterone in the castration-sensitive setting, and the primary endpoint was overall survival. At GU ASCO this year, we saw the top-line data from TALAPRO-2 first get presented. And what was actually presented at this meeting was the subset of patients that were HRR-mutated only. They had two cohorts: an all-comer cohort that was previously presented, and then now they're presenting the subset of the patients that were HRR-mutated. And I think what we've seen across the board is that the efficacy of PARP inhibitors kind of differs by underlying HRR mutations. When we look at the entire population of HRR-deficient patients, the study was positive, talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in an improvement in rPFS compared to enzalutamide placebo. The hazard ratio there was 0.45. And then when we break things down by selected gene groups, they did this subset analysis in patients with only BRCA1, only BRCA2, only PALB2, only CDK12, ATM CHEK2 if you will. The data are most robust for those patients with a BRCA1/2 alteration with hazard ratios of 0.17, 0.19. Again, this is for rPFS. But then, when we look at some of these other mutations, like ATM CHEK2, hazard ratios are higher, 0.76, 0.90. So, the effect size really kind of drops off for those non-BRCA1/2 altered HRR genes. But if we look across the different subgroup analyses, the interim OS data for the HR deficient, the time to PSA, time to cytotoxic chemo, all of that favored the combination versus placebo enzalutamide for patients that were HR deficient if we just lumped everybody all together. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: How does this fit into the general landscape around this question with selection versus not selecting for HRR alterations? Dr. Rana McKay: The data that were presented were for the selected patients, and I think that that's not where the controversy is. I think that the selected patients are the ones that seem to derive the most benefit. It's interesting because in looking at the data from PROpel and the final FDA label based off of the PROpel data, the label is only for BRCA1 and 2 patients and not for all comer HRR. It's even a more restricted label than olaporib monotherapy. So, I think it's going to be interesting. I don't know what the right answer is. I think it's going to be interesting to see how this is going to unfold for TALAPRO-2 and even for MAGNITUDE, if you will, like, how select is the selected population going to be. But at the present time, I think the label is what it is for olaparib plus abiraterone in those BRCA1/2 frontline. My hope is that this population is shrinking because everybody should be getting escalated in the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting, and we shouldn't be having people who are naive to an ARSI in frontline mCRPC. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Understood and agreed. Dr. Rana Mckay: Well, thank you so much, Jonathan, for joining me today. It's really been a pleasure kind of going through all of the compelling advances in GU cancers from ASCO. I think it was a really exciting meeting, and thanks for your time. Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: My pleasure. It's been great to talk to you today. Dr. Rana Mckay: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Rana McKay @DrRanaMcKay Jonathan Rosenberg @DrRosenbergMSK Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Rana McKay: Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelxis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg: Honoraria: UpToDate, Medscape, Peerview, Research To Practice, Clinical Care Options, Physician Education Resource, MJH Life Sciences, EMD Serono, Pfizer Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Merck, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, BioClin Therapeutics, QED Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Astellas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Merck Therapeutics, Immunomedics, Tyra Biosciences, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Hengrui Pharmamedical, Alligator BioScience, Imvax Research Funding (Institution): Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Bayer, AstraZeneca, QED Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property (Institution): Predictor of platinum sensitivity

Drs. Diwakar Davar and Jason Luke discuss KEYNOTE-716, KEYNOTE-942, RELATIVITY-047, and other key advances in melanoma, including the promise of mRNA vaccines in melanoma and potentially other cancers, as well exciting advances in neoadjuvant therapies across malignancies featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. I'm delighted to have my colleague and good friend Dr. Jason Luke on the podcast today to discuss some practice-changing studies and other advances in immunotherapy that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the director of the Cancer Immunotherapy Center, as well as the associate director of clinical research at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. You can find both of our disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Jason, there was a lot of exciting data in the immunotherapy space highlighted at the Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on the podcast to discuss some of this work. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for having me. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, the abstracts that we had selected have several key themes. We'll be covering some of the early advances in melanoma in the stage 2 and stage 2B/C space with KEYNOTE-716. I think this is a study that you know a little bit about seeing you are the presenting author and the principal investigator for the study, as well as the pivotal KEYNOTE-942 trial. And then going on to themes with using third-generation checkpoints, neoadjuvant therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer, and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. But we'll start with KEYNOTE-716. So, this is LBA9505, the study which evaluated pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in stage 2B and stage 2C melanoma patient population for which historically there was no real effective therapy other than remotely interferon. And these are the final results of the DMFS analysis from this phase 3 trial. So, Jason, what are your thoughts about this, and can you contextualize the results relative to the recent publication? Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks. I think the important point to level set on this was just a few years ago; this was a population of patients that we didn't treat in clinic. In fact, sometimes they weren't even referred to medical oncology for evaluation. And that was despite the fact that we knew from historical data that the risk of melanoma-specific survival, death from melanoma, was just as high for this population of patients as it was for the patients with stage 3 melanoma, where obviously adjuvant immunotherapy has been a standard for quite some time. And so we launched this clinical trial, KEYNOTE-716. It was a global, randomized phase 3 study of almost 1,000 patients, randomizing patients to either get pembrolizumab or placebo. Importantly, these patients being those with deep primary lesions, stage 2B and 2C with negative sentinel lymph node evaluation. People will recall that this study hit its primary endpoint on the first protocol-specified analysis at a year. And what we updated at ASCO this year was the final analysis of distant metastasis-free survival. Obviously, an important secondary endpoint because if patients eventually going to develop metastatic disease and pass away, it's the distant metastasis that we worry about. And what we saw in this trial with a landmark 36-month follow-up median of 39 months was that the benefit was increasing. In other words, the magnitude of the hazard ratio change was increasing over time as would be expected, such that at this analysis there was a 41% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis for patients treated with pembrolizumab versus placebo. And we saw a consistent benefit in the recurrence-free survival also out through that same period of time and importantly no change in the safety summary with of course the adverse event profile of pembrolizumab being what it is and well understood across oncology. So I think these are very important data because they really kind of set the stage for the field. It is now the case that at least discussing adjuvant therapy for patients with stage 2B and 2C is the standard of care; it should be offered to all the patients. Of course, it's always a risk-benefit about whether or not patients want to pursue adjuvant therapy versus consideration of treatment at the time of recurrence. But in my clinic at least, many patients do prefer to try to eliminate the possibility of recurrence and distant metastasis as much as possible. So I think these are very important data because they really level set the field for what to expect in this population of patients and then they also start to set the table for what's going to come after this. And that's going to be sort of the next step in our conversation here because the next generation of adjuvant studies in melanoma are now going to think about all of melanoma in the adjuvant setting as really one entity, starting from stage 2B going all the way through stage 4 resected. And that'll be relevant actually as we talk about the next abstract that will come in this discussion. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Just to underscore, positive RFS data, positive DMFS data, and now this therapy has currently got regulatory approval in this investigation and is approved in the United States and certainly in Europe and Australia. One interesting point that we will probably have to contend with, and some of the listeners may be thinking about, is overall survival. So the last adjuvant study that demonstrated overall survival benefit was actually ipilimumab, and increasingly, the Illuminati in melanoma do not believe that we will ever see OS benefit in this disease going forward, even though it has to be an endpoint in all registration phase 3 trials. So, Jason, what are your thoughts about whether or not we'll have a positive OS readout, and even if we don't, why this is still a very important advance in this disease at this time? Dr. Jason Luke: Your points are well taken. I think it's unclear, probably trending towards unlikely, that we would see an overall survival advantage in this trial given that we have not seen that in the stage 3 adjuvant studies. Now people can debate if, whether or not overall survival is the only meaningful endpoint for patients. I personally do not believe that's true. And to me, preventing recurrence has a value in and of itself, whether or not that's connected to overall survival. And part of the reason that I say that is that for an average patient, the median patient on a trial, of course, we can tell them treatment now, treatment later. It's a wash when you look at the overall study. And yet at the same time, for an individual person who's facing melanoma or cancer, generally they're not going to be the average patient; they're going to be one patient. And it's very possible they could end up with the type of recurrence that in fact is not highly treatable at that time. So I think that's really the nuance that goes into those adjuvant discussions. The regulatory endpoints have been recurrence in melanoma for a long time. And I think it's important that patients understand the pros and the cons of each. The complexity in adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant therapy is you don't necessarily know that you had to have it. You're only really going to know whether or not it didn't work if you recur later on. But to me and in my clinic, most patients are willing and interested to want to pursue those therapies in the perioperative setting to try to reduce the possibility of ever developing metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Excellent. So I think key advance [is] positive DMFS data to add to the earlier reported RFS data and truly practice-changing. So, moving on to the next study, LBA9503. This is the phase 2 trial of the Moderna vaccine. This is the trial that almost every medical oncologist knows intimately or has been called about by either the press or patients. So what is this study? This essentially is a phase 2 trial evaluating the personalized cancer vaccine PCV Moderna, made by Moderna, the mRNA vaccine, that is being studied in combination with anti-PD-1 pembrolizumab in the stage 3 BCD and stage 4 resected setting. And so there are really two very interesting results here because this is an update of the RFS data that was presented at AACR earlier this year, which was positive. What are your takes on the DMFS results, and maybe a quick blurb on how is this vaccine generated for those who may not be aware of this particular platform? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, certainly. So this individualized neo-antigen therapy, as we're now calling it, is a technology platform that allows us to develop an individualized treatment for each patient based on their own cancer. So taking the actual tumor specimen, whole exome sequencing is performed to try to identify changes in the DNA, and then through a reasonably complex bioinformatic pipeline, those mutations that are likely to generate proteins that can be bound within class 1 MHC molecules are then identified in the computer and then synthesized with an mRNA, very similar to the way that the COVID vaccines were made. And then that becomes the actual drug. So in the clinical trial, which was KEYNOTE-942, about 160 patients were randomized 2 to 1 to receive either pembrolizumab for a year as per standard adjuvant therapy but then with the addition of the individualized neoantigen therapy starting with dose 3 and throughout the rest of the year versus the control arm of pembrolizumab as the standard of care. As you mentioned, the recurrence-free survival were highly positive in this trial when it was first presented earlier this year, and at the updated ASCO we see the 18-month RFS in which the hazard ratio continues to be maintained. But I think most impressively is that distant metastasis-free survival, where we saw an even greater advantage for distant metastasis-free survival – hazard ratio here being 0.35. And so that's a huge advantage for distant metastasis-free survival in this population of patients. And very interestingly in the clinical trial, when you follow the Kaplan-Meier plots, what you see over time is that they overlap almost the entire first year. And it's really at about a year, basically after the vaccine has had time to kick in and these neoantigens have been identified, that we then start to see the separation of the curve, which looks very flat over time. And so I think this is a very, very exciting kind of technology platform and very exciting results because there was minimal increase in toxicity – just at the site of the local injection – for the addition of the individualized neoantigen therapy. And beyond that, hypothetically, this is not necessarily just a melanoma thing. So, of course, based on these phase 2 results, a phase 3 clinical trial called KEYNOTE-V940 is going to be launching later this year to compare pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab plus this V940 individualized neoantigen therapy. And we're very, very excited in the field to see what those results will look like because the concept here is you could really, really enhance adjuvant therapy with this kind of an approach. Meanwhile, we're just about to talk in a little bit about all the exciting things happening in the neoadjuvant space as well. And with no increase in toxicity, obviously, that looks really good. Suffice it to say that this technology is not specific to melanoma but rather could be applied almost to any cancer where we think about an adjuvant therapy platform. So I think the results are very, very exciting. It is a phase 2 study and it does have some caveats about not being the largest study and some other things, but you can't help but be impressed by the data that have been presented here so far. Dr. Diwakar Davar: One important plug, I guess, in addition to that is that you mentioned that there's data using the platform in other diseases. And one really exciting paper that came out recently was Dr. Vinod Balachandran's paper; for those who haven't read it, it's in Nature, and really in a very provocative proof of concept study, they studied the platform, the vaccine plus checkpoint inhibitor therapy plus chemotherapy in a highly adverse tumor patient population. So these are patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who had the vaccine generated from pancreatic cancer that was resected after Whipple surgery. And extraordinarily, out of the 16 patients who had immune responses, 8 of them did not have relapse at a median follow-up of almost a year and a half, which is really quite extraordinary given the lack of really any effective drug outside of chemotherapy in that setting. So, the point that you're making regarding the benefit of this therapy, suggesting that it could potentially be extended to not just melanoma, potentially other tumors such as highly immunogenic tumors, and potentially even nonimmunogenic tumors such as pancreatic cancer, really suggests that this is going to be a very exciting landscape. And potentially this area, adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant therapy, like we'll talk about, is potentially an area in which other drugs and potentially combinations will be developed. So next, we will be discussing 3 abstracts evaluating the theme of combinations, and these abstracts are 9501, 9502, and 4010. Abstract 9501 is an evaluation of the combination of fianlimab and cemiplimab anti-LAG-3 and anti-PD-1, respectively, in advanced melanoma, specifically focusing on the post-PD-1 experience in this disease by Dr. Omid Hamid. 9502 is the updated 2-year survival results from RELATIVITY-047, which evaluated nivolumab and relatlimab against nivolumab alone in frontline metastatic melanoma. And Abstract 4010 are the results from the MORPHEUS platform study, specifically looking at tiragolumab and atezolizumab in patients with advanced unresectable HCC. But focusing on 9501 and 9502, Jason, what do you make of the combination of fianlimab and cemiplimab post-PD-1 setting? Dr. Jason Luke: I think the data look very intriguing for this second combination of PD-1 and LAG-3 combination. When nivolumab and relatlimab, the approved LAG-3 inhibitor, kind of burst on the scene a couple of years ago, it was somewhat to the surprise of a lot of people in the community who had really come to think that while PD-1 and CTLA-4 were core molecules for therapeutics and cancer, that we just weren't ever really going to see something else come along in checkpoint blockade. And so nivo and rela got approved. We'll talk about them again in a second. But the data now coming forward for another PD-1 LAG-3 combination, again with cemiplimab PD-1 and fianlimab LAG-3, looks very, very promising. So in Abstract 9501, they updated a phase 1 expansion cohort, phase 2 cohort looking at patients across the various different settings. And whereas in the treatment naive frontline metastatic setting they had previously described about a 63% response rate, they saw a similar level of response rate in patients who had previously gotten adjuvant anti-PD-1, had a period of time off treatment, and then were treated again. And that was reassuring because it suggested that this is still an active combination even with prior exposure to IO in the past. Now, the thing that I found to be the most interesting about this combination was whereas with nivo and rela, at least from the RELATIVITY-047 phase 3 trial, it looked like there was less benefit in some of the high-risk population cohorts, at least for this combination in early testing for cemi and fian; like we talk about it sometimes, we saw there was a high response rate even in patients with liver metastases and some other high-risk features. And so I think this combination looks quite potent, and I'm very excited to see what the data will look like. I think it's very unlikely we'll ever actually get a randomized trial of two PD-1 LAG-3 combinations against each other. But suffice it to say that the data we've seen so far for fianlimab LAG-3 with cemiplimab PD-1 looks very intriguing. It certainly justifies the frontline metastatic phase 3 and the adjuvant phase 3 trials that are already in planning or ongoing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So one thing to consider is on the RELATIVITY-020 trial – the early trial that was led by Dr. Ascierto that really took a long time to read out – the response rate in patients with prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy was quite low. In fact, the data was quite surprising, as you'd mentioned that we had even seen this movement in the frontline setting because the response rate by BICR was only about 12%. So do you feel like the 2 LAG-3 inhibitors are fundamentally different? And if so, can you speculate as to why that might be? Again, with the caveat to the fact that these are very early data and we don't have enough information. And maybe we can also talk a little bit about the 2 pending trials that are ongoing in the advanced and adjuvant therapy landscapes perspective. Dr. Jason Luke: I think we don't have enough data yet to truly understand whether or not they're really different. The trials that have been run so far are so different that it's hard to compare things back and forth. You can notice that the dose, the milligram dosage of fianlimab in terms of anti-LAG-3 is quite a bit higher, like a log fold higher almost than with relatlimab. And so there's some question of whether or not just merely more drug-blocking LAG-3 might in fact be more efficacious relative to the dose that's approved for relatlimab in melanoma. But beyond that, I think the data hold up very well for this new combination, again noting all the caveats about cross-trial comparison to, say, it looks to be at least as potent, possibly more potent than the relatlimab combination. But again, I think probably we need to see the data from randomized trials and how that fits into the landscape when the trials actually read out because there's a lot of things going on in melanoma that are likely to change between now and then. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So just to draw people's attention, there are actually 2 ongoing pivotal phase 3 trials: fian plus cemi versus pembro in patients with advanced metastatic and locally advanced, previously untreated melanoma, as well as an adjuvant trial of the combination against pembrolizumab. Again, highly high-risk resected melanoma. These trials are ongoing. We don't have the results yet and we are looking forward to them. Now, 9502, a 2-year RELATIVITY-047 result presented by Dr. Hussein Tawbi. Dr. Jason Luke: So this is the study we were just alluding to before, the randomized phase 3 study of nivolumab versus nivolumab plus for relatlimab. To me, the most useful data sort of updating with this two-year survival follow-up is to show the maintenance of benefit between the 2 arms. And so, consistent with what we saw with nivolumab and ipilimumab, there seems to be a persistent delta between the arms for both progression-free and for overall survival out over that extended period of time, where we can see with that updated data now, at 2 years, that it's 52% of patients still alive on the relatlimab combo versus 42 with nivolumab. And it does seem like this is probably a higher-risk population of patients than participated in CheckMate-067. So it's a little bit difficult to compare the landmarks except to notice that that difference between the control and experimental groups is consistent over a long period of time and that there were no new safety signals either, and so that was also reassuring. To me, the most interesting nugget of data in the abstract, though, is to look at what happened to patients after they were on the first-line treatment. So one of the big questions in our field is really "If patients get nivolumab and relatlimab upfront, what should they get after that?" Should they then get nivo plus ipi, or vice versa? And I think we don't have an answer clearly to that question just yet. There was an important letter to the editor of the New England Journal now going on about a year ago by Alex Menzies and colleagues that suggested that the use of ipilimumab was attenuated, the utility of it, after a prior exposure to nivolumab plus relatlimab. They quoted a response rate on the order of only about 10% for patients who got an ipilimumab-containing regimen after initial LAG-3. In the data from Hussein Tawbi at ASCO, however, in a small number of patients, caveat, the response rate was more in sort of the low 20% range, 22% to 25%. And so that would be a much more meaningful and important sort of consideration. If we do have independent activity, then lining up sequential therapies and the toxicities associated with each will become increasingly important as we think about how to maximize these kinds of treatments for our patients, but important longer-term data to show that the benefit is holding up and it's safe, and some new insights into what to do after progression on one of these regimens. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, pivoting slightly to combinations, we are going to be discussing a combination of TIGIT plus checkpoints. So tiragolumab is the FC-active TIGIT inhibitor from Regeneron-Roche and this is currently in multiple pivotal phase 3 trials, several of which have been negative, including SKYSCRAPER-01 in non-small cell lung cancer and SKYSCRAPER-03 in small cell lung cancer. The MORPHEUS platform trial essentially is a platform study evaluating multiple different combinations, in this case in liver cancer. And so we have a very interesting Abstract 4010, which is giving us an early readout of the evaluation of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab along with bevacizumab in unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma giving us a result that is a little different from what we had seen from the prior negative results of TIGIT. So Jason, what do you make of these early results in the advanced HCC setting? Dr. Jason Luke: I think these are cautiously intriguing results to really highlight the point is the third checkpoint possibly being LAG-3, now a fourth checkpoint maybe with TIGIT, but with all the caveats that you talked about. In this study, the flow is that there's a continuously accruing control arm which in hepatocellular carcinoma is a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and then other arms are added where you add in a third agent. In this case, it's the anti-TIGIT tiragolumab. And in an intriguing fashion, the response rate to the triplet was 42.5% compared to the doublet which was only 11%. So that's a pretty big difference in this population. Now, it wasn't the largest study, only 58 patients, but it was a randomized clinical trial. And so I think those data really make people kind of open their eyes again. It's worth a little bit of a caveat here that HCC is an unusual cancer in that what is deemed to be unresectable and therefore amendable to systemic therapy is a moving target and that requires multidisciplinary evaluation of patients. And so I think a larger number of patients would really be needed to fully understand this. But certainly, a fourfold increase in the benefit or in terms of response rate looks quite intriguing. I think the other piece of this is to be just cautious a little bit was when the initial data in non-small cell lung cancer in the CITYSCAPE study came forward, and they looked roughly sort of like this: There was more than a doubling in the PFS and the response rate, which is what triggered all of those phase 3 studies. So to me, this is enough to continue to be very interested in TIGIT as a therapeutic target. And there are many phase 3 trials already ongoing. And so I think, I'm cautiously optimistic that some of those actually will be positive and we could see more movement around TIGIT becoming a standard of care agent. Dr. Diwakar Davar: To your point about TIGIT being an interesting target, recent data looking at the neoadjuvant landscape in melanoma from Merck, with Merck, also FC-active TIGIT and also some data from authors looking at that TIGIT also presented in this case at ASCO specifically from the ARC-7 study. So very interesting target. Several pivotal trials have been announced. Do you know of any trials that are ongoing in the adjuvant setting in other diseases? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, as you alluded to, the vibostolimab data in melanoma for TIGIT in the neoadjuvant setting was interesting. And in fact, that has been enough to trigger a global, randomized phase 3 adjuvant study of pembrolizumab and vibostolimab versus pembrolizumab in melanoma. And that sort of takes us back to the beginning of our discussion here, building on the KEYNOTE-716 data. So, yes, TIGIT will be moving forward in the adjuvant space in melanoma and obviously at a static setting for several different tumor types with a PD-1 or PD-L1 backbone. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So now pivoting towards neoadjuvant therapy and non-small cell lung cancer. The standard of care in this setting was established by the CheckMate-816 trial that essentially established nivolumab plus chemotherapy in the setting of resectable non-small cell lung carcinoma path. Response rate in this setting is approximately 21%. And we have several studies that are essentially looking at novel combinations or in this case, different PD-1 inhibitors in this setting. So Abstract 8500 essentially looked at nivolumab plus relatlimab from a NEOpredict-Lung trial. Jason, do you want to tell us a little bit about this? Dr. Jason Luke: Yes, I think this is a very interesting study and that this is sort of our first peek at targeting LAG-3 in the context of lung cancer. So obviously we talked about LAG-3 for melanoma. Although the audience is probably aware that there have been neoadjuvant data for LAG-3 with relatlimab in melanoma that substantiated the phase 3 data for the metastatic setting. So one of the questions as we start to apply the LAG-3 in other diseases would be, "Do we see it hold up in both metastatic disease and in the neoadjuvant space?" But in this study, while there were no changes in the safety profile; it didn't impact on whether or not patients could have surgery. There really didn't look to be a big difference in this study between nivolumab and nivolumab plus relatlimab, with the major pathologic response as you alluded to right around 30% for both arms. Now, it wasn't really the biggest study, but that's certainly quite a bit in contrast with what we've seen in melanoma, where with a PD-1 inhibitor you get again 25%-30%, but with adding on LAG-3, that pushes you up closer to 60%. So I think these were very interesting data that probably put a little bit of an eyebrow raise to say, "Well, let's see what happens in the metastatic setting in lung cancer with the addition of relatlimab LAG-3 on top of a PD-1." I think it might not be quite so straightforward as what we saw in melanoma, but we'll look forward to those results because those phase 3 trials in metastatic lung cancer should be maturing sometime in the next year or two. Dr. Diwakar Davar: The theme of neoadjuvant therapy non-small lung cancer, LBA100, which has again previously been discussed in an episode of this podcast by Dr. Jack West and Dr. Velcheti is KEYNOTE-671. And this is a study essentially that looked at pembrolizumab or placebo with platinum-based chemotherapy doublet and followed by resection. So again, a direct parallel to CheckMate-816. What do you make of the results that were reported by our colleagues in this setting, Jason? Dr. Jason Luke: So not to rehash this, because our colleagues in the lung cancer group have already discussed this at length and obviously they're experts in that disease, but we'll just note that there was a threefold increase in major pathologic response, which turned into a major advantage for event-free survival. And so I think this is at least the third PD-1, PD-L1 combination regimen for neoadjuvant lung cancer that looks very, very promising. It certainly, to me, seems like neoadjuvant consideration really should be the standard of care already moving forward. To me, what the big question that is left with is "Do we still need the adjuvant component after we give the neoadjuvant?" So, some of the trials are including neoadjuvant and adjuvant, some of them are only neoadjuvant. And I think that's going to be a really important question as we move into the future, both in terms of what is that contribution of the adjuvant component, and then again, going back to earlier in our discussion here, if there could be a major advantage to adding individualized neoantigen therapy, maybe it is important to have both. But I think that's one of the big questions we have to get teased out by the field over the next couple of years. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And finally pivoting towards cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We have 2 abstracts discussing perioperative therapy. So cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is a high-TMB tumor. The median tumor mutation burden in this disease is threefold that of melanoma. This is a disease in which checkpoint inhibitor therapy is approved as a single agent both with pembrolizumab and cemiplimab on the basis of nonrandomized phase 2 trials. And increasingly, there has been early development in the perioperative setting. The first data in this space came from our colleague Dr. Gross at MD Anderson, who reported in a small, nonrandomized phase 2 trial of 20 patients, a path CR rate with two cycles of cemiplimab at approximately 50%. A larger multi-institutional phase 2 trial demonstrated that a longer duration of perioperative therapy of four cycles or 3 months of cemiplimab did not particularly improve the path response rates. The response rates were similar at approximately 50% as well. And what we have right now are 2 other trials. The first is the MATISSE trial, Abstract 9507 ,that evaluated nivolumab or nivolumab plus epilimumab in this disease. And the other one was the NEO-CESQ trial, or Abstract 9576, that evaluated neoadjuvant plus adjuvant therapy that's cemiplimab in the high-risk patient population. So we're starting with 9507. Jason, what do you make of the ipi and ipi-nivo data reported in this setting? Dr. Jason Luke: So I think this is a really interesting study because I think part of the intent is the clinical aspect of how you manage patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. For those that don't do cutaneous oncology, many of these patients have the development of lesions, which can be actually quite difficult to resect in a way that's not otherwise mutilating or cosmetically quite problematic. And that was part of the impetus for this trial where, again, they looked at either monotherapy PD-1 or a PD-1 plus CTLA-4, and they saw great success. As was predicted based on the other data that you alluded to, response rates are more than 50% near 60%, with actually a substantial number of patients on the trial actually refusing to have surgery after they received their neoadjuvant therapy because they were so certain that they had had a good outcome. So I think these data are quite reassuring in the context of all of this emerging data around cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We'll talk about this NEO-CESQ trial in just a second, but I think it really is emerging to be the standard of care very soon for the use of perioperative PD-1 for cutaneous squamous cell. Dr. Diwakar Davar: What do you feel about the dose and schedule of checkpoint inhibitor therapy used here? So the dose of ipilimumab used was ipi-1 and not ipi-3, and they waited 4 weeks. So when patients only got two cycles of Q2 weekly nivo, and one cycle of ipilimumab, do you think the responses would have been deeper if they'd waited longer? Dr. Jason Luke: I think it is possible that they might have been deeper, although I'm not totally sure about that. One of the other abstracts we're not directly mentioning here was a study in Merkel cell carcinoma which suggested that in fact, adding ipi and that also highly immuno-oncology-responsive tumor type did not add to the response rate. So I'm not totally sure about that. I think rather what would be most interesting here is sort of the sort of next generation of biomarker work. As part of their presentation, the MATISSE trial team showed gene expression profiling that really strongly identified which patients were going to do well on the trial. And I think that's probably eventually going to be how we need to think about this. There are patients in the neoadjuvant setting who are going to do really well with anti-PD-1 alone. And then for those who aren't, that's where we probably really need to think about do we need combos, how long to give the treatment, etc. And I think we're really only on the cusp in the beginning of this, which is exciting as we think about moving into the future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Certainly, many combinations are being evaluated in this space and we are very excited for the data that it's about to hopefully come in the next couple of months to years. So the NEO-CESQ – it's quite a puzzle as to how to pronounce this acronym – and this evaluated cemiplimab in the high-risk setting. So it's worthwhile noting that Dr. Gross's first trial looked at high-risk stage 2, 3, and 4 disease. So the context of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma that's node-positive disease and distant metastatic disease that is in one location or patients with node-positive disease invention. And his multi-institutional cemiplimab trial of four cycles evaluated included patients with stage 2, 3, and 4 disease. So here in a study just in stage 3 and 4 diseases, Dr. Ascierto reported the results of 2 cycles of cemiplimab and importantly, these patients had both the neoadjuvant and the adjuvant portion of cemiplimab. So, Jason, you mentioned earlier that one of the key aspects that we start thinking about neoadjuvant therapy is exactly how much do you need. Do you need both the pre-surgical therapy and the post-surgical therapy? Is the presurgical therapy enough? After all, neoadjuvant response equals cure. How much benefit are you getting from post-surgical portions? So what do you make of the results that they've seen here and what is the impact? How do you think we'll be disentangling the impact of the neoadjuvant and the adjuvant portion of the immunotherapy upon response and survival? Dr. Jason Luke: So just to leverage those comments, I think these data are reassuring because in this higher-risk group of patients, they saw excellent outcomes very similar to what Gross et al had previously reported. So that's good. To your question about how we are going to disentangle this adjuvant versus non-adjuvant question, there's a trial in melanoma called the NADINA trial which is ongoing now in which the use of the adjuvant therapy is actually risk-adapted. So after patients have an initial neoadjuvant treatment they're evaluated, and if they have had a pathologic complete response, they're actually going to stop that treatment and they're not going to give the neoadjuvant therapy. And so I think obviously it's a slightly different disease, but those kinds of data, I think, will be very meaningful to help us sort this out. And I'm not sure whether or not in cutaneous squamous we would need a different trial than in melanoma, although I think in a different tumor, maybe like, say, lung cancer, you probably would need a dedicated study to try to look at that because I think just the responsiveness to checkpoint blockade is going to vary quite a bit once you get outside of cutaneous oncology. But to summarize, reassuring that a similar pathologic response rate, and I think this question of adjuvant or nonadjuvant, I think that's the next question we've got to answer in the field. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We have now come to the end of our back-and-forth discussion on these very, very exciting abstracts. So Jason, thank you for highlighting these advances and for engaging in a robust discussion. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for having me. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners today for taking the time to listen to this podcast. You will find the links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear in the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Diwakar Davar @diwakardavar Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Diwakar Davar: Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical , Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Drs. John Sweetenham and Marc Braunstein discuss advances in hematologic malignancies featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the potentially practice-changing SWOG-S1826 study in Hodgkin lymphoma, the promise of bispecific antibodies in B-cell malignancies, and a novel approach to deliver vital anti-myeloma medications that could improve patient quality of life and alleviate barriers to care. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm John Sweetenham, the associate director for cancer network clinical affairs at UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. The 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting featured some exciting new data on hematologic malignancies. I'm delighted to have Dr. Marc Braunstein return to the podcast to discuss some of these potentially practice-changing studies and new approaches in the heme space. Dr. Braunstein is a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Marc, it's great to have you back on the podcast, and thanks for being here again. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Thank you, John. It's great to be back. Dr. John Sweetenham: Marc, we already mentioned that there are some potentially practice-changing studies that were reported at ASCO this year. And among those, LBA4, which was presented in the Plenary Session, was a study which explored the treatment of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. This was the Southwest Oncology Group study S1826. Could you give us your insights on this? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Sure, happy to discuss S1826. So as background, you know, the ECHELON-1 study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2022 showed a 40% decrease in the risk of death at six years follow-up by adding brentuximab to AVD compared to bleomycin AVD. And that was in high risk or advanced-stage patients and that led to adoption of brentuximab for upfront use in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in advanced stage. Also of note, immune checkpoint inhibitors such as pembrolizumab or nivolumab do have activity in the relapse setting. The SWOG S1826 study was a randomized control study looking at the use of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab plus AVD versus brentuximab AVD in patients with advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma who are at least twelve years of age. And the primary endpoint in the study was progression-free survival. It was a large study which enrolled 976 patients and randomized them one to one to either nivo AVD or brentuximab AVD. The median age in the study was 27 and the median follow-up was 12 months. And what the study found, which could be practice-changing, was that the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was superior in the nivolumab arm with a hazard ratio of 0.8 and a one-year PFS of 94% versus 86%, favoring the nivolumab arm. And while there were side effects associated with the class of medications, for example, hypo or hyperthyroidism was more frequent in the nivolumab group, whereas peripheral neuropathy was higher in the brentuximab group, I think that these results are particularly encouraging for how we can continue to improve outcomes for patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. And this may be practice-changing in terms of whether we use upfront immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with our standard chemotherapy backbone. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There are a couple of things that occur to me. One in particular which is unique about this study, and the fact that it was for patients who are 12 years and older in many respects represents a first because I can't think of another large, randomized study of this type which has attempted to align pediatric and adult care of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. So, I think it's something of a landmark in that regard. I don't know if you'd agree with that. Dr. Marc Braunstein: I agree, especially with the range of ages from 12 to 83. It's a pretty broad population by age, but I agree it does kind of reconcile those two groups in a disease that has a bimodal presentation and clearly shows that immune checkpoint inhibitors are both potent and well tolerated in different age groups. Dr. John Sweetenham: The other question that I have about this study is we haven't seen so far in this study an overall survival benefit to the nivo arm, which is maybe not surprising, but in terms of the practice-changing potential of this study, do you think that will matter? Dr. Marc Braunstein: I think that's an excellent question, John. Initially, the ECHELON-1 study only showed progression-free survival, and then the update did show overall survival. And so if we take the lead from that study, we expect to see an overall survival benefit in the SWOG study as well with nivolumab, but it remains to be seen. But I think that the data presented thus far at the Plenary Session is compelling enough to consider using nivolumab upfront. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I absolutely agree. And then I guess the other question that we're going to have to wait probably several years to know is what happens in terms of relapse? So, for the minority of these patients who do relapse, how salvageable, if that's the right word, are they going to be with a second- or third-line regimen? But I think that's clearly something for the future, and it's a very interesting, exciting outcome from this study. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's move on. Marc, again, we're still in the lymphoma world here, but looking at high-risk follicular lymphoma. And this was Abstract 7506, looking at epcoritamab plus the R2 regimen in patients with follicular lymphoma. Could you walk us through this one? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yeah, absolutely. Bispecific T-cell engaging antibodies are showing impressive efficacy in relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Epcoritamab is a bispecific antibody that binds to CD3 on T-cells and CD20 B-cells. And this antibody is currently approved for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients after two or more prior lines of treatment. In this study presented by Merryman and colleagues, they explored the addition of epcoritamab to standard lenalidomide-rituximab. In 109 patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had at least one prior therapy, and, of note, the study was enriched for high-risk patients for progression, including those who had progression of disease within 24 months of their initial treatment and those patients who had been refractory to prior anti-CD20 treatment. This study enrolled 109 patients with relapsed refractory follicular lymphoma. The median age was 65 and 56% of patients had FLIPI scores on the higher end of the spectrum from three to five, and 61% had stage 4 disease. Also of note, 38% of patients had progression of disease within 24 months of their prior treatment. So at a median follow-up of 8.8 months, the overall response rate was impressive at 97%, and 82% of patients were still on treatment at that time. Now, of course, with this mechanism of action of bispecific antibodies, there is a risk of both cytokine release syndrome and immune-related neurotoxicity. The rates of CRS were primarily low grade, there were only 2% grade 3, and of note, most occurred after the first dose. And in terms of ICANS or neurological toxicity, there were no grade 3 adverse events, and those occurred in only two patients. Finally, the estimated six months progression-free survival was 93%. So, if we cross-compare these results historically to the R-squared regimen, which was published to be about 80%, just cross comparing, so it's not exactly the same study, this clearly shows high activity on par or better with R-squared alone. Although this study was not a randomized study, I think the addition of epcoritamab certainly shows high overall response rates and we'll need randomized data to confirm the efficacy, but it's definitely encouraging in high-risk follicular lymphoma patients. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. I agree. I think these data are really enticing, in as much as the response rates are so high, but of course, it is follicular lymphoma, so we'll have to wait a while. But the thing that it does make me reflect on is that bispecific antibodies really are turning out to be remarkably effective in a range of B cell malignancies, so, it's very interesting to continue to watch this space. I'm going to change gears now and talk about something completely different for a moment. And this was Abstract 1536. I think that many of us are in a position where we're now looking at how we deliver our clinical services, and particularly inpatient services, to patients with hematologic malignancy. And this study addressed that very specifically. Can I have your thoughts on that? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Sure. In the context of how our therapies are improving, our approaches to how we manage patients clinically is changing too, in many ways for the better. So, various models exist for, you know, which practitioners manage oncology patients who happen to be admitted to the hospital. This abstract, which was performed by authors at a large medical center in New York, describes the use of a dedicated hematologic malignancy hospitalist for managing medicine-related issues. And the authors did comparisons of that service to a service primarily managed by oncologists. The authors compared things such as length of stay, whether the patients were discharged by noon, which is a hospital metric that's used for facilitating turnover of patients and space availability, as well as 30-day readmission rates among patients cared for by an oncology attending versus this heme malignancy hospitalist between July of 2021 and July 2022. The outcomes showed that admissions to the heme malignancy hospitalists were, although less because that service was primarily for patients who required medicine-related issues as opposed to primarily oncologic issues, there were 95 admissions to that service versus 669 to the oncology service. There was a significantly shorter length of stay on the heme malignancies hospitalist service by about 2 to 5 days compared to the oncology hospitalist service. The rates of patients who were discharged by noon or the length of stay were similar between the two groups. So, while this study is confounded by differences in acuity of disease between the services, using a dedicated heme malignancy hospitalist has many benefits, not just to offload the oncology-managed service, which may have a higher level of acuity, but also allow for a deviation of care for medicine-specific issues, to a hospitalist that's specifically trained in managing patients with hematologic malignancies and then dedicating the oncology specialty service to those who need acute oncologic care, such as those with leukemia or other high acuity diseases. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. I think it is really interesting to see some outcome data for this model of care. A number of centers I know are looking at an APP-led inpatient service for these types of patients, too, so it's going to be very interesting to see how further studies of these kinds of approaches continue to develop. And on a related theme of changes in patterns of care, Abstract TPS1609 looked at home infusion and of course, this is something that really started to attract a lot more attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. But I wonder if you could walk us through some of the details of this poster. Dr. Marc Braunstein: This study was presented as a poster proposing a prospective study looking at home infusion of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab, which has a vital role in managing patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed multiple myeloma. And monoclonal antibodies have really revolutionized the care of patients with multiple myeloma, but often their infusion schedule is weekly or biweekly, and it does require relatively frequent visits to an infusion center. So, this single-arm, open-label study is going to examine whether we can provide home administration of subcutaneous daratumumab and assess whether it improves quality of life and assess its safety. So, in this study, a visiting nurse will come and deliver the medication after patients take their pre-medications at home prior to the arrival of the infusion nurse. And then the investigators will provide quality of life questionnaires prior to and after the infusions and at the end of the study, and they'll be looking at any barriers to adherence, any barriers to the logistics of this home infusion arrangement. And I think that this has a lot of potential not just to improve quality of life, but also to facilitate care to patients who may be frail, who may not have good caregiver support, who may have barriers in traveling to an infusion center or perhaps in places that are more resource-deprived and don't have local infusion centers. This could be a potential approach to delivering vital anti-myeloma medications at home, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. I think a lot of us still have anxieties about the safety of this approach, but I think there are increasing data to suggest that home infusion is not only safe but also, as you mentioned, is a big enhancer of the quality of life of these patients. And so, very interesting to see how this plays out in prospective studies. So, to close out, I wonder if you could walk us through Abstract 7072, a poster looking at the issue of clonal hematopoiesis. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Clonal hematopoiesis, which is a phenomenon in which the blood cells acquire somatic mutation, is associated with both cardiovascular disease adverse outcomes as well as hematologic malignancy. It's been shown to be a precursor for diseases such as leukemia. So, this relatively small study from MD Anderson Cancer Center examined clonal hematopoiesis in 78 patients with malignancies, 70% of which had a history of cancer, and the authors described outcomes associated with clonal hematopoiesis. So, again, 78 patients were examined, and 76% of them had a history of malignancy, and 73% had other comorbidities. And the authors demonstrated clonal hematopoiesis by the finding of specific mutations in the blood associated with clonal hematopoiesis. The authors essentially looked at outcomes such as mortality. They noted that only 20% of the patients developed a myeloid neoplasm, and that's relevant because, again, clonal hematopoiesis is a precursor for myeloid neoplasms. They also noted that most patients had died from a primary malignancy rather than a myeloid neoplasm, which is not too surprising considering that most patients with clonal hematopoiesis will not develop a hematologic malignancy, but it is a marker for the potential transformation. And so, I think the authors conclude that clonal hematopoiesis is important for monitoring patients who are at risk for potential myeloid transformation and hematologic malignancy, but it's not necessarily the case that patients who have a background of malignancy will often develop a myeloid malignancy. I think there are many implications of clonal hematopoiesis for cancer in general in terms of the risk of secondary malignancies in those treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, in terms of how we monitor patients who actually more and more are going to have this detected as we use more next-generation sequencing and liquid biopsies. So, I look forward to future studies that are exploring how to actually prospectively assess clonal hematopoiesis and use it for clinical stratification for things like adjuvant chemotherapy or monitoring for risks of hematologic malignancy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. I agree. Very important for the future, especially as we gain more and more sequencing data. So, Marc, in conclusion, I want to thank you very much for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been great to talk with you again. Dr. Marc Braunstein: My pleasure. Happy to be back, and I look forward to a future podcast session. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Marc Braunstein @docbraunstein Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Marc Braunstein: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Research Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Jack West discuss ADAURA, KEYNOTE-671, and KEYNOTE-789 trials in NSCLC and the first pivotal study of sunvozertinib for the treatment of NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. My guest today is Dr. Jack West, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor in medical oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing studies and other key advances in lung cancer that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Jack, there was a lot of exciting new data that emerged from the ASCO Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on our podcast today to talk about all the key updates in lung cancer. Dr. Jack West: Absolutely. Thanks so much. It's always a high-energy meeting, and there was a lot to talk about in the lung cancer sessions this year for sure. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's begin with LBA3, the ADAURA trial. This was presented in the Plenary Session at ASCO; we've heard previously the DFS updates from previous meetings, and overall survival updates were presented at the ASCO 2023 Annual Meeting. So, Jack, what was the highlight of the presentation for you? And could you put things in context for us? We have known about the DFS data for a while now. What gets you so excited about this study? Dr. Jack West: Well, we've actually been focused on this trial for literally 3 years, since Dr. Herbst presented it at another Plenary presentation back in the ASCO Meeting in 2020 when we saw tremendous differences in the DFS data. Again, this was a trial of patients with resected stage 1b to 3a EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Nearly 700 patients were randomized to after-surgery, and for many, but not all, patients undergoing chemotherapy, it wasn't mandated. But after that, they were randomized to get adjuvant, placebo, or osimertinib for up to 3 years. And we saw huge differences in the disease-free survival from the first presentation, with a hazard ratio in the range of 0.2. We have notably seen significant improvements in disease-free survival before with other EGFR TKIs for this population after surgery, but nothing in this range. And it's also notable that in the various other trials of other EGFR inhibitors in the postoperative setting, we've seen a DFS benefit, but that didn't translate to an improvement in overall survival. So, seeing a press release that this was associated with a significant and, in fact, highly significant by report, improvement in overall survival, as well as DFS, was really notable. What's also, I think, particularly important as a focus of this is that in the later presentations of this work, with longer follow-up last year, we saw that the DFS curves showed a drop in the DFS starting after these patients had completed 3 years of treatment. So, really suggesting that at least some, if not many or most of these patients who had been on adjuvant osimertinib were subject to a higher risk of relapse once they completed that. So, again, making the endpoint of overall survival particularly important. It's always been to me the endpoint we should care about most in a curative setting. Although the DFS was the primary endpoint of the study and it was powered and built around specifically focusing on the DFS difference, so overall survival was reassuring, I think, when we actually saw it, but not what the trial was centered around. And what we saw was a very dramatic improvement in overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.49. That was essentially the same for the patients with stage 2 to 3a disease, as well as the broader population with stage 1b to 3a disease. When we look at the absolute numbers for overall survival at 5 years, there was an improvement from 73% to 85% with osimertinib, and in the population from 1b to 3a, an improvement from 78% to 88%. So, many things to comment on here. Really remarkable to see an 88% 5-year survival in the osimertinib arm that includes patients with stage 3a disease. I would say that there's still some controversy, some questions about this, and it really centers around a few things. One is, like many global trials, this one enrolled patients from many places that did not have the same standard of care staging that we follow in the U.S. There wasn't any specification or mandate for PET scans, which would be very routine in the U.S. And brain MRIs were not mandated either. And so there were almost certainly some patients with more advanced disease that was not detected that would be a big advantage for the osimertinib arm, but really not characterized. And also, the crossover was made possible to osimertinib starting in April of 2020, but only 38.5% of the patients on the control arm actually received osimertinib at the time of relapse. And even though many of the other patients who had a relapse did get another EGFR inhibitor, I don't think there's much question that osimertinib is the preferred and optimal EGFR TKI. And so there were a couple of important factors kind of going for this trial. One is the long, long, long duration of treatment at 3 years, though with a drop-off, I think some questions about whether even that is enough, and we might be tempted to treat beyond 3 years. And then how much did the inability of most of the patients on the control arm to get osimertinib later contribute? My personal view is that it is a troubling aspect of this trial. But also so many other trials that they're run globally in places where we arguably perpetuate these disparities by running these trials that, in part, magnify the differences between the two arms because some patients just will not have access to what is our best standard of care in the U.S., or many other parts of the world, but weren't necessarily available to many of the patients on the control arm where it was conducted. So, I think that's always a concern. It's definitely an issue of this trial, but I would not say it's unique to this one. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Very good points, Jack, and I completely agree with you. I think those certainly are concerns. But on the other hand, this is a pragmatic trial and that's the real-world scenario in terms of access issues, in terms of osimertinib globally, correct, in the stage 4 setting, even though we all agree that osimertinib is the best option for patients with metastatic EGFR-mutated lung cancer, I think that's obviously a reflection of global access issues and global disparities and changes in standard of care in terms of workup as well. So, it's somewhat of a pragmatic trial in some ways and I completely agree with you, I think that may have potentially had some impact on the overall survival. Dr. Jack West: Well, I would clarify that I don't think that this really highly significant difference in overall survival is undermined completely by this. There's no question in my mind that with the huge difference in disease-free survival that we'd already seen for 3 years, it has become our standard of care really for this population at least to offer it, if not to strongly recommend it. But I would say that most of us have been quite inclined to recommend it, perhaps with caveats. And I would say that this overall survival benefit mostly corroborates that, even if there are some concerns about how these trials are done, but it's still an impressive difference that would lead me to only cement my practice of pursuing it in this setting. I just would love to re-examine how we conduct these trials and potentially potentiate disparities that exist and don't want to have our trials be more positive by capitalizing on that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's move on to the next abstract, LBA100; this is the KEYNOTE-671 trial. This was featured during the meeting's Clinical Science Symposium. This is a study of pembrolizumab or placebo plus platinum doublet followed by surgical resection and pembrolizumab or placebo for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Jack, what was the key message from this trial, and do you consider this as practice-changing? Dr. Jack West: This has been an area where we've seen really dramatic evolution in our practice patterns, specifically, at least for patients who don't have a tumor harboring an EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement. I would say that there has been some momentum toward preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, specifically based on the CheckMate-816 trial that gave chemo with nivolumab versus placebo and showed a significant improvement in the pathologic complete response rate at surgery as well as event-free survival. The overall survival looks encouraging but is still early and hasn't met the threshold for statistical significance, and that's FDA-approved. But we still question whether there's a value to doing anything in the postoperative setting. And the CheckMate-816 trial did not include that as part of the trial. It allowed postoperative management at the judgment of the treating physician but didn't really prescribe anything. We now have the results of several trials in the last few months that have added a component in the postoperative setting in addition to three or four cycles of preoperative chemoimmunotherapy. And the first one that gave us a glimpse was the AEGEAN trial presented by Dr. John Heymach at AACR in April of this year that looked at chemo and durvalumab versus chemo placebo and then followed by a year of durvalumab versus placebo after surgery. That showed results in terms of major pathologic response and event-free survival that are significantly better with immunotherapy. Not clearly superior to what we would see with CheckMate-816. And then even more recently, we saw a monthly Plenary presentation from ASCO with the Neotorch trial presented by Dr. Shun Lu of China. This was a Chinese trial only that presented results just for patients with stage 3 disease thus far. This included patients with stage 2 or stage 3, but what we saw is stage 3 results and that looked at chemo with toripalimab for 3 cycles versus placebo and then a year of checkpoint inhibitor or placebo. This also shows a benefit with the addition of immunotherapy, but not clear if that's better than what we can already achieve with neoadjuvant alone with the Checkmate-816 approach. And then what we have now is a presentation and simultaneous publication by Dr. Heather Wakelee of KEYNOTE-671. And this is really almost the exact same trial design as AEGEAN. It's 4 cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy and it is for patients with stage 2 to 3a disease. And this gave 4 cycles of chemotherapy with placebo or pembrolizumab. And then after surgery, patients would go on in the investigation arm to a year of pembrolizumab or to the additional year with placebo. And this shows a significant improvement in event-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. It's most prominent in patients with high PD-L1, where the hazard ratio is 0.42. But there's still a benefit in patients with PD-L1 less than 1%, where it's 0.77. And there was a trend toward better overall survival here, hazard ratio of 0.73. It does not reach statistical significance at this early point. It's still preliminary but certainly looks encouraging. And there are also significant improvements in major pathologic response, where less than 10%, about a threefold difference from 30.2% with immunotherapy compared to 11% with placebo. And a very impressive improvement in pCR rate, which is 18.1% with the chemo and pembro compared to 4% with chemotherapy alone. Not surprisingly, when we look at event-free survival, it's best in the patients who achieve a pathologic complete response, but pembrolizumab improved outcomes in event-free survival even for those who didn't achieve a pCR. The real question I would say is does the addition of a year of checkpoint inhibitor therapy postoperatively add to what we already achieve with those first three cycles with chemo-neo or 4 cycles with maybe one of these other options? And these trials can't answer that question because they just include them as a package deal. There's no way to tease apart right now the component of what incremental benefits you get from that. And it certainly adds a year of time coming in for every 3-week infusions. Even if you space that out, it's still a year of coming in and getting infusions, potential cumulative immune-related toxicities, and a lot of cost versus potentially being done. And I think that really is the big question at this point of do you want to recommend something when we don't really have a precedent for much benefit beyond the first 4 cycles? Perhaps. Certainly, we give maintenance pemetrexed and other immunotherapies and there can be benefit there. So, I wouldn't say you necessarily cap that. But if there is resistant disease after the first 4 cycles you've already given 3 cycles, how much benefit is there? How likely is it that you're going to eradicate the last cancer cells with more? That said, I think many patients, and oncologists myself perhaps included, are going to be inclined to err on the side of possibly over-treating, but at least trying to give everything that is part of a widely studied, FDA-approved approach once these options become available. I just think it's going to end up as a careful discussion with each patient about whether they'd prefer to just say they're done or do that extra year and really feel that even if it comes back, they've done everything that made sense to try. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Very good points, Jack. So let's move on to another abstract, which is the LBA9000. This is the KEYNOTE-789 trial. In my opinion, this is the most important negative phase 3 trial in lung cancer in a while. This is a trial looking at pemetrexed platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients who have EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. So, what are your key takeaways, Jack? Dr. Jack West: Well, I would say essentially we've been waiting to figure out what is the best treatment approach for patients with acquired resistance after osimertinib. And most of the patients had received osimertinib for their EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell. This is essentially KEYNOTE-189 being run in the EGFR mutation-positive patients after they've exhausted at least the major benefit of EGFR TKI therapy. What we saw was a hazard ratio for progression-free survival of 0.8. It didn't quite make it across the threshold for efficacy, a significant difference. And so it missed that efficacy boundary. And overall survival, the hazard ratio is 0.84, also missing the efficacy boundary. When you look at the actual curves, they show modest separation, nothing eye-popping, certainly compared to some of the other trials we're talking about. But I wouldn't say they show no benefit. And I think that's, to me, why there's really still a role for a nuanced thought process and maybe some discussion about how negative this is. This is not, in my mind, stone-cold negative with no patients benefiting from immunotherapy. This is a trial that really suggests that there's a subset of patients who are benefiting from immunotherapy. And we've also seen going back to subset analysis of the IMpower150 trial and also the ORIENT-31 trial with sintilimab and a bevacizumab biosimilar, another anti-VEGF inhibitor. These trials both really indicated a benefit in this population after EGFR TKI therapy of immunotherapy combined with VEGF. I think there could still be a value in there. I don't want to be a Pollyanna or too open-minded, but I think that there was at least a suggestion that this could still be a fruitful avenue. I think that this is still something we should do additional studies on that could bear fruit. I wouldn't close the door and categorically say this is just never going to translate to any benefit for any of these patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: The key thing, though, is, like in EGFR mutant patients I think in the previous studies as well, the response rates with single-agent PD-1 have been very minimal. And I think one of the things that's actually very important to highlight is in the operative setting, the early-stage setting, unfortunately, some of the trials with immunotherapy have included patients with an EGFR mutation. And now we have a treatment option for those patients within the adjuvant setting, especially osimertinib. We just heard from the ADAURA trial, which has a clear significant overall survival benefit. So I think it's really important to test for EGFR mutation in all stages. And if somebody with the early stage has an EGFR mutation, adjuvant immunotherapy, or perioperative immunotherapy may not be the best option for those patients. Dr. Jack West: Right. I agree with that, although it is interesting that the KEYNOTE-671 trial did have some small population of patients with an EGFR mutation, and in that subset analysis, they seem to benefit from the pembrolizumab. I would not say that we should divert from ADAURA, but I'm just not as sure that our previous statement and mindset that immunotherapy just categorically doesn't work for patients with driver mutations is that simple. First of all, there is some heterogeneity about which driver mutation, and the ALK-positive patients seem to really get no benefit. But I think there's still some questions about immunotherapy for EGFR. Certainly, patients with KRAS or BRAF V600E seem to benefit like the broader range of patients. And I would also say maybe it's different whether you're giving immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus as monotherapy. So that's why I'm just not that sure we really can characterize this that well yet. The one additional point I would make about KEYNOTE-789 and the potential role of immunotherapy is that some experts in thoracic oncology and general oncologists alike may prefer to introduce chemotherapy at a time of progression, but keep the osimertinib going, maybe particularly for patients with brain metastases, whether current or a history of them, where we really feel that the osimertinib adds a critical component to CNS control. We don't want to ever give osimertinib or probably other EGFR TKIs concurrently with immunotherapy. So that's just a factor that we'd really want to consider when we're prioritizing where to fit in immunotherapy, if at all. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Jack. And let's move on to the next abstract, Abstract 9002. This is a pivotal study of results from the sunvozertinib, which is an EGFR exon 20 insertion site mutation drug. There's some very promising data. Jack, how do you feel this study is going to influence practice? Dr. Jack West: Well, this is not an agent we have access to broadly yet, but I was quite impressed by it overall. I didn't mention it. We talked about it in the pre-ASCO discussion, and it was really one that I would mark as potentially practice-changing when we can get it. DZD 9008 or sunvozertinib is a potent inhibitor of exon 20 insertion mutations, and this was 97 patients, and the majority had had a couple of lines of prior therapy. They had to have gotten chemo, and the response rate was 60%, and it was really comparable efficacy with the different mutation subtypes. I think that the main thing that I would want to clarify a little better in my own patient population is how well the drug is really tolerated. We talked about that there was not really much grade 3 toxicity and that's true, but diarrhea rates were 67%, even though it was grade 3 and just about 8%. But grade 2 diarrhea or grade 2 rash in patients who are on this therapy, we hope for a long time, I think is something we shouldn't minimize. And I think that particularly our mindset about toxicity needs to be different when we're talking about giving a treatment for 2 or 4 cycles and then being done with it versus something we hope we're going to be giving longitudinally. And we really don't want to minimize the potential impact on the quality of life of patients who are experiencing grade 2 rash, diarrhea, or paronychia for months and months, maybe more than a year at a time. But that said, this is twice the response rate if not more than that of what we have already had for patients with this molecular aberration with an exon 20 insertion. So I think it's compelling and I think that it's going to be really valuable to offer to our patients. I just would like to clarify better how well patients who are actually on it are feeling when you incorporate the potentially chronic toxicity issues. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Jack. And let's move on to the last abstract. This the LUNAR study, LBA9005. This is a positive phase 3 study that looked at tumor-treating fields or TTF therapy with standard of care treatments in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following platinum failure. This has been talked about a lot at ASCO, and Jack I'm eager to hear your key takeaways about this study. Dr. Jack West: Well, we knew from a press release several months ago, I think back in February, that there was a significant improvement in overall survival with the addition of tumor-treated fields. Again, this concept that electric fields can lead to antimitotic effect and potentially downstream induction of immunogenic cell death and enhanced immune response, that's at least the concept. And it's of course established, has utility in patients with glioblastoma, although kind of, I would say underutilized because it can be cumbersome. And I think that's one of the things we need to factor in is that this is not the easiest approach to pursue. But we don't have that many therapies that improve overall survival significantly in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer. So, I think there's good reason to focus on this and ask how beneficial it is. It was notable, it was pretty much an even split of patients enrolled on the trial, 276 patients total, but about half had gotten chemo but not gotten immunotherapy before. And then the other half, I would say the clear majority, had gotten immunotherapy as well as chemo and got docetaxel-based treatment. And the overall survival benefit was significant for the intent to treat total population with a hazard ratio of 0.74 and a difference in 3-year survival of 18% favoring the addition of tumor-treating fields on the chest versus 7% in the patients who didn't. It really seemed to separate between the patients who had not had an immune checkpoint inhibitor and got tumor-treating fields with the checkpoint inhibitor where the hazard ratio is 0.63 and those who got tumor-treating fields with docetaxel where the hazard ratio was 0.81. So it really wasn't significant in this population. Toxicity, no real surprises compared to what we already knew about tumor-treating fields. Mostly dermatitis, but I would say that one of the kind of unmeasured issues is that this is a device that people have to wear on their chest carrying a battery pack with them all day long. It's essentially all the waking day, and so I think that's at least cumbersome. I wouldn't call it prohibitive, but it's a challenge. And I think we need to really ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze, whether the benefit is that compelling. And I question that when we're talking about an agent that doesn't significantly move the needle against docetaxel alone. Again, this is a population where in the U.S. we have ramucirumab to add to docetaxel. Not everyone does that. It's not uniform, but that has a statistically significant, though modest survival benefit associated with that. We don't do better than that with tumor treating fields. And so, I think that this is an option that merits discussion and some patients may opt for it, but I suspect that most of my patients would not find the absolute difference to be that compelling for the challenges it incurs. I don't know what your perspective is here. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree, Jack. And I think the study design and just the fact that the standard of care has changed over the last 5, actually 6 years since the study has been open. And I'm not really so sure I could really make much sense of the data in terms of the standard of care combination with TTF providing more benefit. And I think there are more questions than answers here and I'm not so sure which populations would benefit the most. And I think, I hate to say this, but this is a nice proof of concept. I hate to say this because it's a phase 3 study and it's a positive phase 3 study, but it's clinical relevance with the current standard of care, I think, I'm not really sure how much of an impact this would really have. Well, Jack, I've really enjoyed speaking with you about these key advances in lung cancer that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our listeners will find links to all the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Thank you so much, Jack, for joining us today. Dr. Jack West: Always a pleasure. Thanks so much. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And just like that, we've reached the end of another enriching episode. But remember, like all good things, this too must come to an end, but only until we meet again. We really would like your feedback on the podcast. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti @VamsiVelcheti Dr. H. Jack West @JackWestMD Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti: Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline Dr. Jack West: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Takeda, Mirati, Regneron, Amgen, Abbvie Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Takeda, Mirati Therapeutics, Regneron, Amgen, Abbvie, Summit Therapeutics Speakers' Bureau: Takeda, Merck, AstraZeneca

Drs. Allison Zibelli and Arielle Heeke discuss the NATALEE trial's novel approach to high-risk HR+ breast cancer, the potential of delaying CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR+, HER2-negative mBC to decrease toxicities and costs in the SONIA trial, and de-escalation strategies in HER2+ early-stage breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia. My guest today is Dr. Arielle Heeke, a breast medical oncologist at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in North Carolina. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing studies and other key advances in breast cancer that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the show notes and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Arielle, it's great to speak with you today. Dr. Arielle Heeke: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Let's start with LBA500. This was the NATALEE trial of ribociclib and endocrine therapy as adjuvant treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative early breast cancer. What are your key takeaways from the study, and how do you think this changes our approach to high-risk ER-positive breast cancer? Dr. Arielle Heeke: Yeah, this was definitely the study for which many of us were waiting to see the results. It was exciting to see the results come through so quickly. As you mentioned, the NATALEE trial was a phase 3 study that evaluated three years of adjuvant ribociclib at a dose of 400 milligrams, which is a little different than what we're used to in the metastatic space at 600 milligrams. But essentially, it randomized patients to receive this 400-milligram dose with their adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy versus just the standard of care adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients that are high risk with early-stage breast cancer. What made NATALEE somewhat unique is they defined high risk a little bit more broadly than we've seen in previous studies, such as monarchE. So, what I mean by that is NATALEE enrolled patients with stage 2 and 3 early-stage breast cancer. And notably, they allowed for patients that were lymph node-negative but had some other high-risk features, such as a grade 3 tumor or a grade 2 tumor with high-risk genomics, such as oncotype or a high Ki-67. So, by broadening who was eligible, NATALEE captured more patients at risk for recurrence. Of course, we know that recurrence is not specific for patients with lymph node-positive disease. We can see recurrence even with stage 1, but certainly, we start to see more recurrence risk as patients drift into stage 2 and stage 3. In the NATALEE study, the majority of these patients did receive prior chemotherapy, which I also think is interesting. We've kind of seen in the metastatic space that sometimes chemotherapy can augment patients' responsiveness to CDK4/6 inhibitors. But specifically in NATALEE, 88% of patients had received prior chemotherapy, and ultimately, about a third of the patients were lymph node-negative. So, diving into some of the results with this first analysis that we saw at ASCO, with the median follow-up for invasive disease-free survival of just 27.7 months, they were able to show that the risk for invasive disease was reduced by 25.2% with the addition of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy compared to endocrine therapy alone. And this three-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% for the combination therapy compared to 87.1% for endocrine therapy alone, which is an absolute difference of 3.3%. Additionally, patients treated with ribociclib and endocrine therapy had a 26.1% reduced risk for distant disease-free survival compared with endocrine therapy alone, and this was a rate of 90.8% for ribociclib with endocrine therapy compared to 88.6% with endocrine therapy alone, which correlates to an absolute benefit of 2.2%. They did show results for overall survival as well, but again, follow-up was just a median of 27.7 months. So, data was essentially immature to show any true overall survival benefit from this approach. And in fact, only 20% of patients had completed three years of ribociclib at this data cutoff. And as a reminder, again, NATALEE involved ribociclib for three years compared to two years, which we've seen with other studies in this space. Also, what was encouraging from NATALEE were the readouts for toxicities. Neutropenia is definitely a concern with this class of medication, and they were able to show that rates of neutropenia were overall lower than what we've seen in the pooled data in the metastatic space. And also that problematic QTc prolongation for which we have to get EKGs baseline two weeks and four weeks. They also showed that the likelihood of having QTc prolongation on this therapy was significantly less at that 400-milligram dose compared to 600. I think the key takeaway is yes, this drug is effective as adjuvant therapy, which is perhaps not surprising since we've seen such promising results in the metastatic space, but numerically not as striking as what we have at this point with adjuvant abemaciclib, but of course, this is a newer study. We hope to see that continued separation of the curves as we were fortunate enough to see with the abemaciclib data, but obviously we'll be looking for additional analyses from NATALEE. And then how this will change practice, of course, we'll have to wait to see if the therapy is approved for use in the adjuvant setting for early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, but it certainly will be a nice option for patients that struggle with GI toxicity kind of at baseline. But also, if they were previously on abemaciclib and were not able to tolerate due to the GI toxicity, this would be an option for them. Also, as mentioned, it's a broader patient population, so we can consider this perhaps for a patient with lymph node-negative disease. Although we will have to ask ourselves that just because someone meets eligibility for the NATALEE study, and if the therapy is ultimately approved, is it appropriate to give it to all those patients? Or do we need to still kind of think of this in the setting of the highest-risk patient, not just any patient with stage 2 plus disease? There was a lot of talk at the meeting, certainly about biomarkers and potentially using ctDNA to try to find these predictors of benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, but obviously, still a long way to go before we can use that type of technology in this space. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you. Staying on the topic of CDK4/6 inhibitors, everybody was excited about the SONIA trial, which was LBA1000, and this trial was asking if we can delay using CDK4/6 inhibitors for newly diagnosed ER-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer as a way to decrease both toxicity and cost. Tell us about this study. Dr. Arielle Heeke: The SONIA trial was such a cool study to see, and the presenter reported findings in such a thought-provoking way. Really great to see this sort of work being done because I think we all wonder deep down in our gut, if more is more, or if we do need to kind of be a little bit more thoughtful about how we introduce these therapies certainly from a patient perspective. Patients that participate at ASCO [meetings] have been saying for years how important it is to consider the toxicities in terms of side effects, but also, of course, financial toxicities. So, it was great to see the SONIA trial at center stage. Essentially, as you mentioned, it was a study that randomized patients in the first-line setting with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to receive either first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy or second-line CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy. So basically, there was a mandated crossover, so patients that received the CDK4/6 inhibitor first-line did not receive a second line and vice versa. Patients that were randomized to receive their endocrine therapy as monotherapy first line went on to receive CDK4/6 inhibitor at second-line. And the second-line endocrine therapy was fulvestrant in both of those situations. We kind of run into this problem with patients now where we have so many therapies available to us that we don't typically run out of treatment options, but rather we run up against treatment toxicity or ultimate failure of the human body to keep up with the demands of ongoing therapy. So, again, while it's maybe somewhat attractive to start treatments earlier using things first-line rather than second-line or longer, just kind of post-CDK4/6 inhibitor progression, you know using this CDK4/6 inhibitor again with a different endocrine therapy backbone is probably not offering a meaningful benefit to that many patients. So this type of study is so necessary to really try to help us frame who needs those therapies sooner and longer or perhaps is there a substantial portion of patients that we don't need to put them through that sort of toxicity. So that's the SONIA trial. Some things to note about the patient population, these patients were a bit older than what we've seen in some of our metastatic CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. There was a median age of 64 and 87% were postmenopausal. Additionally, just 40% had received prior chemotherapy. And as is true for most of our studies, 91% have received palbociclib on study with just 8% receiving ribociclib. And the choice of the CDK4/6 inhibitor was per the treating provider, and at the time of the of study globally, palbociclib was the more commonly prescribed CDK4/6 inhibitor. But over the last year or so, data has certainly emerged favoring ribociclib in the metastatic setting. On the SONIA trial, patients were monitored for a median of 37.3 months. And looking at the primary endpoint of the second progression-free survival, which is defined as the time for random assignment to the second objective disease progression or death, for those patients who received first-line CDK4/6 inhibition, had a PFS2 of 31 months compared to 26.8 months with second-line CDK4/6 inhibitor use. And this slight difference was non-statistically significant. So the conclusion was that time to second progression was not impacted by whether or not a patient received first-line CDK4/6 inhibition or second-line CDK4/6 inhibition. Additionally, there were no differences in overall survival between the 2 arms with a median overall survival of 45.9 months with first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor use versus 53.7 months in second-line CDK4/6 inhibitor use. And that actually equates to significant differences in time on drug. The median duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor use with first-line therapy was 24.6 months compared to 8.1 months with second-line use. And by being on therapy for an additional 16.5 months if you use CDK4/6 inhibitor first-line, this, of course, leads to increased toxicity and certainly increased financial burden. And it was estimated that for each patient that receives this therapy first-line, there is an additional $200,000 spent on getting them the CDK4/6 inhibitor first-line, whereas the results from SONIA suggested that whether you use it first-line or second-line, the outcomes are essentially exactly the same. And then specific for the SONIA trial, by conducting the study, they saved approximately €25 million on drug expenditure during the conduct of the trial. It's just amazing when you take it to that scale. And then lastly just to mention, they looked at quality of life assessments as well and there were no differences in the two arms whether they got first-line or second-line CDK4/6 inhibition. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I thought this study was remarkable, and it got a long ovation when it was presented at the meeting. I'm certainly going to use this strategy and prioritize who needs upfront CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy. I think that we have to think of not just drug toxicity for our patients, but financial toxicity. A lot of these drugs have very high copays and the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical costs. So that's something we really have to keep in mind. I also thought it was very interesting that the study was designed in cooperation with the patient advocacy group and patients themselves were very enthusiastic about this study and helped design it and helped recruit to it. So all in all, I thought this was a remarkable study. So moving on, LBA1013 was the TORCHLIGHT study of toripalimab versus placebo in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer. Many of us are not familiar with toripalimab. Can you tell us about the drug and how it was used in this study? Dr. Arielle Heeke: Yes, toripalimab is essentially an immunotherapy agent. It's an IgG4K monoclonal antibody that targets PD-1. In this study, TORCHLIGHT, patients were randomized to receive toripalimab versus placebo in combination with nab-paclitaxel in newly metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The patients on study were randomized two to one to receive drug or placebo. The drug is given on day 1 of a 3-week cycle at 240 milligrams and then patients of course also receive nab-paclitaxel on a day 1 and day 8 schedule of a 21-day cycle. They did look at outcomes on the study based on PD-L1 positivity status and they assessed for PD-L1 with an IHC assay JS311 antibody that ultimately generated a combined positive score. And PD-L1 positivity was defined as a CPS of greater than or equal to one based off of this assay. In the study population, about a third of patients were- patients' tumors were CPS negative, a third had a CPS of 1 to 10 and about a quarter had a CPS of greater than or equal to 10. And then approximately 7% of the tumors had an unknown status. And then getting right into the results, we were provided results in the PD-L1 positive subgroup as well as the whole patient population. Looking at the primary endpoint of PFS, there were significant improvements seen in median PFS with the addition of toripalimab to nab-paclitaxel, again in the first line setting with a median PFS of 8.4 months with the addition of the immunotherapy agent versus 5.6 months with placebo. And this was statistically significant. And then in the intent to treat population, there were some numeric improvements, in median, progression-free survival at 8.4 months with the addition of toripalimab versus 6.9 months with placebo. We also got some results with overall survival that were quite intriguing, although this initial analysis was not designed to necessarily prove statistically significant differences in overall survival. But again, there were some promising trends. Looking first at the PD-L1 positive subgroup, the median overall survival was 32.8 months with the addition of toripalimab versus 19.5 months with placebo. Breaking it down a little bit further based on CPS values, for a CPS of 1 to 10, median overall survival was 32.8 months versus 19.5 months. And then for those very high CPS or greater than or equal to ten, median overall survival was not reached in this group versus 18.3 months with placebo. Also, looking in the intent-to-treat population, there were also improvements in overall survival with the addition of toripalimab with a median overall survival of 33.1 months with the addition of immunotherapy versus 23.5 months with nab-paclitaxel alone. So potentially, depending on next steps of this study, we would potentially have an option to add immunotherapy that is not biomarker specific, meaning we can potentially provide toripalimab to all patients regardless of their PD-L1 status. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Very interesting new drug to look forward to. So, one of the major themes of this year's meeting was de-escalation strategies. For example, LBA506 reported the three-year invasive disease-free survival of the PHERGain trial, which looked at eliminating chemotherapy for HER2-positive patients getting neoadjuvant therapy. Tell us about the design of this study and how will it impact the care of these patients? Dr. Arielle Heeke: The design was very complicated. I had to look at it a few times to really make sure I got my head around it. But I think once you do figure it out, you can see how there might be a path forward in clinical practice. Although I think for all of this work, it's maybe not ready yet for primetime, but certainly thought-provoking. But the PHERGain clinical trial, I feel like we've heard about this study for a little while and this concept of de-escalation really kind of started in the HER2-positive space. But this study was a randomized study of chemotherapy de-escalation and early HER2-positive breast cancer using PET/CT as a marker of response to therapies that don't involve chemotherapy. Patients were eligible for the study if they had stage 1 to 3a HER2-positive breast cancer with no prior therapy for breast cancer, and ultimately 356 patients were enrolled in a 1 to 4 randomization scheme with the majority of patients ultimately enrolled into the experimental group, which is called Group B. So, to break down Group A and Group B, Group A essentially were patients that receive typical standard of care, which at this point is TCHP for six cycles, neoadjuvantly or prior to surgery. Once they complete those cycles they move into surgery and then Herceptin-PERJETA adjuvantly for additional twelve cycles. I should also note that this study was conducted prior to results of the KATHERINE trial that showed benefit of switching to adjuvant T-DM1 if there's residual disease. So, patients in Group A as well as Group B did not receive T-DM1 at any point. So, again, Group A is kind of your standard of care. Group B was the "experimental arm." And so, what they did in this arm to assess potential de-escalation strategies, patients first received Herceptin-PERJETA alone for two cycles with or without endocrine therapy, if they were also hormone receptor-positive. But after those two cycles, they underwent a PET/CT, and then if a response was garnered, they would continue with Herceptin-PERJETA and again plus or minus endocrine therapy to complete six cycles total before proceeding on with surgery. Then if they were fortunate enough to achieve complete response at the time of surgery, then they just continued with Herceptin-PERJETA maintenance, whereas if they did not achieve a complete response at the time of surgery, then they actually received TCHP 6 times adjuvantly. So, the chemotherapy was introduced after surgery. And then going back to that PET/CT time point, if patients did not achieve a response at that check-in point, after 2 cycles of Herceptin-PERJETA, at that point they were transitioned to chemotherapy with TCHP, again, for six cycles. So, either they could kind of ride all the way through if they got that complete response at the time of surgery with Herceptin-PERJETA only, or if at surgery there was residual disease, they went on to receive TCHP after surgery, or if they did not have a response on that interim PET/CT after 2 cycles of HP then they would go on to receive TCHP neoadjuvantly. So, looking at the results, they actually had 2 primary endpoints. The first primary endpoint was rates of a complete response at the time of surgery in patients that had a PET response. So, PET responses were actually seen in nearly 80% of all the patients treated with Herceptin-PERJETA without chemotherapy. And in those PET responders, a complete response rate at the time of surgery was seen in approximately 38% of patients. So, 37.9% of PET responders actually achieved a complete response when they went to surgery after receiving Herceptin-PERJETA alone, which is pretty amazing. I mean, we're used to seeing higher complete response rates with neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive disease, but again, this is a chemo-free regimen so that is encouraging for that 38% of patients that really didn't need chemotherapy. And then the second primary endpoint, and this was what we saw basically for the first time with the 2023 ASCO Meeting, was results for the 3-year invasive disease-free survival in Group B or this experimental de-escalation group. And ultimately it was shown that the three-year invasive disease-free survival and the intent to treat group B population was 95.4%, which met its statistical endpoint, or, basically the null hypothesis was rejected. They just needed some sort of outcome that was not worse in terms of the 3-year invasive disease-free survival of 89%. And then looking actually at the patients that kind of did the best. So, the patients that were PET responders and achieved a complete response at the time of surgery and therefore really only ever received Herceptin-PERJETA, their three-year invasive disease-free survival was 98.8%. So, really very good. Additional endpoints they looked at in Group A and Group B were favorable in terms of three-year invasive disease-free survival in Group A, and then three-year distant disease-free survival and three-year overall survival in both groups, all approximately 98%. So, very favorable. So, ultimately, these findings reflect a potential role for a chemotherapy-free treatment approach for some patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. And this particular study, they used PET/CT to influence chemotherapy decision-making, which potentially identified 1 in 3 patients who can omit chemotherapy. With that, 80% of patients receiving the response with a PET/CT, and then of that, 80%, again, 38% actually having that complete response. And ongoing work is also being done to look at other mechanisms to assess for an opportunity to de-escalate with MRI imaging or HER2DX testing to again try to identify patients who can potentially defer chemotherapy in this setting. I did not see from the results what proportion of patients were hormone receptor-positive, which I think is also interesting when thinking about chemotherapy de-escalation, can you lean a little bit more heavily on endocrine therapy? Perhaps we'll get that data in the future. Dr. Allison Zibelli: That's a very important point. I would like to thank you, Dr. Heeke, for coming on the podcast today and sharing your valuable insights with us. We really appreciate it. Dr. Arielle Heeke: Absolutely. It was a great meeting to dive into. It's always exciting to see what comes out of ASCO in the breast space. We're usually well represented there, and I hope that these studies will lead to further exploration. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Arielle Heeke @HeekeMD Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: None Disclosed Dr. Arielle Heeke: Honoraria: Merck Consulting or Advisory Role: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Caris Life Sciences, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Genome Insight Speakers' Bureau: Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca

Drs. Nathan Pennell and Nancy Lin discuss emerging data on the growing problem of prior authorization and insurance denials in cancer care, their potentially harmful impact on patient outcomes, and what can be done to fix the problem. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nathan Pennell: Hello, I'm Dr. Nathan Pennell, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Institute. More importantly, today, for this podcast, I'm also the editor-in-chief for the ASCO Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the growing problem of prior authorization and insurance denials, and how that impacts both providers and patients in their ability to access cancer care. Joining me is Dr. Nancy Lin, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She's addressed this problem in a recently published article in the 2023 ASCO Educational Book, and she's joining me today to highlight some emerging data on the possible harms from prior authorization and insurance denials, and what we can do to fix this problem. Nancy, thanks so much for coming on the podcast today. Dr. Nancy Lin: Thank you for inviting me. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Some of our listeners may have noticed that we also did a podcast a number of years ago on a similar topic when we were with the Journal of Oncology Practice, and I was kind of hoping that prior authorizations would not be as big a problem, now, probably 8 or 9 years later, and unfortunately, it seems like it has gotten even worse. Before we begin, I should mention that our disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org\DNpod. So prior authorizations were, of course, originally intended as a cost control on the overuse of expensive medical care. However, in recent years, it seems like prior authorization has been extended to, more or less, all medical care, including supportive care medications and essential cancer care interventions that we need to use in almost every patient. We're also hearing more and more reports on patients who are denied coverage, and I think the doctors can sympathize with this, with their increasing peer-to-peer requests. And this is leading to patients being forced to wait to receive second-best options, impacting their out-of-pocket costs. And potentially, we all fear this is impacting patient outcomes, although we really would like to learn more about how this is really impacting their care. So, Nancy, can you talk to us a little bit about how prior auth is impacting patient access to cancer care today? Dr. Nancy Lin: Of course, we all have to acknowledge that part of the impetus for prior authorization is just the increasing cost of cancer care. There are some recent statistics that the U.S. spends over $200 billion annually on cancer care and that oncology drugs are a huge part of the overall drug cost in the nation and a large part of the oncology drug budget. So, I think we can't deny that the increasing costs of cancer care are in part driving this drive for more prior authorization. But this has costs, and there are costs in terms of direct patient costs as far as their quality of care, and also costs in terms of the health care providers and health care system. And so we, as part of our article, actually solicited patients to provide their stories. And in fact, in our article, we have selected, with their permission, 3 patients who share their experiences. And these are experiences that, as a practicing oncologist, you'll be very familiar with. A patient wrote that she had been on capecitabine for a year, her disease is responding, and all of a sudden, on a Friday late in the day, she's told, "No, you need a prior authorization now, and you can't get your drug refilled." And that led obviously to stress and delay and whatnot. And then another example is of a patient whose oncologist requested what sounds like next-generation sequencing, some sort of tumor panel and was denied. And the peer-to-peer here had apparently indicated that they are not aware of the data for the use of genomic testing and cancer treatment, which clearly there is a role for the use of genomic testing in cancer treatment. And in fact, we now have many articles that show that there's unequal access and, if we look at underrepresented minorities or other marginalized groups, that there is a dramatic difference in the utilization of advanced molecular testing. And then just the overall experience on patients and their families feeling like, at a time when they're sick, need to take charge of all of this paperwork and back and forth with insurers that is very stressful. And then, from a provider or health care system standpoint, many, many hours are expended on prior authorizations for things like very new drug approvals that are maybe not on a pathway yet, or very commonly, simple things like a CAT scan for restaging of somebody who has advanced breast cancer where every scan requires prior authorization or antiemetics, or somebody receiving highly immunogenic chemotherapy and these kinds of death by a thousand cuts I think is how people in the health care experience the aspect of prior authorization. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It's one of these things where we used to get a peer-to-peer for say, atypical reason for a PET scan, which made perfect sense, and you'd have to talk to an experienced expert to explain what you were doing and try to get a good rationale for that. And now, it's come to the point where a routine 2-month, 3-month CT scan is getting denied and having to be talking to someone who's not as experienced in this. Again, it feels still like a collection of anecdotes though in many ways. Is there any sort of published data on denials of care and prior auths and how this is impacting approvals and patient access? Dr. Nancy Lin: There are survey data, which one has to admit is not necessarily gold-standard data, but there are data from the American Medical Association, as well as a 2022 ASCO member survey. And in that ASCO member survey, over 90% of oncologists reported that they had personally experienced, in their patients, a delay in treatment related to prior authorization. Over 90% had issues getting needed diagnostic evaluations. Over 90% reported that they were, "forced to go to a second choice of therapy." And about a third of oncologists reported that they believed that the prior authorization, either delays or denial of care, led to changes or worsening of patient survival, which I think is the most concerning statistic of all. Now, I think that one can argue that these are essentially physician self-report and what's the gold standard as far as whether there has been an impact? But I think that the fact that these reports are so prevalent means that, even if the reality is half of what has been reported, it's still a lot. And I think that the power of these kinds of surveys is just enormous, that a high prevalence of the problems have been reported, I think, points to something even if we don't have gold standard quote data now. Within our institution, Dana-Farber, we have done an analysis of oral medication prescribing. So, we do have gold standard and very granular data on patients that we've seen. And we've seen denials and requirements of prior authorization not only for expensive cancer medications and growth factors but also for even medicines like generic tamoxifen, which, honestly, how does that need prior authorization in this day and age? Medications like supportive care, antiemetics, and really things that ultimately, we were able to get approved 97% of the time, but [prior authorization now] introduces a delay and introduces stress. And although one may not be able to measure a so-called negative outcome from a patient recurrence standpoint, I think that there are other kinds of negative outcomes that are important, including just the experience of a cancer patient undergoing treatment, the stress of all of the denial letters and the delays that can occur as a result. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And it's not just patients. Obviously, we want to be patient-centered in our care and focus on how this impacts them. But this is also significantly impacting practitioners and cancer centers and physicians and the administrative burden of having to do the prior authorizations, which of course are not standardized in any way and vary from payer to payer and geographic area to geographic area. Is there data on how the changes in prior auth have impacted practices and physicians? Dr. Nancy Lin: Yes. In fact, there have been several surveys as well as in the practice types of studies trying to understand the staffing that is required to manage the prior authorization requests. And some of the estimates are an additional 40 hours per week per oncologist, that's a full-time position. Some of these tasks can be carried out by non-oncology-trained providers but many of them do require either the oncologist or a nurse practitioner equivalent to be on the phone for the peer-to-peer or a full-time clinical provider and you are given a 4-hour window to do a peer-to-peer in the middle of clinic, that's very disruptive. And I think that that's fine if it's every now and then for drugs that we all agree are perhaps outside of their usual indication. But if this is every CAT scan and every brain MRI and every time we prescribe an oral drug, it really does affect both clinic workflow, and just the psychology; I think it really contributes to burnout. There was a very interesting survey actually of oncology trainees who, not even to the point where one is an attending physician, but at the trainee level indicating that this was something that was causing them a lot of distress, and in some cases, questioning the whole idea of going into medicine. And then when you think with the attrition that we're seeing in the health care workforce, we do really have to be careful about these burnout issues because we really can't afford to lose a lot of oncology staffing as the patient population ages and we're seeing higher prevalence of cancer. I think it's imperative that we take care of our oncology workforce. And I think this survey was very interesting because it went beyond the attending physician to other levels of oncology care, all of which are affected. And there have been, as you know, many growing or nascent attempts at various residency programs to think about unionizing and what are the kinds of concerns or complaints that trainees bring up. And one of [the complaints] that comes up a lot is, "We have to do these prior authorizations and there's all this administrative paperwork that doesn't require an entry-level person." I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't do it - I'm not going to take a position on that - but the fact is that somebody has to do it in the current system, and whoever does it, it causes burnout. And I think that that is important. And the other piece of it has to do with equity and access to care because we're coming from academic institutions. We have a staff of people who help with prior authorization. That's not true in every practice in the United States. And I really worry about not so much denial of care but even a step beyond that, which is if you are in an under-resourced office and it's too hard to get certain things done, you don't do them because you just don't have the ability or you don't have the staffing to be able to find insurance. And I think that is very concerning to me in terms of access to care, access to some of our immune-targeted therapies, and access to the optimal support of care medications. We come from very well-resourced places as far as the administrative staff, relatively speaking, and that's just not true everywhere. Dr. Nathan Pennell: This whole idea kind of falls under the idea of creating friction in the system to try to slow things down. I've seen data suggesting that things like peer-to-peer requests for appeals actually lead to a majority of physicians not having time or taking the time to actually do that. And that may be sometimes because they know it's indefensible and don't want to go through the process. But probably a lot of the time it's just because they don't have time to do it in their busy day and those patients then don't get their care covered. So, it's really a problem. Now, the other thing that is really remarkable to me is, this is 2023 and everything is so technologically advanced. You can make major financial transactions electronically on your phone in just a few seconds, really complicated things. And yet this kind of [prior authorization] process really is still often done over the phone and by fax and with 100 different systems that don't talk to one another. And at the same time, oncology is becoming more and more guideline-driven where what we do actually have is really good evidence behind it. And there are even published guidelines for almost every disease and line of care about everything that we do from scan intervals to what kinds of treatment and how often and what supportive care is necessary. So, this would seem like an optimal situation for a technology solution where we tie in guidelines to what should and shouldn't be covered. What's going on out there in terms of trying to fix this? Dr. Nancy Lin: Some important questions are: Who makes the guidelines? What are the regulations as far as which guidelines insurance might adopt - their own internal guidelines or NCCN or comparable organizations? And what do you do when somebody wants to deviate from the guideline or pathway? And then finally a practical question, which is you don't really want to have a different platform and a different guideline for every insurance plan for every patient. And I think that is a little bit of even if we move to a purely electronic system, that will still be a problem. The state of Florida had done this pilot study that tried to use or incorporate the NCCN guidelines as part of their approval or review process for prior authorization requests and at least based on the report that's published, saved $15 million in costs. And we would hope if the care was more NCCN guideline-concordant, which has been shown to improve outcomes, that would have been done without a detriment to patient outcomes. I don't think we have enough granular information to be 100% sure of that, but I would assume that that's most likely the case. I do think that some amount of guideline use could be useful. And one of the things that we proposed in our article was the idea that one could create a sort of gold card system such that if a provider or a practice, for example, adheres to certain pre-agreed-upon guidelines or pathways more than 80% of the time, which is sort of considered good adherence and taking into account patient preference and comorbidities and whatnot, that that practice or provider could be sort of gold carded, so to speak, and actually have many of the prior authorization requirements go away so long as that is adhered to. And so that's one idea. One of the concepts that Dario Trapani, who was the first author of our paper, put forward is that you don't necessarily need every person to be compliant with every guideline. Generally, you need for there to be compliance and that there could be different categories of treatment so that supportive care medications, pain medications for cancer-related pain, could potentially be exempt from prior authorization requirements completely. And then at the same time for other kinds of prior authorization requests, it's not enough to just change a fax form to an electronic form. That's an improvement from having faxes going back and forth by paper, but really isn't a fundamental change in the prior authorization process or vision. And so, this idea of the pathways and then only when something is deviated in some sort of major way in various categories to be determined that sort of triggers a peer-to-peer review that would both hopefully serve the purpose of reducing overuse of unnecessary or non- indicated treatments and save money. But also, in a way, I think that is less burdensome to the health care system. And I fully acknowledge that I am not a policy expert, I mostly research metastatic breast cancer, but this issue really affects us all very personally every day. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I know you just said you're not a policy expert, but can you talk to us a little bit about what Congress and ASCO are doing to help from a legislation standpoint or a regulatory standpoint to help make this a little bit less painful? Dr. Nancy Lin: Yeah. So ASCO has endorsed the so-called "Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act." And for those out there listening, particularly patients, you might say, "Well, I'm not a senior." But it's important because how Medicare deals with issues often is then adopted by private insurers. And so starting with "Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act," the intent is that it will also affect people with cancer at all age groups. But some of the provisions or the proposals are to convert to an electronic prior authorization system, to put systems in place for timely and efficient communication between providers and insurers, to ensure a process for real-time decisions that have some timeframe or timeline or deadline associated with it, to facilitate guidelines and pathway-informed decisions, and to also, importantly, be fully transparent about approvals and denials, portions that are denied, these sorts of reasons for denials, to really have transparency in that process which at the moment does not really exist. I think these are all very, very important steps with the overarching goal to promote timely and appropriate access to medications, procedures, and evaluations for oncology patients. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I'm just curious, in your opinion, do you think that there is actual inertia to try to change some of these things from a policy perspective? It can be kind of frustrating sometimes. It seems like the insurance industry has really kind of taken command of this by implementing these and we see the problems and we talk about them. But from a regulatory standpoint, it really seems like things are kind of maybe being a little bit neglected. Dr. Nancy Lin: I think that this is really something where I do think there will be some movement; maybe it's that I'm an optimist and that's what you need to be to be an oncologist. I think that a big part is going to be really a focus on the impact on patients because although we certainly feel the impact on ourselves as providers and our staff, I don't know that that in and of itself is going to be enough to move the needle, like doctors complaining that they are having to spend too much time on the phone. I think the real impact is really related to the impact on patients. And as I said, I think that the AMA survey and the ASCO survey, those are very important because they really put the focus on [assessing] the impact on patients living with cancer. Again, the limitations of a survey-based study are profound. And I do think that the current [White House] administration is very, very engaged in improving care for people with cancer. And in fact, part of this revised Cancer Moonshot [initiative] is not only better science around cancer and better molecular understanding of cancer but at the end of the day, if we can't get the right treatment to the right patient, it doesn't really matter how good the science is. And part of getting the right treatment to the right patient is not just training, guidelines and education. Part of it is just the practical aspect of insurance coverage as one important aspect of that. And so, I do think that there will be some movement on this because I think that it's really gotten to a point where this is not just inconvenient for doctors. I don't think that that's enough to drive anything forward personally, but I think that when you start to see impact on patients, that is really a big deal. I was struck that one of the studies that we had identified was a study looking at over 13,000 chemotherapy requests and understanding how many were denied and why they were denied. And basically, about 11% of the requests ultimately were denied after peer-to-peer and all sorts of other appeals. And this was essentially the gold standard, so to speak. In this study was the oncologist's opinion as assessed by the so-called board certified oncologist, which is what was described in the publication employed by the insurer. We have these competing narratives and that is ultimately the problem: We have the AMA and the ASCO surveys which are survey-based asking the oncologists, and we have these data which are based on the insurer essentially as the gold standard arbiter. So it's hard to reconcile those two pieces of information because they're not really coming from the same place. And then I think you could also argue that, think about 13,000 chemotherapy requests, that means that essentially 90% were fine. When we looked at our pathways employed at Dana-Farber where we check to make sure that our physicians are adhering to the pathways, we basically want to aim at about 80% with the idea that some patients decline a standard regimen, and we go to something else. They don't want alopecia with the idea that some patients have comorbidities, that you don't want to micromanage how oncologists are managing their patients. And honestly, in most pathway programs, we consider 80% to be pretty good. In this study, 80% were approved. And you might argue, is it worth reviewing 13,000 requests to this level of scrutiny for 90% to be approved? And again, I think that that really raises this idea of like rather than just switching a fax system to an electronic system to really rethink where's the low-hanging fruit? Where would prior authorization really serve a positive purpose? I think there are places where it could serve a positive purpose and where is it just adding unnecessary friction. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, it's a complicated picture and there are valid arguments on both sides. One of the things that is very appealing to me about the proposed legislation is requiring the payers to actually report and disclose their levels of denials and prior authorizations and this allow us to maybe take it beyond the anecdotal evidence to actually being able to document what they're doing. Because once you shine a light on things, sometimes it becomes a little bit harder to abuse the system. Dr. Nancy Lin: Yes, I agree. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, Nancy, thanks so much for coming on the podcast today to discuss this challenging problem. I know we could have talked about this for an hour or more. We really appreciate your work to highlight the impact of this problem both on providers and on patients, as well as outlining some efforts to find solutions. Dr. Nancy Lin: Great, thank you for having me. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Have a great day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell Dr. Nancy Lin @nlinmd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Nathan Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi Dr. Nancy Lin: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Artera Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Daichi Sankyo, Denali Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Prelude Therapeutics, Pfizer, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Aleta Biotherapeutics, Artera, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Zion, Olema Pharmaceuticals

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss advances in melanoma, including targeted therapy and the addition of LAG-3 inhibitors to checkpoint therapy, as well as promising checkpoint inhibitors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and Merkel cell carcinoma in advance of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I'm delighted to welcome my colleague and friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He is a very, very well-renowned physician-scientist who has done fundamental work in developmental therapeutics and also in melanoma. Today, we'll be discussing some key oral abstracts highlighting advances in immunotherapy in the cutaneous malignancy space that will be featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and the disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available in our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Jason, thank you for coming on the podcast today. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks so much for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, we will go right ahead into the abstracts and the first one we thought we'd discuss is Abstract 9502, which is the RELATIVITY-047 study, specifically the 2-year results. This is the update. This has also been concurrently published at the New England Journal of Medicine Evidence online. And so in this publication and oral presentation, Hussein Tawbi, Georgina Long, and colleagues are talking about the nivo-rela data in the context of metastatic melanoma. So what is your take on this? What is your take on the data both presented and published and how would you contextualize this for the audience? Dr. Jason Luke: Right, so the RELATIVITY-047 study, as people will remember, randomized treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma to either receive nivolumab as standard treatment as a monotherapy or the combination of nivolumab and the anti-LAG-3 antibody relatlimab. And that study reported out a couple of years ago showing the improvement in progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. And at the time we saw that difference was approximately a 6-month absolute difference. And eventually, we saw there was an increase in the overall response rate also, again, approximately on the order of about a 10% change. What was interesting was that the overall survival initially was immature and that was an interesting follow-up point that we wanted to see. So I think what's important in seeing now this 2-year update of these data are the maintenance of the benefit for nivolumab plus relatlimab as compared to nivolumab alone across those measurements of progression-free survival and overall response rate. Interestingly, the overall survival in the clinical trial actually did not meet the pre-specified threshold for statistical significance. That being said, when you look at the data presented in the Kaplan-Meier plots and you think about the difference, it really does appear that there's a clinically meaningful difference between these 2 groups. And the statistical cut point only missed by about .01. And so this is one of those areas where one wonders whether or not subsequent therapies may have impacted on the overall survival calculation because obviously, patients in this trial had not received ipilimumab or a PD-1 CTLA-4 combination. So the take-home message from me in this data set was that the benefit of nivolumab and relatlimab was sustained over time and there was no suggestion of any late toxicities that might make us concerned. One advantage of this combination of nivolumab and relatlimab is the dramatically improved side effect profile relative to nivolumab and ipilimumab. So whereas immune-related adverse events that were serious, grade 3-4 is approximately 50% for nivolumab and ipilimumab, in the RELATIVITY-047 study, we see that the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities for nivolumab and relatlimab is 17.2%, so that's less than half. So that's pretty attractive. And when we think about frontline management of patients, I think these data really support that nivolumab plus relatlimab is a reasonable consideration for some patients. And now I think the future question is really going to be, okay, well then who should get nivolumab and relatlimab versus who should still get nivolumab plus ipilimumab? Obviously, these data do not address that, and I think that that's probably the most important question for metastatic disease that's probably on the horizon. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Thank you, Jason, those are all fantastic points. It is interesting to note that as a result of the data, or really the lack thereof, the combination is actually not being launched in certain countries. So, for example, the German Health Authority, GBA, the Federal Joint Committee in Germany has decided against the acceptance of this agent because it does not accept event-free survival (EFS) as a patient-relevant endpoint. So it's interesting that we have an agent that is now going to be FDA-approved. It's already FDA-approved and available in the United States, but it will not be at least available in Germany and there may be other countries that decide favorably or unfavorably depending on how this OS data is viewed. So pivoting to another LAG-3 inhibitor in this case fianlimab, we're going to discuss Abstract 9501. So Abstract 9501 essentially is describing a phase II trial that evaluated the LAG-3 inhibitor, fianlimab, along with the anti-PD-1 inhibitor, cemiplimab from Regeneron. The data is slightly different from what we have seen with RELATIVITY-047, the Opdualag combination. So Jason, how would you contextualize the fian-cemi combination in advanced melanoma in the context of what we've seen with RELATIVITY-047? If you could help us with that, please. Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, absolutely. So before we dive into this specific abstract, it's, like you mentioned, probably useful to just put all of this in context. Targeting LAG-3 as an immunomodulatory approach has actually been in clinic for a decade approximately. And so the relatlimab phase 1 started quite a long time ago. And there was data for nivolumab and relatlimab in PD-1 refractory patients with melanoma that showed not a tremendously obvious level of activity. And so it was thought there that the only place they would see that activity was to go to a frontline randomized phase 2 and then phase 3 trial, as we just discussed. In contrast to that, given all the data that had come forward about LAG-3 targeting with relatlimab, the group developing fianlimab took a different approach and rather treated a cohort of patients with treatment-naive melanoma to try to get an initial assessment right away of the activity as read out by overall response rate for this PD-1 plus LAG-3 combination, which is cemiplamab plus fianlimab. And these authors have previously presented data about this combination from cohorts of patients who are treatment-naive who received this combination and described approximately a 64% overall response rate. And that's an impressive number in the treatment-naive setting. There's sort of a tension there to sort of say, well, wait a minute, the response rate in this single-arm study is 64%, but in RELATIVITY-047, the response rate was lower for the LAG-3 combination and I think that's not a fair comparison. We have to realize this is a much smaller group of patients that has the potential to have been somewhat biased towards a better cohort just because of where and when they were recruited to participate in this trial. All the same, I think that number does look impressive and suggest that this combination is active in the frontline. Specific to this abstract, though, what the authors presented here was to update those previous data and then specifically also to focus on a cohort of patients who are allowed to have had previous treatment in the perioperative setting. So either neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies. And in a subgroup of patients, they observed that even in the patients that had received adjuvant anti-PD-1 who went on to then progress later, they got actually a similar overall response rate at approximately 60% even in that group. And so I think that that seems like an exciting number as well. One would on first principles think that if patients got an adjuvant anti-PD-1, then a PD-1 LAG-3 combo could be less active. When and how the patients progressed or did not on that adjuvant therapy, however, I think makes a big difference. And given the relatively small sample size of patients that were included in this report, which is on the order of 20-ish patients who were in the previous PD-1 treated adjuvant cohort, I don't know that we can make super broad analyses trying to compare across the development programs. What I would take from this abstract, however, is that it does appear that this other PD-1 LAG-3 combination cemiplamab plus fianlimab is also very active and certainly deserves to be investigated in similar clinical trial contexts as the nivolumab plus relatlimab combination that we previously discussed. And while it's not specifically stated here, that is happening, there is a frontline phase 3 trial for this combination of fianlimab and cemiplamab as well as adjuvant considerations, also ongoing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, thank you. We've seen a lot of LAG-3 data this last 2 months, the phase 2/3a RELATIVITY-020 trial has just been published in the JCO, I encourage people to read that. And so that was the evaluation of nivolumab and relatlimabin the post-PD-1 patient population that Jason alluded to, where the response rate that was observed was 12%. So we've seen a lot of interesting data, a lot of interesting survival data, and now a new potential combination with LAG-3 with fianlimab and cemiplamab from Regeneron. So it'll be a very interesting next couple of years as we see whether or not this new combination, how it shakes up against the established nivu-rela combination, again, albeit with the limitations of cross-trial comparisons and also how it performs against cemiplamab in this ongoing, as you alluded to, ongoing global phase 3 trial. So, pivoting away from melanoma, now addressing the context of another cutaneous malignancy, a very high-risk one, Merkel cell carcinoma. So, Merkel cell carcinoma for those who are not necessarily treating a lot of this is a very rare and very aggressive cutaneous tumor. It's a neuroendocrine tumor of the skin. It's a cancer that's typically associated more than about 60% of the time with a cancer-causing virus, an oncogenic virus known as a Merkel Cell Polyomavirus. And in this setting, checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been approved for the last couple of years, initially with a PDL-1 inhibitor, avelumab, and then more recently with a PD-1 inhibitor, pembrolizumab. And, at this point in time, there are three FDA-approved agents that are checkpoint inhibitors that are available for the treatment of this disease. And CheckMate-358 was essentially a trial of nivolumab plus/minus ipilimumab in the setting of this Merkel cell carcinoma. So, Jason, what are your thoughts on how the addition of ipi did in this setting [in Abstract 9506]? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so I think this is a really interesting abstract because there's a slightly more context even than what you alluded to there. This study is an open-label, multi-cohort, but single-arm investigation where one cohort of patients received nivolumab alone and the other cohort received ipilimumab. It needs to be buttressed by a previous publication in The Lancet last year by the group at the Moffitt Cancer Center who also did a prospective study looking at nivolumab and ipilimumab. In that previous study that the Moffit group did, they got a response rate of 100%. All patients responded to the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in their study and that was quite provocative, suggesting that while anti-PD-1 alone has about a 50% response rate, adding ipi in that scenario then took it to 100. So these data were very much of interest because this could be a confirmatory data set to suggest for this rare tumor that perhaps a combination regimen should be preferred. Of course, one has to remember that adding ipilimumab to anti-PD-1 substantially enhances the toxicity profile. And these patients tend to be elderly that develop this kind of cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma. So that's a rather important caveat. Just to get to the crux of what happened in this trial. As opposed to the previous Moffit trial, there actually did not appear to be a major increase in the benefit of adding ipilimumab, at least in this trial. Because again, in parallel cohorts, the NIVO monotherapy arm had a 60% response rate, which is roughly a little bit higher, but roughly in line with what we've seen previously. And the response rate to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 58%. So, I mean basically the same. So, how can it be then, that we have this previous very high-profile publication that says 100% response? Now, we have a second publication that says adding ipi doesn't do anything - that's confusing, and I think it'll be really important to try to look at what were the differences between these two cohorts of patients. Did one of them have higher risk features, greater disease burden, et cetera? We don't really know that just yet, but trying to tease that out will be important. This data also emphasized, though, the complexity around the dosing of ipilimumab. And in melanoma, we never really figured out what the best dose of ipilimumab was to give either alone or even in combination with a PD-1. And we don't really have time to get into all of it right away here, but there are multiple studies in melanoma that would suggest that giving ipi on an every 3-week dosing schedule is superior to giving it on a 6-week dosing schedule. In this study, they did use the 6-week dosing schedule. So, whether or not that could have made a difference, I guess, is unknown. But I would notice that in the previous Moffitt trial, they also used that six-week dosing schedule. This one's a head-scratcher for why did these data not confirm a previous data set? But for the time being, I think this emphasizes that PD-1 monotherapy really is the standard approach that should be considered for patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: That's great, Jason. And so, again, it's a very tough patient population. These are very rare patients. The Moffitt trial that Jason alluded to essentially was a trial that had in each arm, there were approximately 25 patients, of which 13, or between 11 to 13 patients were actually checkpoint inhibitor naive, wherein the dramatic 100% response rate was seen. And this is a trial where at least in this update, we've got about 25 patients in nivo monotherapy, I mean in 43 patients. And so, in a disease that is thought to be extraordinarily sensitive to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy because of the role of the virus and the high TMB that it's associated with, it is very interesting that the addition of an additional checkpoint inhibitor did not appear to improve outcomes. But as you alluded to multiple reasons, but we don't know how it's going to shake out. Next, Abstract 9507 and this is a very interesting trial known as the MATISSE trial. So, in the context of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is a relatively not uncommon cancer, primarily seen in older cancer patients, particularly a little bit more common in men. And in this setting, we've got checkpoint inhibitor therapy that is FDA-approved, at least two of which are FDA-approved right now, pembrolizumab and cemiplamab both were approved in the advanced cancer setting. And we do know that because of the extraordinarily high tumor mutation burden associated with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, checkpoint inhibitor therapy has got a very dramatic effect. Response rates are between 35% to 42% with pembrolizumab and 40% to 50% with cemiplamab, depending on whether or not one looks at the relapsed metastatic or the locally advanced patient populations. And interestingly, much like we've seen with melanoma, we have migrated the use of this therapy early in the lines of patients, particularly in the setting of perioperative therapy. So, Jason, how would you contextualize the results of the MATISSE trial in relation to the existing and known data from several of our colleagues regarding the role of what checkpoint inhibitor therapy is doing in terms of organ preservation? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, and I think this is an area of tremendous excitement. And as you were alluding to, the activity of anti-PD-1 really was transformative in this disease, which really can be a disfiguring and locally destructive disease. And with that activity for unresectable disease, last year, near the end of the year, there was a first report of a large neo-adjuvant clinical trial in cutaneous squamous which showed really outstanding results in terms of improving surgery and pathologic complete response using anti-PD-1 in that setting. And for this trial, this was a trial done in Europe; they took a similar tact of trying to think about giving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-1 with anti-CTLA-4 with ipilimumab in that neoadjuvant period to see whether or not they could reduce the use of extensive surgery and/or radiation therapy. The short version is they were able to do that. And so they described 40% of patients with single-agent anti-PD-1 and 53% of patients who received a combination having major pathologic response to treatment. And this was so much so that 10 of the patients who had pathologic responses actually withdrew their consent to go on to have surgery because they decided that they had had such a good effect of the immunotherapy, they weren't willing to put themselves through what was going to be a very difficult surgery. And I think that speaks to the upside potential of these checkpoint immunotherapy approaches in certain settings, specifically here in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Moreover, they describe clinical response in neoadjuvant setting as 50% for PD-1 monotherapy and 61% for the combination and I really think that this is really ready for prime time. With the study published in the New England Journal last year and these data now, I really think the field needs to start moving towards the use of perioperative anti-PD-1 with or without ipilimumab as a standard approach. And I think it's the case that even the NCCN and ASCO and various guideline societies are going to start acknowledging that this ought to be considered for most patients who are facing difficult surgical operations for continuous squamous cell carcinoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, Jason, you bring up a fascinating point, which is the appearance of this in guidelines. So this is undoubtedly extraordinarily good data. It's confirmatory, the pathologic response rates in many ways paradoxically low. You'd expect something about 50% or so. But the reason it's low is because 10% of patients who actually benefited didn't undergo surgery. So really the degree of benefit is tremendous. It's about 50% to 60%. So the fascinating thing in the setting that we'd have is if one is going to try to get the drug FDA-approved, what we now have is the conventional setting in which one needs a definitive endpoint. And at least we know that pathological response rate is not a definitive endpoint in the context of melanoma or, for that matter, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The only setting in which it is a regulatory endpoint is a non-small cell lung cancer or triple-negative breast cancer. But recently there's been some very exciting data from another PD-1 inhibitor called dostarlimab in a trial done by your former colleague Dr. Luis Diaz when he demonstrated a dramatic result of dostarlimab in the context of perioperative rectal cancer where it is micro-satellite high wherein the standard of care is typically very disfiguring abdominal perineal resection. So in the context of some of our listeners who might be thinking a little bit about how this pertains to regulatory approval, what are your thoughts about the paradigm of avoiding highly disfiguring surgery relating to what was seen in the rectal cancer discussion to what we're now seeing with perioperative therapy in the context of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's a very important question. And the easy out for diseases that have a pattern of progression that is metastasis is to use event-free survival which can include both the pre-surgical and the post-surgical period in terms of looking for whether or not the cancer comes back. And that works for diseases potentially like lung cancer, like you said, maybe melanoma. In cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, however, that's not probably going to work because this tends to be a locally invasive and less of a metastatic disease. So here then, we really need to have sort of organization across patient advocacy, dermatology, medical oncology to come up with what the most appropriate considerations are going to be for evaluating that long-term benefit because I think we need a tangible result that we can show the FDA. Everyone is really impressed by these results, and I think that next step is to craft this into a way that we have a measurable output that we can then go to them with and say bless this so that all of our patients can get this kind of treatment. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Really great discussion, Jason. And I think this is going to be an area of particular interest going forward, given both the number of trials that have been conducted in this space and also the role of the very interesting regulatory paradigm that has now been set initially at least with the rectal cancer that is microsatellite high and now potentially we will see with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. And so the final abstract that we have selected for you is Abstract 9511. And this is a trial that was conducted by a mutual colleague, Dr. Ryan Sullivan, and his colleagues. And it's essentially a trial of looking at targeted therapy with or without navitoclax in BRAF mutant melanoma patients. And part of the reason to highlight this, it's very interesting preclinical data supporting the addition of navitoclax, b but also a great example of an early trial that came through the CTEP portfolio. And so Jason, can you tell us about why this is exciting and how we might contextualize the addition of navitoclax to the targeted therapy backbone? Dr. Jason Luke: Sure. So listeners will be quite aware of targeting mutant BRAF as a therapeutic strategy across oncology that was really initially pioneered in melanoma with the development of vemurafenib as the first selective BRAF inhibitor. But the field, of course, moved eventually to BRAF and MEK combinations across essentially all settings. We know that dabrafenib and trametinib are now approved pan-cancer for anywhere we find a BRAF V600e mutation. In the context of melanoma, looking at mechanisms of resistance, we observed that they were quite heterogeneous with reactivation of elements of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, the MAPK pathway. But also there were metabolic changes in the cancer cells themselves which could drive resistance and were downstream of some of those reactivation signaling points. So one of those is the induction of anti-apoptotic machinery in the cell. So activation of BCL-2 or Bcl-xL to try to save those melanoma cells when they were under stress by blockade with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. And that observation was made now about a decade ago or more. And that raised the possibility that repurposing a drug that was being used actually in the chemo malignancy space might be useful in augmenting targeted therapy. And that's where we come in with the navitoclax as a BH3-mimetic that can actually knock down those antiapoptotic proteins, BCL-2 Bcl-xL. And so that was the context for this initially phase I clinical trial of combining navitoclax with the dabrafenib and trametinib. And those data supported the safety of doing that and moved to this study, which was a randomized phase 2 study of that triplet regiment versus the dabrafenib and trametinib alone. And so this study started quite a long time ago, before the sort of initiation or widespread use of anti-PD-1 antibodies. And so it had to kind of undergo some various iterations throughout its course but eventually has now read out. And it had two primary endpoints, with one being focused on improving the complete response rate for targeted therapy because that's been associated with long-term outcomes as well as to look at the maximum tumor shrinkage of patients within this trial and of course to look at other endpoints like response rate, progression-free survival, et cetera. About half the patients who participated in the trial had prior immune checkpoint blockade and they were actually distributed evenly across the two arms. So we think that probably won't impact on the outcomes. And what was observed in the clinical trial was that in fact, the triplet did improve the complete response rate for targeted therapy. So navitoclax plus dabrafenib and trametinib had a complete response rate of 20% versus dabrafenib and trametinib alone being at 15%. Both of them had an overall response rate in the 80% range, with slightly higher for the triplet at 84% versus 80% for the double-edged standard therapy. There was also a suggestion that there may be a disproportionate benefit for the triplet actually in patients with smaller baseline tumors. And we know that the efficacy of targeted therapy is more pronounced in the lower-volume disease state. And so overall, when we look at this without really adding much toxicity, I think this is an intriguing place to look at further drug development. BRAF and MEK inhibition has been a backbone therapy in Melanoma for a long time, but we really haven't been able to move past it or augment it in any real way because of the heterogeneity of treatment resistance. And here, by going after metabolic changes, we perhaps might have the opportunity to enhance our targeted therapy somewhat further. And so we'll look forward to further results investigating this regimen in subsequent clinical trials. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic discussion, Jason. So these are all great insights. As you've heard, we've now discussed a couple of key abstracts covering major topics that will be presented, major themes of the malignancy space at ASCO 2023, including the addition of a lactate inhibitor to checkpoint in both a randomized large phase 3 trial and a smaller phase 2 trial, the context of targeted-therapy in melanoma making another forerun in the post-3c setting. And two very interesting studies I have looked at, checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the context of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and Merkel cell carcinoma, addressing themes that are of huge importance going forward, including the role of perioperative therapy in squam and the addition of a CTLA-4 inhibitor in Merkel. These oral abstracts are all going to be presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. We look forward to seeing you there. So, thank you Jason for taking the time to join us and for highlighting these important advances in immunotherapy. And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you for your attention. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Diwakar Davar @diwakardavar Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Diwakar Davar: Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical , Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Marc Braunstein discuss the role of maintenance therapy in high-risk multiple myeloma, advances in myelodysplastic syndromes in the COMMANDS study, the promise of bispecific antibodies in the pivotal EPCORE NHL-1 in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and improving outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the CAPTIVATE trial. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the associate director for cancer network clinical affairs at UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. My guest today is Dr. Marc Braunstein, a hematologist and oncologist at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. Today, we'll be discussing key posters and oral abstracts highlighting advances in hematologic malignancies that will be featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News Podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. John Sweetenham: So, Marc, thanks for returning to us and coming to join us on the podcast today. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Thanks for inviting me back. Dr. John Sweetenham: I'd like to start out with Abstract 8001. This is a study which is addressing the role of maintenance therapy in patients with high-risk multiple myeloma. Could you take us through this study and the key take-home points that you think are the most important ones? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Sure, absolutely. So, the first abstract that we're going to discuss is an oral abstract being presented by Dr. Nooka regarding maintenance therapy in high-risk multiple myeloma patients. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma are clearly improving, yet those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which represent about 10-20% of all multiple myeloma, tend to have poorer survival, and worst among these are those with what's called ultra-high-risk or double-hit multiple myeloma who have more than 1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality. So, this study looked at maintenance therapy following stem cell transplantation in 26 high-risk patients, about 59% of whom had double hit disease, representing very high-risk disease. This was a phase II study looking at using carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in high-risk multiple myeloma patients who achieved at least a partial remission following stem cell transplant. There were 26 patients enrolled. The median age was 60. Of note, about 59% of patients were Black, which is important because these patients tend to be historically underrepresented in studies. And what they found was that at study entry, about 24% of patients were in a complete remission or better, and that deepened to 79% while on the study. And the median time to best response was 2 months, which is fairly brisk. With a median follow-up of about 26 months, the 36-month progression-free survival was 63%, and the overall survival was 72%, which is impressive, again in the context of patients who have very high-risk disease. So, although it remains to be determined what the optimal regimen or duration of maintenance should be in multiple myeloma, clearly, combination therapy is effective and should be used in patients who have high-risk or ultra-high-risk multiple myeloma. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. Thanks, Marc. So, as you say, I mean, clearly the take-home message is around the effectiveness of this type of maintenance therapy. I just have a couple of quick follow-up questions for you. The first of those is, where do you see this going next? I mean, in your opinion, what would be the next logical study with this combination or similar combinations? And then secondly, what do you see on the horizon for those patients with very high-risk myeloma, particularly the double-hit population that you just mentioned? Dr. Marc Braunstein: It's a paradigm in multiple myeloma that combination therapy tends to be more effective as long as we're able to manage the adverse events that come with additional combinations. And we've been able to succeed in that regard with quadruplet regimens, even now that we have monoclonal antibodies that tend to be better tolerated and more targeted in nature. In terms of maintenance therapy, single-agent lenalidomide has been the long-standing agent of use for the majority of patients. But we now understand that the combination of an immunomodulator like lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor like bortezomib or carfilzomib is more effective for patients with higher risk disease. We also have data from various upfront studies of quadruplet regimens, such as the FORTE study, which looked at carfilzomib and lenalidomide maintenance after transplant that shows that we can improve progression-free survival in all comers with multiple myeloma following transplants. So, I think down the road we're going to be looking at more use of combination therapies and maintenance. And as far as for high-risk patients, whether that's going to be using monoclonal antibodies in maintenance or combination proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators or even other immunotherapies like bispecific antibodies as maintenance in the future remains to be determined, but clearly, for high-risk patients, we should be using combination therapies. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. Let's change gears a little now and take a look at Abstract 7003, which addresses patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. This study addresses the efficacy and safety results from a study of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in low-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. I wonder if you could describe this study and the results to us and maybe also for the benefit of our listeners, just mention quickly the mechanism of action of the experimental agent here. Dr. Marc Braunstein: This is an oral abstract being presented by Dr. Garcia-Manero looking at a phase 3 study, as you mentioned, called the COMMANDS study, and this is looking at an agent called luspatercept in patients with low-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). So, patients with MDS can have inferior quality of life and survival when they become transfusion dependent. An earlier study called the MEDALIST study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020, randomized low-risk or intermediate-risk patients with MDS who were refractory or unlikely to respond to erythropoietin stimulating agents to either luspatercept, which is an agent that binds to TGF-beta family members and helps stimulate erythropoiesis. Patients were randomized in the MEDALIST study to luspatercept or placebo. And that study showed that luspatercept could improve a degree of anemia and lead to transfusion independence in certain patients. So, the COMMANDS study is a randomized controlled study that randomized 354 patients with low-risk MDS who were transfusion dependent and naive to an erythropoietin stimulating agent to receive either luspatercept or the erythropoietin stimulating agent erythropoietin alfa with the primary endpoint of transfusion independence at some time between 12 to 24 weeks. So, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either luspatercept or epoetin alfa, and the primary endpoint again was transfusion independence. So, 354 patients were randomized in the study and the median treatment durations were 42 weeks of luspatercept and 27 weeks of epoetin alfa. And transfusion independence occurred in greater quantity in the patients who got luspatercept. For example, in the patients who received luspatercept at 8 weeks, transfusion independence was achieved in 74 versus 51% in the epoetin alfa group. So, in terms of treatment-related adverse events, they were fairly similar between the groups and consistent with the classes - they were reported in 30% in the luspatercept group and 17% in the erythropoietin group, with no difference in patients who progressed to acute myeloid leukemia. So, I think when it comes to MDS in low-risk patients, it's really important to preserve their quality of life by limiting their transfusion burden. And I think this study demonstrates that luspatercept continues to be an important part of the management in these low-risk patients. And whether or not you would start a patient with low-risk transfusion-dependent MDS on an erythropoietin stimulating agent or luspatercept is really addressed by this study showing that you can achieve greater rates of improvement in anemia and transfusion independence with luspatercept. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. Thanks, Marc. A really interesting study. And I do have one question for you about this study, which I think will make it clear to you that I am an expert neither in myelodysplastic syndrome nor in erythropoiesis. But my question is based on the mechanism of action. Is there any rationale for combining these 2 agents in future studies? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Yes, it would potentially make sense to use 2 synergistic mechanisms to improve erythropoiesis. We would have to see what the potential for adverse events are. I think epoetin alfa tends to be a fairly low burden in terms of its side effect profile. Luspatercept can have some potentially dose-limiting side effects, such as GI side effects, but you can make dose adjustments to both of these medications. So we may need to find the correct doses of either of them in combination. But from a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense that these could potentially be synergistic, especially in patients who are likely to respond to erythropoietin by having a baseline lower erythropoietin level. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay, let's move on in another change of gear now. And for the rest of the podcast, we're going to be talking about some studies in lymphoid malignancy, beginning with Abstract 7535, which is a follow-up of the phase 2 CAPTIVATE study which now has significantly extended follow-up from the original report. So Marc, can you walk us through this study and the outcomes to date? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So this is a poster being presented by Dr. Barr and it is looking at CLL, which is a field that is really moving away from chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients, thanks to the development of novel targeted agents. The CLL14 trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed that fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab improved progression-free survival and rates of negativity of minimal residual disease, or MRD, when compared to chlorambucil and obinutuzumab. So building on the success of that study, combining a monoclonal antibody and a BCL2 inhibitor, the CAPTIVATE study is a phase II study, which examines venetoclax with ibrutinib, the BTK inhibitor, and previously untreated CLL. So it's kind of combining 2of the novel targeted therapies in a fixed duration, similar to what was done in the CLL14 study where patients received 1 year of therapy and then stopped treatment. So in the CAPTIVATE study, 154 patients were enrolled. This was a phase 2 study that included about 56% of higher-risk patients who had unmutated IGHV, and the median time on the study was 50 months, with a CR rate of 58% at a 4-year follow-up and an overall response rate of 96%, which is quite high, especially considering that more than half of patients had high-risk disease. The progression-free survival was 79% and the overall survival rate was 98% at 4 years. And when they looked at patients who had undetectable minimal residual disease, the 4-year overall survival rate was 100%, which also suggests that MRD can help serve as a predictive marker of longer-term survival. So I think we have to also consider what the side effects are of combining these 2 agents and the most common adverse events were hematologic, which is expected based on what we know about the 2 classes. So I think the implication of the study is that giving 2 oral agents for a fixed period of treatment for 12 cycles is a rational approach that may spare patients indefinite therapy and can lead to positive outcomes, including in patients who have high-risk features with CLL. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, the other interesting observation that was made in the abstract, which I found to be really encouraging, was the fact that a number of these patients apparently have been re-treated successfully upon progression with ibrutinib again, which seems to be somewhat reassuring as well. Dr. Marc Braunstein: That's right. There were 4 patients who started re-treatment in the study and perhaps we'll see the outcomes of that small subgroup are at the poster presentation. But I think when we discuss fixed-duration treatment, it also opens the door to potentially re-challenging patients when they relapse. We know that when we stop single-agent BTK inhibitors, which are historically given indefinitely in patients with CLL, those patients who stop, many will relapse, but you can potentially re-challenge them with the BTK inhibitor. So this study with the CAPTIVATE trial gives us some liberty to discontinue therapy, but also considering re-challenging upon relapse. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. Moving on to aggressive B-cell lymphoma, now, the next abstract I'd like to discuss with you is Abstract 7525. I find this one particularly interesting as the continued excitement around CAR T cell therapy for relapsed aggressive lymphoma remains high at the moment. It's intriguing that t cell-engaging antibodies also have been reported, at least, to have remarkable activity in this set of diseases. So can you take us through Abstract 7525 and what they're reporting? Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. Bispecific antibodies represent an emerging field in multiple hematologic malignancies, and this is a class of antibodies that bind to both the tumor cell as well as T-cells, and activate T-cell immunity against the tumor cell. So epcoritamab is a bispecific antibody that binds to CD3, which is expressed on T cells, and CD20, which is expressed on B cells. And Thieblemont et al published results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology last year in a phase I/2 study that looked at epcoritamab in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma following 2 prior lines of therapy, and this was given subcutaneously until progression of disease. In that study, at a median follow-up of about 11 months, the overall response rate was 63% with 39% complete remissions. So the EPCORE NHL-1 study, which is being presented at this year's ASCO meeting, is presenting the updated results of that study looking at patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma that includes a small population as well of patients with high-grade B cell lymphomas and primary mediastinal B cell lymphomas who had at least 2 prior lines of therapy. In this presentation, 157 patients were included in this study, and 61% had primary refractory disease, and actually, 39% had prior CAR T-cell therapy, of whom 75% progressed within 6 months. So these were patients who were not only refractory to treatment but also had prior T-cell therapy. So at a median follow-up of 20 months, the overall response rate was 63% and the complete response rate was again about 39%, and the median duration of complete remission was 21 months. In terms of overall survival, the median was about 19 months, which is substantial for this group of patients who really wouldn't be expected to respond very well to conventional therapies. As we know, T-cell-engaging therapies, such as these bispecific antibodies or CAR T-cells have the potential risk for certain immune-related adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome or icons, and a neurologic syndrome related to the therapy. And it's worth noting that the CRS in this study was predominantly low-grade. There were only 3% of patients who had grade III CRS, and 9 patients, or 6% had grade I to II icons. I think that also reflects how we're better managing those side effects and intervening earlier. So I think the results are impressive from the standpoint of the population studied, who were quite refractory to treatment and show relatively high rates of response. In fact, the median overall survival was not reached in the overall population. So I think what we take away from this abstract is that bispecific antibodies are going to play a vital role in the relapse-refractory setting for large cell lymphoma and may also offer an alternative to patients who aren't necessarily fit for CAR T-cell therapy, which plays a vital role in patients who are both refractory to first-line therapy or relapse-refractory to subsequent disease. So these are very encouraging results, and I'm sure we'll see randomized data as well in the future, further supporting the use of bispecific antibodies like epcoritamab. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I agree. Thanks, Marc. I think that's a great summary. And it's particularly exciting to me that the investigators were able to achieve this kind of level of response and progression-free survival with a subcutaneous treatment. It's really quite remarkable and really exciting to see that. We're going to wind up with our final abstract today, which is looking at the utilization of circulating tumor DNA in, again, in patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma. This is Abstract 7523, so maybe you could walk us through this one, Marc. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. So this is a poster being presented by Dr. Herrera looking at a, I guess you could call it a biomarker in the blood using circulating tumor DNA in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the POLARIX study. So the results of the phase 3 POLARIX study were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine and showed improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of these anti-CD79b antibody polatuzumab to standard R-CHOP chemotherapy compared to R-CHOP alone. And this study actually led to the approval of first-line treatment that includes polatuzumab. In the abstract being presented by Dr. Herrera, the investigators looked at the value of circulating tumor DNA as a potential marker to serve as a guide for prognosis and predicting longer-term responses, particularly when the blood is cleared of circulating tumor DNA. So the study involved 654 patients who had ctDNA results both at baseline and then with longitudinal assessment, and they used an assay called the CAPP-Seq assay to assess circulating tumor DNA and assess for its clearance. In the study, undetectable circulating tumor DNA was achieved in 57% of patients who got the polatuzumab R-CHP combination and 59% of the patients who got R-CHOP by cycle 5 and then 6% in the polatuzumab group at 67% in the R-CHOP group. So the rates of circulating tumor DNA clearance were similar between the 2 arms. But what's notable is that patients in the polatuzumab arm who achieved a complete response at the end of treatment plus cleared their circulating tumor DNA had superior progression-free and overall survival compared to patients who achieved a CR but retained circulating tumor DNA in their blood. And this has implications because it might help gauge, for example, if patients may need additional cycles to clear the circulating tumor DNA, although we still need more data to answer whether that's necessary or not. And it may help serve as a predictive marker for longer-term remission, particularly in patients who perhaps have higher risk factors at baseline. So I don't think this is necessarily ready for primetime to use in clinical practice, but it is intriguing to know that we could finally have a tumor-specific biomarker in the blood to help monitor patients and potentially predict their longer-term remissions. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Marc. I agree. Great summary, and obviously there's still something to learn about the kinetics of the response and so on. And also, I suppose it raises the question of whether those patients who still have detectable levels should be switched at the end of therapy to some kind of preemptive second-line therapy. And these are obviously all questions for the future, but it's going to be very interesting to watch this space, I think, and see how this story develops. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Absolutely. And my colleagues in the solid tumor space are already using circulating tumor DNA, for example, in colon cancer, to help with surveillance. So perhaps this could be a tool to use to predict relapse also in patients who are on surveillance after their treatment. But again, as you alluded to, we need more data to address that. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, thanks so much, Marc, for sharing your insights with us today on a really interesting set of abstracts coming up at the June meeting. And thanks for joining us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Marc Braunstein: Thank you for inviting me. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today in a transcript of this episode. Join us again after the annual meeting for key takeaways on the late-breaking abstracts and other key advances from the ASCO Annual Meeting. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham Dr. Marc Braunstein @docbraunstein Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham:Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Marc Braunstein:Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Adaptive Biotechnologies, GlaxoSmithKline, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Abbvie, Guidepoint Global, Epizyme, Sanofi, CTI BioPharma Corp Speakers' Bureau: Janssen OncologyResearch Funding (Institution): Janssen, Celgene/BMS

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss the CLEAR study in renal cell carcinoma, a new exploratory analysis combining the TheraP and VISION trials in metastatic urothelial cancer, and compelling advances in prostate cancer and across GU oncology in advance of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News. I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we'll be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that will be featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the show notes and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found on our transcript at asco.org\DNpod. Jeanny, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Dr. Agarwal, for having me. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, let's begin with Abstract 4502 regarding long-term updated results on the CLEAR study. The abstract reports the final, prespecified overall survival analysis of the CLEAR trial, a four-year follow-up of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, I would be happy to. So, just as a reminder, the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab was initially approved by the FDA in August 2021 for first-line treatment of adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. So, this was based on significant benefits that were seen in progression-free survival, which was a primary endpoint, but also showed improvement in the overall response rates compared with sunitinib in first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. So this abstract reports on longer-term follow-up now at a median of 49.8 months, and PFS favored the combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab compared to sunitinib across all MSKCC risk groups, and PFS benefit versus lenvatinib and pembro compared to sunitinib was maintained with a hazard ratio of 0.47. And even overall survival was also maintained with the combination with a hazard ratio of 0.79, and the overall survival favored the combination across all risk groups. If we look at the CR rate, it was 18.3% for the combination compared to 4.8% with sunitinib, unless patients in the combination arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, and that's intuitive. And the PFS2 was also longer with the combination at 43 months compared to 26 months. Now, it is important to note that grade III or more treatment-related adverse events did occur in about 74% of the patients in the combination of lenvatinib and pembro, compared to 60.3% in patients with sunitinib. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, this is good news. So the main message from the abstract is that sustained results from this combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab are being seen even after a longer follow-up of more than four years. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, I agree. So now, moving on, Neeraj, to a different setting in the RCC space, let's look at Abstract 4519, which is titled "Efficacy of First-line Immunotherapy-based Regimens in Patients with Sarcomatoid and/or Rhabdoid Metastatic Non-Clear Cell RCC: Results from the IMDC," which will be discussed by Dr. Chris Labaki. So, Neeraj, based on this abstract, can you tell us a little bit more about the impact of these adverse pathologic risk features in non-clear cell RCC? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. So, using real-world patient data, the IMDC investigators compared the outcomes of patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC who were treated with immunotherapy-based combination regimens versus those who were treated with VEGF-TKIs alone. They also assessed the impact of sarcomatoid and rhabdoid features on response to IO-based combinations versus VEGF-TKIs. Of 103 patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC who had rhabdoid or sarcomatoid features, 32% of patients were treated with immunotherapy-based combinations. After adjusting for confounding factors, the authors show that those treated with a combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors or an immune checkpoint inhibitor with a VEGF-TKI combination had significantly improved overall survival, which was not reached in the immunotherapy combination group versus seven months within the VEGF-TKI group. Time to treatment failure and objective responses were also prolonged, significantly higher, and better in the immunotherapy groups compared with patients who were treated with VEGF-TKIs alone. Interestingly, if you look at those 430 patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC who did not have sarcomatoid or rhabdoid features, they didn't seem to benefit with immunotherapy-based combinations. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: This is an exciting update, Neeraj. What are the key takeaways from this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So the main takeaway is if you see a patient with advanced non-clear cell RCC who has sarcomatoid and rhabdoid features, there appears to be a rather substantial and selective benefit with IO-based combinations. And in this context, I would like to highlight the ongoing SWOG 2200 trial also known as PAPMET2 trial, which is comparing the combination of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab. So immuno-therapy-based combinations versus cabozantinib alone in advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma setting. So this trial is being led by Dr. Benjamin Maughan and Dr. Monty Pal. And I like to encourage our listeners to consider referring their patients for involvement in this federally funded trial so that we can validate the data from this retrospective study in a prospective way. So, Jeanny, let's now move on to another important disease type which is urothelial carcinoma. There is a very recent accelerated FDA approval of the drug combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab for cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients. This is Abstract 4505, which is being presented by Dr. Shilpa Gupta and colleagues. Can you please tell us more about this update? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely. So, as you mentioned, Neeraj, the FDA just granted accelerated approval in April 2023 for this combination of enfortumab vedotin or EV, which is and ADC, antibody drug conjugate against nectin-4 and the PD-1 inhibitor pembroluzimab. So it's a combination for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are considered cisplatin ineligible. So this is nearly a four-year follow-up. So as a reminder, this was a phase 1b/2 trial that included 45 patients and it had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability although the key secondary endpoints included confirmed overall responses, duration of response, progression-free survival, and the resist criteria was investigated via investigator and BICRs which is in a blinded independent central review. Even overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. So, the bottom line was the confirmed overall response by BICR was 73.3%, the disease control rate was about 84%, and the CR rate was 15.6% with a PFS of close to 13 months, and a 12-month overall survival rate of 83%. However, it is important to cite that there were treatment-related adverse events including skin reactions in 66%, neuropathy occurred in 62%, and ocular disorders in 40%. And there was a little bit of pneumonitis in close to 9%, colitis, and hypothyroidism, so there are side effects to watch out for. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Jeanny this is great. What is the key takeaway from this trial? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: So I think the most important thing is we now have a new combination of EV and pembro which shows very promising responses and survival in part which led to the FDA accelerated approval in the cisplatin-ineligible population of patients. However, we must note that the phase 3 trial of EV302 will ultimately establish which approach is really beneficial for all of our cisplatin-ineligible patients, either a carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimen or a non-platinum-based regimen such as EV and pembro. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thanks Jeanny, would you like to discuss any other study in the bladder cancer space? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely. I think Abstract 4508 from Dr. Seth Lerner and colleagues will be very relevant to our colleagues. This abstract is SWOG S1011, which is a phase 3 surgical trial to evaluate the benefit of a standard versus an extended lymphadenectomy performed at the time of radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes. So this trial, as you said, is an important trial which randomized in a one-on-one fashion 618 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, and these patients were randomized to either standard lymph node dissection or an extended lymph node dissection. And standard lymph node dissection included, as we know, external and internal iliac and operative lymph node. The extended lymph node dissection included lymph nodes up to aortic bifurcation which included common iliac, presciatic, and presacral lymph nodes. At a median follow-up of approximately 6 years, there was no disease-free survival or overall survival benefit in patients undergoing an extended lymph node dissection compared to standard lymph node dissection. And extended lymph node dissection was also associated with greater morbidity and preoperative mortality. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Very interesting data, Neeraj. So these results, I think, will be very useful for a lot of our surgical colleagues in both academia and the community who may still be inclined to perform extended lymphadenectomy during cystectomy. This study shows that it's actually not necessary. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. So now let's move on to another disease type, which is very important - prostate cancer. There are several practice-informing abstracts that are worthwhile discussing. The first of these involves Abstract 5002, which looks at the impact of the PSA nadir as a prognostic factor after radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer, which will be presented by Dr. Praful Ravi and colleagues. Jeannie, can you please tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, definitely. So this abstract, as you mentioned, Neeraj, is a prognostic impact of PSA nadir of more than or equal to 0.1 nanogram per ml within six months after completion of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer - an individual patient data analysis of randomized trials from the ICECaP Collaborative. Basically, it refers to an attempt to evaluate early surrogate measures to predict for long term outcomes such as prostate cancer-specific survival, metastases-free survival, and overall survival. So they looked at a big registry from the ICECaP collaboration that included 10,415 patients across 16 randomized controlled trials. And those men underwent treatment for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer treated with either radiation therapy alone in about a quarter of patients, or they got RT with short-term ADT in about 58% of patients, and 17% of them got RT with long-term ADT. So, after a median follow-up of ten years, what they found was, if you had a PSA nadir that is over or equal to 0.1 nanogram per ml within six months after completion of radiation therapy, it was associated with worse prostate cancer-specific survival, metastases-free survival, and overall survival. For instance, the five-year metastases-free survival for those who achieved a PSA nadir of less than 0.1 was 91% compared to those who did not, which was 79%. Therefore, they concluded that if you achieve a bad PSA of 0.1 or above within six months after you completed radiation, you had worse outcomes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, what is the key takeaway message from this study? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: The key takeaway from this ICECaP analysis is that this information would be very important to augment a signal-seeking endpoint, especially for clinical trial development, so that we can develop further strategies to de-escalate for those who don't need systemic intensification or therapy intensification versus escalation for those who really do. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, my radiation oncology colleagues need to watch out for those patients who do not achieve a PSA of less than 0.1 nanogram per ml within the first six months of finishing radiation therapy. Very interesting data. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, absolutely. So. Neeraj another important abstract for our fellow clinicians, switching gears a little bit now, is Abstract 5011, which is titled "Do Bone Scans Overstage Disease Compared to PSMA PET?" This was an international, multicenter retrospective study with blinded, independent readers. Can you tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, a relatively small retrospective study, but still pertinent to our practice. So I'll summarize it. This study by Dr. Wolfgang Fendler and colleagues evaluated the ability of bone scans to detect osseous metastasis using PSMA PET scan as a reference standard. So in this multicenter retrospective study, 167 patients were included, of which 77 patients were at the initial staging of prostate cancer, 60 had biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy, and 30 patients had CRPC or castor-resistant disease. These patients had been imaged with a bone scan and a PSMA PET scan within 100 days. And in all patients, the positive predictive value, negative predictive value and specificity for bone scan were evaluated at different time points. They had bone scan and PSMA PET scan and both were compared. And what they found was interesting. All these three values - positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and specificity for bone scan were 0.73, 0.82 and 0.82 in all patients, and in initial staging, it was even lower at 0.43 and 0.94 and 0.80. So, without getting into too much detail regarding these numbers, I want to highlight the most important part of the study, that at the initial staging, 57% patients who had a positive bone scan had false positive bone scans. The interreader agreement for bone disease was actually moderate for bone scans and quite substantial for the PSMA PET scan. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: So, Neeraj, what do you think is the key takeaway message here for our audience? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The key takeaway message is that positive predictive value of bone scan was low in prostate cancer patients at initial staging, with the majority of positive bone scans being false positive. This suggests that a large proportion of patients which we consider to have low-volume metastatic disease by bone scan actually have localized disease. So in the newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer, patients should ideally have a PSMA PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. So, let's move on to another abstract I would like to discuss, which has important implications in treatment, especially now that lutetium 177 is approved, but frankly not available widely. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, that's actually very timely. So the abstract you're referring to is 5045, which is being presented by Dr. Yu Yang Sun and colleagues entitled "Effects of Lutetium PSMA 617 on Overall Survival in TheraP Versus VISION Randomized Trials: An Exploratory Analysis." So, Neeraj, can you tell us more about the relevance of this exploratory analysis? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Definitely. In this abstract, Dr. Yang Sun and colleagues assess the effect of lutetium PSMA on overall survival in two different trials, TheraP and VISION trials. So, just for our listeners' recollection, the phase 2 TheraP trial compared lutetium PSMA and cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC who had progression on docetaxel and had significant PSMA avidity on gallium PSMA pet scan, which was defined as a minimum uptake of SUV max of 20 at least one site of disease and SUV max of more than 10 at all sites of measurable disease. In this trial, 20 of 101 patients in the cabazitaxel arm crossed over to lutetium PSMA, and 32 of 99 patients in the lutetium PSMA arm crossed over to cabazitaxel. In the VISION trial, patients with mCRPC who previously progressed on at least one ARPI and one taxane-based therapy and had a positive gallium PSMA scan, and here, positivity was not stringently pre-specified as it was done in the context of TheraP trial. So, positive gallium pet scans were randomly assigned in two to one fashion to receive either lutetium PSMA plus best supportive care or standard of care versus standard of care. And I'd like to highlight that the standard of care comprised ARPIs and bone protecting agents and these patients were not allowed to have cytotoxic chemotherapy such as cabazitaxel in the standard of care arm. Now, overall survival was similar in the lutetium PSMA group regardless of whether they got lutetium PSMA in the VISION trial or TheraP trial. There was no difference in overall survival with lutetium in the lutetium arms of VISION and TheraP trial with a hazard ratio of 0.92. And there was no difference in the overall survival between the lutetium PSMA and the cabazitaxel group in the TheraP trial if you use counterfactual analysis, assuming crossover had not occurred. So, quite interesting in my view. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, thanks Neeraj for that wonderful synopsis and discussion. So, what is the key take home message then? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The main message in this new exploratory analysis, which combined both the TheraP and VISION trials, is that lutetium PSMA and cabazitaxel seem to be associated with similar overall survival benefit in these highly selected patients with PSMA positivity. Additionally, the difference in the observed effect of lutetium PSMA and overall survival in the TheraP and VISION trials may be actually better explained by the use of different treatments in the respective control arms of these trials. And these results, in my view, are quite pertinent for those patients and providers who do not have access to lutetium-177 therapy. Let's go to another abstract that is currently relevant to our practice, given many patients with advanced prostate cancer who have concurrent diabetes; I'm talking about Abstract 5066. Jeanny, can you please tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Certainly, Neeraj. So this abstract will be presented by Dr. Amy Shaver and colleagues. So it's also very relevant, since many men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer frequently also have a concomitant diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. So, this was a SEER-Medicare population database analysis that looked at men who were treated with either abiraterone or enzalutamide and also had concomitant diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). And they were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and they were all tied in to acute care utilization. So they looked at CMS research data codes and ER hospitalization visits six months after treatment initiation was recorded. So all in all, they took a sample of 11,163 men, of whom close to 62% were treated with abiraterone and about 38% were treated with enzalutamide. So, of these, about 27% of them had type 2 DM, of whom 59% received abiraterone and about 41% had enzalutamide. So, the bottom line is, compared to those without diabetes mellitus, those who had type 2 diabetes had worse acute care utilization, which was 43% higher than those who got abiraterone compared to enzalutamide, and also had higher overall mortality. Therefore, the bottom line is, having type 2 diabetes mellitus, unfortunately, portends worse outcomes in men with prostate cancer, so careful attention needs to be paid to those who are starting out already with such comorbidities. So Neeraj, any final thoughts you have regarding this abstract and overall before we wrap up on the podcast today? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. So it looks like, based on this very important pertinent Abstract 5066, which talks about the impact of diabetes on our patients, I think we need to be very watchful regarding the impact of diabetes on our patients who are being treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide, especially drugs which are known to make the metabolic syndrome and diabetes worse. I think close monitoring and close attention to control of diabetes is very important. So with that, I would urge the listeners to come and join us at the Annual Meeting, not only to celebrate these successes but also to help disseminate this cutting-edge data to practitioners and maximize the benefit to our patients across the globe. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts we discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on our ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal @neerajaiims Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis, Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics.