In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Peter Li summarizes "Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST" by Pérol et al, published April 03, 2025, followed by an interview with first author, Dr Maurice Pérol.

TRANSCRIPT

The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes.

Dr. Peter Li: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. I am Dr. Peter Li, JCO’s editorial fellow, and today I am joined by Dr. Maurice Pérol on “Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST,” by Pérol et al.

At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript.

Before we start our interview, I want to give our listeners a quick summary of the TRUST study. For those tuning in, the TRUST study is a phase II, single-arm, open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter trial looking at the efficacy and safety of a novel, next-generation ROS1 TKI, taletrectinib, in advanced ROS1-mutated non–small cell lung cancer. While a relatively rare mutation, the prevalence of ROS1 mutations ranges from 0.9% to 2.6% of patients, with a third of patients presenting with brain mets at diagnosis.Current FDA-approved therapies include crizotinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which have varying degrees of efficacy, in-coming with trade-offs in CNS penetrance and safety with newer generations, particularly in the realm of neurological side effects, highlighting an unmet need in this arena.

A total of 273 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer with confirmed ROS1 mutation were recruited for this study. 160 patients were TKI-naive, while 113 were TKI-experienced with either crizotinib or entrectinib. Patients with asymptomatic brain mets were also allowed to enroll. In the TKI-naive arm, the median age was 57, with 91% of patients having stage IV disease, 20% having no more than one cycle of chemo, and 23% having brain mets at baseline. In the TKI-experienced arm, the median age was 53, with 97% having stage IV disease, 37% having received prior chemo, and about 50% having brain mets. Furthermore, about 10% of the study population had received entrectinib, while more than 90% had received crizotinib. About 10% had a known G2032R acquired resistance mutation. Taletrectinib was dosed at 600 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was overall response rate, with secondary endpoints being disease control rate, duration of response, time to response, and progression-free survival. For those with brain mets, intracranial overall response rate and disease control rate were also assessed. Median follow-up time was about 21 months in both cohorts.

In the TKI-naive cohort, the overall response rate was 89%, with 8 patients achieving a complete response. Disease control rate was 95%, with a median duration of response of 44.2 months. Time to treatment response was about 1.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 45.6 months, with 52.6% not having progressed at 3 years. While overall survival data were immature, 66% of patients were still alive at 3 years.

In the pretreated cohort, overall response rate was 56%, with 5 patients achieving a complete response. Overall response rate was 53% for those who were crizotinib-pretreated and 80% for the entrectinib-pretreated patients. Disease control rate was 88%, and median duration of response was about 16.5 months. Time to treatment response was also 1.5 months, and median progression-free survival was 9.7 months. Median overall survival was not reached, but 77.5% of patients were still alive at 1 year.

Responses were consistently seen across subgroup analyses. 17 TKI-naive and 32 TKI-pretreated patients had measurable brain mets. In the TKI-naive arm, intracranial overall response rate was 77%. Disease control rate was 88%, and duration of response was 15 months. In the TKI-pretreated arm, intracranial overall response was 66%, with one patient achieving complete response. The disease control rate was 94%, and duration of response was about a year.

For the 13 patients who had a known G2032R mutation, a 62% response rate was noted.

Most common treatment-related side effects were AST/ALT elevation, nausea, and vomiting, with most being grade 1 or 2. Most common neurological side effects were dizziness, dysgeusia, and headache. Again, most were grade 1. QTc prolongation is another important adverse event to note, occurring in about 18% of all patients. Discontinuation rate from treatment was only 7%. There were three treatment-related deaths in this study: one from hepatic failure, one from pneumonia in the naive arm, and one from liver dysfunction in the pretreated arm.

Dr. Peter Li: Maurice, thank you so much for joining us today to talk about your paper. Would you mind just giving yourself a brief introduction to the listeners out there of who you are?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: So, my name is Maurice Perol. I'm a thoracic oncologist working in the Cancer Center of Lyon in France. And I'm involved in clinical research in thoracic oncology. I've been involved for many years now.

Dr. Peter Li: Okay. And for listeners out there, don't forget, he's also the primary author of the paper that we just talked about.

So, Maurice, let's begin. Can you tell our listeners what is the significance of your study?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, the results of these two large phase II studies - TRUST-I, which has been conducted in China, and TRUST-II, which was a global, worldwide phase II study - so, the results place taletrectinib as the TKI with the most favorable efficacy-tolerability ratio of the available ROS1-targeting TKIs, especially in frontline therapy. And this is based on the response rate, which was very impressive, the CNS penetration with a great CNS activity, the duration of response with a compelling 45 months median PFS in frontline setting.

The level of activity in pretreated patients after crizotinib or entrectinib was also impressive and similar to that of repotrectinib, for example, but with a more favorable neurological tolerance profile. The toxicity is mainly represented with grade 1 or 2 transaminase elevation, but without clinical symptoms, and GI toxicity, but mainly grade 1 and 2. The neurological toxicity is low, especially for dizziness, showing that taletrectinib spares TrKB in a large part.

And finally, there is also a decrease in toxicity over time, especially for GI toxicity and liver toxicities, which allows a very long and a prolonged administration, which is very important in this setting.

Dr. Peter Li: These are all excellent points. Can you tell the listeners if there are any limitations that we should be concerned about, about this study?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Sure. This data comes from single-arm phase II studies. So, this is not comparative data. And a phase III trial, which compares taletrectinib to crizotinib, is ongoing to evaluate the superiority of taletrectinib over the standard of care. Another limitation comes from the lack of systematic brain imaging at each tumor evaluation in patients without brain metastases at baseline, not allowing to assess the intracranial PFS in all patients, and which did not allow us to assess the CNS protective issue from taletrectinib, especially in patients without brain metastases at baseline.

Dr. Peter Li: Another question that I have is, with this novel TKI now available, how would you recommend the sequencing of these drugs? Would you start with someone on an alternate TKI and then reserve taletrectinib second line or later? Or would you use it upfront? Or does it depend?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, it is a very important question, as we have now different available TKIs. Looking at the efficacy-toxicity balance, I would strongly favor the use of taletrectinib in frontline setting, in first line. The response rate, the CNS activity, the duration of response with a very compelling 45 months median PFS, and moreover, the good tolerance profile over time are strong arguments in favor of giving taletrectinib in frontline. Generally speaking, the use of the most active agent as frontline treatment in lung cancer depending on an oncogenic addiction is probably the best way to improve the patient's outcome. This is true for patients with EGFR mutation, for patients with ALK fusions, and this is probably also true for patients with ROS1 fusion. So, I would probably argue in favor of a frontline use of taletrectinib.

Dr. Peter Li: Listeners are going to ask, well, if you use taletrectinib upfront, then what are you going to use second line once they progress?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, we have some new compounds which are under development today. For example, the NVL-520, which is a very interesting compound, which seems also to be active in case of resistance mutation. But I do think that we have to use the best-in-class TKI in frontline because, you know, the extension of PFS after acquired resistance you can obtain with a second-line TKI is always shorter than the benefit you can obtain by using the most active agent in frontline. And this is true for the majority of oncogenic addiction in lung cancer.

Dr. Peter Li: That makes sense. I also noticed that cognitive impairment wasn't listed in the safety table. Is that not an issue that you've observed at all with taletrectinib, or is it still an issue but less so because, like you mentioned earlier, because of its higher selectivity?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question because we have some ROS1-targeting TKIs like repotrectinib, entrectinib, and even lorlatinib, with some neurological adverse events and some cognitive issues. Taletrectinib is a very selective ROS1-targeting TKI, and it spares very well the TrKB, for example, explaining that we did not observe any cognitive impairment with taletrectinib in the TRUST study, showing also with the low level of other neurological adverse events, dizziness, dysgeusia, for example, the high selectivity of the compound and the preservation of TrKB.

So, this is very important when you consider the long duration of treatment in those patients with ROS1 fusion. If you have to take a drug for more than 2, 3, or 4 years, of course, the neurological adverse events are very important, and they can clearly impair the quality of life. So, this is a very important point, the very low level of neurological toxicity of taletrectinib.

Dr. Peter Li: And I think that goes to say why you would favor using it frontline as well compared to entrectinib or repotrectinib.

Last question that we have for you is: well, what's next? You mentioned there's a phase III trial comparing it to crizotinib. I think one of the questions that a lot of us would have is: why not compare it to one of the newer agents as a comparator arm?

Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question. Crizotinib remains the standard of care in many countries for ROS1-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer outside of the US, especially in Europe, and in particular in patients who do not have brain metastases at diagnosis. Entrectinib has a better CNS penetration, but it did not achieve a better PFS than crizotinib in phase I/II trials, and clearly, it has a less favorable tolerance profile with weight gain, edema, and neurological adverse events. Repotrectinib has overall a level of activity which seems close to that of taletrectinib. So, it makes it difficult to consider a comparative trial that would, for example, test taletrectinib in comparison with repotrectinib because this kind of study would need a very large number of patients and a very late readout. Considering if you have a median PFS of more than 3 or 4 years, it would be very difficult to have results in before 4-5 years.

So, from a pragmatic point of view, the comparison of taletrectinib to crizotinib is probably the best way to evaluate in a phase III setting the level of activity of taletrectinib, especially in the CNS, because this study will probably allow us to assess the CNS protective effect of the compound for patients without brain metastates at baseline. So, I think probably it's a pragmatic study that will allow us to confirm the high level of activity and the good tolerance profile of taletrectinib.

Dr. Peter Li: Well, thank you, Maurice, so much for speaking about the JCO article, “Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST,” and for all your valuable input today.

Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts.

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.

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I am joined by JCO Associate Editor, Dr. Tom Stinchcombe. In this episode, we will discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer.”

NeoADAURA is a randomized global phase III study investigating the efficacy of neoadjuvant osimertinib-containing regimens in patients with resectable EGFR-mutated stage II to IIIB non–small-cell lung cancer. 358 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy, or placebo plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. The primary endpoint was major pathological response. Osimertinib plus chemotherapy and osimertinib alone demonstrated MPR rates of 26% and 25%, respectively, compared to 2% in the chemotherapy plus placebo arm with a p-value of less than 0.001.

Tom, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data?

Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Great question. Yeah, I think to give a little context, obviously, chemotherapy and immunotherapies preoperatively is becoming the standard of care. However, patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer generally have not responded to immunotherapy, and many of the trials excluded patients with known EGFR mutation. There have been smaller phase II trials that had looked at EGFR TKIs preoperatively, but none of these were definitive. So I think that this trial is a big trial, and I think some of the strengths are that it has osimertinib alone and chemotherapy with osimertinib arms as compared to the standard of chemotherapy.

I think it's going to be really interesting at the meeting to see how this is discussed by the discussant and also what the reaction is to its public presentation. And I think that's largely because there's an alternative paradigm now, surgical resection adjuvant osimertinib, that's available to patients. So I think this will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the induction therapy. For patients with known N2 disease, I've generally given some form of induction therapy prior to surgical resection. So I think that's the subgroup of patients that I'm most likely to employ this approach with based on the results.

Dr. Ece Cali: So, in this trial, more than 90% of the patients on the osimertinib-containing regimens underwent curative-intent surgery. So, this speaks to the feasibility of the approach, and the higher MPR rate with osimertinib-containing regimens is encouraging. Event-free survival data is currently immature. You have already touched upon some of the strengths of the trial, but what are the weaknesses and the strengths of this trial?

Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: So, I mean, I think there are some weaknesses. A major pathological response was chosen as an endpoint, and there could be an argument that path CR is more of a prognostic marker. However, the rates of path CR are relatively low, so it would have been very hard to design a trial such as that. And then I think the trial started off as a preoperative trial but effectively became a perioperative trial with preoperative EGFR-TKI, postoperative osimertinib. And so I think it's going to be very hard to determine what the contribution of the components are.

And then you've hit on another part that I think is very important when we interpret the data that the maturity on the event-free survival is only 15%, and most people are still on therapy. So the event-free survival, which is an important endpoint, is very immature right now.

Dr. Ece Cali: And this trial was designed to compare the neoadjuvant approaches, hence the comparator arm here is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. So, considering the ADAURA trial results with upfront surgery followed by osimertinib as adjuvant, so how do you see this trial's impact on the current clinical practice?

Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, very good question, I think one that we're still struggling with as we kind of look at this data. I think, for me, stage II patients will most likely go to surgery and then get adjuvant osimertinib, and then maybe the N2 patients will get an osimertinib-containing regimen as an induction therapy. I think one of the questions is does it really matter when you get the osimertinib as long as you get it at some point? And I think that's going to be the critical interpretation of some of the data at this point.

Dr. Ece Cali: And how do you think this trial shapes the future research for patients with resectable EGFR-mutated lung cancer?

Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, I mean, I think it shows that chemotherapy was really modestly active with an MPR rate of 2%, no pathological responses. And then I think you're going to have to look at an osimertinib plus another targeted therapy component. I think, you know, when I looked at the osimertinib versus the chemo-osimertinib arm, I also was sort of surprised that the MPR rate and the path CR rate were very, very similar. So I think that the question is would a double targeted therapy approach or some other approach matter? And I think it also sets a safety standard. And you touched on this in your comments, that there was not a disparity in terms of the rate of going to surgery or R0/R1 resections. So patients were not having progressive disease events or toxicities that prevented surgery. So I think it does give us good safety data.

Dr. Ece Cali: Tom, thank you so much for sharing your insights on the JCO article, "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer."

Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025.

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.

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Lauren Shih and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Stephanie Wheeler discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Lauren Shih: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO annual meeting series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentations at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Lauren Shih, JCO editorial fellow, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Stephanie Wheeler to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare."

Let's start with the relevance of the article. Dr. Wheeler, can you explain this to our listeners?

Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thank you so much. Let's get right into it. So this article is really about understanding different types of Medicare plans and what we should expect to see in terms of their use of low-value treatments for cancer patients. So, as Medicare really is focused on trying to limit the use of low-value cancer treatments, we really need to better understand the drivers of variability. So we know that many cancer patients have multiple treatment options available to them. We also know that the vast majority of older adults beyond age 65 are insured by Medicare, and about half of them are on Medicare Advantage plans, which are serviced by private insurance. And private insurance companies in this case are receiving capitated payments for Medicare beneficiaries to manage their service utilization and reduce costs. So, with respect to Medicare Advantage versus the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, it's not really been known to what extent low-value treatments are differentially used by these types of plans for cancer patients. And so that was really the focus of this article.

What the authors found is that across six different types of treatments, in general, the folks who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans had reduced use of low-value treatment. So that's a good sign for Medicare beneficiaries. And although the relative difference in that use was somewhat low, this translates to a significant number of Medicare enrollees across the country not receiving these low-value treatments. And of course, this translates to considerable savings at the society level.

Dr. Lauren Shih: Are there any additional key results that we should review?

Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yeah. So I'll tell you just a little bit more about the methods and also their findings. So they looked at six different low-value treatments, and this was in, again, 100% of national Medicare enrollees from 2015 through 2021. So the six low-value treatments that they examined were the use of G-CSFs among patients receiving low-risk chemotherapy and denosumab for those who had castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Then they also looked at four high-cost treatments, including using nab-paclitaxel instead of paclitaxel for patients with breast or lung cancer; second, adding bevacizumab to carboplatin plus paclitaxel for ovarian cancer; third, using brand-name drugs instead of generics when generics were available; and fourth, using biologics instead of biosimilars when biosimilars were available. And these are all, by the way, non-recommended treatments according to a variety of guidelines, including NCCN and ASCO's Choosing Wisely guidelines.

So they used the Medicare claims data to examine use of these regimens. They also analyzed results by type of Medicare Advantage plan, whether people were enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, or an HMO, or a preferred provider organization plan, or a PPO. They also looked at the largest Medicare Advantage insurers—including Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealth—and limited their analyses to those that had complete encounter data. And what they found across the board is that the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans generally had lower use of these low-value treatments. And the largest differences between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare plans were in the outcomes, including G-CSF use and using denosumab for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and then the combination of bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel. And all of these had a change in use ranging from about 19% change to 24% change in use. This is significant as a field as we look at ways in which different plan organization can influence use of treatments, particularly given the excess cost of cancer care. This is something we really want to pay attention to.

So I'd encourage folks to look more closely at the results by treatment type as well as the results by plan type to see a little bit more about what was going on across different plan types.

Dr. Lauren Shih: Great. And are there any outstanding questions that need to be answered?

Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Yes, there always are, of course. I think the study has several strengths that are worth noting.

