ASCO Education

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Kathryn Schmitz discuss evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care and connect the right patient to the right program, and ultimately build a culture of exercise in oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist and a clinical trialist at the University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also happy to serve as a deputy editor for the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we'll be talking about exercise. We have plenty of evidence that exercise benefits symptoms, improves the quality of life of patients, and actually has been shown to reduce risk of recurrence of cancer but also improve survival. And I think that's increasingly clear as data emerges. Today, I'm delighted to be speaking to Dr. Kathryn Schmitz. She's a leading expert on integrating exercise into cancer care. Dr. Schmitz serves as the deputy director of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center and also a professor of hematology-oncology at University of Pittsburgh Medical School. She's the senior author of a fantastic article in the ASCO Educational Book that's titled "Implementation Science as the Secret Sauce for Integrating Exercise Screening and Triage Pathways in Oncology." She also led a really compelling piece that just got published in JCO titled "If Exercise Were a Pill, We'd All Prescribe It to Patients With Cancer. But It's Not" So I'm thrilled to have Dr. Schmitz joining us today and helping us explore evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care, and also how to connect the right patient to the right program. So with that, welcome, Dr. Schmitz. Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us. Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the highlights of ASCO last year and practice changing, in my opinion, data out of The New England [Journal of Medicine] is called the CHALLENGE trial. It did provide high level evidence that a structured, supervised exercise program could improve both disease-free survival and overall survival. This is a study in the GI world, but I think it got a lot of attraction and attention beyond the GI world, across solid tumors, really. Could you give us a little brief recap of that trial and what have you seen as being the impact in practices around oncology? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, CHALLENGE was very exciting. Prior to CHALLENGE, there were any number of observational studies that indicated that there was a relationship between being more physically active and reduced recurrence and improved overall survival for colon cancer in particular. You know, notably, in 2006, Jeff Meyerhardt published two papers in the same journal, of the same issue of JCO, showing very, very similar data from two very large studies. And those were studies number five and six in this area. You know, there's a lot of evidence observationally, but we don't generally change clinical practice on the basis of observational data. So, we were all waiting very impatiently for the results of the CHALLENGE trial. And it was very exciting to be in the front row when the results were reported out and to be part of the group with a standing ovation for the authors when it was presented. To summarize, 889 colon cancer patients, stage II and III, were randomized into either a structured exercise program or a health education control comparison group and followed for an average of 7.9 years. And the structured exercise group had a 27% reduced risk of recurrence and a 38% improvement in overall survival. One of the things that's really notable about this is that what we typically expect is that when we go from the observational literature to the clinical trial literature, that we expect effects to go down. We expect to see a larger effect in the observational than in the RCT land, and that did not happen here. We actually see an effect that matches what we've seen in observational literature, which is really, really exciting. And, you know, one of the reasons why this has been so exciting across not just GI but other cancers is the notable finding of a reduced risk of second primaries. So, they only observed two breast cancer second primaries in the treatment group and 12 in the comparison group. And overall, they reduced the second primaries occurrence, hazard ratio was 0.5, a 50% reduction of second primaries, which is just remarkable. It really got everybody very, very excited. And now the big question, of course, is, all right, how do I do this? How do I make this happen? The thing to note is that what they did in CHALLENGE is probably not doable in your clinic tomorrow. It's a heavy intervention. The number of touchpoints from staff is extensive, and the amount of time needed from staff for the coaching and supervised exercise is extensive as well. The criteria for getting people into the program required that people go through a series of blood tests and imaging tests that would just simply not be possible for the average community oncologist. So I'm guessing that you're going to ask me some questions about how we do this. Dr. Pedro Barata: Right. That's a fantastic segue. That's exactly right. Walk us through maybe starting by, what does that mean? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: The first thing to say is I have to go back to the observational literature. And the observational literature shows really compellingly that we have a strong reduction of breast cancer recurrence and mortality from being more physically active, prostate cancer recurrence and mortality, and colon cancer recurrence and mortality. I find it very difficult to believe in this day and age, in our current environment, if you will, that we are ever going to have the equivalent of CHALLENGE for prostate or for breast cancer. There is an ongoing study in prostate that's led by some Australian researchers, but I just don't think that it's likely that we're going to mount something similar for another tumor site. We have tremendous correlative data that indicates that there are a number of biomarkers and biological pathways through which breast, colon, and prostate cancer would be reduced in recurrence if people were more physically active. And so, there is really, from my thinking, very little to state that it would be just a colon cancer effect. And so this is something we probably can enact in more than just the colon cancer community, overall, which is great news, and it makes it easier for us to be able to enact this type of programming. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the things that comes up perhaps often is, if I were the leader of the cancer center and were to incentivize the different care teams to implement an exercise program at each level: GI team, GU, breast, thoracic, etc. How do we do that? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, I want to give you an analogy. You're a medical oncologist, and you prescribe your patients chemotherapy. Now, just imagine, if you will, what would happen and how likely it would be for your patients to get chemotherapy if there was no chemoinfusion suite. If the chemoinfusion suite disappeared tomorrow and you were to tell your patients, "Go get some chemotherapy," what proportion of those patients do you think would go find all of the equipment necessary and all of the drugs necessary and understand how to dose the chemotherapy for themselves and get that all done? Very few people would do it. So with exercise, why would we be surprised then that our patients don't actually do a whole lot if we just simply tell them to go get some exercise? Exercise is a medicine. It is effective like a medicine. We've shown this through the CHALLENGE trial and many other correlative studies and an ocean of observational data as well. So the question is, how do we build the infrastructure that is necessary in order for your patients to do this? So the very first thing that has to happen is that somebody has to tell the patient to exercise. We currently do not have a culture of exercise in oncology. We do in heart disease. If you ask the average person on the street, "Is exercise good for your heart?" Anybody with an eighth-grade education is going to say, "Yes, of course," because the American Heart Association has done an amazing job telling everybody that exercise is good for your heart. But what has ASCO done, frankly? Can I be that bold? What has ASCO done to tell patients that they should be exercising during and after their cancer treatment? I'm not sure that I know more than a guideline. There is a guideline, and that's great. And the guideline is very helpful, but I'm not sure that patients know that there's a guideline. In fact, I can tell you that patients don't know that there is a guideline. So, you know, making sure that there's a paradigm shift in the country that says exercise is good for patients during and after their cancer treatment is the first step. The second step is getting a medical professional to say something to the patient about the exercise. And I'm very careful with the two words that I just chose: medical professional. I do understand medical oncologists are very busy. I understand that there's a whole lot to say in that 15 minutes when you're with the patient. And so maybe it isn't the medical oncologist. Ideally, it would be, but I get it that there's limited time. So it could be a nurse practitioner, it could be a nurse, there could be a social worker, it could be somebody else on the team that says, "Hey, you know, we want you to do an exercise program. We want to connect you to an exercise program." And then there's what is the program itself? You know, I'm very interested in this happening across the entire country. And so I've been working with the leadership of the Commission on Cancer on the question of, well, how would you do this in community oncology? You know, it's not enough to do it in academic medicine, but how do you do this in community oncology? And you can't expect that every community hospital is going to build a gym for their cancer patients. That is just not reasonable to do. So, we start to try to figure out some phone counseling. Could we give people Fitbits and follow them? Could we use technology to help us? Are there telehealth opportunities for us to do? Are there apps that have been built? In fact, there is a [free] app called Cancer Exercise that's on, you know, all of the platforms and available to patients. So there are programs. I've developed a directory of over 2,000 programs that exist across the country for exercise oncology that patients can find, medical oncologists can find. So there are a lot of people trying to figure out how best to get the information to medical oncologists and other medical professionals so that they can have an 'easy button' to be able to connect their patients to existing programming so that you don't feel like you have to build a whole new program. Dr. Pedro Barata: If I don't have the resources around me, what would be your advice for the care team or for the providers that might not have that available at their site? Where do they start? Who do they reach out to? Who should they be looking at to get more information on how to set it up? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: I lead an international consortium called Moving Through Cancer. You can find us at movingthroughcancer.org. That's where you'll find the map of all of the programs across the country and the directory. We actually have a triage tool that sits at the front of the directory that allows people to discern what type of exercise they're safe to do. We do recognize that, you know, the 80-year-old that fell last week doesn't need the same program as the 35-year-old that was playing pickleball the day before diagnosis. So, you know, there are different kinds of programs for people at different levels of acuity. We're happy to be helpful to folks to help them set up programs. But the number one thing is to really be very aware of the power of saying something about doing exercise, just simply the power of saying, "I want you to be moving." Because frankly, I don't think anybody listening to this would disagree, no one benefits from sitting on the couch all day, no one. No one, no one. It doesn't matter how acute their medical issues are. We get people out of bed. We try to move people even when they're in the hospital. So I think saying something is huge. And then, if you can, applying a triage tool, if you can get something embedded within your clinical flow so that you can understand who it is that needs to go to physical therapy as opposed to who's ready for an exercise program. Those are the two things. So triage and referral is kind of step one. And if you can get that done, the rest will fall into place. Dr. Pedro Barata: This is really powerful message, where one, awareness of the care teams. Number two, bring it up to the patient. And then working on the referral, triage and referral process. That's fantastic. Another aspect that comes up quite a bit is like, "Look, this is great, but we have a system that relies on payers to make things happen, or at least to get them approved." And that can be very different or heterogeneous. The coverage can be different. Sometimes already going through a system programs for interventions, therapeutic interventions, let alone probably the insurance is not going to cover that. Is that true? Is it not true? How do you walk through the different insurance supports, perhaps, depending on where you're practicing? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: You've just hit on the hot button. I've been working on this issue for about nine years now, trying to figure out using efforts to talk to CMS and see if we can get third party payer coverage going. We were making good progress there, and there was a change of administration and a new focus on "Make America Healthy Again," the MAHA movement. And, you know, CMS is really no longer interested in one-off national coverage determination. They instead, they want to know, "How do we make exercise happen for every American over 65?" And my question is, "Well, wait a minute, cancer patients are not just older patients. There's a lot going on there. They need something special." So I've been working on that. It's been working with accrediting bodies for policy with a little p. Very proud of the work that I've done in collaboration with the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, trying to get standards to get exercise referrals for breast patients. And I'm currently holding my breath to see whether the CoC is going to try to make some forward motion in this area as well, crossing all period appendages, waiting for news there. So it's not paid for unless it's done by a physical therapist. And, you know, there's published evidence and I have plenty of evidence from UPMC as well, that people don't really want to go to the physical therapist for this. I'm not saying physical therapists aren't great. Physical therapists are great, and there are people who really need to go to physical therapy, and we try hard to get those patients connected. But for the patients that are ready for something more than physical therapy, we really have an uphill battle to try to figure out what insurers are willing to pay for and what the return on investment is. One of the challenges with the return on investment is that the timeline, time course for return on investment for American insurers is about one year. And I'll remind you that the time course for return on investment for CHALLENGE was 7.9 years. So we have a mismatch there. So we're trying to figure out if we can produce the evidence to show that there is an improvement in unplanned health care utilization. We have documented that for breast cancer. We're working on it for other cancers. If we can document that it is worthwhile to the insurer to pay for these programs, then I believe that they will pay for them. You know, my conversations are very positive with UPMC, which is a very large insurer and a large health plan. We're slowly working our way towards the middle, where there's a program that they can pay for and a program that is efficacious. That's the puzzle we're trying to solve for right now. Dr. Pedro Barata: This has been wonderful and super helpful. Before we wrap it up, is there anything else you would like to share with our listeners? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: I want to make sure that your audience is aware that there are a variety of ways that exercise oncology is practiced. The program that most oncologists will be familiar with is LIVESTRONG, which is a program at the YMCA. It's a free program. At one point, there were over 800 locations across the U.S. They have contracted since COVID, probably because of COVID. So they still do exist but imagine, if you will, telling your patients that chemo is only available Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. It would be difficult for patients to get there and get the chemotherapy. The same thing is true for the LIVESTRONG program. It's a fantastic, fantastic program for people who are able to get there, but that's one option. Another option for patients is there are a variety of online opportunities. I'll call out 2Unstoppable for women's cancers. It's literally the number 2Unstoppable.org. It's a free program available to women with cancer to have live, small group training programs. And they're based in Virginia, but they have programs all over the country. And then finally, I just want to overemphasize the app, the Cancer Exercise app. It's literally called Cancer Exercise in the app store. And that is a super duper easy button, very comprehensive, developed by a nurse scientist, Anna Schwartz. And then there are a variety of books. I wrote a book called Moving Through Cancer. There's a new book out [MyExerciseMedicine for Cancer] by Dr. Rob Newton as well, who's an Australian author. And there are certifications for exercise professionals that folks can look into as well through the American College of Sports Medicine. Dr. Pedro Barata: Dr. Schmitz, this is fantastic. Thank you for sharing those great insights with us. Super, super helpful. Thank you for taking the time. Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Thank you so much. Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you to our listeners for your time today. Remember, you'll find links to Dr. Schmitz's fantastic Educational Book as well as the JCO articles in the transcript of this episode. I'll invite all of you to go and read. And we'll also include a link to Dr. Schmitz's book titled Moving Through Cancer: An Exercise and Strength Program for the Fight of Your Life, which empowers patients and caregivers in simple five steps. So with that, please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you very much for your attention. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Kathryn Schmitz @fitaftercancer Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Fees from the educational program developed by Dr. Schmitz that is now offered through Klose Training and Consulting.

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe discuss the evolving treatment landscape in gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancers, including the emergence of organ preservation as a selective therapeutic goal, as well as strategies to mitigate disparities in care. Dr. Maduekwe is the senior author of the article, "Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Primetime?" in the 2026 ASCO Educational Book. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also the deputy editor of the ASCO Educational Book. Gastric and gastroesophageal cancers are the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Over the last decade, the treatment landscape has evolved tremendously, and today, organ preservation is emerging as an attainable but still selective therapeutic goal. Today, I'm delighted to be speaking with Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe, an associate professor of surgery and the director of regional therapies in the Division of Surgical Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Maduekwe is also the last author of a fantastic paper in the 2026 ASCO Educational Book titled "Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Prime Time?" We explore these questions in our conversations today. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode as well. Welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Thank you, Dr. Barata. I'm really, really glad to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: There's been a lot of progress in the treatment of gastric and gastroesophageal cancers. But before we actually dive into some of the key take-home points from your paper, can you just walk us through how systemic therapy has emerged and actually allowed you to start thinking about a curative framework and really informing surgery decision-making? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Great, thank you. I'm really excited to be here and I love this topic because, I'm terrified to think of how long ago it was, but I remember in medical school, one of my formative experiences and why I got so interested in oncology was when the very first trials about imatinib were coming through, right? Looking at the effect, I remember so vividly having a lecture as a first-year or second-year medical student, and the professor saying, "This data about this particular kind of cancer is no longer accurate. They don't need bone marrow transplants anymore, they can just take a pill." And that just sounded insane. And we don't have that yet for GI malignancies. But part of what is the promise of precision oncology has always been to me that framework. That framework we have for people with CML who don't have a bone marrow transplant, they take a pill. For people with GIST. And so when we talk about gastric cancers and gastroesophageal cancers, I think the short answer is that systemic therapy has forced surgeons to rethink what "necessary" really means, right? We have the old age saying, "a chance to cut is a chance to cure." And when I started out, the conversation was simple. We diagnose the cancer, we take it out. Surgery's the default. But what's changed really over the last decade and really over the last five years is that systemic therapy has gotten good enough to do what is probably real curative work before we ever enter the operating room. So now when you see a patient whose tumor has essentially melted away on restaging, the question has to shift, right? It's no longer just, "Can I take this out?" It's "Has the biology already done the heavy lifting? Have we already given them systemic therapy, and can we prove it safely so that maybe we don't have to do what is a relatively morbid procedure?" And that shift is what has opened the door to organ preservation. Surgery doesn't disappear, but it becomes more discretionary. Necessary for the patients who need it, and within systems that can allow us to make sure that we're giving it to the right patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Right, no, that makes total sense. And going back to the outcomes that you get with these systemic therapies, I mean, big efforts to find effective regimens or cocktails of therapies that allow us to go to what we call "complete response," right? Pathologic complete response, or clinical complete response, or even molecular complete response. We're having these conversations across different tumors, hematologic malignancies as well as solid tumors, right? I certainly have those conversations in the GU arena as well. So, when we think of pathologic CRs for GI malignancies, right? If I were to summarize the data, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not an expert in this area, the traditional perioperative chemo gives you pCRs, pathologic complete response, in the single digits. But then when you start getting smarter at identifying biologically distinct tumors such as microsatellite instability, for instance, now you start talking about pCRs over 50%. In other words, half of the patients' cancer goes away, it melts down by offering, in this case, immunotherapy as a backbone of that neoadjuvant. But first of all, this shift, right, from going from these traditional, "not smart" chemotherapy approaches to kind of biologically-driven approaches, and how important is pCR in the context of "Do I really need surgery afterwards?" Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: That's really the crux of the entire conversation, right? We can't proceed and we wouldn't be able to have the conversation about whether organ preservation is even plausible if we hadn't been seeing these rates of pathologic complete response. If there's no viable tumor left at resection, did surgery add something? Are we sure? The challenge before this was how frequently that happened. And then the next one is, as you've already raised, "Can we figure that out without operating?" In the traditional perioperative chemo era, pathologic complete response was relatively rare, like maybe one in twenty patients. When we go to more modern regimens like FLOT, it got closer to one in six. When you add immunotherapy in recent trials like MATTERHORN, it's nearly triple that rate. And it's worth noting here, I'm a health services-health disparities researcher, so we'll just pause here and note that those all sound great, but these landmark trials have significant representation gaps that limit and should inform how confidently we generalize these findings. But back to what you just said, right, the real inflection point is MSI-high disease where, with neoadjuvant dual-checkpoint blockade, trials like NEONIPIGAS and INFINITY show pCR rates that are approaching 50% to 60%. That's not incremental progress, that's a whole new different biological reality. What does that mean? If we're saying that 50% to 60% of the people we take to the OR at the time of surgery will end up having no viable tumor, man, did we need to do a really big surgery? But the problem right now is the gold standard, I think we would mostly agree, the gold standard is pathologic complete response, and we only know that after surgery. I currently tell my patients, right, because I don't want them to be like, "Wait, we did this whole thing." I'm like, "We're going to do this surgery, and my hope is that we're going to do the surgery and there will be no cancer left in your stomach after we take out your stomach." And they're like, "But we took out my stomach and you're saying it's a good thing that there's no cancer." And yes, right now that is true because it's a measure of the efficacy of their systemic therapy. It's a measure of the biology of the disease. But should we be acting on this non-operatively? To do that, we have to find a surrogate. And the surrogate that we have to figure out is complete clinical response. And that's where we have issues with the stomach. In esophageal cancer, the preSANO protocol, which we'll talk about a little bit, validated a structured clinical response evaluation. People got really high-quality endoscopies with bite-on biopsies. They got endoscopic ultrasounds. They got fine-needle aspirations and PET-CT, and adding all of those things together, the miss rate for substantial residual disease was about 10% to 15%. That's a number we can work with. In the stomach, it's a lot more difficult anatomically just given the shape of people's stomachs. There's fibrosis, there's ulceration. A fair number of stomach and GEJ cancers have diffuse histology which makes it difficult to localize and they also have submucosal spread. Those all conceal residual disease. I had a recent case where I scoped the patient during the case, and this person had had a 4 cm ulcer prior to surgery, and I scoped and there was nothing visible. And I was elated. And on the final pathology they had a 7 cm tumor still in place. It was just all submucosal. That's the problem. I'm not a gastroenterologist, but I would have said this was a great clinical response, but because it's gastric, there was a fair amount of submucosal disease that was still there. And our imaging loses accuracy after treatment. So the gap between what looks clean clinically and what's actually there pathologically remains very wide. So I think that's why we're trying to figure it out and make it cleaner. And outside of biomarker-selected settings like MSI-high disease, in general, I'm going to skip to the end and our upshot for the paper, which is that organ preservation, I would say for gastric cancer particularly, should remain investigational. I think we're at the point where the biology is increasingly favorable, but our means of measurement is not there yet. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha. So, this is a perfect segue because you did mention the SANO, just to spell it out, "Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal" trial, so SANO, perfect, I love the abbreviation. It's really catchy. It's fantastic, it's actually a well-put-together perspective effort or program applying to patients. And can you tell us how was that put together and how does that work out for patients? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Yeah, I think for those of us in the GI space, we have SANO and then we also have the OPRA for rectum. SANO for the upper GI is what takes organ preservation from theory to something that's clinically credible. The trial asked a very simple question. If a patient with a GEJ adenocarcinoma or esophageal adenocarcinoma achieved what was felt to be a clinical complete response after chemoradiation, would they actually benefit from immediate surgery? And the question was, "Can you safely observe?" And the answer was 'yes'. You could safely observe, but only if you do it right. And what does that mean? At two years, survival with active surveillance was not inferior to those who received an immediate esophagectomy. And those patients had a better early quality of life. Makes sense, right? Your quality of life with an esophagectomy versus not is going to be different. That matters a lot when you consider what the long-term metabolic and functional consequences of an esophagectomy are. The weight loss, nutritional deficiencies that can persist for years. But SANO worked because it was very, very disciplined and not permissive. You mentioned rigor. They were very elegant in their approach and there was a fair amount of rigor. So there were two main principles. The first was that surveillance was front-loaded and intentional. So they had endoscopies with biopsies and imaging every three to four months in the first year and then they progressively spaced it out with explicit criteria for what constituted failure. And then salvage surgery was pre-planned. So, the return-to-surgery pathway was already rehearsed ahead of time. If disease reappeared, take the patient to the OR within weeks. Not sit, figure out what that means, think about it a little bit and debate next steps. They were very clear about what the plan was going to be. So they've given us this blueprint for, like, watching people safely. I think what's remarkable is that if you don't do that, if you don't have that infrastructure, then organ preservation isn't really careful. It's really hopeful. And that's what I really liked about the SANO trial, aside from, I agree, the name is pretty cool. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no, that's a fantastic point. And that description is spot on. I am thinking as we go through this, where can this be adopted, right? Because, not surprisingly, patients are telling you they're doing a lot better, right, when you don't get the esophagus out or the stomach out. I mean, that makes total sense. So the question is, you know, how do you see those issues related to the logistics, right? Getting the multi-disciplinary team, getting the different assessments of CR. I guess PETs, a lot of people are getting access to imaging these days. How close do you think this is, this kind of program, to be implemented? And maybe I would assume it might need to be validated in different settings, right, including the community. How close or how far do you think you see that being applied out there versus continuing to be a niche program, watch and wait program, in dedicated academic centers? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: I love this question. So I said at the top of this, I'm a health equity/health disparities researcher, and this is where I worry the most. I love the science of this. I'm really excited about the science. I'm very optimistic. I don't think this is a question of "if," I think it's a question of "when." We are going to get to a point where these conversations will be very, very reasonable and will be options. One of the things I worry about is: who is it going to be an option for? Organ preservation is not just a treatment choice, and I think what you're pointing out very rightly is it's a systems-level intervention. Look at what we just said for SANO. Someone needs to be able to do advanced endoscopy, get the patients back. We have to have the time and space to come back every three to four months. We have to do molecular testing. There needs to be multi-disciplinary review. There needs to be intensive surveillance, and you need to have rapid access to salvage surgery. Where is that infrastructure? In this country, it's mostly in academic centers. I think about the panel we had at ASCO GI, which was fantastic. And as we were having the conversation, you know, we set it up as a debate. So folks were debating either pro-surveillance or pro-surgery. But both groups, both people, were presenting outcomes based on their centers. And it was folks who were fantastic. Dr. Molena, for example, from Memorial Sloan Kettering was talking about their outcomes in esophagectomies [during our session at GI26], but they do hundreds of these cases there per year. What's the reality in this country? 70% to 80% to 90%, depending on which data you look at, of the gastrectomies in the United States occur at low-volume hospitals. Most of the patients at those hospitals are disproportionately uninsured or on government insurance, have lower income and from racial and ethnic minority groups. So if we diffuse organ preservations without the system to support it, we're going to create a two-tiered system of care where whether you have the ability to preserve your organs, to preserve bodily integrity, depends on where you live and where you're treated. The other piece of this is the biomarker testing gap. One of the things that, as you pointed out at the beginning, that's really exciting is for MSI-high tumors. Those are the patients that are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy-based organ preservation. But here's the problem. If the patient isn't tested at time of initial diagnosis before they ever see me as a surgeon, the door to organ preservation is closed before it's ever open. And testing access remains very inconsistent across academic networks. And then there's the financial toxicity piece where, for gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, I do peritoneal malignancies, more than half of those patients experience significant financial toxicity related to their cancer treatment. We're now proposing adding at least two years, that's the preliminary information, right? It's probably going to be longer. At least a couple of years of surveillance visits, repeated endoscopies, immunotherapy costs. How are we going to support patients through that? We're going to have to think about setting up navigation support, geographic solutions, what financial counseling looks like. My patient for clinic yesterday was driving to see me, and they were talking about how they were sliding because it was snowing. And they were sliding for the entire three-hour drive down here. Are we going to tell people like that that they need to drive down to, right, I work at a high-volume center, they're going to need to come here every three months, come rain or snow, to get scoped as opposed to the one-time having a surgery and not needing to have the scopes as frequently? My concern, like I said, I'm an optimist, I think it is going to work. I think we're going to figure out how to make it work. I'm worried about whether when we deploy it, we widen the already existing disparities. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha, and that's a fantastic summary. And as I'm thinking also of what we've been talking in other solid tumors, which one of the following do you think is going to evolve first? So we are starting to use more MRD-based assays, which are based on blood test, whether it's a tumor-informed ctDNA or non-informed. We are also trying to get around or trying to get more information response to systemic therapies out of RNA-seq through gene expression signatures, or development of novel therapeutics which also can help you there. Which one of these areas you think you're going to help this SANO-like approach move forward, or you actually think it's actually all of the above, which makes it even more complicated perhaps? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: I think it's going to be all of the above for a couple of reasons. I would say if I had to pick just one right now, I think ctDNA is probably the most promising and potentially the missing piece that can help us close the gap between clinical and pathologic response. If you achieve clinical complete response and your ctDNA is negative, so you have clinical and molecular evidence of clearance, maybe that's a low-risk patient for surveillance. If you have clinical complete response but your ctDNA remains positive, I would say you have occult molecular disease and we probably need intensified therapy, closer monitoring, not observation. I think the INFINITY trial is already incorporating ctDNA into its algorithm, so we'll know. I don't think we're at the point where it alone can drive surgical decisions. I think it's going to be a good complement to clinical response evaluation, not a replacement. The issue of where I think it's probably going to be multi-dimensional is the evidence base: who are we testing? Like, what is the diversity, what is the ancestral diversity of these databases that we're using for all of these tests? How do we know that ctDNA levels and RNA-seq expression arrays are the same across different ancestral groups, across different disease types? So I think it's probably going to be an amalgam and we're going to have to figure out some sort of algorithm to help us define it based on the patient characteristics. Like, I think it's probably different, some of this stuff is going to be a little bit different depending on where in the stomach the cancer is. And it's going to be a little bit more difficult to figure out if you have a complete clinical response in the antrum and closer to the pylorus, for example. That might be a little bit more difficult. So maybe the threshold for defining what a clinical complete response needs to be is higher because the therapeutic approach there is not quite as onerous as for something at the GE-junction. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. And I'm sure AI, whether it's digitization of the pathology from the biopsies and putting all this together, probably might play a role as well in the future. Dr. Maduekwe, it's been fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing your insights with us and also congrats again for the really well-done review published. For our listeners, thank you for staying with us. Thank you for your time. We will post a link to this fantastic article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And of course, please join us again next month on the By the Book Podcast for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you, everyone. Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Watch the ASCO GI26 session: Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Primetime? Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe @umaduekwemd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Leadership: Medica Health Research Funding: Cigna

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Vivek Subbiah discuss innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for smaller patient populations, as well as the promise of precision medicine, novel therapeutic approaches, and global partnerships to advance rare cancer research and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center [in Los Angeles]. The field of rare cancer research is rapidly transforming thanks to progress in clinical trials and treatment strategies, as well as improvements in precision medicine and next-generation sequencing that enable biomarker identification. According to the National Cancer Institute, rare cancers occur in fewer than 150 cases per million each year, but collectively, they represent a significant portion of all cancer diagnoses. And we struggle with the appropriate treatment for these rare cancers in clinical practice. Today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Vivek Subbiah, a medical oncologist and the chief of early-phase drug development at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Subbiah is the lead author of a paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled "Designing Clinical Trials for Patients with Rare Cancers: Connecting the Zebras," a great title for this topic. He will be telling us about innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for small patient populations, the promise of precision medicine, and novel therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes, and how we can leverage AI now to enroll more patients with rare cancers in clinical trials. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Subbiah, it is great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo, and it is an honor and pleasure being here. And thank you for doing this podcast for rare cancers. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. We are excited to talk to you. And congratulations on this fantastic paper. It is such a great resource for our community to better understand what is new in the field of rare cancer research. Of course, rare cancers are complex and multifaceted diseases. And this is a huge challenge for clinical oncologists. You know, our clinics, of course, cannot be designed as we are being very uni-cancer focused to just be for one cancer that is very rare. So, oncologists have to be a jack of all trades in this area. Your paper notes that there are approximately 200 distinct types of rare and ultra-rare cancers. And, by definition, all pediatric cancers are rare cancers. Of course, clinical trials are essential for developing new treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes, and in your paper, you highlight some unique challenges in conducting trials in this rare cancer space. Can you tell us about the challenges and how really innovative trial designs, I think a key issue, are being tailored to the specific needs of patients with rare cancer and, importantly, for these trials? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Rare cancers present a perfect storm of challenges. First, the patient populations are very small, which makes it really hard to recruit enough participants for traditional type trials. Second, these patients are often geographically dispersed across multiple cities, across multiple states, across multiple countries, across multiple zip codes. So, logistics become complicated. Third, there is often limited awareness among clinicians, which delays referrals and diagnosis. Add to that regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and you can see why rare cancer trials are so tough to execute. To overcome these barriers, we are seeing some really creative novel trial designs. And there are four different types of trial designs that are helping with enrolling patients with rare cancers. The first one is the basket trial. So let us talk about what basket studies are. Basket studies group patients based on shared genetic biomarkers or shared genetic mutations rather than tumor type. So instead of running separate 20 to 30 to 40 trials, you can study one therapy across multiple cancers. The second type of trial is the umbrella trial. The umbrella trials flip that concept of basket studies. They focus on one cancer type but test multiple targeted therapies within it. The third category of innovative trials are the platform studies. Platform trials are another exciting innovation. They allow new treatment arms to be added or removed as the data matures and as the data evolves, making trials more adaptive and efficient. The final category are decentralized tools in traditional trials, which are helping patients participate closer to where they are so that they can sleep in their own bed, which is, I think, a game changer for accessibility. These designs maximize efficiency and feasibility for rare cancer research and rare cancer clinical trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: I love the idea of the platform trials that are decentralized. And I know that there is a trial being worked on with ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health) funding in triple-negative breast cancer as well as in lung cancer, I think, and others with this idea of a platform trial. But it is challenged, I think, by precision medicine and next-generation sequencing where some patients do not have targetable markers, or there isn't a drug to target the marker. I think those are almost the same thing. We have really seen that these precision medicine ideas and NGS have moved the needle in helping to identify genetic alterations. This helps us to be more personalized. It actually helps with platform studies to customize trial enrollment. And we hope that this will result in better outcomes. It also allows us, I think, to study drugs even in the early stage setting more effectively. How can these advances be best applied to the future of rare cancers, as well as the challenges of not finding a marker or not having a drug? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much for that question. I think precision medicine and next-gen sequencing, or NGS, are truly the backbone of modern precision oncology. They have transformed how we think about cancer treatment. Instead of treating based on where the tumor originated or where the tumor started, we now look at the genetic blueprint of cancer. The NGS or next-gen sequencing allows us to sequence millions of DNA fragments quickly. Twenty, 30 years ago, they said we cannot sequence a human genome. Then it took almost a decade to sequence the first human genome. Right now, we have academic centers and commercial sequencing companies that are really democratizing NGS across all sites, not just in academic centers, across all the community sites, so that NGS is now accessible. This means that we can identify these actionable alterations like picking needles in haystacks, like NTRK fusions, RET fusions, or BRAF V600E alterations, high tumor mutational burden. This might occur across not one tumor type, across several different tumor types. So for rare cancers, this is critical because some of these mutations often define the best treatment option. Here is why this matters. Personalized therapy, right? Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we can tailor treatment to the patient's unique molecular profile. For trial enrollment, this can definitely help because patients can join biomarker-driven trials even if their cancer type is rare or ultra-rare. NGS technology has also helped us in designing rational studies. Many times monotherapy does not work in these cancers. So we are thinking about rational combination strategies. So NGS technology is helping us. Looking ahead, I see NGS becoming routine in clinical practice, not just at major niche academic centers, but everywhere. We will see more tumor-agnostic approvals, more molecular tumor boards guiding treatment decisions in real time. And I think we are seeing an expanded biomarker setup. Previously, we used to have only a few drugs and a handful of mutations. Now with homologous recombination defects, BRCA1/2 mutation, and expanding the HRD and also immunohistochemistry, we are expanding the biomarker portfolio. So again, I personally believe that the future is precision. What I mean by precision is delivering the right drug to the right patient at the right time. And for rare cancers, this isn't just progress. It is survival. And it is maybe the only way that they can have access to these cutting-edge precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is so important. You mentioned an important area we will get to in a moment, the tumor-agnostic therapies. But as part of talking about that, do you think that the trials should also include just standard therapies? You know, who do you give an ADC to and when with these rare cancers? Because some of them do not have biomarkers to target and it is so disappointing for patients and providers where you are trying to screen a patient for a trial or a platform trial where you have one arm with this mutation, one arm with that, and they do not qualify because they only have a p53 loss, you know? They just do not have the marker that helps them. But we see this in breast cancer all the time. And it is tough because we don't have good information on the sequencing. So I wonder, you know, just because for some of these rare cancers it is not even clear what to use when with standard treatments. And then that kind of gets into this idea of the tumor-agnostic therapies that you mentioned. There are a lot of new treatments that are being evaluated. We have seen approval of some treatments in the last few years that are tumor-agnostic and based on a biomarker. Is that the best approach as we go forward for rare cancers? And what new treatment options are most exciting to you right now? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Tumor-agnostic therapies, really close to my heart, are real breakthrough therapies and represent a major paradigm shift in oncology. Traditionally, for the broad listeners here, we are used to thinking about designing clinical trials and therapy like where the cancer originated, breast cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer. A tumor-agnostic therapy flips that model. Instead of focusing on the organ, they target the specific genetic alteration or biomarker that drives cancer growth regardless of where the tumor started, regardless of the location of the tumor, regardless of the zip code of the tumor. So why is this so important for rare cancers? Because many rare cancers share molecular features with more common cancers. For instance, NTRK fusion might occur in pediatric sarcoma, a salivary gland tumor, or a thyroid cancer. Historically, each of these would require separate trials, which is nearly impossible, unfeasible to conduct in these ultra-rare cancers like salivary gland cancer or pediatric sarcomas. Tumor-agnostic therapies allow us to treat all those cancers with the same targeted drug if they share that biomarker. Again, we are in 2025. The first tissue-agnostic approval, the historic precedent, was in fact an immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab was approved in 2017, May 2017, as the first immunotherapy to be approved in a tumor-agnostic way for a genomic biomarker, for MSI-High and dMMR cancers. Then came the NTRK inhibitors. So today we have not one, not two, but three different NTRK inhibitors: larotrectinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which show response rates of nearly more than 60 to 75% across a handful of dozens and dozens of cancer types. Then, of course, we have RET inhibitors like selpercatinib, which is approved tissue-agnostic, and pralsetinib, which also shows tissue-agnostic activity across multiple cancers. And more recently, combination therapy with a BRAF and MEK combination, dabrafenib and trametinib, received tumor-agnostic approval for all BRAF V600E tumors with the exception of colorectal cancer. And even recently, you mentioned about antibody drug conjugates. Again, I think we live in an era of antibody drug conjugates. And Enhertu, trastuzumab deruxtecan, which was used first in breast cancer, now it is approved in a histology-agnostic manner for all HER2-positive tumors defined by immunohistochemistry 3+. So again, beyond NGS, now immunohistochemistry for HER2 is also becoming a biomarker. So again, for the broad listeners here, in addition to comprehensive NGS that may allow patients to find treatment options for these rare cancers for NTRK, RET, and BRAF, immunohistochemistry for HER2 positivity is also emerging as a biomarker given that we have a new FDA approval for this. So I would say personally that these therapies are game changers because they open doors for patients who previously had no options. Instead of waiting for years for a trial in their specific cancer type, they can access a treatment based on their molecular profile. I think it is precision medicine at its finest and best. Looking ahead, the third question you asked me is what is exciting going on? I think we will see more of these approvals. My hope is that today, I think we have nine to ten approvals. My hope is that within the next 25 to 50 years, we will have at least 50 to 100 drugs approved in this space based on a biomarker, not based on a location of the tumor type. Drug targeting rare alterations like FGFR2 fusions, FGFR amplifications, ALK fusions, and even complex signatures like high tumor mutational burden. I think we will be seeing hopefully more and more drugs approved. And as sequencing becomes routine, we will identify more patients for these therapies. I think for rare cancers, this is not just innovative approach. This is essential for them to access these novel precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that is such a good point. I do think it is critical. Interestingly in breast cancer, it hasn't been, you know, there is always like two patients in these tumor-agnostic trials, or if that. You know, I think I have seen one NTRK fusion ever. I think that highlights the importance for rare cancers. And you know, I am hoping that that will translate into some new directions for some of our rarer and impossible-to-treat subtypes of breast cancer. It is this kind of research that is really going to make a difference. But what about those people who do not have biomarkers? What if you do not fit into that? Do you think there is a possibility of trying to do treatments for rare cancers in some prospective way that would help with that? You know, it is really a huge challenge. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Absolutely. I think, you know, you're right, usually many of these rare cancers are driven by specific biomarkers. And again, some of the pediatric salivary gland tumors or pediatric sarcomas like fibrosarcomas, they are pathognomonic with NTRK fusions. And again, given that we have a tumor-agnostic approval, now these patients have access to these therapies. And I do not think that we would have had a trial just for pediatric fibrosarcomas with NTRK fusions. So that is one way. Another way is SWOG, right? The SWOG DART [1609] had this combination dual checkpoint, it was called the DART study dual combination chemotherapy with ipi/nivo. Now here the rare cancer subtype itself becomes a biomarker and they showed activity across multiple rare cancer subtypes. They didn't require a biomarker. As long as it was a rare or ultra-rare cancer, these patients were enrolled into the SWOG DART trial and multiple arms have read out. Angiosarcoma, Kaposi sarcoma, even gestational trophoblastic disease. Again, they have shown responses in these ultra-rare, rare cancers. Sometimes they might be seeing one or two cases a whole year. And I think this SWOG effort, this cooperative group effort, really highlighted the need for such studies without biomarkers as well. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is such a fantastic example of how to try and treat patients in a collaborative way. And in the paper, you also emphasize the need for collaborative research efforts, you know, uniting resource expertise across different ways of doing research. So cooperative groups, advocacy organizations that can really help advance rare cancer research, improve access to new therapies, and I think importantly influence policy changes. I think this already happened with the agnostic approvals. Could you tell us more about that? How can we move forward with this most effectively? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Personally, I believe that collaboration is absolutely critical and essential for rare cancer research. No single institution, no single individual, or no single state or entity can tackle these challenges alone. The patient populations are small and dispersed. So pooling resources is the only way to run these meaningful trials. Again, it is not like singing, it is like putting a huge, huge, I would say, an opera piece together. It is not a solo, vocal therapy, but rather putting a huge opera piece like Turandot. You know, you mentioned cooperative groups. Cooperative groups, as I mentioned earlier, the SWOG DART program, the ASCO [TAPUR study]. ASCO is doing a phenomenal work of the TAPUR study. Again, this ASCO TAPUR program has enrolled so many patients with rare cancers who otherwise would not have treatment options. NCI-MATCH, the global effort, right? NCI-MATCH and the ComboMATCH are great examples. They bring together hundreds of sites, thousands of clinicians to run large-scale trials that would be impossible for any individual center or institution. These trials have already changed practice. For instance, the DART demonstrated the power of immunotherapy in rare cancers and influenced NCCN guidelines. One of the arms of the NCI-MATCH study from the BRAF V600E arm contributed towards the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval. So, the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval was by a pooled analysis of several studies. The ROAR study, the Rare Oncology Agnostic Research study, the NCI-MATCH dataset of tumor-agnostic cohort, and another pediatric trial, and also evidence from literature and evidence of case reports. And all this pooled analysis contributed to the tissue-agnostic approval of BRAF V600E across multiple rare cancers. There are several patient advocacy organizations which are the real unsung heroes here. Groups like, for instance, we mentioned in the paper, Target Cancer Foundation, don't just raise awareness for rare cancer research, they actively connect patients to trials providing financial, emotional support, and even run their own studies like the TRACK trial. They also influence policy to make access easier. On a global scale, initiatives like DRUP in the Netherlands, the ROME study in Italy, the PCM4EU in Europe are expanding precision medicine across these borders. These collaborations accelerate research, improve trial enrollment, and ensure patients everywhere can have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Again, it is truly a team effort, right? It is a multi-stakeholder approach. Researchers, clinicians, investigators, industry, regulators, academia, patients, patient advocates, and their caregivers all working together. And it takes a village. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I mean, what a nice response to that. And I think really exciting and it is great to see your passion about this as well. But it helps all of us, I think, getting discouraged in treating these cancers to understand what is happening moving forward. And I think it is also a fabulous opportunity for our junior colleagues as they rise up in academics to be involved in these international collaborative efforts which are further expanding. One of the things that comes up for clinical trials for patients, and I think it is highlighted with rare cancers because, as you mentioned, people are all over the place, you know, they are so rare. They are all far away. Our patients are always saying to us, "Should I go here for a phase 1 trial?" Can you talk a little bit about how we can overcome these financial and geographic burdens for the patients? You talked about having trials locally, but it is a big financial and just social burden for patients. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Great point. Financial cost is a major barrier in rare cancer clinical trials. It is a major barrier not just in rare cancer clinical trials, but in clinical trials in general. The economics of rare cancer research are one of the toughest challenges we face. Developing a new drug is already expensive, often billions of dollars. On an average, it takes 2 billion dollars or 2.8 billion dollars according to some data from drug discovery to approval. For rare cancers, the market is tiny, which means the pharmaceutical companies have really little financial incentive to invest. That is why initiatives like the Orphan Drug Act were created to provide tax credits, grants, and market exclusivity to encourage development for rare diseases. Clinical trials themselves are expensive because the small patient populations mean longer recruitment times and higher per-patient costs. Geographic dispersion, as you mentioned, for the patients adds travel, coordination. That is why we need to think out of the box about decentralized trial infrastructure so that we can mitigate some of these expenses. Complex trial designs like basket or platform trials sometimes require sophisticated data systems and regulatory oversight. That is a challenge. And I think some of the pragmatic studies like ASCO TAPUR have overcome those challenges. Advanced technologies like next-gen sequencing and molecular profiling also add significant upfront cost to this. Funding is also limited because rare cancers receive less attention compared to common cancers. Public funding and cooperative group trials help a lot, but I think they cannot cover everything. Patient advocacy organizations sometimes step in to bridge these gaps, but sustainable financing remains a huge challenge. So, the bottom line is without financial incentives and collaborating funding models, many promising therapies for rare cancers would never make it to patients. That is why we need system-wide policy changes, global partnerships, and innovative, effective, seamless trial designs which are so critical so that they can help reduce the cost and make research feasible so that we can deliver the right drug to the right patient at the right time. Dr. Hope Rugo: There is a lot of excitement about the future integration of AI in screening. Just at the San Antonio Breast Cancer meetings, we have a number of different presentations about AI to find markers, even like HER2, and using AI where you would screen and then match patients to clinical trials. Do you have any guidance for the rare cancer community on how to leverage this technology in order to optimize patient enrollment and, I think, identification of the best treatment matches? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: I think artificial intelligence, AI, is a game-changer in the making. Right now, clinical trial is clunky. Matching patients to trial is often manual, time consuming, laborious. You need a lot of personnel to do that. AI can automate this process by analyzing genomic data, medical records, and trial eligibility criteria to find the best matches quickly, accurately, and effectively. For the community, the key is to invest in data standardization and interoperability because AI needs clean, structured data to work effectively. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you so much, Dr. Subbiah, for sharing these fantastic insights with us on the podcast today and for your excellent article. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much. Dr. Hope Rugo: We thank you, our listeners, for joining us today. You will find a link to Dr. Subbiah's Educational Book article in the transcript of this episode. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Hope Rugo @hoperugo Dr. Vivek Subbiah @VivekSubbiah Follow ASCO on social media: ASCO on X ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Consulting/Advisory Role: Loxo/Lilly, Illumina, AADI, Foundation Medicine, Relay Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Incyte, Novartis, Pheon Therapeutics, Abbvie Research Funding (Inst.): Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, NanoCarrier, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Berg Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Fujifilm, PharmaMar, D3 Oncology Solutions, Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Mutlivir, Blueprint Medicines, Loxo, Vegenics, Takeda, Alfasigma, Agensys, Idera, Boston Biomedical, Inhibrx, Exelixis, Amgen, Turningpoint Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics Other Relationship: Medscape, Clinical Care Options

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ravin Garg discuss strategies to increase trial representation, including leveraging trial navigators and prioritizing pragmatic trial models, as featured in the ASCO Educational Book article, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care." TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast from ASCO featuring compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I am a medical oncologist at University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also the associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We know that in recent years, the oncology community has increasingly prioritized the need to modernize clinical trial eligibility, reduce patient burden, and enhance diversity in trial participation. On that note, today we will be speaking about ways to enhance access to clinical trials with Dr. Ravin Garg. He is a hematologist oncologist at Maryland Oncology Hematology and also an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Dr. Garg is also the co-author of a fantastic paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care." Dr. Garg, welcome. Thanks for being here, and congrats on your paper. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you for having me, Pedro. I am excited to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: [KI1] Your paper is a wonderful, multidisciplinary piece that actually features perspectives from the different stakeholders, right? The patient advocacy, industry, community practice, and academia about these challenges in making trials more available. This podcast is a wonderful platform. It reaches out to a lot of folks within our community. So, I will start by asking you the obvious. Why do you think it is a must read for our community, for our listeners? Dr. Ravin Garg: So Pedro, thanks again for inviting me. You do a great job with these podcasts. So, I think first and foremost, oncologists right now are under a lot of stress, just in terms of clinical volume. There is concern for research money, and how we get the best care for our patients. So I think this article is very important because it helps bring together, as you had mentioned, the stakeholders throughout academic to community practice and everywhere in between, and try to find how, as a team with different oncologists who partake in different aspects of oncology, can come together to streamline the process to try to get our patients on trials, or certainly have them have availability of trials, just if they are interested in going on them. Being in practice, we have had several challenges that we can talk about throughout this podcast, but I think it is a very important paper because it recognizes that at the end of the day, it takes a team effort for all of us in academics, community, industry, and pharmaceuticals to really come together as a team to really help put forth the trials for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: So, from the perspective of a community oncologist, how do you put together, or maybe you can describe some of the challenges that you see to increase trial participation in the community? Dr. Ravin Garg: Yes, Pedro, that is a great question, and it is something that I keep on thinking about and trying to find ways to be better at it myself. But I will say some of the challenges as a community doctor that I have seen for myself and talking to other colleagues. Number one, I do think there is a lot of stress on doctors in the community in general, Pedro. Oftentimes we are tasked to see a wide smorgasbord of patients, so we may not have the luxury of being a specialist in any particular tumor subtype. Like oftentimes, we will have to see lung cancer, the next one will be breast cancer, the next one could be CML, the next one could be thrombocytopenia. And as you know better than I do, Pedro, the field in each one of these disciplines is changing so rapidly: molecular genomics, radioligand treatments, different imaging tests, MRD testing for some of our hematologic malignancies. And I think one challenge we have in community is just keeping up with the basics of Oncology 101. In the process of doing that, it can be very difficult to sometimes remember that we have very exciting trials available for our patients. So, I think a lot of it is the day in and day out of being an oncologist is so taxing at times that oftentimes a research trial is not the first thing in our head space when we see a patient. I think number two, Pedro, at least in the community, and perhaps this is with academics too, is that we are bombarded, I would say, by a lot of messaging these days. We have in-baskets to go through, labs to go through, things of that nature. And in the process of a patient visit, seeing them, doing an exam, taking a history, trying to go over the NCCN guidelines on best practice for how to manage their care, at least for me at times, it is very hard to remember, "Hey, there might be a great trial available, whether within our network or maybe partnering with an academic center." So getting through a day can be fraught with a lot of peril and just difficulties, I would say. And I would say number three, Pedro, at least as, you know, I am in a private practice where I do see a wide range of benign and malignant hematology and solid tumors, so I would not call myself a specialist. And I think the challenge with that, at least for trials, Pedro, is that when you are a specialist or perhaps you are focusing on a couple of disease subtypes, you become more of an authoritative voice in those types of tumors, and you might be more aware of the trials within your network or perhaps in proxy with an academic center that you can offer your patient. So I think when sometimes we spread ourselves too thin, it can be very hard to be a thought leader, if you will, in a particular subtype of a malignancy, let's say, and maybe not be aware of a trial that could be really well-suited for your patient. In terms of ideas that myself and colleagues have had in terms of helping mitigate against some of these, I would say, setbacks or issues in the practice for trial enrollment, some of the things we have talked about, Pedro, is, number one, is we do partner with academic centers. So we live here in Maryland. We have several really fantastic academic centers. So, you know, oftentimes, not just within our practice of Maryland Oncology Hematology, we have a lot of great trials available here too, for certain, but in addition to that, we will often times work with doctors at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and Maryland if they have a compelling trial that we do not have within our network. It is really of the patient's interest, Pedro, to reach out to them in a collaborative manner to see if they have a trial that might be really compelling for your patient. So I do find myself collaborating a lot with colleagues in, like talented like yourself in academics. You know, I think you do a lot of GU malignancies. So as an example, like partnering with colleagues who are GU experts and say, "Hey, we have a patient with stage IV renal cell. These are the standard options I know, but are there any trials that you might have available?" I think the other thing that has been very helpful for us is having navigators within research, Pedro. Like as an example, what has really helped the uptake of trial enrollment for our center in Annapolis is having a research navigator because often times what they can do is, a priori, Pedro, before you see the patient and you are kind of formulating a standard of care treatment plan perhaps, they might tug you on the shirt and say, "Hey, we have a great trial here through Sarah Cannon, or there might be something else out there." And being aware of that when you go into a patient's room really provides a nice arena, if you will, to go and say, "The standard of care is here, but hey, we have a trial option that might be well suited for you, maybe perhaps even better, that we can talk about, too." So having research support in the community is really a huge boon, I think, Pedro, for us to really increase our enrollment for patients onto trials. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yes, I really love that, Ravin. So, let me switch gears a bit. I would love for you to talk a little bit about patient advocacy because they do play a huge role in cancer, and they address many barriers. How do you think we should leverage the patient advocacy groups to reduce patient burden and maybe have them really leverage patient advocacies to improve representation in clinical trials? What do we think we can do more? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oh, Pedro, I think they are very critically important. As a clinical oncologist now, and I would say this is for anyone in the field of medicine, you are exactly right. I think patients are bombarded by information. There are a lot of things online, whether it be TikTok, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and people really just have a lot of information given to them. And some of it is fact driven, and some of it is not, Pedro. And oftentimes, I do think there can be at times a mistrust with some medical personnel. I think we are in an era where we are seeing that to some degree with some attributes of medicine. And I think of it as an opportunity for education for the patient and for myself as a physician. And I think patient advocates, to your point, which was well taken, serve as a bridge to both. And what I mean is that, you know, patient advocates are wonderful. They are, I think, outstanding communicators. They almost are a neutral party, Pedro, where many patients feel that they are an independent source of information that is free of bias, if you will. They are there to provide support, emotional support, scientific support for patients so they can make an informed decision. So, in terms of our practice right now, patient advocates is something that we are evolving in that capacity, I would say, Pedro. I think now more than ever, having more people as bridges of communication with care providers along with patients is of critical importance. And I would venture a guess, and I think this has been published, where patient advocates really can help tremendously in familiarizing patients with trials and what they are all about and maybe clear up some misconceptions of what trials, what the mission of trials are. Because I do think some patients, at least I have had a few over the years, where when they hear the term trial, they almost think they are being experimented upon, when, in point of fact, they could really help advance their care. That messaging along the way for some can may be mixed up a little bit. And so I think patient advocates is a really great way to offer more information for patients with a source they find very independent and trustworthy, if you will. And it can really help expedite, and I think make a more fruitful conversation for care providers, whether academic or community, and they might be more open-minded in terms of enrolling onto a trial. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Yes, I agree. I agree with you completely. So let's focus a little bit now on the folks designing the studies. We usually call them the sponsors. It might be an academic sponsorship, if you will, but we can also have pharma being the sponsor of a study. The angle from an academic design, it is not necessarily the same as what happens when we have pharma. And from that angle, how do you think a more inclusive research can be promoted? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oftentimes with trials, I think keeping them simple, as simple as we can. And what I mean by that is, often times for trials, Pedro, even for care providers who are enrolling, it can be daunting when there are a lot of different things involved, particularly, let's say, for investigator sponsored, which are incredibly brilliant science, incredible, but it can be a little bit daunting for patients and even the referring physician to talk about getting translational specimens, imaging, traveling to certain centers to get scans and biopsies and even different diagnostic testing like PSMA testing for, you know, prostate cancer. And it can, I think, be very intimidating for patients in terms of what might be required of him or her to enter onto a trial. Like, "This is not what I signed up for. This is laborious. This is a full time job for me. Do I have to pay for parking to go to a city? Do I have to pay for these imaging tests? And do I have to stay in a place for my family to enroll onto a trial?" So I think keeping trials as simple as possible, but yet cull the data we need as investigators where we can really advance the care, hopefully get approval for a drug, but also learn more about the medication and how it works for our patients. So I think simplifying language for trial is very important. I know when I have gone over studies for patients, Pedro, if it is a voluminous amount of information, they can right away get very intimidated. "Like, oh my goodness, this is like a term paper for college again," you know? I am joking, but you know, keeping language simplified is very important, I think, number one. And I feel that sometimes when they are asked to do a lot of different diagnostic testing, which is very important for translational work, I 100% understand, but I do think sometimes patients can get a little bit off put, if you will, and frustrated with the whole process of doing it. The second thing for our patients, Pedro, that they have mentioned to us when we put them on trials, not just within our own site but elsewhere, is that it takes a lot of time in terms of collecting information, perhaps a washout period from their last standard of treatment prior to enrollment onto a study. Many patients, Pedro, as you know better than I do, are in maybe crisis in terms of their health and their cancer might be growing, promulgating out of control, and they worry about not being able to expeditiously start onto a treatment, onto a trial. So that can lead to a lot of frustration. And one thing that you brought up, which was outstanding for me, is the enrollment criterion for some of our patients is felt to be somewhat strict. We have had some patients who may have had a remote history of a stage I malignancy that was by all accounts in remission, you know, let's say 4 or 5 years in the past, and the risk of recurrence at this point would be incredibly low, but they may not be able to enter onto a study because of some stringent criterion put forth. And that can be a little bit frustrating. In fact, I have had one or two patients who, as an example, with kidney issues, but the GFR was about 60, like right near a cutoff that oftentimes, as you know, we use where you can get into trial or not. And you know, if they are at 58, as an example, and otherwise they are a picture of health, a great candidate for a trial that will likely advance their care, and if the entry criterion is too stringent, that might be a lost opportunity for all parties involved, all stakeholders, if you will. I do appreciate the criterion for entry onto studies cannot be too liberalized. You have to have a certain baseline, but there is a little bit of a gray area and tension, of sorts, if you will, where the patient has a comorbid illness that is a disqualifying offense, but in practicality, perhaps it shouldn't be, especially if they are motivated and there is an opportunity to really advance their care. We have run into, not often, but sometimes in the past, I should say, where patients have been very off put because we try to get them onto a study and there may have been a particular feature or attribute in their underlying care that they couldn't get onto it. So I think having a little bit more thoughtfulness, perhaps, in terms of entry criterion and practicality, if you will, I think would really help enrollment onto studies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Is there anything else that you would like to tell our listeners before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Ravin Garg: I would say just macroscopically speaking, it is really an honor to be an oncologist. I think I speak for both of us. Anyone listening who is thinking about the field, it is tremendous. Just the research, the bravery of our patients, and the thoughtfulness of our scientists like Pedro and translationalists and clinical trialists is really awe inspiring. So I have really loved this field. I will say from a trial perspective, we really need to enter as many patients as we can onto trials because the science is so brilliant now, the genomic underpinnings of the tumor, we are making great strides as a team of clinicians and scientists, translationalists. So the more that we can get people onto trials and get approved drugs, it is going to help them out in the end. So I think it is such an important time for all of us to come together as a community, find the best way to help our patients out. And clinical trials have to be at the forefront of how we can continue to advance care for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no Ravin, I really agree with you. We really need to increase access to clinical studies, and actually your paper is a great step in that direction by raising awareness, bringing up solutions, and again, collaboration, collaboration, collaboration is really a multidisciplinary effort to accomplish that. Thank you so much for sharing your fantastic thoughts and insights with us. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you, Pedro. I am- you do a wonderful job with these podcasts. I am really honored to meet you and to be part of this. Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. I encourage you to check out Dr. Garg's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We will post a link to the paper in our show notes. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you for your attention. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Ravin Garg Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck Dr. Ravin Garg: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Creator, editor, and writer of hemeoncquestions.com

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Aditya Bagrodia discuss the evolving landscape of testicular cancer survivorship, the impact of treatment-related complications, and management strategies to optimize long-term outcomes and quality of life. TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We all know that testicular cancer is a rare but highly curable malignancy that mainly affects young men. Multimodal advances in therapy have resulted in excellent cancer specific survival, but testicular cancer survivors face significant long term treatment related toxicities which affect their quality of life and require surveillance and management. With that, I'm very happy today to be joined by Dr. Aditya Bagrodia, a urologic oncologist, professor, and the GU Disease Team lead at UC San Diego[KI1] Health, and also the lead author of the recently published paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Key Updates in Testicular Cancer: Optimizing Survivorship and Survival." And he's also the host of the world-renowned BackTable Urology Podcast. Dr. Bagrodia, I'm so happy that you're joining us today. Welcome. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Thanks, Pedro. Absolutely a pleasure to be here. Really appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: Absolutely. So, just to say that our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Let's get things started. I'm really excited to talk about this. I'm biased, I do treat testicular cancer among other GU malignancies and so it's a really, really important topic that we face every day, right? Fortunately, for most of these patients, we're able to cure them. But it always comes up the question, "What now? You know, scans, management, cardio oncology, what survivorship programs we have in place? Are we addressing the different survivorship piece, psychology, fertility, et cetera?" So, we'll try to capture all of that today. Aditya, congrats again, you did a fantastic job putting together the insights and thoughts and what we know today about this important topic. And so, let's get focused specifically about what happens when patients get cured. So, many of us, in many centers, were fortunate enough to have these survivorship programs together, but I find that sometimes from talking to colleagues, they're not exactly the same thing and they don't mean the same thing to different people, to different institutions, right? So, first things first. What do you tell a patient perhaps when they ask you, "What can happen to me now that I'm done with treatment for testicular cancer?" Whether it's chemotherapy or just surgery or even radiation therapy? "So, what about the long term? What should I expect, Doctor, that might happen to me in the long run?" Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think that question's really front and center, Pedro, and really appreciate you all highlighting this topic. It was an absolute honor to work with true thought leaders and the survivorship bit of it is front and center, in my opinion. It's really the focus, you know, we, generally speaking should be able to cure these young men, but it's the 10, 15, 20 years down the way that they're going to largely contend with. The conversation really begins at diagnosis, pre-education. Fortunately, the bulk of patients that present are those with stage one disease, and even very basic things like before orchiectomy, talking about a prosthetic; we know that that can impact body image and self esteem, whether or not they decide to receive it or not. Actually, just being offered a prosthetic is important and this is something, you know, for any urologist, it's kind of critical. To discussing fertility elements to this, taking your time to examine the contralateral testicle, ask about fertility problems, issues, concerns, offer sperm banking, even in the context of a completely normal contralateral testicle, I think these things are quite important. So if it's somebody with stage one disease, you know, without going too far down discussing adjuvant therapy and so forth, I will start the conversation with, "You know, the testes do largely two things. They make testosterone and they make sperm." By and large, patients are going to be able to have acceptable levels of testosterone, adequate sperm parameters to maintain kind of a normal gonadal state and to naturally conceive, should that be something they're interested in. However, there's still going to be, depending on what resource you look at, somewhere in the order of 10-30% that are going to have issues. Where I think for the stage one patients, it's really incumbent upon us is actually to not wait for them to discuss their concerns, particularly with testosterone, which many times can be a little bit vague, but to proactively ask about it every time. Libido, erectile quality, muscle mass maintenance, energy, fatigue. All of these are kind of associated symptoms of hypogonadism. But for a lot of kids 18-20 years old, it's going to be something insidious that they don't think about. So, for the stage one patients, it absolutely starts with gonadal function. If they are stage two getting surgery, I think the counseling really needs to center around a possibility for ejaculatory dysfunction. Now, for a chemotherapy-naive, nerve-sparing RPLND, generally these days we should be able to preserve ejaculatory function at high volume centers, but you still want to bring that up and again kind of touch base on thinking about sperm banking and so forth before the operation, scars, those are things I think worth talking about, small risk of ascites. Then, I think the intensity of potential long term adverse effects really ramps up when we're talking about systemic therapy, chemotherapy. And then there's of course some radiation therapy specific elements that come up. So, for the chemotherapy bits of it, I really think this is going to be something that can be a complete multi-system affected intervention. So, anxiety, depression, our group has actually shown using some population resources that even suicidality can be increased among patients that have been treated for germ cell tumor. You know, really from the top down, tinnitus, hearing changes, those are things that we need to ask about at every appointment. Neuropathy, sexual health, that we kind of talked about, including ED (erectile dysfunction), vertigo, dizziness, Raynaud's phenomenon, these are kind of more the symptoms that I think we need to inquire about every time. And what we do here and I think at a lot of survivorship programs is use kind of a battery of validated instruments, germ cell tumor specific, platinum treated patient specific. So we use a combination of EORTC questions and PROMIS questions, which actually serves as like a review of systems for the patient, also as a research element. We review that and then depending on what might be going on, we can dig into that further, get them over to colleagues in audiology or psychology, et cetera. And then of course, screening for the hypertension, hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome with basically you or myself or somebody kind of like us serving, many times it's the role of the PCP, just making sure we're checking out, you know, CBC, CMP, et cetera, lipid parameters to screen for those kind of cardiac associated issues along with secondary malignancies. Dr. Pedro Barata: So that's super comprehensive and thorough. Thank you so much. Actually, I love how you break it down in a simple way. Two functions of the testes, produce testosterone and then, you know, the problem related to that is the hypogonadism, and then the second, as you mentioned, produce sperm and of course related to the fertility issues with that. So, let's start with the first one that you mentioned. So, you do cite that in your paper, around 5-10% of men end up getting, developing hypogonadism, maybe clinical when they present with symptoms, maybe subclinical. So, I'm wondering, for our audience, what kind of recommendations we would give for addressing that or kind of thinking of that? How often are you ordering those tests? And then, when you're thinking about testosterone replacement therapy, is that something you do immediately or are there any guidelines into context that? How do you approach that? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: So, just a bit more on digging into it even in terms of the questions to ask, you know, "Do you have any decrease in sexual drive? Any erectile dysfunction? Are your morning erections still taking place? Has the ejaculate volume changed? Physically, muscle mass, strength? Have you been putting on weight? Have you noticed increase in body fat?" And sometimes this is complicated because there's some anxiety that comes along with a cancer diagnosis when you're 20, 30 years old, multifactorial, hair loss, hot flashes, irritability. Sometimes they'll, you know, literally they'll say, "You know, my significant other or partners noticed that I'm really just a little bit labile." So I think, you know, there's the symptoms and then checking, usually kind of a gonadal panel, FSH, LH, free and total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, that's going to be typically pretty comprehensive. So if you've got symptoms plus some laboratory work, and ideally that pre-orchiectomy testosterone gives you some delta. If they started out at an 800, 900, now they're 400, that might be a big change for them. And then, when you talk about TRT (Testosterone Replacement Therapy) recommendations, you know, Pedro, yourself, myself, we're kind of lucky to be at academic centers and we've got men's health colleagues that are ultra experts, but at a high level, I would say that a lot of the TRT options center around fertility goals. Exogenous testosterone treats the low T, but it does suppress gonadal function, including spermatogenesis. So if that's not a priority, they can just get TRT. It should be done under the care of a urologist, a men's health, an endocrinologist, where we're checking liver chemistries and CBCs and a PSA and so forth. If they're interested in fertility preservation, then I would say engaging an endocrinologist, men's health expert is important. There's medications even like hCG, Clomid, which works centrally and stimulate the gonadal access. Niche scenarios where they might want standard TRT now, and then down the way, 5, 7 years, they're thinking about coming off of that for fertility purposes, I think that's really where you want to have an expert involved because there's quite a bit of nuance there in recovery of actual spermatogenesis and so forth. To kind of summarize, you got to ask about it. Checking it is, is not overly complicated. We do a baseline pre-orchiectomy and at least once annually, you can tag it in with the tumor markers, so it's not an extra blood draw. And if they have symptoms of course, kind of developed, then we'll move that up in the evaluation. Dr. Pedro Barata: Got it. And you also touch base on the fertility angle, which is truly important. And I'm just curious, you know, a lot of times many of us might see one, two patients a year, right, and we forget these protocols and what we've got to do about that. And so I'm interested to hear your thoughts about when you think about fertility, and how proactive you get. In other words, who do you refer for the fertility clinic, for a fertility preservation program? You know, do all cases despite getting through orchiectomy or just the cases that you're going to, you know you're going to seek chemotherapy at some point? What kind of selection or it depends on the chemo, like how do you do that assessment about the referral for preservation program that you might have available at UCSD? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, I mean I feel really fortunate to sit on the NCCN Testis Cancer Guidelines. It's in there that fertility counseling should be discussed prior to orchiectomy. So 100% bring it up. If there are risk factors, undescended testicles, previous history of fertility concerns, atrophic contralateral testicle, anything on the ultrasound like microlithiasis in the contralateral testicle, you kind of wanna get it there. And then again, there's kind of niche scenarios where you're really worried, maybe get a semen analysis and it doesn't look that good, arrange for the time of orchiectomy to have onco-testicular sperm extraction from the, quote unquote, "normal" testis parenchyma. You know, I think you have to be kind of prepared to go that route and really make sure you're doing this completely comprehensively. So pre-orchiectomy all patients. Don't really push for it too hard if they've got a contralateral testicle, if they've had no issues having children. There's some cost associated with this, sperm banking still isn't kind of covered even in the context of men with cancer. If they've got risk factors, absolutely pre-orchiectomy. Pre-RPLND, even though the rates of ejaculatory dysfunction at a high-volume center should be low single digits, I'll still offer it. That'd be a real catastrophe if they were in that small proportion of patients and now they're going to be reliant on things like intrauterine insemination, where it becomes quite expensive. Pre-chemo, everybody. That's basically a standard these days where it should be discussed and it's kind of amazing currently, even if you don't have an accessible men's health fertility clinic, there are actually companies, I have no vested interest, Fellow is one such company where you can actually create an account, receive a FedEx semen analysis and cryopreservation kit, send it back in, and all CLIA certified, it's based out of California. The gentleman that runs it, is a urologist and very, very bright guy who's done a lot of great stuff for testis cancer. So, even for patients that are kind of in extremis at the hospital that kind of need to get going like yesterday, we still discuss it. We've got some mechanisms in place to either have them take a semen analysis over to our Men's Health clinic or send it off to Fellow, which I think is pretty cool and that even extends to some of our younger adolescent patients where going to a clinic and providing a sample might be tricky. So, I think bringing it up every stage, anytime there's an intervention that might be offered, orchiectomy, chemo, surgery, radiation, it's kind of incumbent on us to discuss it. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha. That's super helpful. And you also touch base on another angle, which is the psychosocial angle around this. You mentioned suicidal rates, you mentioned anxiety, perhaps depression in some cases as well as chronic fatigue, not necessarily just because of the low testosterone that you can get, but also from a psychological perspective. I'm curious, what do the recommendations look like for that? Do these patients need to see a social worker or a psychologist, or do they need to answer a screening test every time they come to see us and then based on that, we kind of escalate, take the next steps according to that? Do they see a psychologist perhaps every so often? How should that be managed and addressed? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: It's an excellent question and again, these can be rather insidious symptoms where if you don't really dig in and inquire, they can be glossed over. I mean, how easy to say, "Your markers look okay, your scans look okay. See you in six months," and keep it kind of brief. First off, I think bringing it up proactively and normalizing it, that, "This may be something that you experience. Many people do, you're not alone, there's nothing kind of wrong with you." I also think that this is an area where support groups can be incredibly useful. We host the Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation support group here. They'll talk about chemo brain or just like a little bit of an adjustment disorder after their diagnosis. Support groups, I think are critical. As I mentioned, we have a survivorship program that's led by a combination of our med oncs, myself on the uro-onc side, as well as APPs, where we are systematically asking about essentially the whole litany of issues that may arise, including psychosocial, anxiety, depression, suicidality. And we've got a nice kind of fast path into our cancer center support services for these young men to meet with a psychologist. If that isn't going to be sufficient, they can actually see a psychiatrist to discuss medications and so forth. I do think that we've got to screen for these because, as anticipated from diagnosis, those first 2 years, we see a rise. But even 10, 15 years out, we note, compared to controls, that there is an increased level of anxiety, depression, suicidality that might not just take place at that initial acute period of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Super important. So I guess if I were to put all these together, with these really amazing advances in technology, we all know AI, some of us might be more or less aware of biomarkers coming up, including microRNA for example, and others, like as I think of all these potential long term complications for these patients, look at the future, I guess, can we use this as a way to deescalate treatment where it's not really necessary, as a way to actually prevent some of these complications? Like, how do we see where we're heading? As we manage testicular cancer, let's say, within the next 5 or 10 years, do you think there's something coming up that's going to be different from what we're doing things today? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think it's as exciting as a time as there's ever been, you know, maybe notwithstanding circa 1970s when platinum was discovered. So microRNAs, which you mentioned, you know, there's a new candidate biomarker, microRNA-371. We are super excited here at UCSD. We actually have it CLIA-certified available in our lab and are ordering these tests for patients kind of in their acute stage, you know, stage one and surveillance, stage two, post-RPLND, receiving chemotherapy. And essentially this is a universal germ cell tumor specific biomarker, except for teratoma, suffice it to say 90% sensitive and specific. And I think it's going to change the way that we diagnose and manage patients. You know, pre-orchiectomy, that's pretty straightforward. Post-orchiectomy, maybe we can really decrease the number of CT scans that are done. Maybe we can identify those patients that basically have occult disease where we can intervene early, either with RPLND or single cycle chemo. Post-RPLND, identify the patients who are at higher risk of relapse that may benefit from some adjuvant therapy. In the advanced setting, look at marker decline for patients in addition to standard tumor markers. Can we modulate their systemic therapy? So, the international interest is largely on modifying things. There's really cool clinical trials that we have for stage one patients, that treatment would be prescribed based on a post-orchiectomy microRNA. I think the microRNAs are really exciting. Teratoma remains an outstanding question. I think this is where maybe ctDNA, perhaps some radiomics and advanced imaging processing and incorporating AI may allow us to safely avoid a lot of these post-chemo RPLNDs. And then identification using SNPs and so forth of who might be most susceptible to some of the cardiac toxicity, autotoxicity and personalizing things in that way as well. Dr. Pedro Barata: Super exciting, right, what's about to come? And I agree with you, I think it's going to change dramatically how we manage this disease. This has been a pleasure sitting down with you. I guess before letting you go, anything else you'd like to add before we wrap it up? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, first off, again, just want to thank you and ASCO for the opportunity. And it's easy enough to, I think, approach a patient with the testicular germ cell tumor as, "This is an easy case. We're just going to do whatever we've done. Go to the guidelines that says do X, Y, or Z." But there's so much more nuance to it than that. Getting it done perfectly, I think, is mandatory. Whatever we do is an impact on them for the next 50, 60, 70 years of their life. And I found the germ cell tumor community, people are really passionate about it. If you're ever uncertain, there's experts throughout the country and internationally. Ask somebody before you do something that you can't undo. I think we owe it to them to get it perfect so that we can really maximize the survivorship and the survival like we've been talking about. Dr. Pedro Barata: Aditya, thanks for sharing your fantastic insights with us on this podcast. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: All right, Pedro. Fantastic. Appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: And also, thank you to our listeners for your time today. I actually encourage you to check out Dr. Bagrodia's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We'll post a link to the paper in the show notes. Remember, it's free access online, and you can actually download it as well as a PDF. You can also find on the website a wealth of other great papers from the ASCO Educational Book on key advances and novel approaches that are shaping modern oncology. So with that, thank you everyone. Thank you, Aditya, one more time, for joining us. Thank you, have a good day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Aditya Bagrodia @AdityaBagrodia Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Consulting or Advisory Role: Veracyte, Ferring

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano discuss recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for hematologic and solid tumors, including strategies to optimize the design and delivery of the immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center. I am also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Bispecific antibodies represent an innovative and advanced therapeutic platform in hematologic and solid tumors. And today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano to discuss the current landscape of bispecific antibodies and their potential to reshape the future of precision oncology. Dr. Curigliano was the last author of an ASCO Educational Book piece for 2025 titled, "Bispecific Antibodies in Hematologic and Solid Tumors: Current Landscape and Therapeutic Advances." Dr. Curigliano is a breast medical oncologist and the director of the Early Drug Development Division and chair of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. He is also a full professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan. You can find our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Curigliano, Giuseppe, welcome and thanks for being here. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thanks a lot for the invitation. Dr. Hope Rugo: Giuseppe, I would like to first ask you to provide some context for our listeners on how these novel therapeutics work. And then perhaps you could tell us about recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for oncology. We are at a time when antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are all the rage and, trying to improve on the targeting of specific antigens, proteins, receptors in the field of oncology is certainly a hot and emerging topic. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, thanks a lot. I believe really it was very challenging to try to summarize all the bispecific antibodies that are under development in multiple solid tumors. So, the first thing that I would like to highlight is the context and the mechanism of action of bispecific antibodies. Bispecific antibodies represent a groundbreaking advancement in cancer immunotherapy, because these engineered molecules have the unique ability to target and simultaneously bind to two distinct antigens. That is why we call them bispecific. So typically, one antigen is expressed on the tumor cell and the other one is expressed on the immune effectors, like T-cell or natural killer cells. So this dual targeting mechanism offers several key advantages over conventional monoclonal antibodies because you can target at the same time the tumor antigen, downregulating the pathway of proliferation, and you can activate the immune system. So the primary mechanism through which bispecific antibodies exert their therapeutic effects are: First, T-cell redirecting. I mean, many bispecific antibodies are designed to engage tumor-associated antigens like epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, on the cancer cell and a costimulatory molecule on the surface of T-cell. A typical target antigen on T-cell is CD3. So what does it mean? That you activate the immune system, immune cells will reach the tumor bed, and you have a dual effect. One is downregulating cell proliferation, the other one is activation of the immune system. This is really important in hematological malignancies, where we have a lot of bispecifics already approved, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The second, in fact, is the engagement of the tumor microenvironment. So, if you engage immune effector cells like NK cells or macrophages, usually the bispecific antibodies can exploit the immune system's ability to recognize and kill the immune cells, even if there is a lack of optimal antigen presentation. And finally, the last mechanism of action, this may have a role in the future, maybe in the early cancer setting, is overcoming immune evasion. So bispecific antibodies can overcome some of the immune evasion mechanisms that we see in cancer. For example, bispecific antibodies can target immune checkpoint receptors, like PD-L1 and CTLA-4. Actually, there is a bispecific under development in breast cancer that has a dual targeting on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and on PD-L1. So you have a dual effect at the same time. So, what is really important, as a comment, is we need to focus first on the optimal format of the bispecific, the optimal half-life, the stability, because of course even if they are very efficient in inducing a response, they may give also a lot of toxicities. So in clinical trials already, we have several bispecifics approved. In solid tumors, very few, specifically amivantamab for non-small cell lung cancer, but we have a pipeline of almost 40 to 50 bispecifics under development in multiple solid tumors, and some of them are in the context of prospective randomized trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: So this is really a fascinating area and it's really exciting to see the expansion of the different targets for bispecific antibodies. One area that has intrigued me also is that some of the bispecifics actually will target different parts of the same receptor or the same protein, but presumably those will be used as a different strategy. It's interesting because we have seen that, for example, in targeting HER2. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Oh, yes, of course. You may consider some bispecifics like margetuximab, I suppose, in which you can target specifically two different epitopes of the same antigen. This is really an example of how a bispecific can potentially be more active and downregulating, let us say, a pathway, by targeting two different domains of a specific target antigen. This is an important point. Of course, not all the bispecifics work this way, because some of the target antigen may dimerize, and so you have a family of target antigen; an example is epidermal growth factor receptor, in which you have HER1, HER2, HER3, and HER4. So some of them can inhibit the dimerization between one target antigen and the other one, in order to exert a more antiproliferative effect. But to be honest, the new generation of them are more targeting two different antigens, one on the tumor and one on the microenvironment, because according to the clinical data, this is a more efficient way to reduce proliferation and to activate the immune system. Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting, and I think it brings us to the next topic, which is really where bispecific antibodies have already shown success, and that is in hematologic malignancies where we have seen very interesting efficacy and these are being used in the clinic already. But the expansion of bispecific antibodies into solid tumors faces some key challenges. It's interesting because the challenges come in different shapes and forms. Tell us about some of those challenges and strategies to optimize bispecific antibody design, delivery, patient selection, and how we are going to use these agents in the right kind of clinical trials. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: This is really an excellent question because despite bispecific antibodies having shown a remarkable efficacy in hematological malignancies, their application in solid tumors may have some challenges. The first one is tumor heterogeneity. In hematological malignancy, you have a clear oncogene addiction. Let us say that 90% of the cells may express the same antigen. In solid tumors, it is not the same. Tumor heterogeneity is a typical characteristic of solid tumors, and you have high heterogeneity at the genetic, molecular, and phenotypic levels. So tumor cells can differ significantly from one another, even if within the same tumor. And this heterogeneity sometimes makes it difficult to identify a single target antigen that is universally expressed in an hematological malignancy. So furthermore, sometimes the antigen expressed on a tumor cell can be also present on the normal tissue. And so you may have a cross-targeting. So let's say, if you have a bispecific against epidermal growth factor receptor, this will target the tumor but will target also the skin with a lot of toxicity. The second challenge is the tumor microenvironment. The solid tumor microenvironment is really complex and often immunosuppressive. It is characterized by the presence of immunosuppressor cells like the T regulators, myeloid derived suppressor cells, and of course the extracellular matrix. All these factors hinder immune cell infiltration and also may reduce dramatically the effectiveness of bispecific antibodies. And as you know, there is also an hypoxic condition in the tumor. The other challenge is related to the poor tumor penetration. As you know also with antibody-drug conjugate, only 1 to 3% of the drug will arrive in the tumor bed. Unlike hematological malignancies where tumor cells are dispersed in the blood and easily accessible, the solid tumors have a lot of barriers, and so it means that tumor penetration can be very low. Finally, the vascularity also of the tumor can be different across solid tumors. That is why some bispecifics have a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or vascular endothelial growth factor as a target. Of course, what do we have to do to overcome these challenges? First, we have to select the optimal antigen. So knowing very well the biology of cancer and the tumor-associated antigens can really select a subgroup of epitopes that are specifically overexpressed in cancer cells. And so we need to design bispecifics according to the tumor type. Second, optimize the antibody format. So there are numerous bispecific antibody formats. We can consider the dual variable domain immunoglobulin, we specified this in our paper. The single chain variable fragments, so FC variable fragments, and the diabodies that can enhance both binding affinity and stability. And finally, the last point, combination therapies. Because bispecific antibodies targeting immune checkpoint, we have many targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 or CTLA-4, combined eventually with other immune checkpoint inhibitors. And so you may have more immunostimulating effect. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is a fascinating field and it is certainly going to go far in the treatment of solid tumors. You know, I think there is some competition with what we have now for antibody-drug conjugates. Do you see that bispecifics will eventually become bispecific ADCs? Are we going to combine these bispecific antibodies with ADCs, with chemotherapy? What is the best combination strategy do you think looking forward? Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, yes, we have a bispecific ADC. We have actually some bispecifics that are conjugated with a payload of chemotherapy. Some others are conjugated with immunoactivation agents like IL-2. One of the most effective strategies for enhancing bispecific activity is the combination therapy. So which type of combination can we do? First, bispecific antibodies plus checkpoint inhibitors. If you combine a bispecific with an immune checkpoint, like anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTLA-4, you have more activity because you have activation of T-cells, reduction of immunosuppressive effect, and of course, the capability of this bispecific to potentiate the activity of the immune checkpoint inhibitor. So, in my opinion, in a non-small cell lung cancer with an expression of PD-L1 more than 50%, if you give pembrolizumab plus a bispecific targeting PD-L1, you can really improve both response rate and median progression-free survival. Another combination is chemotherapy plus bispecific antibodies. Combining chemotherapy with bispecific can enhance the cytotoxic effect because chemotherapy induces immunogenic cell death, and then you boost with a bispecific in order to activate the immune system. Bispecific and CAR T-cells, until now, we believe that these are in competition, but this is not correct. Because CAR T-cells are designed to deliver an activation of the immune system with the same lymphocytes engineered of the patients, with a long-term effect. So I really do not believe that bispecifics are in competition with CAR T-cells because when you have a complete remission induced by CAR T-cell, the effect of this complete remission can last for years. The activity of a bispecific is a little bit different. So there are some studies actually combining CAR T-cells with bispecifics. For example, bispecific antibodies can direct CAR T-cells in the tumor microenvironment, improving their specificity and enhancing their therapeutic effect. And finally, monoclonal antibody plus bispecific is another next generation activity. Because if you use bispecific antibodies in combination with existing monoclonal antibodies like anti-HER2, you can potentially increase the immune response and enhance tumor cell targeting. In hematological malignancies, this has been already demonstrated and this approach has been particularly effective. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just so fascinating, the whole idea that we have these monoclonal antibodies and now we are going to add them to bispecifics that we could maybe attach on different toxins to try and improve this, or even give them with different approaches. I suppose giving an ADC with a bispecific would sort of be similar to that idea of giving a monoclonal antibody with the bispecific. So it is certainly intriguing. We also will need to understand the toxicity and cost overall and how we are going to use these, the duration of treatment, the assessment of biomarkers. There are just so many different aspects that still need to be explored. And then with that idea, can you look ahead five or ten years from now, and tell us how you think bispecific antibodies will shape our next generation cancer therapies, how they will be incorporated into precision oncology, and the new combinations and approaches as we move forward that will help us tailor treatment for patients both with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies? Are we going to be giving these in early-stage disease in solid tumors? So far, the studies are primarily focusing on the metastatic setting, but obviously one of the goals when we have successful treatments is to move them into the early stage setting as quickly as possible. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Let us try to look ahead five years rather than ten years, to be more realistic. So, personally I believe some bispecifics can potentially replace current approaches in specifically T-cell selected population. As we gather more data from ongoing clinical trials and we adopt a deeper understanding of the tumor immuno microenvironment, of course we may have potentially new achievement. A few days ago, we heard that bispecifics in triple negative breast cancer targeting VEGF and PD-L1 demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival. So, how to improve and to impact on clinical practice both in the metastatic and in the early breast cancer setting or solid tumor setting? First, personalized antigen selection. So we need to have the ability to tailor bispecific antibody therapy to the unique tumor profile of individual patients. So the more we understand the biology of cancers, the more we will be able to better target. Second, bispecific antibodies should be combined. I can see in the future a potential trial in which you combine a bispecific anti-PD-L1 and VEGF with immune checkpoint inhibitor selected also to the level of expression of PD-L1, because integration of antibody bispecific with a range of immunotherapies, and this cannot be only immune checkpoint inhibitors, but can be CAR T-cells, oncolytic viruses, also targeted therapy, will likely be a dominant theme in the coming years. This combination will be based on the specific molecular and immuno feature of the cancer of the patient. Then we need an enhanced delivery system. This is really important because you know now we have a next generation antibody. An example are the bicyclic. So you use FC fragment that are very short, with a low molecular weight, and this short fragment can be bispecific, so can target at the same time a target antigen and improving the immune system. And so the development of this novel delivery system, including also nanoparticles or engineered viral vectors, can enhance the penetration in the tumor bed and the bioavailability of bispecific antibodies. Importantly, we need to reduce toxicity. Until now, bispecifics are very toxic. So the more we are efficient in delivering in the tumor bed, the more we will reduce the risk of toxicity. So it will be mandatory to reduce off-target effects and to minimize toxicity. And finally, the expansion in new indication. So I really believe you raised an excellent point. We need to design studies in the neoadjuvant setting in order to better understand with multiple biopsies which is the effect on the tumor microenvironment and the tumor itself, and to generate hypotheses for potential trials or in the neoadjuvant setting or in those patients with residual disease. So, in my opinion, as we refine design, optimize patient selection, and explore new combination, in the future we will have more opportunity to integrate bispecifics in the standard of care. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is particularly helpful to hear what we are going to be looking for as we move forward to try and improve efficacy and reduce toxicity. And the ability to engineer these new antibodies and to more specifically target the right proteins and immune effectors is going to be critical, of course, moving forward, as well as individualizing therapy based on a specific tumor biology. Hearing your insights has been great, and it really has opened up a whole area of insight into the field of bispecifics, together with your excellent contribution to the ASCO Educational Book. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and background, as well as what we might see in the future on this podcast today. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thank you very much for the invitation and for this excellent interview. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. You will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. It is also, of course, on the ASCO website, as well as on PubMed. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on the key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano @curijoey Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Leadership: European Society for Medical Oncology, European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, ESMO Open, European Society for Medical Oncology Honoraria: Ellipses Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Samsung, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boerigher, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Guardant Health, Veracyte, Celcuity, Hengrui Therapeutics, Menarini, Merck, Exact Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead Sciences Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences Research Funding: Merck Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Rana McKay discuss the integration of innovative advances in molecular imaging and therapeutics to personalize treatment for patients with renal cell and urothelial carcinomas. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, I'm Dr. Pedro Barata, your guest host of By the Book, a podcast series featuring insightful conversations between authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. Now, we all know the field of genitourinary cancers (GU) is evolving quite rapidly, and we have new innovations in molecular imaging as well as targeted therapeutics. Today's episode will be exploring novel approaches that are transforming the management of renal cell and urothelial carcinomas and also their potential to offer a more personalized treatment to patients. For that, joining for today's discussion is Dr. Rana McKay, a GU medical oncologist and professor at University of California San Diego. Dr. McKay will discuss her recently published article titled, "Emerging Paradigms in Genitourinary Cancers: Integrating Molecular Imaging, Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Targeted Therapies, and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Renal Cell and Urothelial Carcinomas." Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. And with that, Rana McKay, great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rana McKay: Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Barata. It's really wonderful to be here with you. So, thanks for hosting. Dr. Pedro Barata: No, thanks for taking the time, and I'm looking forward to this conversation. And by the way, let me start by saying congrats on a great article in the Educational Book. Really super helpful paper. I'm recommending it to a lot of the residents and fellows at my own institution. I would like to first ask you to kind of give our listeners some context of how novel approaches in the molecular imaging as well as targeted therapeutics are actually changing the way we're managing patients with GU, but specifically with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. So, what are the areas you would call out as like being big areas for innovation in this context, and why are they important? Dr. Rana McKay: Very good question. And I think this is really what this article highlights. It highlights where are we going from an imaging diagnostics standpoint? Where are we going from a therapeutic standpoint? And I think if we have to step back, from the standpoint of diagnostics, we've seen PET imaging really transform diagnostics in prostate cancer with the advent of PSMA PET imaging, and now PSMA PET imaging is used as a biomarker for selection for theranostics therapy. And so, we're starting to see that enter into the RCC landscape, enter into the urothelial cancer landscape to a lesser extent. And I think it's going to potentially be transformative as these tools get more refined. I think when we think about therapeutics, what's been transformative most recently in the renal cell carcinoma landscape has been the advent of HIF2α inhibition to improve outcomes for patients. And we have seen the approval of belzutifan most recently that has reshaped the landscape. And now there's other HIF2α inhibitors that are being developed that are going to be further important as they get refined. And lastly, I think when we think about urothelial carcinoma, the greatest transformation to treatment in that context has been the displacement of cisplatin and platinum-based chemotherapy as a frontline standard with the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. And we've seen antibody-drug conjugates really reshape treatment and tremendously improve outcomes for patients. So, I think those are the three key areas of interest. Dr. Pedro Barata: So with that, let's focus first on the imaging and then we'll get to the therapeutic area. So, we know there's been a paradigm shift, really, when prostate-specific targets emerged as tracers for PET scanning. And so, we now commonly use prostate-specific membrane antigen, or PSMA-based PET scanning, and really transform how we manage prostate cancer. Now, it appears that we're kind of seeing a similar wave in renal cell carcinoma with the new radiotracer against the target carbonic anhydrase IX. What can you tell us about this? And is this going to be available to us anytime soon? And how do you think that might potentially change the way we're managing patients with RCC today? Dr. Rana McKay: First, I'll step back and say that in the context of PSMA PET imaging, we have actually been able to better understand RCC as well. So, we know that PSMA is expressed in the neovasculature of tumors, and it can actually be used to detect renal cell carcinoma tumors. It has a detection rate of about 84% when used for detection. And so, you know, I don't think it's just restricted to carbonic anhydrase IX, but we will talk about that. So, PSMA expressed in the neovasculature has a detection rate of around 84%, particularly if we're looking at clear cell RCC. CAlX is overexpressed in clear cell RCC, and it's actually used in diagnosing renal cell carcinoma when we think of CAlX IHC for diagnosing clear cell RCC. And now there are CAlX PET tracers. The first foray was with the ZIRCON study that was actually an interestingly designed study because it was designed to detect the likelihood of PET imaging to identify clear cell RCC. So, it was actually used in the early diagnostics setting when somebody presents with a renal mass to discriminate that renal mass from a clear cell versus a non-clear cell, and it was a positive study. But when I think about the potential application for these agents, you know, I think about the entire landscape of renal cell carcinoma. This is a disease that we do treat with metastasis-directed therapy. We have certainly seen patients who've undergone metastasectomy have long, durable remissions from such an approach. And I think if we can detect very early onset oligometastatic disease where a metastasis-directed therapy or SABR could be introduced - obviously tested in a trial to demonstrate its efficacy - I think it could potentially be transformative. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. It's a great summary, and I should highlight you are involved in some of those ongoing studies testing the performance of this specific PET scanning for RCC against conventional imaging, right? And to remind the listeners, thus far, for the most part, we don't really do FDG-PET for RCC. There are some specific cases we do, but in general, they're not a standard scanning. But maybe that will change in the future. Maybe RCC will have their own PSMA-PET. And to your point, there's also emerging data about the role of PSMA-PET scanning in RCC as well, as you very elegantly summarized. Wonderful. So, let me shift gears a little bit because you did, in your introduction, you did highlight a novel MOA that we have in renal cell carcinoma, approved for use, initially for VHL disease, and after that for sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We're talking about hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha inhibitors, or HIF2α inhibitors, such as belzutifan. But there's also others coming up. So, as a way to kind of summarize that, what can you tell us about this breakthrough in terms of therapeutic class, this MOA that got to our toolbox of options for patients with advanced RCC? Tell us a little bit what is being utilized currently in the management of advanced RCC. And where do you see the future going, as far as, is it moving early on? Is it getting monotherapy versus combinations? Maybe other therapies? What are your thoughts about that? What can you tell us about it? Dr. Rana McKay: Belzutifan is a first-in-class HIF2α inhibitor that really established clinical validation for HIF2α as a therapeutic target. When we think about the activity of this agent, the pivotal LITESPARK-005 trial really led to the approval of belzutifan in patients who were really heavily pretreated. It was patients who had received prior IO therapy, patients who had received prior VEGF-targeted therapy. And in the context of this study, we saw a median PFS of 5.6 months, and there did seem to be a tail on the curve when you looked at the 12-month PFS rate with belzutifan. It was 33.7% compared to 17.6% with everolimus. And then when we look at the response rate, it was higher with belzutifan on the order of 22-23%, and very low with everolimus, as we've previously seen. I think one of the Achilles heels of this regimen is the primary PD rate, which was 34% when used in later line. There are multiple studies that are testing belzutifan in combination across the treatment landscape. So, we have LITESPARK-011, which is looking at the combination of belzutifan plus lenvatinib in the second-line setting. We've got the MK-012 [LITESPARK-012] study, which is looking at belzutifan in various combinations in the frontline setting. So there is a combination with IO plus belzutifan. And so this is also being looked at in that context. And then we also have the LITESPARK-022 study, which is looking at pembrolizumab with belzutifan in the adjuvant setting. So there's a series of studies that will be exploring belzutifan really across the treatment landscape. Many of these studies in combination. Additionally, there are other HIF2α inhibitors that are being developed. We have casdatifan, which is another very potent HIF2α inhibitor. You know, I think pharmacologically, these are different agents. There's a different half-life, different dosing. What is going to be the recommended phase 3 dose for both agents, the EPO suppression levels, the degree of EPO suppression, and sustainability of EPO suppression is very different. So, I think we've seen data from casdatifan from the ARC-20 trial from monotherapy with a respectable response rate, over 30%, primary PD rate hovering just around 10%. And then we've also seen data of the combination of casdatifan with cabozantinib as well that were recently presented this year. And that agent is also being tested across the spectrum of RCC. It's being looked at in combination with cabozantinib in the PEAK-1 study, and actually just at the KCRS (Kidney Cancer Research Summit), we saw the unveiling of the eVOLVE-RCC trial, which is going to be looking at a volrustomig, which is a PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitor plus casdatifan compared to nivo-ipi in the frontline setting. So, we're going to see some competition in this space of the HIF2α inhibitors. I think when we think of mechanism of action in that these are very potent, not a lot of off-target activity, and they target a driver mutation in the disease. And that driver mutation happens very early in the pathogenesis. These are going to be positioned much earlier in the treatment landscape. Dr. Pedro Barata: All these studies, as you're saying, look really promising. And when we talk about them, you mentioned a lot of combinations. And to me, when I think of these agents, it makes a lot of sense to combine because there's not a lot of overlapping toxicities, if you will. But perhaps for some of our listeners, who have not used HIF2α inhibitors in practice yet, and they might be thinking about that, what can you tell us about the safety profile? How do you present it to your patients, and how do you handle things like hypoxia or anemia? How do you walk through the safety profile and tolerability profile of those agents like belzutifan? Dr. Rana McKay: I think these drugs are very different than your traditional TKIs, and they don't cause the classic symptoms that are associated with traditional TKIs that many of us are very familiar with like the rash, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, diarrhea. And honestly, these are very nuanced symptoms that patients really struggle with the chronicity of being on a chronic daily TKI. The three key side effects that I warn patients about with HIF2α inhibitors are: (1) fatigue; (2) anemia; and (3) hypoxia and dysregulation in the ability to sense oxygen levels. And so, many of these side effects - actually, all of them - are very dose-dependent. They can be very well-managed. So, we can start off with the anemia. I think it's critically important before you even start somebody on belzutifan that you are optimizing their hemoglobin and bone marrow function. Make sure they don't have an underlying iron deficiency anemia. Make sure they don't have B12 or folate deficiency. Check for these parameters. Many patients who have kidney cancer may have some hematuria, other things where there could be some low-level blood loss. So, make sure that those are resolved or you're at least addressing them and supplementing people appropriately. I monitor anemia very closely every 3 to 4 weeks, at least, when people start on these medications. And I do initiate EPO, erythropoietin, should the anemia start to worsen. And I typically use a threshold of around 10g/dL for implementing utilization of an EPO agent, and that's been done very safely in the context of the early studies and phase 3 studies as well. Now, with regards to the hypoxia, I think it's also important to make sure that you're selecting the appropriate individual for this treatment. People who have underlying COPD, or even those individuals who have just a very high burden of disease in their lung, lymphangitic spread, pleural effusions, maybe they're already on oxygen - that's not an ideal candidate for belzutifan. Something that very easily can be done in the clinic before you think about initiating somebody on this treatment, and has certainly been integrated into some of the trials, is just a 6-minute walk test. You know, have the patient walk around the clinic with one of the MAs, one of the nurses, put the O2 sat on [measuring oxygen saturation], make sure they're doing okay. But these side effects, like I said, are very dose-dependent. Typically, if a patient requires, if the symptoms are severe, the therapy can be discontinued and dose reduced. The standing dose is 120 mg daily, and there's two dose reductions to 80 mg and 40 mg should somebody warrant that dose modification. Dr. Pedro Barata: This is relatively new, right? Like, it was not that we're used to checking oxygen levels, right? In general, we're treating these patients, so I certainly think there's a learning curve there, and some of the points that you highlight are truly critical. And I do share many of those as well in our practice. Since I have you, I want to make sure we touch base on antibody-drug conjugates as well. It's also been a hot area, a lot of developments there. When I think of urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma, I see it a little bit different. I think perhaps in urothelial carcinoma, antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are somewhat established already. You already mentioned enfortumab vedotin. I might ask you to expand a little bit on that. And then in renal cell carcinoma, we have some ADCs as well that you include in your chapter, and that I would like you to tell us what's coming from that perspective. So, tell us a little bit about how do you see ADCs in general for GU tumors, particularly UC and RCC? Tell us a little bit about the complexity or perhaps the challenges you still see. At the same time, tell us about the successes. Dr. Rana McKay: Stepping back, let's just talk about like the principles and design of ADCs. So, most ADCs have three components. There's a monoclonal antibody that typically targets a cell surface antigen, which is conjugated by a linker, which is the second component, to a payload drug. And typically, that payload drug has been chemotherapy, whether it be topoisomerase or whether it be MMAE or other chemotherapeutic. We can start in the RCC space. There's been multiple antibody-drug conjugates that have been tested. There's antibody-drug conjugates to CD70, which is expressed on clear cell RCC. There's been antibody-drug conjugates to ENPP3, which is also expressed on RCC. There's antibody-drug conjugates to CDH6. And they have different payloads, like I said, whether it be topoisomerase I or other microtubule inhibitors. Now, when we think about kidney cancer, we don't treat this disease with chemotherapy. This disease is treated with immunotherapy. It is treated with treatments that target the VEGF pathway and historically has not been sensitive to chemo. So, I think even though the targets have been very exciting, we've seen very underwhelming data regarding activity, and in some context, seen increased toxicity with the ADCs. So, I think we need to tread lightly in the context of the integration and the testing of ADCs in RCC. We just came back from the KCRS meeting, and there was some very intriguing data about a c-Kit ADC that's being developed for chromophobe RCC, which is, you know, a huge unmet need, these variant tumors that really lack appropriate therapeutics. But I just caution us to tread lightly around how can we optimize the payload to make sure that the tumor that we're treating is actually sensitive to the agent that's targeting the cell kill. So, that's a little bit on the ADCs in RCC. I still think we have a long way to go and still in early testing. Now, ADCs for UC are now the standard of care. I think the prototypical agent, enfortumab vedotin, is a nectin-4-directed ADC that's conjugated to an MMAE payload and was the first ADC approved for advanced urothelial, received accelerated approval following the EV-201 trial, which was basically a multicenter, single-arm study that was investigating EV in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, and then ultimately confirmed in the EV-301 study as well. And so, that study ended up demonstrating the support superiority of EV from an overall survival standpoint, even PFS standpoint. Building on that backbone is the EV-302 study, which tested EV in combination with pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting. And that was a pivotal, landmark study that, like I said, has displaced platinum therapy as a frontline treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma. And when we think about that study and the median overall survival and just how far we've come in urothelial cancer, the median OS with EV-pembro from that trial was 31 and a half months. I mean, that's just incredible. The control arm survival was 16 and a half months. The hazard ratio for OS, 0.47. I mean this is why when this data was presented, it was literally a standing ovation that lasted for several minutes because we just haven't seen data that have looked that good. And there are other antibody-drug conjugates that are being tested. We've all been involved in the saga with sacituzumab govitecan, which is a trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) targeted ADC with a topoisomerase I payload. It was the second ADC to receive approval, but then that approval was subsequently withdrawn when the confirmatory phase 3 was negative, the TROPiCS-04 trial. So, approval was granted based off of the TROPHY-U-01, single-arm, phase 2 study, demonstrating a response rate of around 28% and a PFS of, you know, about 5 and a half months. But then failure to show any benefit from an OS standpoint. And I think there's a lot of controversy in the field around whether this agent still has a role in advanced urothelial carcinoma. And I think particularly for individuals who do not have molecular targets, like they're not HER2-amplified or have HER2-positivity or FGFR or other things like that. Dr. Pedro Barata: Fantastic summary, Rana. You were talking about the EV, and it came to mind that it might not be over, right, for the number of ADCs we use in clinical practice in the near future. I mean, we've seen very promising data for ADC against the HER2, right, and over-expression. It also can create some challenges, right, in the clinics because we're asking to test for HER2 expression. It's almost like, it's not exactly the same to do it in breast cancer, but it looks one more time that we're a little bit behind the breast cancer field in a lot of angles. And also has vedotin as a payload. Of course, I'm referring to disitamab vedotin, and there's very elegant data described by you in your review chapter as well. And it's going to be very interesting to see how we sequence the different ADCs, to your point as well. So, before we wrap it up, I just want to give you the opportunity to tell us if there's any area that we have not touched, any take-home points you'd like to bring up for our listeners before we call it a day. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you so much. I have to say, you know, I was so excited at ASCO this year looking at the GU program. It was fantastic to see the progress being made, novel therapeutics that really there's a tremendous excitement about, not just in RCC and in UC, but also in prostate cancer, thinking about the integration of therapies, not just for people with refractory disease that, even though our goal is to improve survival, our likelihood of cure is low, but also thinking about how do we integrate these therapies early in the treatment landscape to enhance cure rates for patients, which is just really spectacular. We're seeing many of these agents move into the perioperative setting or in combination with radiation for localized disease. And then the special symposium on biomarkers, I mean, we've really come a long, long way. And I think that we're going to continue to evolve over the next several years. I'm super excited about where the field is going in the treatment of genitourinary malignancies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Oh, absolutely true. And I would say within the Annual Meeting, we have outstanding Educational Sessions. And just a reminder to the listeners that actually that's where the different teams or topics for the Educational Book chapters come from, from actually the educational sessions from ASCO. And your fantastic chapter is an example of that, right, focusing on advanced GU tumors. So, thank you so much, Rana, for taking the time, sharing your insights with us today on the podcast. It was a fantastic conversation as always. Dr. Rana McKay: My pleasure. Thanks so much for having me, Dr. Barata. Dr. Pedro Barata: Of course. And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the link to the article discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I also encourage you to check out the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. You'll find an incredible wealth of information there. It's free, available online, and you'll find, hopefully, super, super important information on the key science and issues that are shaping modern oncology, as we've heard from Dr. McKay and many other outstanding authors. So, thank you, everyone, and I hope to see you soon. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Rana McKay @DrRanaMcKay Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck Dr. Rana McKay: Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Pfizer, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Vividion, Calithera, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, Esiai, NeoMorph, Arcus Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Astrazeneca, Myovant Research Funding (Inst.): Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, Artera