First, they have 100% of Medicare enrollees, so there's national coverage there, which is, you know, quite outstanding. They also use an appropriate choice of analysis to help deal with some of the selection. So they use inverse probability of treatment weights, and they control for practice and county indicators to try to get some realistic adjustment for the selection that happens in terms of how patients are enrolled in different Medicare Advantage versus traditional fee-for-Medicare plans. These statistical approaches are a good idea, but they are limited by the observed variables that we can use for these kinds of adjustments. And so any unobserved—confounding or any unobserved factors that would influence selection in these plans aren't going to be captured well. So preferences, for example, that patients may have about different types of plans when they're insuring themselves and their families may not be captured.

Second, the data that are used are only encounter data from those plans with complete records. That may mean that smaller Medicare Advantage insurers or those that don't have as comprehensive records are not included. So this may not be reflective of their practice patterns. And then third, of course, this only looked at six different low-value cancer treatments. It remains to be seen whether this kind of finding extends to other types of low-value cancer treatments, and that's an opportunity for future study.

Finally, I would say that we don't exactly know why these patterns exist. It could be that Medicare Advantage plans have different approaches to prior authorization. They could have more in-house quality control and management to really understand, among their population for whom they're receiving Medicare Advantage payments, to really look at care quality and assess Choosing Wisely guidelines. We don't know exactly how that's playing out. And so we need additional data to really figure out what's working here and what are opportunities for future policy and payment innovations that can further reduce low-value care.

Dr. Lauren Shih: Great. Thank you so much, Dr. Wheeler, for speaking to us about the JCO article, "Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare." We really appreciate your insights.

Dr. Stephanie Wheeler: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Lauren Shih: Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025.

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.

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Grant McArthur discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "A Phase II (Alliance A091802) Randomized Trial of Avelumab Plus Cetuximab vs. Avelumab Alone in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC)."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Grant McArthur. Today, we will discuss Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "A Phase II Randomized Trial of Avelumab Plus Cetuximab Versus Avelumab Alone in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma."

Let's start with a brief overview of the clinical trial. This is a randomized phase II trial that compared avelumab plus cetuximab to avelumab in PD-1/PD-L1 antibody-naive patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. This is a cooperative group study conducted in the United States. Sixty patients were randomized one-to-one and stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Patients on the cetuximab plus avelumab arm had a median PFS of 11.1 months, while patients on the avelumab arm had a median PFS of 3 months, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.48 with a p-value of 0.018. Grade III or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48% of the patients on the combination arm versus 21% of patients on the avelumab arm.

Dr. McArthur, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data?

Dr. Grant McArthur: These results are very important because they provide proof of concept for inhibiting PD-L1 as a target when combined with EGFR, so inhibiting PD-L1 with avelumab and inhibiting EGFR with cetuximab, in a randomized trial with a very significant impact in terms of efficacy. So, what this does is it provides proof of concept for inhibiting those targets in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Avelumab is not approved for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and so further studies would need to be done, particularly asking the question about combination with the approved PD-1 agents cemiplimab and pembrolizumab.

Dr. Ece Cali: I still find the difference in median PFS with various PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors striking in this context. In this trial, avelumab, as you mentioned, the PD-L1 inhibitor, demonstrated a median PFS of 3 months, whereas PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have demonstrated longer median PFS in other trials.

So, what are some potential reasons for this, and do you think this difference impacts the interpretation of the results here?

Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the obvious reason for the differences is that avelumab targets PD-L1, where pembrolizumab and cemiplimab inhibit PD-1, so there could be simply a difference in the target to explain those differences in progression-free survival. However, as you point out, cross-trial comparisons, one has to do with caution because you can, in different phase II studies, enroll different patient populations, which would impact the progression-free survival. So, we have to be cautious about that interpretation. However, given that cemiplimab and pembrolizumab are the approved agents, I think they are the logical ones for further clinical development. Nonetheless, this is still a very important proof-of-concept trial showing that there is a strong clinical signal when you combine EGFR inhibition with inhibition of PD-L1 versus PD-L1 alone.

Dr. Ece Cali: I want to highlight some of the safety data presented in this trial as well. The treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events was much higher in the combination arm, reaching 31% compared to the 14% in the single-agent avelumab arm. The most common grade III adverse events were infusion reaction, rash, and diarrhea in the combination arm. So, these adverse events may affect patients' quality of life significantly. So, what are your thoughts on this, Dr. McArthur?

Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the safety data is important. What we're seeing is safety related to each individual agent. So, we have diarrhea and skin rash from the cetuximab, and the infusion reactions is a common toxicity of avelumab. I think what's important, given this is proof of concept inhibiting these targets going forward to further studies, is that agents such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have a very low infusion reaction rate. So, the treatment discontinuations due to infusion reaction are unlikely to be an issue with cemiplimab and pembrolizumab when further clinical trials are done. Of course, there is still the issue of diarrhea and skin rash. Now, that can be managed in many patients with EGFR inhibition, you know. However, one would have to await safety data from a significant patient cohort with a combination of cetuximab with either cemiplimab or pembrolizumab, of course, to assess the clinical impact of those safety signals. But I would expect there to be definitely rash and diarrhea as predominant toxicities with those other combinations as well.

Dr. Ece Cali: And lastly, I think we touched upon this a little bit, but how do you think this trial impacts the clinical practice, and what are some outstanding questions that need to be addressed in this field in light of the data from this trial?

Dr. Grant McArthur: So, the most important outstanding question is - of course, we've already alluded to in our conversation - regarding using anti-PD-1 agents such as pembrolizumab or cemiplimab. So, that needs to be undertaken. Clearly, a randomized trial would be required combining cetuximab with those agents because they are quite active as single agents with impressive response rates and PFS. So, that is the way forward.

There's other important clinical questions as well, though. So, patients that get locally aggressive or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin are often immunosuppressed. And so, we do need data in patients that are immunosuppressed, either due to treatment of immune-related disorders - and also organ transplantation. We see a lot of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in organ transplant patients. So, these are important patient subsets that would also need to be investigated in further clinical development. However, overall, you know, this is a strong signal, hazard ratio of less than 0.5, and very worthy of further investigation in randomized trials of inhibiting these targets.

Dr. Ece Cali: This was a great discussion. Thank you so much for your insight, Dr. McArthur, for speaking about the JCO article "A Phase II Randomized Trial of Avelumab Plus Cetuximab Versus Avelumab Alone in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma."

Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025.

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.

JCO Editorial Fellow Peter Li and JCO Associate Editor Eileen O'Reilly discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "Tumor-Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal, Phase 3 PANOVA-3 Study."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Peter Li: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Peter Li, and I'm joined by JCO Associate Editor Dr. Eileen O'Reilly to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal, Phase 3 PANOVA-3 Study."

Now, let's start with the relevance of the article. Eileen, can you explain this study to our listeners?

Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: Thanks very much, Peter, for the invitation today to discuss this. Yes, so this is a positive phase 3 trial that was conducted in locally advanced, unresectable pancreas cancer. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, international standard, with or without tumor-treating fields. And this is a device like a battery pack that you would wear with a goal to wear that approximately 18 hours a day. And the primary endpoint of this study was overall survival, with key secondary endpoints of tumor response, progression-free survival, looking at pain-free survival, and distant progression-free survival.

So, the primary endpoint was met with a median overall survival of 16.2 months compared to 14.2 months on the intervention versus control arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.82. And so that met the pre-specified boundary. There was not an increase in progression-free survival, but there was an increase in control of pain on the tumor-treating fields study. So, it was a large, global study, community, academic sites, randomized 570 people, and it supports what I think we've seen in other difficult-to-treat malignancies using tumor-treating fields, that there's a signal of interest.

Dr. Peter Li: Can you speak to some of the strengths and weaknesses of this study?

Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: So, strengths: it was a large study. It included community sites, it included academic sites. It included ECOG performance status 0, 1, and some patients with 2. The intent was locally advanced. It probably is fair to say that there were some patients who had more advanced disease based on early progression, based on relatively high CA 19-9 for a percentage of people. But likely that was, with random assignment, that would have presumably fallen out between the arms. The inclusion of patients with a lower performance status is nice to see in large phase 3 studies in pancreas cancer. So, they would be some of the strengths.

So maybe some of the limitations are the fact that it's an open-label study - so, always some biases inherent in that. Acknowledging that the primary endpoint was overall survival, presumably that wouldn't be directly influenced by that. And there was an imbalance of women on the control arm, and women do fare a little better in this disease, so possibly kind of weighted one of the study arms a little bit. But nonetheless, I think it was a rigorously designed and rigorously conducted phase 3 trial.

It's always hard to fully interpret the signal in locally advanced disease because of the fact that some patients go on to surgery, some patients have a treatment switch of cytotoxic therapy, some patients will go on to radiation. And the endpoint here of overall survival, to a degree, eliminates some of that. So, the benchmark, I think, was generally high here.

Dr. Peter Li: Gotcha. And then with these findings and this positive study, how do you foresee this research being implemented and how it will impact clinical practice moving forward?

Dr. Eileen O'Reilly: I think there'll be an educational need to introduce this approach to the community and to the pancreas cancer world. Again, there's a precedent in glioblastoma and data from other diseases, so there's some familiarity with this. I think people always want to understand how it works and why it works, and that's something that we'll look forward to hearing more about mechanistically, and also seeing how it can be built upon. And there's some intriguing data with the combination of tumor-treating fields and immunotherapy that's being evaluated in the PANOVA-4 study. So, we'll stay tuned to hear how that reads out in due course. But I think overall, it'll be educational and learning, managing the cutaneous impacts or some skin irritation effects from this, and building on this signal in locally advanced disease.

Dr. Peter Li: Well, thank you so much, Eileen, for your time and for speaking about the JCO article, "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal, Phase 3 PANOVA-3 Study."

Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025.

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.

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Peter Li and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Andrew Ko discuss the ASCO 25 Simultaneous Publication paper "Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Metastatic Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The Phase III Randomized LEAP-015 Study."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Peter Li: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Peter Li, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I'm joined by Dr. Andrew Ko, JCO Associate Editor, to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Metastatic Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The Phase III Randomized LEAP-015 Study."

Now, let's start off with the relevance of this article. Andrew, can you please explain this to our listeners?

Dr. Andrew Ko: Sure. Thanks, Peter. So, this was a very large international study evaluating the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. And just for context, that combination has been approved for use in other solid tumor types. It's FDA approved for renal cell carcinoma, for example, and endometrial carcinoma. But this study was looking specifically at this combination together with a chemotherapy backbone - so either FOLFOX or CAPOX - and comparing that to what at the time was a standard of care, which was just standard chemotherapy by itself. So, this very large study was intending to look at this particular novel combination. And we can get into some of the nuances of this study because the way that the experimental, the combination arm, was designed was perhaps a little bit more on the unusual side and led to maybe some imbalance in terms of how we think about the respective arms.

Dr. Peter Li: Okay. We can definitely talk more about that as we go on.

So, what are some of the key results of this study, and how do you think this will impact practice in the future?

Dr. Andrew Ko: That's a good question. Technically, it was not a positive study. Well, it was positive in the sense that the co-primary endpoints - which included both progression-free survival and overall survival - so, progression-free survival, it did technically meet its endpoint, both in terms of the overall population and the preplanned subgroup analysis of patients who had a PD-L1 CPS of greater than or equal to 1. So, there was a PFS benefit with the experimental combination - the lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, plus chemotherapy - compared to chemotherapy alone. I will say the benefit was on the more modest side. So, if you even look at the medians, it was not a marked difference. If you look at the hazard ratios, they did meet statistical significance. On the other hand, this did not translate into a benefit for overall survival.

So, when you ask, "Well, is this going to inform practice?" I'd have to say no. It highlights, I think, that JCO does want to publish articles that aren't necessarily going to be practice-changing, but that I think offer a lot of insights into trial design and important aspects of investigating novel treatments, even if they don't end up moving the needle in routine clinical practice.

Dr. Peter Li: I totally agree with you. I mean, it was significant in terms of progression-free survival, but again, not clinically significant. And then overall survival, the interventional arm actually appeared to do slightly worse overall.

Can you make some comments on the strengths and the weaknesses of this study, and where do you see us going from here?

Dr. Andrew Ko: So, I think a couple of things worth highlighting in this study, very well designed, more than 800 patients in total. So, first of all, as I mentioned at the beginning, the combination was a little bit unique in terms of patients enrolled to the experimental arm got the combination of lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, together with chemotherapy for a very finite duration. So, that period of chemotherapy they received was only three months. And per protocol, patients then just segued to, quote unquote “maintenance treatment” with just the lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination. Whereas patients on the control arm, meaning chemotherapy alone, would continue chemotherapy basically in perpetuity until their disease progressed or intolerable toxicity. So, there really was an imbalance in terms of, if you think that chemotherapy or continuing chemotherapy beyond that initial three-month period of time may be significant, that could have had some impact on the robustness or the efficacy of the experimental arm. There were some other aspects in terms of perhaps some differences in the rates of post-progression treatment, in other words, patients going on to receive second-line treatment.

I think the other very relevant aspect, Peter, in this study was that the control arm - and no fault of the investigators - but the control arm at the time the study was ongoing just consisted of chemotherapy, FOLFOX CAPOX, by itself, without an immune checkpoint inhibitor, right? And we clearly know, based on results of several large phase III studies, and it's now in standard clinical practice, that we routinely use chemotherapy plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Certainly for patients with CPS PD-1/PD-L1 scores that are, well, you could argue greater than 1, or perhaps greater than 5 or 10. But the point being that the control arm of the study probably doesn't reflect what is currently used in clinical practice. And that's just always a challenge in clinical trial design, right? That when a study is designed and when it rolls out, you're always at risk in a rapidly changing and moving field that the standard of care may evolve during the lifetime of that particular trial, which is what I think you see in LEAP-015.

Dr. Peter Li: Totally understand. And the survival we see from this study is also roughly similar to the combination of immuno-chemotherapy that is the standard of care today, which is, the authors mentioned, 12 to 14 months.

Thank you so much, Andrew, for your input and for speaking about the JCO article "Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Metastatic Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The Phase III Randomized LEAP-015 Study."

Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025.

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.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Michael Hughes summarizes "Co-Occurrence of Cytogenetic Abnormalities and High-Risk Disease in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma" by Kaiser et al, published February 18, 2025, followed by an interview with JCO Associate Editor Suzanne Lentzsch.

Michael Hughes: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Michael Hughes, JCO's editorial fellow. Today I have the privilege and pleasure of interviewing Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch on the “Co-Occurrence of Cytogenetic Abnormalities and High-Risk Disease in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma” by Dr. Kaiser and colleagues.

At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript.

The urge to identify patients with aggressive disease, which is the first step in any effort to provide personalized medical care, is intuitive to physicians today. Multiple myeloma patients have experienced heterogeneous outcomes since we first started characterizing the disease. Some patients live for decades after treatment. Some, irrespective of treatment administered, exhibit rapidly relapsing disease. We term this ‘high-risk myeloma’.

The Durie-Salmon Risk Stratification System, introduced in 1975, was the first formal effort to identify those patients with aggressive, high-risk myeloma. However, the introduction of novel approaches in therapeutic agents—autologous stem cell transplantation with melphalan conditioning, proteasome inhibitors like bortezomib, or immunomodulatory drugs like lenalidomide—rendered the Durie-Salmon system a less precise predictor of outcomes.

The International Staging System in 2005, predicated upon the burden of disease as measured by beta-2 microglobulin and serum albumin, was the second attempt at identifying high-risk myeloma. It was eventually supplanted by the Revised International Staging System (RISS) in 2015, which incorporated novel clinical and cytogenetic markers and remains the primary way physicians think about the risk of progression or relapse in multiple myeloma.

Much attention has been focused on the canonically high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in myeloma, typically identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization: translocation t(4;14), translocation t(14;16), translocation t(14;20), and deletion of 17p. Much attention also has been focused on the fact that intermediate-risk disease, as defined by the RISS, has been shown to be a heterogeneous subgroup in terms of survival outcomes. The RISS underwent revision in 2022 to account for such heterogeneity and has become the R2-ISS, published here in the Journal of Clinical Oncology first in 2022. Translocations t(14;16) and t(14;20) were removed, and gain or amplification of 1q was added. Such revisions to core parts of a modern risk-stratification system reflect the fact that myeloma right now is in flux, both in treatment paradigms and risk-stratification systems.

The field in recent years has undergone numerous remarkable changes, from the advent of anti-CD38 agents to the introduction of cellular and bispecific therapies, to the very technology we use to investigate genetic lesions. The major issue is that we're seeing numerous trials using different criteria for the definition of high-risk multiple myeloma. This is a burgeoning problem and speaks very much now to a critical need for an effort to consolidate all these criteria on at least cytogenetic lesions as we move into an era of response-adapted treatment strategies.

The excellent article by Kaiser and colleagues, published in the February 2024 edition of the JCO, does just that in a far-ranging meta-analysis of data from 24 prospective therapeutic trials. All 24 trials were phase II or III randomized controlled trials for newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The paper takes a federated analysis approach: participants provided summaries and performed prespecified uniform analyses. The high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities examined were translocation t(4;14), gain or amplification of 1q, deletion of 17p, and translocation t(14;16), if included in the original trials. All of these were collected into zero, single, or double-hit categories, not unlike the system currently present in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. The outcomes studied were progression-free survival and overall survival, with these analyses adhering to modified ITT principles.

The authors also performed prespecified subgroup analyses in the following: transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma, transplant non-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma, and relapsed/refractory myeloma. They, in addition, described heterogeneity by the I2 statistic, which, if above 50%, denotes substantial heterogeneity by the Cochrane Review Handbook, and otherwise performed sensitivity analyses and assessed bias to confirm the robustness of their results.

In terms of those results, looking at the data collected, there was an appropriate spread of anti-CD38-containing and non-containing trials. 7,724 patients were evaluable of a total 13,926 enrolled in those 24 trials: 4,106 from nine trials in transplant-eligible myeloma, 1,816 from seven trials in transplant non-ineligible myeloma, and 1,802 from eight trials in relapsed/refractory disease. ISS stage for all patients was relatively evenly spread: stage I, 34.5%; stage II, 37%; stage III, 24%. In terms of high-risk cytogenetic lesions, double-hit disease was present in 13.8% of patients, and single-hit disease was present in 37.4%.

In terms of outcomes, Kaiser and colleagues found a consistent separation in survival outcomes when the cohort was stratified by the number of high-risk cytogenetic lesions present. For PFS, the hazard ratio was for double-hit 2.28, for single-hit 1.51, without significant heterogeneity. For overall survival, the hazard ratio was for double-hit disease 2.94, single-hit disease 1.69, without significant heterogeneity except in patients with double-hit disease at 56.5%. By clinical subgroups, hazard ratios remained pretty consistent with the overall cohort analysis. In transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma, the hazard ratio for progression is 2.53, overall survival 4.17. For transplant non-ineligible, 1.97 progression, 2.31 mortality. Relapsed/refractory disease progression 2.05, overall mortality 2.21, without significant heterogeneity.

Of trials which started recruitment since 2015, that is to say, since daratumumab was FDA approved and thus since an anti-CD38 agent was incorporated into these regimens, analysis revealed the same results, with double-hit myeloma still experiencing worse survival by far of the three categories analyzed. Risk of bias overall was low by advanced statistical analysis. In terms of subgroup analysis, double-hit results for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma may have been skewed by smaller study effects, where the upper bound of the estimated hazard ratio for mortality reached into the 15 to 20 range.

In conclusion, from a massive amount of data comes a very elegant way to think about the role certain cytogenetic abnormalities play in multiple myeloma. A simple number of lesions - zero, one, or at least two - can risk-stratify. This is a powerful new prognostic biomarker candidate and, somewhat soberingly, also may confirm, or at least suggests, that anti-CD38 agents are unable to overcome the deleterious impact of certain biologic characteristics of myeloma.

Where do we go from here? This certainly needs further a priori prospective validation. This did not include cellular therapies. The very scale at which this risk-stratification system operates, agnostic to specific genetic lesion, let alone point mutations, lends itself also to further exploration. And to discuss this piece further, we welcome the one and only Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch to the episode. Dr. Lentzsch serves as an associate editor for JCO and is a world-renowned leader at the bleeding edge of plasma cell dyscrasia research.

Dr. Lentzsch, there are several new investigations which suggest that translocation t(4;14), for example, is itself a heterogeneous collection of patients. There are other studies which suggest that point mutations in oncogenes like TP53, which were not assessed in Kaiser et al., carry substantial detrimental impact. Is this classification system - no-hit, single-hit, double-hit - too broad a look at tumor genetics? And how do you think we will end up incorporating ever more detailed investigations into the genetics of multiple myeloma moving forward?

Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: Michael, first of all, excellent presentation of that very important trial. Great summary. And of course, it's a pleasure to be here with JCO and with you to discuss that manuscript.

Let me go back a little bit to high-risk multiple myeloma. I think over the last years, we had a lot of information on what is high-risk multiple myeloma, and I just want to mention a couple of things, that we separate not only cytogenetically high-risk multiple myeloma, we also have functional high-risk multiple myeloma, with an early relapse after transplant, within 12 months, or two years after start of treatment for the non transplant patients, which is difficult to assess because you cannot decide whether this is a high-risk patient before you start treatment. You only know that in retrospective. Other forms of high-risk: extramedullary disease, circulating tumor cells/plasma cell dyscrasia, patients who never achieve MRD positivity, extramedullary multiple myeloma, or even age and frailty is a high risk for our patients. Then we have gene expression and gene sequencing. So there is so much information currently to really assess what is high-risk multiple myeloma, that is very difficult to find common ground and establish something for future clinical trials.

So what Dr. Kaiser did was really to develop a very elegant system with information we should all have. He used four factors: translocation t(14;16), t(4;14), gain or amplification of 1q, and deletion of 17p. Of course, this is not the entire, I would say, information we have on high risk, but I think it's a good standard. It's a very elegant system to really classify a standard single-hit, double-hit, high-risk multiple myeloma, which can be used for all physicians who treat multiple myeloma, and especially, it might also work in resource-scarce settings.

So, ultimately, I think that system is an easy-to-use baseline for our patients and provides the best information we can get, especially with a baseline, in order to compare clinical trials or to compare any data in the future.

Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Lentzsch.

To the point that you made about this isn't the full story. There does, as you said, exist this persistent group of functional high-risk multiple myeloma where we see standard-risk cytogenetics, but these patients ultimately either exhibit primary refractory disease or very early relapse despite aggressive, standard aggressive treatment. How do you see risk-stratification systems incorporating other novel biomarkers for such patients? Is it truly all genetic? Or is next-generation sequencing, gene expression profiling, is that the answer? Or is there still a role for characterizing tumor burden?

Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: Excellent question, Michael, and I wish I would have the glass ball to answer that question. I see some problems with the current approach we have. First of all, to do the cytogenetics, you need good material. You only detect and identify what you have. If the bone marrow is of low quality, you have mainly peripheral blood in your bone marrow biopsy, you might not really fully have a representation of all cytogenetic changes in your bone marrow. So I think with a low-quality sample, that you might miss one or the other really cytogenetic high risk.

So, having said this, I think circulating tumor cells, that might be something we will look into in the future, because circulating tumor cells are readily available, can be assessed without doing a bone marrow biopsy. And what is even more exciting, in addition to the circulating tumor cells or plasma cells, using them is next-generation sequencing. I think at the moment, we are more in a collection phase where we really try to correlate sequencing with our cytogenetics and especially to establish next-generation sequencing in all of our patients. But I think after that collection phase, maybe in the future, collecting peripheral blood and doing sequencing on peripheral blood samples might be the way to go.

In addition, I don't want to forget the imaging. We started with a skeletal survey, and we know that you probably need to lose 30% of the bone before you see a lesion at all. So having imaging, such as diffusion-weighted imaging, whole-body MRI, is also, together with sequencing of the tumor cells, a step into the right direction.

Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Lentzsch.

Bringing this back to the article at hand, how has Kaiser et al. changed the way we discuss myeloma with patients in the exam room?

Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: I think we have more data on hand. So far, we talked about standard risk and high risk, but I think right now, with a very simple system, we can go into the room and we can tell the patient, "Listen, you don't have any of those cytogenetic abnormalities. I think you have a standard risk. We might give you a simple maintenance treatment with Revlimid." But we might also go into the room and say, "I'm really concerned. You have so-called double-hit multiple myeloma. You have high-risk and at least two of those abnormal cytogenetics which we discussed, and I think you need a more intense maintenance treatment, for instance, double maintenance." I think we know that a high-risk multiple myeloma can be brought into a remission, but the problem that we have is to keep those patients into a remission. So, I think a more intense treatment, for instance, with a double maintenance, or with consolidation after transplant, and a longer and more intense treatment is justified in patients who have that truly high-risk multiple myeloma described here.