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Kamaria Lee discuss the prevalence of financial toxicity in cancer care in the United States and globally, focusing on breast cancer, and highlight key interventions to mitigate financial hardship. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm the director of the Women's Cancer Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Rising healthcare costs are causing financial distress for patients and their families across the globe. Patients with cancer report financial toxicity as a major impediment to their quality of life, and its association with worse outcomes is well documented. Today, we'll be discussing how patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Kamaria Lee, a fourth-year radiation oncology resident and health equity researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center and a co-author of the recently published article titled, "Financial Toxicity in Breast Cancer: Why Does It Matter, Who Is at Risk, and How Do We Intervene?" Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Lee, it's great to have you on this podcast. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Hey, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here today. I also would like to recognize my co-authors, Dr. Alexandru Eniu, Dr. Christopher Booth, Molly MacDonald, and Dr. Fumiko Chino, who worked on this book chapter with me and did a fantastic presentation on the topic at ASCO this past year. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thanks very much. We'll now just jump into the questions. We know that rising medical costs contribute to a growing financial burden on patients, which has [GC1] [JG2] been documented to contribute to lower quality-of-life, compromised clinical care, and worse health outcomes. How are patients with breast cancer uniquely at risk for financial toxicity? How does the problem vary within the breast cancer population in terms of age, racial and ethnic groups, and those who have metastatic disease? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Breast cancer patients are uniquely at risk of financial toxicity for several reasons. Three key reasons are that breast cancer often requires multimodal treatment. So this means patients are receiving surgery, many receive systemic therapies, including hormonal therapies, as well as radiation. And so this requires care coordination and multiple visits that can increase costs. Secondly, another key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that there's often a long survivorship period that includes long-term care for toxicities and continued follow-ups, and patients might also be involved in activities regarding advocacy, but also physical therapy and mental health appointments during their prolonged survivorship, which can also add costs. And a third key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that the patient population is primarily women. And we know that women are more likely to have increased caregiver responsibilities while also potentially working and managing their treatments, and so this is another contributor. Within the breast cancer population, those who are younger and those who are from marginalized racial/ethnic groups and those with metastatic disease have been shown to be at an increased risk. Those who are younger may be more likely to need childcare during treatment if they have kids, or they're more likely to be employed and not yet retired, which can be disrupted while receiving treatment. And those who are racial/ethnic minorities may have increased financial toxicity due to reasons that exist even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. And some of these reasons have been shown to be increased risk of job or income loss or transportation barriers during treatment. And lastly, for those with metastatic breast cancer, there can be ongoing financial distress due to the long-term care that is needed for treatment, and this can include parking, transportation, and medications while managing their metastatic disease. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is really important to understand these issues as you just outlined. There has been a lot of focus on financial toxicity research in recent years, and that has led to novel approaches in screening for financial hardship. Can you tell us about the new screening tools and interventions and how you can easily apply that to clinical practice, keeping in mind that people aren't at MD Anderson with a bunch of support and information on this but are in clinical practice and seeing many, many patients a day with lots of different cancers? Dr. Kamaria Lee: You're exactly right that there is incredible nuance needed in understanding how to best screen for financial hardship in different types of practices. There are multiple financial toxicity tools. The most commonly used tool is the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, also known as the COST tool. In its full form, it's an 11-item survey. There's also a summary question as well. And these questions look at objective and subjective financial burden, and it uses a five-point Likert scale. For example, one question on the full form is, "I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the cost of my treatment," and then patients are able to respond "not at all" to "very much" with a threshold score for financial toxicity risk. Of course, as you noted, one critique of having an 11-item survey is that there's limited time in patient encounters with their providers. And so recently, Thom et al validated an abbreviated two-question version of the COST tool. This validation was done in an urban comprehensive cancer center, and it was found to have a high predictive value to the full measure. We note which two questions are specifically pulled from the full measure within the book chapter. And this is one way that it can be easier for clinicians who are in a busier setting to still screen for financial toxicity with fewer questions. I also do recommend that clinicians who know their clinic's workflow the best, work with their team of nurses, financial navigators, and others to best integrate the tool into their workflow. For some, this may mean sending the two-item survey as a portal message so that patients can answer it before consults. Other times, it could mean having it on the tablet that can be done in the clinic waiting room. And so there are different ways that screening can be done, even in a busy setting, and acknowledging that different practices have different amounts of resources and time. Dr. Hope Rugo: And where would people access that easily? I recognize that that information is in your chapter, or your article that's on PubMed that will be linked to this podcast, but it is nice to just know where people could easily access that online. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, and so you should be able to Google 'the COST measure', and then there is a website that also has the forms as well. So it's also beyond the book chapter, Googling 'the COST measure', and then online they would be able to find access to the form. Dr. Hope Rugo: And how often would you do that screening? Dr. Kamaria Lee: So, I think it's definitely important that we are as proactive as possible. And so initially, I recommend that the screening happens at the time of diagnosis, and so if it's done through the portal, it can be sent before the initial consult, or again, however, is best in the workflow. So at the time of diagnosis and then at regular intervals, so throughout the treatment process, but then also into the follow-up period as well to best understand if there's still a financial burden even after the treatments have been completed. Dr. Hope Rugo: I wonder if in the metastatic setting, you could do it at the change of treatment, you know, a month after somebody's changed treatment, because people may not be as aware of the financial constraints when they first get prescribed a drug. It's more when you hear back from how much it's going to cost. And leading into that, I think it's, what do you do with this? So, you know, this cost conversation is really important. You're going to be talking to the patient about the cost considerations when you, for example, see that there are financial issues, you're prescribing treatments. How do we implement impactful structured cost conversations with our breast cancer patients, help identify financial issues, and intervene? How do we intervene? I mean, as physicians often we aren't really all that aware, or providers, of how to address the cost. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree fully that another key time when to screen for financial toxicity is at that transition between treatments to best understand where they're at based off of what they've received previously for care, and then to anticipate needs when changing regimens, such as like you said in the metastatic setting. As we're collecting this information, you're right, we screen, we get this information, and what do we do? I do agree that there is a lack of knowledge among us clinicians of how do we manage this information. What is insurance? How do we manage insurance and help patients with insurance concerns? How do we help them navigate out-of-pocket costs or even the indirect costs of transportation? Those are a lot of things that are not covered in-depth in traditional medical training. And so it can be overwhelming for a lot of clinicians, not only due to time limitations in clinic, but also just having those conversations within their visit. And so what I would say, a key thing to note, is that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So just as we're treating patients in a multidisciplinary way within oncology as we work with our medical oncology, surgical colleagues across the board, it's knowing that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So the team members include all of the different oncologists, but it also includes team members such as financial counselors and navigators and social workers and even understanding nonprofit partners who we have who have money that can be set aside to help reduce costs for certain different aspects of treatment. Another thing I will note is that most patients with breast cancer often say they do want to have these conversations still with their clinicians. So they do still see a clinician as someone that can weigh in on the costs of their treatment or can weigh in on this other aspect of their care, even if it's not the actual medication or the radiation. And so patients do desire to hear from their clinicians about this topic, and so I think another way to make it feel less overwhelming for clinicians like ourselves is to know that even small conversations are helpful and then being knowledgeable about within your institution or, like I said, outside of it with nonprofits, being aware of who can I refer this patient to for continued follow-up and for more detailed information and resources. Dr. Hope Rugo: Are those the successful interventions? It's really referring to financial navigators? How do people identify? You know, in an academic center, we often will sort of punt this to social workers or our nurse navigators. What about in the community? What's a successful intervention example of mitigating financial toxicity? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I agree completely that the context at which people are practicing is important to note. So as you alluded to, in some bigger systems, we do have financial navigators and this has been seen to be successful in providing applications and assisting with applications for things such as pharmaceutical assistance, insurance applications, discount opportunities. Another successful intervention are financial toxicity tumor boards, which I acknowledge might not be able to exist everywhere. But where this is possible, multidisciplinary tumor boards that include both doctors and nurses and social workers and any other members of the care team have been able to effectively decrease patients' personal spending on care costs and decrease co-pays through having a dedicated time to discuss concerns as they arise or even proactively. Otherwise, I think in the community, there are other interventions in regards to understanding different aspects of government programs that might be available for patients that are not, you know, limited to an institution, but that are more nationally available, and then again, also having the nonprofit, you know, partnerships to see other resources that patients can have access to. And then I would also say that the indirect costs are a significant burden for many patients. So by that, I mean even parking costs, transportation, childcare. And so even though those aren't interventions necessarily with someone who is a financial navigator, I would recommend that even if it's a community practice, they discuss ways that they can help offset those indirect costs with patients with parking or if there are ways to help offset transportation costs or at least educate patients on other centers that may be closer to them or they can still receive wonderful care, and then also making sure that patients are able to even have appointments scheduled in ways that are easier for them financially. So even if someone's receiving care out in the community where there's not a financial navigator, as clinicians or our scheduling teams, sometimes there are options to make sure if a patient wants, visits are more so on one day than throughout the week or many hours apart that can really cause loss of income due to missed work. And so there are also kind of more nuanced interventions that can happen even without a financial navigation system in place. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that those are really good points and it is interesting when you think about financial toxicity. I mean, we worry a lot when patients can't take the drugs because they can't afford them, but there are obviously many other non-treatment, direct treatment-related issues that come up like the parking, childcare, tolls, you know, having a working car, all those kinds of things, and the unexpected things like school is out or something like that that really play a big role where they don't have alternatives. And I think that if we think about just drug costs, I think those are a big issue in the global setting. And your article did address financial toxicity in the global setting. International financial toxicity rates range from 25% of patients with breast cancer in high-income countries to nearly 80% in low- and middle-income countries or LMICs. You had cited a recent meta-analysis of the global burnout from cancer, and that article found that over half of patients faced catastrophic health expenditures. And of course, I travel internationally and have a lot of colleagues who are working in oncology in many countries, and it is really often kind of shocking from our perspective to see what people can get coverage for and how much they have to pay out-of-pocket and how much that changes, that causes a lot of disparity in access to healthcare options, even those that improve survival. Can you comment on the global impact of this problem? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I am glad that you brought this up for discussion as well. Financial toxicity is something that is a significant global issue. As you mentioned, as high as 80% of patients with breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries have had significant financial toxicity. And it's particularly notable that even when looking at breast cancer compared to other malignancies around the world, the burden appears to be worse. This has been seen even in countries with free universal healthcare. One example is Sri Lanka, where they saw high financial toxicity for their patients with breast cancer, even with this free universal healthcare. But there were also those travel costs and just additional out-of-hospital tests that were not covered. Also, literature in low- and middle-income countries shows that patients might also be borrowing money from their social networks, so from their family and their friends, to help cover their treatment costs, and in some cases, people are making daily food compromises to help offset the cost of their care. So there is a really large burden of financial toxicity generally for cancer globally, but also specifically in breast cancer, it warrants specific discussion. In the meta-analysis that you mentioned, they identified key risk factors of financial toxicity globally that included people who had a larger family size, a lower income, a lack of insurance, longer disease duration, so again, the accumulation of visits and costs and co-pay over time, and those who had multiple treatments. And so in the global setting, there is this significant burden, but then I will also note that there is a lack of literature in low-income countries on financial toxicity. So where we suspect that there is a higher burden and where we need to better understand how it's distributed and what interventions can be applied, especially culturally specific interventions for each country and community, there's less research on this topic. So there is definitely an increased need for research in financial toxicity, particularly in the global setting. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, and I think that goes on to how we hope that financial toxicity researchers will have approaches to large-scale multi-institutional interventions to improve financial toxicity. I think this is an enormous challenge, but one of the SWOG organizations has done some great work in this area, and a randomized trial addressing cancer-related financial hardship through the delivery of a proactive financial navigation intervention is one area that SWOG has focused on, which I think is really interesting. Of course, that's going to be US-based, which is how we might find our best paths starting. Do you think that's a good path forward, maybe that being able to provide something like that across institutions that are independent of being a cancer only academic center, or more general academic center, or a community practice? You know, is finding ways to help patients with breast cancer and their families understand and better manage financial aspects of cancer care on a national basis the next approach? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree that that is a good approach, and I think the proactive component is also key. We know that patients that are coming to us with any cancer, but including breast cancer, some of them have already experienced a financial burden or have recently had a job loss before even coming to us and having the added distress of our direct costs and our indirect costs. So I think being proactive when they come to us in regards to the additional burden that their cancer treatments may cause is key to try to get ahead of things as much as we can, knowing that even before they've seen us, there might be many financial concerns that they've been navigating. I think at the national level, that allows us to try to understand things at what might be a higher level of evidence and make sure that we're able to address this for a diverse cohort of patients. I know that sometimes the enrollment can be challenging at the national level when looking at financial toxicity, as then we're involving many different types of financial navigation partners and programs, and so that can maybe make it more complex to understand the best approaches, but I think that it can be done and can really bring our understanding of important financial toxicity interventions to the next level. And then the benefit to families with the proactive component is just allowing them to feel more informed, which can help decrease anticipation, anxiety related to anticipation, and allow them to help plan things moving forward for themselves and for the whole family. Dr. Hope Rugo: Those are really good points and I wonder, I was just thinking as you were talking, that having some kind of a process where you could attach to the electronic health record, you could click on the financial toxicity survey questions that somebody filled out, and then there would be a drop-down menu for interventions or connecting you to people within your clinic or even more broadly that would be potential approaches to manage that toxicity issue so that it doesn't impact care, you know, that people aren't going to decide not to take their medication or not to come in or not to get their labs because of the cost or the transportation or the home care issues that often are a big problem, even parking, as you pointed out, at the cancer center. And actually, we had a philanthropic donor when I was at UCSF who donated a large sum of money for patient assistance, and it was interesting to then have these sequential meetings with all the stakeholders to try and decide how you would use that money. You need a big program, you need to have a way of assessing the things you can intervene with, which is really tough. In that general vein, you know, what are the governmental, institutional, and provider-level actions that are required to help clinicians do our best to do no financial harm, given the fact that we're prescribing really expensive drugs that require a lot of visits when caring for our patients with breast cancer in the curative and in the metastatic setting? Dr. Kamaria Lee: At the governmental level, there are patient assistant programs that do exist, and I think that those can continue and can become more robust. But I also think one element of those is oftentimes the programs that we have at the government level or even institutional levels might have a lot of paperwork or be harder for people with lower literacy levels to complete. And so I think the government can really try to make sure that the paperwork that is given, within reason, with all the information they need, but that the paperwork can be minimized and that there can be clear instructions, as well as increased health insurance options and, you know, medical debt forgiveness as more broad just overall interventions that are needed. I think additionally, institutions that have clinical trials can help ensure that enrollment can be at geographically diverse locations. Some trials do reimburse for travel costs, of course, but sometimes then patients need the reimbursement sooner than it comes. And so I think there's also those considerations of more so upfront funds for patients involved in clinical trials if they're going to have to travel far to be enrolled in that type of care or trying to, again, make clinical trials more available at diverse locations. I would also say that it's important that those who design clinical trials use what is known as the "Common Sense Oncology" approach of making sure that they're designed in minimizing the use of outcomes that might have a smaller clinical benefit but may have a high financial toxicity. And that also goes to what providers can do, of understanding what's most important to a particular patient in front of them, what outcomes and what benefit, or you know, how many additional months of progression-free survival or things like that might be important to a particular patient and then also educating them and discussing what the associated financial burden is just so that they have the full picture as they make an informed decision. Dr. Hope Rugo: As much as we know. I mean, I think that that's one of the big challenges is that as we prescribe these expensive drugs and often require multiple visits, even, you know, really outside of the clinical trial setting, trying to balance the benefit versus the financial toxicity can be a huge challenge. And that's a big area, I think, that we still need help with, you know. As we have more drugs approved in the early-stage setting and treatments that could be expensive, oral medications, for example, in our Medicare population where the share of cost may be substantial upfront, you know, with an upfront cost, how do we balance the benefits versus the risk? And I think you make an important point that discussing this individually with patients after we found out what the cost is. I think warning patients about the potential for large out-of-pocket cost and asking them to contact us when they know is one way around this. You know, patients feeling like they're sort of out there with a prescription, a recommendation from their doctor, they're scared of their cancer, and they have this huge share of cost that we didn't know about. That's one challenge, and I don't know if there's any suggestions you have about how one should approach that communication with the patient. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I think part of it is truly looking at each patient as an individual and asking how much they want to know, right? So we all know that patients, some who want more information, some want less, and so I think one way to approach that is asking them about how much information do they want to know, what is most helpful to them. And then also, knowing that if you're in a well-resourced setting that does have the social workers and financial navigators, also making sure it's integrated in the multidisciplinary setting and so that they know who they can go to for what, but also know that as a clinician, you're always happy for them to bring up their concerns and that if it's something that you're not aware of, that you will connect them to the correct multidisciplinary team members who can accurately provide that additional information. Dr. Hope Rugo: Do you have any other additional comments that you'd like to mention that we haven't covered? I think the idea of a financial toxicity screen with two questions that could be implemented at change of therapy or just periodically throughout the course of treatment would be a really great thing, but I think we do need as much information on potential interventions as possible because that's really what challenges people. It's like finding out information that you can't handle. Your article provides a lot of strategies there, which I think are great and can be discussed on a practice and institutional level and applied. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yeah, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss such an important topic within oncology and specifically for our patients with breast cancer. I agree that it can feel overwhelming, both for clinicians and patients, to navigate this topic that many of us are not as familiar with, but I would just say that the area of financial toxicity is continuing to evolve as we gather more information on most successful interventions and that our patients can often inform us on, you know, what interventions are most needed as we see them. And so you can have your thinking about it as you see individual patients of, "This person mentioned this could be more useful to them." And so I think also learning from our patients in this space that can seem overwhelming and that maybe we weren't all trained on in medical school to best understand how to approach it and how to give our patients the best care, not just medically, but also financially. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you, Dr. Lee, for sharing your insights with us today. Our listeners will find a link, as I mentioned earlier, to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I think it's very useful, a useful resource, and not just for providers, but for clinic staff overall. I think this can be of great value and help open the discussion as well. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at Education Sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives into new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Kamaria Lee @ lee_kamaria Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Kamaria Lee: No relationships to disclose

Drs. Hope Rugo, Sheri Brenner, and Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode discuss the struggle that health care professionals experience when terminally ill patients are suffering and approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be exploring the complexities of grief and oncology and the struggle we experience as healthcare professionals when terminally ill patients are suffering. Our guests will discuss approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way, as outlined in their recently published article titled, "Oncology and Suffering: Strategies on Coping With Grief for Healthcare Professionals." I'm delighted today to welcome Dr. Keri Brenner, a clinical associate professor of medicine, palliative care attending, and psychiatrist at Stanford University, and Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode, a senior research fellow in philosophy in the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Buckingham, where he also serves as director of graduate research in p hilosophy. He is also a research fellow in philosophy at Blackfriars Hall at the University of Oxford and associate professor at the University of Warsaw. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Keri Brenner: Great to be here, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. It's a pleasure and an honor. Dr. Hope Rugo: So I'm going to start with some questions for both of you. I'll start with Dr. Brenner. You've spoken and written about the concept of suffering when there is no cure. For oncologists, what does it mean to attune to suffering, not just disease? And how might this impact the way they show up in difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Keri Brenner: Suffering is something that's so omnipresent in the work of clinical oncology, and I like to begin by just thinking about what is suffering, because it's a word that we use so commonly, and yet, it's important to know what we're talking about. I think about the definition of Eric Cassell, who was a beloved mentor of mine for decades, and he defined suffering as the state of severe distress that's associated with events that threaten the intactness of a person. And my colleague here at Stanford, Tyler Tate, has been working on a definition of suffering that encompasses the experience of a gap between how things are versus how things ought to be. Both of these definitions really touch upon suffering in a person-centered way that's relational about one's identity, meaning, autonomy, and connectedness with others. So these definitions alone remind us that suffering calls for a person-centered response, not the patient as a pathology, but the panoramic view of who the patient is as a person and their lived reality of illness. And in this light, the therapeutic alliance becomes one of our most active ingredients in care. The therapeutic alliance is that collaborative, trusting bond as persons that we have between clinician and patient, and it's actually one of the most powerful predictors of meaningful outcomes in our care, especially in oncologic care. You know, I'll never forget my first day of internship at Massachusetts General Hospital. A faculty lecturer shared this really sage insight with us that left this indelible mark. She shared, "As physicians and healers, your very self is the primary instrument of healing. Our being is the median of the medicine." So, our very selves as embodied, relationally grounded people, that's the median of the medicine and the first most enduring medicine that we offer. That has really borne fruit in the evidence that we see around the therapeutic alliance. And we see this in oncologic care, that in advanced cancer, a strong alliance with one's oncologist truly improves a patient's quality of life, treatment adherence, emotional well-being, and even surpasses structured interventions like psychotherapeutic interventions. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just incredibly helpful information and actually terminology as well, and I think the concept of suffering differs so much. Suffering comes in many shapes and forms, and I think you really have highlighted that. But many oncologists struggle with knowing what to do when patients are suffering but can't be fixed, and I think a lot of times that has to do with oncologists when patients have pain or shortness of breath or issues like that. There are obviously many ways people suffer. But I think what's really challenging is how clinicians understand suffering and what the best approaches to respond to suffering are in the best patient-centered and therapeutic way. Dr. Keri Brenner: I get that question a lot from my trainees in palliative care, not knowing what to do. And my first response is, this is about how to be, not about knowing what to do, but how to be. In our medical training, we're trained often how to think and treat, but rarely how to be, how to accompany others. And I often have this image that I tell my trainees of, instead of this hierarchical approach of a fix-it mentality of all we're going to do, when it comes to elements of unavoidable loss, mortality, unavoidable sufferings, I imagine something more like accompaniment, a patient walking through some dark caverns, and I am accompanying them, trying to walk beside them, shining a light as a guide throughout that darkness. So it's a spirit of being and walking with. And it's so tempting in medicine to either avoid the suffering altogether or potentially overidentify with it, where the suffering just becomes so all-consuming like it's our own. And we're taught to instead strike a balance of authentic accompaniment through it. I often teach this key concept in my palli-psych work with my team about formulation. Formulation is a working hypothesis. It's taking a step back and asking, "Why? Why is this patient behaving in this manner? What might the patient's core inner struggle be?" Because asking that "why" and understanding the nuanced dimensions of a patient's core inner struggle will really help guide our therapeutic interactions and guide the way that we accompany them and where we choose to shine that light as we're walking with them. And oftentimes people think, "Well Keri, that sounds so sappy or oversentimental," and it's not. You know, I'm just thinking about a case that I had a couple months ago, and it was a 28-year-old man with gastric cancer, metastatic disease, and that 28-year-old man, he was actually a college Division I athlete, and his dad was an acclaimed Division I coach. And our typical open-ended palliative care questions, that approach, infuriated them. They needed to know that I was showing up confident, competent, and that I was ready, on my A-game, with a real plan for them to follow through. And so my formulation about them was they needed somebody to show up with that confidence and competence, like the Division I athletes that they were, to really meet them and accompany them where they were on how they were going to walk through that experience of illness. Dr. Hope Rugo: These kinds of insights are so helpful to think about how we manage something that we face every day in oncology care. And I think that there are many ways to manage this. Maybe I'll ask Dr. Sławkowski-Rode one question just that I think sequences nicely with what you're talking about. A lot of our patients are trying to think about sort of the bigger picture and how that might help clinicians understand and support patients. So, the whole concept of spirituality, you know, how can we really use that as oncology clinicians to better understand and support patients with advanced illness, and how can that help patients themselves? And we'll talk about that in two different ways, but we'll just start with this broader question. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: I think spirituality, and here, I usually refer to spirituality in terms of religious belief. Most people in the world are religious believers, and it is very intuitive and natural that religious beliefs would be a resource that people who help patients with a terminal diagnosis and healthcare professionals who work with those patients appeal to when they try to help them deal with the trauma and the stress of these situations. Now, I think that the interesting thing there is that very often the benefit of appealing to a religious belief is misunderstood in terms of what it delivers. And there are many, many studies on how religious belief can be used to support therapy and to support patients in getting through the experience of suffering and defeating cancer or facing a terminal diagnosis. There's a wealth of literature on this. But most of the literature focuses on this idea that by appealing to religious belief, we help patients and healthcare practitioners who are working with them get over the fact and that there's a terminal diagnosis determining the course of someone's life and get on with our lives and engaging with whatever other pursuits we might have, with our job if we're healthcare practitioners, and with the other things that we might be passionate about in our lives. And the idea here is that this is what religion allows us to do because we sort of defer the need to worry about what's going to happen to us until the afterlife or some perspective beyond the horizon of our life here. However, my view is – I have worked beyond philosophy also with theologians from many traditions, and my view here is that religion is something that does allow us to get on with our life but not because we're able to move on or move past the concerns that are being threatened by illness or death, but by forming stronger bonds with these things that we value in our life in a way and to have a sense of hope that these will be things that we will be able to keep an attachment to despite the threat to our life. So, in a sense, I think very many approaches in the field have the benefit of religion upside down, as it were, when it comes to helping patients and healthcare professionals who are engaged with their illness and treating it. Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, it's really interesting the points that you make, and I think really important, but, you know, sometimes the oncologists are really struggling with their own emotional reactions, how they are reacting to patients, and dealing with sort of taking on the burden, which, Dr. Brenner, you were mentioning earlier. How can oncologists be aware of their own emotional reactions? You know, they're struggling with this patient who they're very attached to who's dying or whatever the situation is, but you want to avoid burnout as an oncologist but also understand the patient's inner world and support them. Dr. Keri Brenner: I believe that these affective, emotional states, they're contagious. As we accompany patients through these tragic losses, it's very normal and expected that we ourselves will experience that full range of the human experience as we accompany the patients. And so the more that we can recognize that this is a normative dimension of our work, to have a nonjudgmental stance about the whole panoramic set of emotions that we'll experience as we accompany patients with curiosity and openness about that, the more sustainable the work will become. And I often think about the concept of countertransference given to us by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago. Countertransference is the clinician's response to the patient, the thoughts, feelings, associations that come up within us, shaped by our own history, our own life events, those unconscious processes that come to the foreground as we are accompanying patients with illness. And that is a natural part of the human experience. Historically, countertransference was viewed as something negative, and now it's actually seen as a key that can unlock and enlighten the formulation about what might be going on within the patient themselves even. You know, I was with a patient a couple weeks ago, and I found myself feeling pretty helpless and hopeless in the encounter as I was trying to care for them. And I recognized that countertransference within myself that I was feeling demoralized. It was a prompt for me to take a step back, get on the balcony, and be curious about that because I normally don't feel helpless and hopeless caring for my patients. Well, ultimately, I discovered through processing it with my interdisciplinary team that the patient likely had demoralization as a clinical syndrome, and so it's natural many of us were feeling helpless and hopeless also accompanying them with their care. And it allowed us to have a greater interdisciplinary approach and a more therapeutic response and deeper empathy for the patient's plight. And we can really be curious about our countertransferences. You know, a few months ago, I was feeling bored and distracted in a family meeting, which is quite atypical for me when I'm sharing serious illness news. And it was actually a key that allowed me to recognize that the patient was trying to distract all of us talking about inconsequential facts and details rather than the gravitas of her illness. Being curious about these affective states really allows us to have greater sustainability within our own practice because it normalizes that human spectrum of emotions and also allows us to reduce unconscious bias and have greater inclusivity with our practice because what Freud also said is that what we can't recognize and say within our own selves, if we don't have that self-reflective capacity, it will come out in what we do. So really recognizing and having the self-awareness and naming some of these emotions with trusted colleagues or even within our own selves allows us to ensure that it doesn't come out in aberrant behaviors like avoiding the patient, staving off that patient till the end of the day, or overtreating, offering more chemotherapy or not having the goals of care, doing everything possible when we know that that might result in medically ineffective care. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I love the comments that you made, sort of weaving in Freud, but also, I think the importance of talking to colleagues and to sharing some of these issues because I do think that oncologists suffer from the fact that no one else in your life wants to hear about dying people. They don't really want to hear about the tragic cases either. So, I think that using your community, your oncology community and greater community within medicine, is an important part of being able to sort of process. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and Dr. Rugo, this came up in our ASCO [Education] Session. I'd love to double click into some of those ways that we can do this that aren't too time consuming in our everyday practice. You know, within palliative care, we have interdisciplinary rounds where we process complex cases. Some of us do case supervision with a trusted mentor or colleague where we bring complex cases to them. My team and I offer process rounds virtually where we go through countertransference, formulation, and therapeutic responses on some tough cases. You know, on a personal note, just last week when I left a family meeting feeling really depleted and stuck, I called one of my trusted colleagues and just for 3 minutes constructively, sort of cathartically vented what was coming up within me after that family meeting, which allowed me to have more of an enlightened stance on what to do next and how to be therapeutically helpful for the case. One of my colleagues calls this "friend-tors." They coined the phrase, and they actually wrote a paper about it. Who within your peer group of trusted colleagues can you utilize and phone in real time or have process opportunities with to get a pulse check on where what's coming up within us as we're doing this work? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, and it's an interesting question about how one does that and, you know, maintaining that as you move institutions or change places or become more senior, it's really important. One of the, I think, the challenges sometimes is that we come from different places from our patients, and that can be an issue, I think when our patients are very religious and the provider is not, or the reverse, patients who don't have religious beliefs and you're trying to sort of focus on the spirituality, but it doesn't really ring true. So, Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, what resources can patients and practitioners draw on when they're facing death and loss in the absence of, or just different religious beliefs that don't fit into the standard model? Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: You're absolutely right that this can be an extremely problematic situation to be in when there is that disconnect of religious belief or more generally spiritual engagement with the situation that we're in. But I just wanted to tie into what Dr. Brenner was saying just before. I couldn't agree more, and I think that a lot of healthcare practitioners, oncologists in particular who I've had the pleasure to talk to at ASCO and at other events as well, are very often quite skeptical about emotional engagement in their profession. They feel as though this is something to be managed, as it were, and something that gets in the way. And they can often be very critical of methods that help them understand the emotions and extend them towards patients because they feel that this will be an obstacle to doing their job and potentially an obstacle also to helping patients to their full ability if they focus on their own emotions or the burden that emotionally, spiritually, and in other ways the illness is for the patient. They feel that they should be focusing on the cancer rather than on the patient's emotions. And I think that a useful comparison, although, you know, perhaps slightly drastic, is that of combat experience of soldiers. They also need to be up and running and can't be too emotionally invested in the situation that they're in. But there's a crucial difference, which is that soldiers are usually engaged in very short bursts of activity with the time to go back and rethink, and they often have a lot of support for this in between. Whereas doctors are in a profession where their exposure to the emotions of patients and their own emotions, the emotions of families of patients is constant. And I think that there's a great danger in thinking that this is something to be avoided and something to compartmentalize in order to avoid burnout. I think, in a way, burnout is more sure to happen if your emotions and your attachment to your patients goes ignored for too long. So that's just following up on Keri's absolutely excellent points. As far as the disconnect is concerned, that's, in fact, an area in which I'm particularly interested in. That's where my research comes in. I'm interested in the kinds of connections that we have with other people, especially in terms of maintaining bonds when there is no spiritual belief, no spiritual backdrop to support this connection. In most religious traditions, we have the framework of the religious belief that tells us that the person who we've lost or the values that have become undermined in our life are something that hasn't been destroyed permanently but something that we can still believe we have a deep connection to despite its absence from our life. And how do you rebuild that sense of the existence of the things that you have perceivably lost without the appeal to some sort of transcendent realm which is defined by a given religion? And that is a hard question. That's a question, I think, that can be answered partly by psychology but also partly by philosophy in terms of looking at who we are as human beings and our nature as people who are essentially, or as entities that are essentially connected to one another. That connection, I believe, is more direct than the mediation of religion might at first suggest. I think that we essentially share the world not only physically, it's not just the case that we're all here, but more importantly, the world that we live in is not just the physical world but the world of meanings and values that helps us orient ourselves in society and amongst one another as friends and foes. And it is that shared sense of the world that we can appeal to when we're thinking about retaining the value or retaining the connection with the people who we have lost or the people who are helping through, go through an experience of facing death. And just to finish, there's a very interesting question, I think, something that we possibly don't have time to explore, about the degree of connection that we have with other people. So, what I've just been saying is something that rings more true or is more intuitive when we think about the connections that we have to our closest ones. We share a similar outlook onto the world, and our preferences and our moods and our emotions and our values are shaped by life with the other person. And so, appealing to these values can give us a sense of a continued presence. But what in those relationships where the connection isn't that close? For example, given the topic of this podcast, the connection that a patient has with their doctor and vice versa. In what sense can we talk about a shared world of experience? Well, I think, obviously, we should admit degrees to the kind of relationship that can sustain our connection with another person. But at the same time, I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. And I think part of emotional engagement in medical practice is finding yourself somewhere on that spectrum rather than thinking you're completely off of it. That's what I would say. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's very helpful and I think a very helpful way of thinking about how to manage this challenging situation for all of us. One of the things that really, I think, is a big question for all of us throughout our careers, is when to address the dying process and how to do that. Dr. Brenner, you know, I still struggle with this – what to do when patients refuse to discuss end-of-life but they're very close to end of life? They don't want to talk about it. It's very stressful for all of us, even where you're going to be, how you're going to manage this. They're just absolutely opposed to that discussion. How should we approach those kinds of discussions? How do we manage that? How do you address the code discussion, which is so important? You know, these patients are not able to stay at home at end-of-life in general, so you really do need to have a code discussion before you're admitting them. It actually ends up being kind of a challenge and a mess all around. You know, I would love your advice about how to manage those situations. Dr. Keri Brenner: I think that's one of the most piercing and relevant inquiries we have within our clinical work and challenges. I often think of denial not as an all-or-nothing concept but rather as parts of self. There's a part of everyone's being where the unconscious believes it's immortal and will live on forever, and yet we all know intellectually that we all have mortality and finitude and transience, and that time will end. We often think of this work as more iterative and gradual and exposure based. There's potency to words. Saying, "You are dying within days," is a lot higher potency of a phrase to share than, "This is serious illness. This illness is incurable. Time might be shorter than we hoped." And so the earlier and more upstream we begin to have these conversations, even in small, subtle ways, it starts to begin to expose the patient to the concept so they can go from the head to the heart, not only knowing their prognosis intellectually but also affectively, to integrate it into who they are as a person because all patients are trying to live well while also we're gradually exposing them to this awareness of mortality within their own lived experience of illness. And that, ideally, happens gradually over time. Now, there are moments where the medical frame is very limited, and we might have short days, and we have to uptitrate those words and really accompany them more radically through those high-affective moments. And that's when we have to take a lot of more nuanced approaches, but I would say the more earlier and upstream the better. And then the second piece to that question as well is coping with our own mortality. The more we can be comfortable with our own transience and finitude and limitations, the more we will be able to accompany others through that. And even within my own life, I've had to integrate losses in a way where before I go in to talk to one of my own palliative care patients, one mantra I often say to myself is, "I'm just a few steps behind you. I don't know if it's going to be 30 days or 30 years, but I'm just a few steps behind you on this finite, transient road of life that is the human experience." And that creates a stance of accompaniment that patients really can experience as they're traversing these tragedies. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great. And I think those are really important points and actually some pearls, which I think we can take into the clinic. I think being really concrete when really the expected life expectancy is a few days to a couple of weeks can be very, very helpful. And making sure the patients hear you, but also continuing to let them know that, as oncologists, we're here for them. We're not abandoning them. I think that's a big worry for many, certainly of my patients, is that somehow when they would go to hospice or be a 'no code', that we're not going to support them anymore or treat them anymore. That is a really important process of that as well. And of course, engaging the team makes a big difference because the whole oncology team can help to manage situations that are particularly challenging like that. And just as we close, I wanted to ask one last question of you, Dr. Brenner, that suffering, grief, and burnout, you've really made the point that these are not problems to fix but dimensions that we want to attend to and acknowledge as part of our lives, the dying process is part of all of our lives. It's just dealing with this in the unexpected and the, I think, unpredictability of life, you know, that people take on a lot of guilt and all sorts of things about, all sorts of emotions. And the question is now, people have listened to this podcast, what can they take back to their oncology teams to build a culture that supports clinicians and their team at large to engage with these realities in a meaningful and sustainable way? I really feel like if we could build the whole team approach where we're supporting each other and supporting the patients together, that that will help this process immeasurably. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and I'm thinking about Dr. Sławkowski-Rode's observation about the combat analogy, and it made me recognize this distinction between suppression and repression. Repression is this unconscious process, and this is what we're taught to do in medical training all the time, to just involuntarily shove that tragedy under the rug, just forget about it and see the next patient and move on. And we know that if we keep unconsciously shoving things under the rug, that it will lead to burnout and lack of sustainability for our clinical teams. Suppression is a more conscious process. That deliberate effort to say, "This was a tragedy that I bore witness to. I know I need to put that in a box on the shelf for now because I have 10 other patients I have to see." And yet, do I work in a culture where I can take that off the shelf during particular moments and process it with my interdisciplinary team, phone a friend, talk to a trusted colleague, have some trusted case supervision around it, or process rounds around it, talk to my social worker? And I think the more that we model this type of self-reflective capacity as attendings, folks who have been in the field for decades, the more we create that ethos and culture that is sustainable because clinician self-reflection is never a weakness, rather it's a silent strength. Clinician self-reflection is this portal for wisdom, connectedness, sustainability, and ultimately transformative growth within ourselves. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's such a great point, and I think this whole discussion has been so helpful for me and I hope for our audience that we really can take these points and bring them to our practice. I think, "Wow, this is such a great conversation. I'd like to have the team as a whole listen to this as ways to sort of strategize talking about the process, our patients, and being supportive as a team, understanding how we manage spirituality when it connects and when it doesn't." All of these points, they're bringing in how we process these issues and the whole idea of suppressing versus sort of deciding that it never happened at all is, I think, very important because that's just a tool for managing our daily lives, our busy clinics, and everything we manage. Dr. Keri Brenner: And Dr. Rugo, it's reminding me at Stanford, you know, we have this weekly practice that's just a ritual where every Friday morning for 30 minutes, our social worker leads a process rounds with us as a team, where we talk about how the work that we're doing clinically is affecting us in our lives in ways that have joy and greater meaning and connectedness and other ways that might be depleting. And that kind of authentic vulnerability with one another allows us to show up more authentically for our patients. So those rituals, that small 30 minutes once a week, goes a long way. And it reminds me that sometimes slowing things down with those rituals can really get us to more meaningful, transformative places ultimately. Dr. Hope Rugo: It's a great idea, and I think, you know, making time for that in everybody's busy days where they just don't have any time anymore is important. And you don't have to do it weekly, you could even do something monthly. I think there's a lot of options, and that's a great suggestion. I want to thank you both for taking your time out for this enriching and incredibly helpful conversation. Our listeners will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today, which is excellent, in the transcript of this episode. I want to thank you again, Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, for your time and for your excellent thoughts and advice and direction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Keri Brenner: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives on new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Keri Brenner @keri_brenner Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode @MikolajRode Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Keri Brenner: No relationships to disclose Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode: No relationships to disclose

Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis discuss challenges in lung cancer screening and potential solutions to increase screening rates, including the use of AI to enhance risk prediction and screening processes. Transcript Dr. Nate Pennell: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series for ASCO Education that features engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center. I'm also the editor-in-chief for the ASCO Educational Book. Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and most cases are diagnosed at advanced stages where curative treatment options are limited. On the opposite end, early-stage lung cancers are very curable. If only we could find more patients at that early stage, an approach that has revolutionized survival for other cancer types such as colorectal and breast cancer. On today's episode, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis, a professor of medicine and thoracic medical oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, to discuss her article titled, "Broadening the Net: Overcoming Challenges and Embracing Novel Technologies in Lung Cancer Screening." The article was recently published in the ASCO Educational Book and featured in an Education Session at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Cheryl, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thanks, Nate. It's great to be here with you. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, I'd like to just start by asking you a little bit about the importance of lung cancer screening and what evidence is there that lung cancer screening is beneficial. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thank you. Lung cancer screening is extremely important because we know that lung cancer survival is closely tied to stage at diagnosis. We have made significant progress in the treatment of lung cancer, especially over the past decade, with the introduction of immunotherapies and targeted therapies based on personalized evaluation of genomic alterations. But the reality is that outside of a lung screening program, most patients with lung cancer present with symptoms related to advanced cancer, where our ability to cure the disease is more limited. While lung cancer screening has been studied for years, the National Lung Screening Trial, or the NLST, first reported in 2011 a significant reduction in lung cancer deaths through screening. Annual low-dose CT scans were performed in a high-risk population for lung cancer in comparison to chest X-ray. The study population was comprised of asymptomatic persons aged 55 to 74 with a 30-pack-year history of smoking who were either active smokers or had quit within 15 years. The low-dose CT screening was associated with a 20% relative risk reduction in lung cancer-related mortality. A similar magnitude of benefit was also reported in the NELSON trial, which was a large European randomized trial comparing low-dose CT with a control group receiving no screening. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, this led, of course, to approval from CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) for lung cancer screening in the Medicare population, probably about 10 years ago now, I think. And there are now two major trials showing an unequivocal reduction in lung cancer-related mortality and even evidence that it reduces overall mortality with lung cancer screening. But despite this, lung cancer screening rates are very low in the United States. So, first of all, what's going on? Why are we not seeing the kinds of screening rates that we see with mammography and colonoscopy? And what are the barriers to that here? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: That's a great question. Thank you, Nate. In the United States, recruitment for lung cancer screening programs has faced numerous challenges, including those related to socioeconomic, cultural, logistical, and even racial disparities. Our current lung cancer screening guidelines are somewhat imprecise and often fail to address differences that we know exist in sex, smoking history, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. We also see underrepresentation in certain groups, including African Americans and other minorities, and special populations, including individuals with HIV. And even where lung cancer screening is readily available and we have evidence of its efficacy, uptake can be low due to both provider and patient factors. On the provider side, barriers include having insufficient time in a clinic visit for shared decision-making, fear of missed test results, lack of awareness about current guidelines, concerns about cost, potential harms, and evaluating both true and false-positive test results. And then on the patient side, barriers include concerns about cost, fear of getting a cancer diagnosis, stigma associated with tobacco smoking, and misconceptions about the treatability of lung cancer. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think those last two are really what make lung cancer unique compared to, say, for example, breast cancer, where there really is a public acceptance of the value of mammography and that breast cancer is no one's fault and that it really is embraced as an active way you can take care of yourself by getting your breast cancer screening. Whereas in lung cancer, between the stigma of smoking and the concern that, you know, it's a death sentence, I think we really have some work to be made up, which we'll talk about in a minute about what we can do to help improve this. Now, that's in the U.S. I think things are probably, I would imagine, even worse when we leave the U.S. and look outside, especially at low- and middle-income countries. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, globally, this issue is even more complex than it is in the United States. Widespread implementation of low-dose CT imaging for lung cancer screening is limited by manpower, infrastructure, and economic constraints. Many low- and middle-income countries even lack sufficient CT machines, trained personnel, and specialized facilities for accurate and timely screenings. Even in urban centers with advanced diagnostic facilities, the high screening and follow-up care costs can limit access. Rural populations face additional barriers, such as geographic inaccessibility of urban centers, transportation costs, language barriers, and mistrust of healthcare systems. In addition, healthcare systems in these regions often prioritize infectious diseases and maternal health, leaving limited room for investments in noncommunicable disease prevention like lung cancer screening. Policymakers often struggle to justify allocating resources to lung cancer screening when immediate healthcare needs remain unmet. Urban-rural disparities exacerbate these challenges, with rural regions frequently lacking the infrastructure and resources to sustain screening programs. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, it's certainly an intimidating problem to try to reduce these disparities, especially between the U.S. and low- and middle-income countries. So, what are some of the potential solutions, both here in the U.S. and internationally, that we can do to try to increase the rates of lung cancer screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: The good news is that we can take steps to address these challenges, but a multifaceted approach is needed. Public awareness campaigns focused on the benefits of early detection and dispelling myths about lung cancer screening are essential to improving participation rates. Using risk-prediction models to identify high-risk individuals can increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening programs. Automated follow-up reminders and screening navigators can also ensure timely referrals and reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment. Reducing or subsidizing the cost of low-dose CT scans, especially in low- or middle-income countries, can improve accessibility. Deploying mobile CT scanners can expand access to rural and underserved areas. On a global scale, integrating lung cancer screening with existing healthcare programs, such as TB or noncommunicable disease initiatives, can enhance resource utilization and program scalability. Implementing lung cancer screening in resource-limited settings requires strategic investment, capacity building, and policy interventions that prioritize equity. Addressing financial constraints, infrastructure gaps, and sociocultural barriers can help overcome existing challenges. By focusing on cost-effective strategies, public awareness, and risk-based eligibility criteria, global efforts can promote equitable access to lung cancer screening and improve outcomes. Lastly, as part of the medical community, we play an important role in a patient's decision to pursue lung cancer screening. Being up to date with current lung cancer screening recommendations, identifying eligible patients, and encouraging a patient to undergo screening often is the difference-maker. Electronic medical record (EMR) systems and reminders are helpful in this regard, but relationship building and a recommendation from a trusted provider are really essential here. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, there are technology improvements. For example, our lung cancer screening program at The Cleveland Clinic, a few years back, we finally started an automated best practice alert in our EMR for patients who met the age and smoking requirements, and it led to a six-fold increase in people referred for screening. But at the same time, there's a difference between just getting this alert and putting in an order for lung cancer screening and actually getting those patients to go and actually do the screening and then follow up on it. And that, of course, requires having that relationship and discussion with the patient so that they trust that you have their best interests. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Exactly. I think that's important. You know, certainly, while technology can aid in bringing patients in, there really is no substitute for trust-building and a personal relationship with a provider. Dr. Nate Pennell: I know that there are probably multiple examples within the U.S. where health systems or programs have put together, I would say, quality improvement projects to try to increase lung cancer screening and working with their community. There's one in particular that you discuss in your paper called the "End Lung Cancer Now" initiative. I wonder if you could take us through that. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Absolutely. "End Lung Cancer Now" is an initiative at the Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center that has the vision to end suffering and death from lung cancer in Indiana through education and community empowerment. We discuss this as a paradigm for how community engagement is important in building and scaling a lung cancer screening program. In 2023, the "End Lung Cancer Now" team decided to focus its efforts on scaling and transforming lung cancer screening rates in Indiana. They developed a task force with 26 experts in various fields, including radiology, pulmonary medicine, thoracic surgery, public health, and advocacy groups. The result of this work is an 85-page blueprint with key recommendations that any system and community can use to scale lung cancer screening efforts. After building strong infrastructure for lung cancer screening at Indiana University, they sought to understand what the priorities, resources, and challenges in their communities were. To do this, they forged strong partnerships with both local and national organizations, including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and others. In the first year, they actually tripled the number of screening low-dose CTs performed in their academic center and saw a 40% increase system-wide. One thing that I think is the most striking is that through their community outreach, they learned that most people prefer to get medical care close to home within their own communities. Establishing a way to support the local infrastructure to provide care became far more important than recruiting patients to their larger system. In exciting news, "End Lung Cancer Now" has partnered with the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center and IU Health to launch Indiana's first and only mobile lung screening program in March of 2025. This mobile program travels around the state to counties where the highest incidence of lung cancer exists and there is limited access to screening. The mobile unit parks at trusted sites within communities and works in partnership, not competition, with local health clinics and facilities to screen high-risk populations. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that sounds like a great idea. Screening is such an important thing that it doesn't necessarily have to be owned by any one particular health system for their patients. I think. And I love the idea of bringing the screening to patients where they are. I can speak to working in a regional healthcare system with a main campus in the downtown that patients absolutely hate having to come here from even 30 or 40 minutes away, and they'd much rather get their care locally. So that makes perfect sense. So, under the current guidelines, there are certainly things that we can do to try to improve capturing the people that meet those. But are those guidelines actually capturing enough patients with lung cancer to make a difference? There certainly are proposals within patient advocacy communities and even other countries where there's a large percentage of non-smokers who perhaps get lung cancer. Can we expand beyond just older, current and heavy smokers to identify at-risk populations who could benefit from screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, I think we can, and it's certainly an active area of research interest. We know that tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer worldwide. However, other risk factors include secondhand smoke, family history, exposure to environmental carcinogens, and pulmonary diseases like COPD and interstitial lung disease. Despite these known associations, the benefit of lung cancer screening is less well elucidated in never-smokers and those at risk of developing lung cancer because of family history or other risk factors. We know that the eligibility criteria associated with our current screening guidelines focus on age and smoking history and may miss more than 50% of lung cancers. Globally, 10% to 25% of lung cancer cases occur in never-smokers. And in certain parts of the world, like you mentioned, Nate, such as East Asia, many lung cancers are diagnosed in never-smokers, especially in women. Risk-prediction models use specific risk factors for lung cancer to enhance individual selection for screening, although they have historically focused on current or former smokers. We know that individuals with family members affected by lung cancer have an increased risk of developing the disease. To this end, several large-scale, single-arm prospective studies in Asia have evaluated broadening screening criteria to never-smokers, with or without additional risk factors. One such study, the Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial, was a multicenter prospective cohort study at 17 medical centers in Taiwan. The primary outcome of the TALENT trial was lung cancer detection rate. Eligible patients aged 55 to 75 had either never smoked or had a light and remote smoking history. In addition, inclusion required one or more of the following risk factors: family history of lung cancer, passive smoke exposure, history of TB or COPD, a high cooking index, which is a metric that quantifies exposure to cooking fumes, or a history of cooking without ventilation. Participants underwent low-dose CT screening at baseline, then annually for 2 years, and then every 2 years for up to 6 years. The lung cancer detection rate was 2.6%, which was higher than that reported in the NLST and NELSON trials, and most were stage 0 or I cancers. Subsequently, this led to the Taiwan Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer, a national screening program that was launched in 2022, targeting 2 screening populations: individuals with a heavy history of smoking and individuals with a family history of lung cancer. We really need randomized controlled trials to determine the true rates of overdiagnosis or finding cancers that would not lead to morbidity or mortality in persons who are diagnosed, and to establish whether the high lung detection rates are associated with a decrease in lung cancer-related mortality in these populations. However, the implementation of randomized controlled low-dose CT screening trials in never-smokers has been limited by the need for large sample sizes, lengthy follow-up, and cost. In another group potentially at higher risk for developing lung cancer, the role of lung cancer screening in individuals who harbor germline pathogenic variants associated with lung cancer also needs to be explored further. Dr. Nate Pennell: We had this discussion when the first criteria came out because there have always been risk-based calculators for lung cancer that certainly incorporate smoking but other factors as well and have discussion about whether we should be screening people based on their risk and not just based on discrete criteria such as smoking. But of course, the insurance coverage for screening, you have to fit the actual criteria, which is very constrained by age and smoking history. Do you think in the U.S. there's hope for broadening our screening beyond NLST and NELSON criteria? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: I do think at some point there is hope for broadening the criteria beyond smoking history and age, beyond the criteria that we have typically used and that is covered by insurance. I do think it will take some work to perhaps make the prediction models more precise or to really understand who can benefit. We certainly know that there are many patients who develop lung cancer without a history of smoking or without family history, and it would be great if we could diagnose more patients with lung cancer at an earlier stage. I think this will really count on there being some work towards trying to figure out what would be the best population for screening, what risk factors to look for, perhaps using some new technologies that may help us to predict who is at risk for developing lung cancer, and trying to increase the group that we study to try and find these early-stage lung cancers that can be cured. Dr. Nate Pennell: Part of the reason we, of course, try to enrich our population is screening works better when you have a higher pretest probability of actually having cancer. And part of that also is that our technology is not that great. You know, even in high-risk patients who have CT scans that are positive for a screen, we know that the vast majority of those patients with lung nodules actually don't have lung cancer. And so you have to follow them, you have to use various models to see, you know, what the risk, even in the setting of a positive screen, is of having lung cancer. So, why don't we talk about some newer tools that we might use to help improve lung cancer screening? And one of the things that everyone is super excited about, of course, is artificial intelligence. Are there AI technologies that are helping out in early detection in lung cancer screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, that's a great question. We know that predicting who's at risk for lung cancer is challenging for the reasons that we talked about, knowing that there are many risk factors beyond smoking and age that are hard to quantify. Artificial intelligence is a tool that can help refine screening criteria and really expand screening access. Machine learning is a form of AI technology that is adept at recognizing patterns in large datasets and then applying the learning to new datasets. Several machine learning models have been developed for risk stratification and early detection of lung cancer on imaging, both with and without blood-based biomarkers. This type of technology is very promising and can serve as a tool that helps to select individuals for screening by predicting who is likely to develop lung cancer in the future. A group at Massachusetts General Hospital, represented in our group for this paper by my co-authors, Drs. Fintelmann and Chang, developed Sybil, which is an open-access 3D convolutional neural network that predicts an individual's future risk of lung cancer based on the analysis of a single low-dose CT without the need for human annotation or other clinical inputs. Sybil and other machine learning models have tremendous potential for precision lung cancer screening, even, and perhaps especially, in settings where expert image interpretation is unavailable. They could support risk-adapted screening schedules, such as varying the frequency and interval of low-dose CT scans according to individual risk and potentially expand lung cancer screening eligibility beyond age and smoking history. Their group predicts that AI tools like Sybil will play a major role in decoding the complex landscape of lung cancer risk factors, enabling us to extend life-saving lung cancer screening to all who are at risk. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that that would certainly be welcome. And as AI is working its way into pretty much every aspect of life, including medical care, I think it's certainly promising that it can improve on our existing technology. We don't have to spend a lot of time on this because I know it's a little out of scope for what you covered in your paper, but I'm sure our listeners are curious about your thoughts on the use of other types of testing beyond CT screening for detecting lung cancer. I know that there are a number of investigational and even commercially available blood tests, for example, for detection of lung cancer, or even the so-called multi-cancer detection blood tests that are now being offered, although not necessarily being covered by insurance, for multiple types of cancer, but lung cancer being a common cancer is included in that. So, what do you think? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, like you mentioned, there are novel bioassays such as blood-based biomarker testing that evaluate for DNA, RNA, and circulating tumor cells that are both promising and under active investigation for lung cancer and multi-cancer detection. We know that such biomarker assays may be useful in both identifying lung cancers but also in identifying patients with a high-risk result who should undergo lung cancer screening by conventional methods. Dr. Nate Pennell: Anything that will improve on our rate of screening, I think, will be welcome. I think probably in the future, it will be some combination of better risk prediction and better interpretation of screening results, whether those be imaging or some combination of imaging and biomarkers, breath-based, blood-based. There's so much going on that it is pretty exciting, but we're still going to have to overcome the stigma and lack of public support for lung cancer screening if we're going to move the needle. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, I think moving the needle is so important because we know lung cancer is still a very morbid disease, and our ability to cure patients is not where we would like it to be. But I do believe there's hope. There are a lot of motivated individuals and groups who are passionate about lung cancer screening, like myself and my co-authors, and we're just happy to be able to share some ways that we can overcome the challenges and really try and make an impact in the lives of our patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, thank you, Dr. Czerlanis, for joining me on the By the Book Podcast today and for all of your work to advance care for patients with lung cancer. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thank you, Dr. Pennell. It's such a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you. Dr. Nate Pennell: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to Dr. Czerlanis' article in the transcript of this episode. Please join us again next month for By the Book's next episode and more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, and our deep dives on approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell @n8pennell.bsky.social Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Nate Pennell: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron Research Funding (Institution): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Research Funding (Institution): LungLife AI, AstraZeneca, Summit Therapeutics