Michael Hughes: Dr. Lentzsch, thank you so much for your time and your wisdom.

Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch: My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Michael Hughes: Listeners, thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit ASCO.org/podcasts.

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.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases."

The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care.

Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy.

Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine.

Dr. Davide Soldato

So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there.

When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients.

Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body.

Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%.

So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible.

Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader.

So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study.

What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate.

Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution.

I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment.

Dr. Davide Soldato

So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks.

Dr. Davide Soldato

And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting.

So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy.

Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you.

Dr. Davide Soldato

You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is going to be just a mechanism of action? Of course, we don't have the results from this trial but just wondering if you could give us a general comment or your opinion on the topic.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So that's a really great question. The trial of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was our answer to the fact that bevacizumab is not manufactured by the same company as pembrolizumab, and we’re trying to give a practical answer to our next study that might enable us to take this approach further. But it does turn out from our preclinical studies that bevacizumab and VEGF receptor inhibition aren't actually the same thing in terms of the effects on the blood-brain barrier or the perilesional tumor microenvironment in the brain. And these studies were done in mice and in in vitro models. Very different effects. The lenvatinib has stronger effect on the tumors themselves, the tumor cells themselves, than the bevacizumab, which has no effect whatsoever. But the lenvatinib doesn't appear to tighten up that blood-brain barrier.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you. I think that's very interesting, and I think it's going to be interesting to see also results of these trials to actually improve and give more options to our patients in terms of different mechanism of action, different side effects. Because in the end, one thing that we discussed is that some combination may be useful in some specific clinical situation while others cannot be applicable, like, for example, an all immunotherapy-based combination.

Just one final comment, because I think that we focused a lot on the intracranial response and progression-free survival. You briefly mentioned this but just wanted to reinforce the concept. Did you see any differences in terms of intracranial versus extracranial response for those patients who also had extracranial disease with the combination of pembro and bevacizumab?

Dr. Harriet Kluger

So the responses were almost always concordant. There were a couple of cases that might have had a body response and not an intracranial response and vice-versa, but the vast majority had concordant response or progression. We do believe that it's a biological phenomenon. The type of tumor that tends to go to the brain is going to be the type of tumor that will respond to whatever the regimen is that we're giving. In the previous trial also, we saw concordance of responses in the body and the brain.

Dr. Davide Soldato

Thank you very much. Just to highlight that really the combination is worth pursuing considering that there was not so much discordant responses, and the results, even in a phase 2 trial, were very, very promising.

So thank you again, Dr. Kluger, for joining us today and giving us a little bit of insight into this very interesting trial.

Dr. Harriet Kluger

Thank you for having me.

Dr. Davide Soldato

So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases," which gave us the opportunity to discuss current treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma and future direction in research for melanoma brain metastasis.

If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.

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.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Joseph Mathew summaries Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapy in the ESPAC4 Phase III Trial, by Palmer, et al published December 5, 2024.

Joseph Mathew:

Hello and welcome to the Journal of Clinical Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Joseph Mathew, and today we will be discussing the article "Long-Term Survival in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with Adjuvant Gemcitabine plus Capecitabine Compared to Modified FOLFIRINOX from the ESPAC-4 and the PRODIGE 24 Trials" by Dr. Palmer et al.

To summarize the relevant evidence, the ESPAC-4 was a European phase 3 multicenter randomized clinical trial published in 2017 comparing adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) with gemcitabine monotherapy following macroscopic margin-negative resections for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The trial had included non-metastatic patients aged 18 years or older, World Health Organization (WHO) performance scores of 2 or less, creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min, and a life expectancy of over three months who had not received any prior anticancer treatment. Patients who had undergone R2 resections were selectively excluded.

Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 within 12 weeks of pancreatectomy to one of the two treatment arms, with chemotherapy initiated within two weeks from the date of randomization. The regimens involved six cycles, each lasting four weeks, for an overall duration of 24 weeks. In the monotherapy arm, gemcitabine dosed at 1 g/m² was given as an intravenous infusion once a week for three weeks, followed by one week off. In the GemCap arm, capecitabine dosed at 1660 mg/m² was added to gemcitabine, given daily for three weeks, followed by one week off. Patients were followed up every three months, with the primary endpoint being overall survival (OS). The study showed that at a median follow-up of 43.2 months, GemCap was associated with a significantly longer OS than gemcitabine alone.

Subsequently, in 2018, the Phase 3 randomized PRODIGE 24 trial was conducted in centers across France and Canada, comparing adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) with gemcitabine in a similar subset of patients with resected PDAC and reported longer OS with the mFOLFIRINOX regimen. This study, however, had more restrictive eligibility criteria when compared to ESPAC-4, including patients aged under 80 years, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with no significant cardiovascular disease, and a postoperative serum CA 19-9 of less than 180 U/mL. There was hence a subset of ESPAC-4 patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria for mFOLFIRINOX as set by the PRODIGE 24.

The present study was conducted to estimate the overall 5-year survival rates for patients of ESPAC-4 receiving GemCap and gemcitabine, further stratifying survival in either arm according to the status of the surgical margins (R status) and the resected nodes (N status), and also to investigate whether GemCap retained a survival benefit over gemcitabine in PRODIGE 24-ineligible patients.

A total of 732 patients, evenly distributed between both arms, were followed up for a median period of 104 months. Adjuvant GemCap was found to retain its survival advantage over gemcitabine, with a significantly longer median OS of 31.6 months when compared to 28.4 months with gemcitabine alone.

Further subgroup analysis was performed with reference to the resection margins and the nodal status. As a reminder, in the ESPAC-4 trial, 60% of patients were found to have microscopically positive margins (an R1 resection), and 80% were node-positive. The difference in survival was greater in patients undergoing microscopic margin-negative resections (R0) who experienced a median OS of 49.9 months with GemCap when compared to 32.2 months with gemcitabine. Node-negative patients also had a significantly greater 5-year OS rate with GemCap of 59% versus 53% with gemcitabine monotherapy. However, it is important to note that no significant difference in survival outcomes was observed in margin-positive (R1) or node-positive patients in the two arms.

The investigators also evaluated GemCap in the subgroup of 193 patients (comprising 26.4% of the ESPAC-4 cohort) who were not considered to have met the eligibility criteria for PRODIGE 24. The survival benefit of combination therapy was retained in this group, with patients receiving GemCap experiencing a median survival of 25.9 months compared to 20.7 months with adjuvant gemcitabine.

Although cross-trial comparisons have limited validity, good agreement was noted in adverse grade 3 or greater toxicity associated with the control gemcitabine arms of ESPAC-4 and PRODIGE 24, serving as the basis for a qualitative comparison of toxicities between mFOLFIRINOX and GemCap. Neutropenia was more prevalent in the GemCap arm, affecting 40.8% of patients compared to 28.4% with mFOLFIRINOX. However, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered to 62.2% of patients in PRODIGE 24. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was also more prevalent with GemCap. Patients on mFOLFIRINOX were more likely to observe grade 3 or greater fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, sensory peripheral neuropathy, and paresthesias.

The investigators concluded that GemCap was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC undergoing an upfront resection who were not feasible for mFOLFIRINOX. Further exploratory analysis revealed that patients under the age of 70 who had undergone a microscopic margin-negative (R0) resection for node-negative PDAC were likely to derive an OS benefit from the addition of capecitabine to gemcitabine in the adjuvant setting. In contrast, mFOLFIRINOX would be more effective than gemcitabine in patients with positive margins (R1) or involved nodes, as per the PRODIGE 24 trial.

Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit ASCO.org/podcasts.

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.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Jessica Burris discuss the article "Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Programs" and how persistent smoking following cancer diagnosis causes adverse outcomes while smoking cessation can improve survival.

TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.

Dr. Davide SoldatoHello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy.

Today we are joined by JCO author Dr. Jessica Burris. Dr. Burris is an Associate professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky and co leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program at the Markey Cancer Center. Her research focuses on smoking cessation among cancer survivors, health disparities, and behavioral interventions to promote health equity. She also leads the BIRDS Lab, which explores the intersection of smoking, social determinants of health, and cancer survivorship. Today I will be discussing with Dr. Burris on the article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. So, thank you for Speaking with us, Dr. Burris.

Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you for inviting me.

Dr. Davide SoldatoSo today we'll be discussing an important study on the implementation of smoking assessment in cancer care and specifically through the Just Ask Initiative. So, we know that tobacco use is a critical factor in cancer treatment outcomes in general, and yet integrating systematic smoking assessment into oncology care has faced various challenges. So, Dr. Burris, to start off our interview, I would like to ask you to briefly introduce the Just Ask Initiative for those of our readers and listeners who may not be familiar with it. So, a little bit about the primary goals and why do you think that routine smoking assessment is such an important aspect of cancer care and why the Just Ask Initiative focuses on this specific issue?

Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, as you mentioned before, smoking is a really critical factor in terms of cancer care and cancer outcomes. It impacts a lot of things, from complications after surgery up into cancer mortality, but it also impacts patient's quality of life. Their pain may be more severe, they're more tired, their distress levels are higher. So, there's just a lot of different reasons why we need to understand and address smoking in the context of cancer care. But like you said too, there's a lot of barriers as well. But in order to effectively treat nicotine dependence and tobacco use, we really need to know who is currently smoking. And so that was really the driver for Just Ask, wanting to make sure that we are asking every person with cancer at their diagnosis and as they go through treatment, what their smoking history is, if they are currently smoking, which we usually consider to be any smoking or other tobacco use in the past 30 days, so that once we can identify that person, then we know who we need to help.

Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was very clear. And in terms of methodology, Just Ask was really a quality improvement type of initiative that involved the programs that were contacted and approached to participate in this type of initiative. And the methodology is pretty standard for this type of implementation science, which is the Plan Do Study Act methodology. So just a little bit of background on this type of methodology and why do you think it might be so successful when implementing these types of changes at the structural level and when we are implementing these types of programs.

Dr. Jessica BurrisRight. So, the American College of Surgeons requires all the accredited cancer programs, both Commission on Cancer and the NAPBC or the ones that focus on breast cancer, to do at least one quality improvement project annually. And most of the programs do use the evidence-based Plan Do Study Act approach. I think it's a great one. It has a lot of evidence behind it, but it also is very practical or pragmatic. So, you're using data from your local healthcare system or clinic or program to inform what it is that you do. And then you're constantly pulling data out to see how well you're addressing the clinical practice change that you're hoping to achieve. And so, data is going in and coming out and you're using that to inform exactly what it is that you're doing over time. So, it's an iterative approach to practice change and again, one that has proven successful time and time again. And so that's the program that these programs and Just Ask used in order to increase the frequency by which they ask patients about smoking.

Dr. Davide SoldatoSo as you were saying, the main objective of the initiative was really to understand if we are asking patients diagnosed with cancer and survivors if they are smoking. And how can we better report this information inside of the medical chart of the patient. So, what was the primary endpoint or the objective that you had for this type of intervention? And can you give us a little bit of results? So, what did you find the implementation of this quality improvement? How did it change the percentages of patients that were asked about smoking habits? And a little bit, what is your opinion on the results that you obtain in the study?

Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, the goal was simple and that was to have an ask rate that was at least 90%. The way that we defined an ask rate is among all newly diagnosed cancer patients, how many were asked about their smoking history and their current status at that initial visit? And so, we wanted all of the participating programs who opted in to Just Ask in 2022 to achieve that 90% ask rate by the end of this one-year quality improvement project. And again, using the Plan Do Study Act approach, it was a very pragmatic study in some ways. So, what we did was we provided an intervention change package that we made available online. And programs could access that whenever they needed to and pull-down educational resources, patient facing materials, practical tools for changing the EHR or pulling data out of the EHR, any of those number of things. And then we also hosted webinars over the course of the year. And those webinars were great because half the time they were in response to questions that programs were asking as they went through the Just Ask QI project. And the other half of time we were really just reminding programs of the rationale and the reason for making sure that they're asking. And then of course, letting them know that they don't have to stop there, they should be advising patients to quit and assisting them with cessation. Even though that wasn't the goal of Just Ask, the goal again of Just Ask was getting that 90% rate. And so, we had over 750 programs who opted in to Just Ask and did this QI study with us, and it was successful. So, we met the goal, or rather the programs met the goal of that 90% ask rate. And that was maintained over time. And that was just fantastic. So again, we know that the end goal is really to assist patients with quitting, but we can't do that unless we know who to help. And so, you have to ask first. And again, they were able to do that.

Dr. Davide SoldatoSo thank you very much. The quality improvement program was absolutely successful. And to go a little bit in the numbers, by the end of the one-year implementation of the program, you report a 98% rate of asking patients who first approached the centers or over time if they were or not smokers. So, you said before that you targeted a 90% ask rate in terms of smoking habits. But when looking at the data, I noticed that you already had in the baseline survey where you asked the programs about what were the practice before the implementation of the Just Ask initiative, already something that was quite close to the 90%. And yet, despite starting from such a good point, which was basically your endpoint, you still observed a major change over the years of the implementation. So, I wanted to just underline a little bit what is the value of this type of programs. And still starting from such a very high standard still, we managed to further improve. And as you were saying, this is pivotal and I think it's fundamental to really understand and see who are the patients that we need to refer and then to help in the smoking cessation. So, I just wanted a little bit of a comment on these very important results, despite already starting from a very good background from the centers.

Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm glad that you brought up the baseline. So, I think one thing that's important about this study is that we looked at our ask rate or the asking as a clinical practice in two different ways. So, the 98% that you referred to that we found at the final survey is based on a response to a question on the frequency of asking. So, it's a Likert type question. And essentially what we did was we combined programs that reported usually asking or almost always asking into one, and that's where we arrived at the 98%. And at baseline it was 92%. What's interesting though is that we also asked them to report the specific number of patients who were seen in their cancer program during the prior six months and the number of patients who were asked about smoking in the prior six months. And with that we could get a proportion. And in every case, the self-report Likert question had a higher outcome than the raw data based on the data that was pulled from the EHR. And so, we saw this increase significantly over time, both in the self-report Likert question, but also in the EHR based data. And so, it was a win in two ways. What I think is really interesting though is that at baseline, even though 92% of programs said that they regularly ask about their patient smoking status, 16% of programs could not provide data that would allow calculation of an ask rate. So, they were reporting that they were able to do so but then could not actually do so. So, I think what that means essentially is that there's a disconnect between what programs are doing regularly or they believe that they're doing regularly and what their data actually shows. And it could be an issue with the quality of the data that's going into the EHR, or it could be an issue with pulling the data out of the EHR. And so one of the things that we saw that I think is a second indicator of success of Just Ask is that the quality of the data that programs were inputting into the EHR related to their patients smoking history and smoking status did improve over time, which meant that by the end it really was the case that the vast majority of programs were asking. And not only that, but they were also documenting it in a way to where it could inform patient care. Does that make sense?

Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And I think that that explanation really is truly important because I think that it also connects a little bit to how the initiative was able also to change things at the structural level, to be sure that there was the best possible way of asking, but also of having that information readily available inside of the EHR. This also connects a little bit to my next question, which was a little bit about organizational structure and also implementation barriers, which you report also as a self-reported information by the specific programs. So, there was a little bit of implementation barriers that was reported by the programs and this was not a specific endpoint of the Just Ask initiative, but you kind of mentioned it a little bit. The difficulties in pulling data from the EHR in understanding whether the information was collected and how it was collected. This might be one of the implementation barrier when we are looking at initiatives like Just Ask. So, I just wanted a little bit of your opinion if you think that these implementational barriers are more on the organizational side or on the provider side. And how can we use these quality improvement programs to really tackle this type of barriers to improve overall the reach and the importance of our action regarding smoking cessation.

Dr. Jessica BurrisThe devils in the details, right? So I think it's a “both and” situation and not either or I think for providers, for individual providers, oncologists, nurses, supportive care providers, the issue of feeling like they're not fully trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment, and also feeling because of a lack of training that they don't feel confident or competent or even comfortable having conversations with their patients about their smoking history or being in the position to where they can really help someone who wants to quit in choosing the best path and way forward to do that that really matters. And so organizational readiness, these programs that participated were pretty high even at baseline in terms of the organizational readiness. They understood that it's a problem and they wanted to do something about it. And they were really eager and chomping at the bit to do so. But that has to trickle down to individual providers. And so, I think one of the implementation strategies that was used was staff training and provider education. And a lot of the participating programs chose that strategy. And I think as staff and providers are trained in how to ask and how to do so in a way that is nonjudgmental and that doesn't lean into things like stigma or blame or making patients feel guilty that perhaps their behavior led to their cancer, but really just understanding tobacco history and understanding nicotine dependence and the best strategies that we have to address those things that helped and that made a difference but it also is things at the system level, like having good EHR data, being able to pull those data out at a regular interval every three months or every four months, or even every six months to make sure that you're tracking smoking and also quitting over time. Both of those things need to happen. And I think those were things that we saw change as a result of Just Ask participation.

Dr. Davide SoldatoRelating to this, provider readiness also to counsel patients on how to stop smoking or what is the best strategy. Despite, as you said in the very beginning, this was not the objective of Just Ask because you just wanted to improve the rate of smoking assessment and the quality of reporting of smoking assessment. You still observed higher rates of patients and survivors that were actually referred to some kind of intervention for smoking cessation. So, I was just wondering, why do you think that even though that was not required, you still observe this type of improvement? Like, is it just inherent to the fact that we are improving and we are placing more interest and more attention on the fact that patients should quit smoking, or do you think that it relates to something else completely?

Dr. Jessica BurrisI think there's probably multiple things going on. One is once you're fully aware of the fact of the impact of smoking after a cancer diagnosis, you're going to be compelled to do something, I think. And so just the simple fact of knowing now that the patient sitting in front of you has smoked in the past week or two, they may be under a lot of stress because they're coping with cancer and they're coping with the side effects of their treatment. They may even have increased their smoking since their cancer diagnosis. And now you have this information. I think people who are providing cancer care, they want to improve the health and the life of the person sitting in front of them. And if they understand that smoking is a detriment or a hurdle to their doing so, then they're also more inclined to try and help that person quit smoking. And so, I think the asking and the documenting likely led to an increase in assistance and referrals to tobacco treatment specialists or to a state quit line, which was also common, simply because that's part of providing quality care. I think also there's been a greater emphasis nationally, in part led by the National Cancer Institute and a cancer moonshot initiative that it led, they're really focused on getting more treatment to more patients with smoking and increasing the reach and the effectiveness of the treatments that we provide. And so, I think there has been a shift in oncology care broadly to put more attention on smoking and smoking cessation as part of standard cancer care. And so, I think this kind of shift in the field also informed things as well as, again, thinking about the patient and the individual who's in the room and wanting to do something about the problem that you've just identified.

Dr. Davide SoldatoAnd one thing that I believe is truly exceptional about the Just Ask initiative is really also the diversity of the type of programs that you involved. Like, you went from community centers to more academic centers. And really, I did not have the impression reading the manuscript that there was any difference in the way this type of quality improvement initiative can really benefit all these programs and all these centers. So, I was just wanting to have your opinion or comment on how do you think this type of initiative could be transferable across the country and across different settings and different types of cancer care?

Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm really glad that you brought that up, because I think most of the clinical trials that are done in this area are done at academic medical centers, which are admittedly kind of resource rich places to receive cancer care. And so, what works in academic medical center may not work in a small rural practice in the middle of Kansas, for example, or in Mississippi. And it may not work in other community-based practices, even if they're larger and set in an urban setting. And so, one of the things that frankly I loved about Just Ask is that it was very heterogeneous in terms of the sites and the participating groups. And so not only was it national and by far the largest initiative in this area, again with over 750 different programs, but the programs were diverse. So, we had large community-based programs, integrated networks, smaller community programs. And then the academic centers were actually the smallest. Only like 10 or 12 out of the 750 plus were academic. And so, it was very different than what is the norm in this research area and in this area generally in terms of clinical practice. And we were able to show that the type of program that participated had no bearing on their success. And so, when we think about initiatives that work and interventions that work, we also really have to think about what is scalable and what could be disseminated across different practices. And this is one of those things that can. It worked and it worked across different swaths of group, which was great.

Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And just one last comment about the intervention, and it's also a point that you raised in the manuscript. This initiative, like many others also at the national levels that have been reported previously, they rarely had really the participation or the perspective of the patients embodied inside of them. So, I was wondering, how do you see the field moving forward. Like you envision something that would implement sort of a co-creation with patients or cancer survivors in order to really create something that is more appealing and takes more into consideration what is the patient perspectives when we are approaching something like smoking cessation, which as you were mentioning before, it can have a lot of stigma or already some negative feelings by the patients and feelings of guilt regarding the fact that they smoked and that might have caused that cancer. So just a little bit of your opinion as to how you see the implementation science in smoking cessation moving forward while integrating also the patient perspectives.

Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, that's a great question. So, this is something that I've thought about a lot in my lab and at Market Cancer center, which I'll use as an example. But oftentimes what we see is that even when tobacco treatment is offered as part of standard cancer care, even when we try to remove barriers like the financial cost of treatment at Markey, we embed it within our psych oncology program. And so, all of those services are offered for free. The rate at which patients say, yes, they want to engage in treatment is much, much lower than what we would want. And so that means two things. One, we need to offer help repeatedly to patients and understand that their willingness to quit and their willingness to accept treatment likely would change over time. And so, we need to keep coming back to people. It's not a one and done situation. But then also we need to understand what the barriers are from a patient's perspective. So why are they saying no? That they're either not ready or that they don't want treatment. They want to, quote, unquote, go it alone. And oftentimes what we hear is that patients want to be able to do this by themselves. They want to feel like, I quit smoking and I did it all by myself. And this is this huge thing that I've overcome. Not too different from the perspective that a lot of patients have about fighting cancer. They want to fight this addiction, this dependence that they've had oftentimes for multiple decades. And so, I think one thing that might be beneficial is to think about having peer led tobacco treatment. So have a patient who was able to quit successfully and have them provide counseling alongside a trained provider so that patients see someone like them who's went through it in the context of cancer care and who was able to overcome and to fight and win against tobacco, essentially. I think the other thing is trying to make sure that when we're asking about smoking and when we're offering treatment that we are not accidentally harming patients by bringing up feelings of stigma or guilt or shame. And I think one way to make sure we don't do that is to really lean on clinicians who are trained in addressing social determinants of health and other supportive care. So, our social workers, I think would be great. They're oftentimes embedded within oncology care. They are surely able to be trained as tobacco treatment specialists. They're already working with patients; they're addressing other barriers to care. They're sensitive in how they ask questions oftentimes. And so, they're really an ideal partner for this work. And we have found in a lot of settings that social workers are great in terms of being tobacco treatment specialists, including what we saw in Just Ask.

Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was really very, very interesting. And so, last question, moving forward, we improved the rate of asking patients. We are able to document this addiction more clearly in the EHR. So how do you see the field moving forward? In the manuscript, you speak a little bit about the Beyond Ask initiative. So just a little bit of a background about what is this initiative, what you are planning to do, and what do you think would be the best way to really act on this information that we are starting to collect in a better way and more frequently.

Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah. So Beyond Ask really took everything that we did in Just Ask and amplified it. So instead of focusing on asking, we really said to make a difference and to improve cancer outcomes, ultimately patients need to be able to quit smoking. It's not enough that we know who is smoking, but that we help that individual or those groups of people quit. And so Beyond Ask had the goal to increase cessation assistance. So, either prescribing medication to help with smoking cessation, referring to a quit line, or another evidence-based program, or personally providing cessation counseling on site at that cancer program and to try and improve again within assistance. It was another one-year study, but we increased the frequency of surveys. I think we ended up with five total surveys. So, we were capturing two to three months at a time instead of a six-month period. And the data that we were capturing was very similar to what we did in Just Ask. And I can say we're still doing the data analysis, but it was another major success. So, with Beyond Ask, we had about 350 participating programs, many of whom not all, but many did participate in Just Ask. So, I think Just Ask kind of energized people around addressing the issue of smoking in their patient population. And again, they were really chomping at the bit to do more. And so, we offered Beyond Ask just after Just Ask. So Just Ask was 2022. Beyond ask was 2023. It ended in the spring of 2024. And again, another success.

Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. So, we are eager to see the results of this study. So that leads us to the end of this interview. So, thank you again, Dr. Burris for joining us today and speaking about your work.

Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you.

Dr. Davide SoldatoSo we appreciate you sharing more on the JCO article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast.

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.