Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) Podcast

Guests Akash Kulgod and Dr. Sanjeev Kulgod and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "Canine Olfaction Combined with Bayesian Modeling for Multi Cancer Detection from Breath Samples, a Phase 2 Study in India" and the innovative breath-based canine olfaction for multi-cancer detection in low-resource settings, the Bayesian modeling integration, and future prospects for scalable, non-invasive cancer screening methods. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

JCO Podcast host Dr. Davide Soldato and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Dr. Eileen M. O'Reilly discuss the ASCO 2026 Simultaneous Publication paper "Pemigatinib for Unresectable or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor-2 Rearrangement: Results From the Phase 3 FIGHT-302 Trial." LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Jake New and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Umang Swami discuss the ASCO 2026 Simultaneous Publication paper "Neoadjuvant Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Primary Results of SURE-01 Trial." LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Guest Dr. Glenwood Goss and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "Adjuvant Durvalumab in Completely Resected Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer" and the implications of minimal residual disease, results regarding the efficacy of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, and the evolving strategies for patient care in lung cancer treatment. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Guest Dr. John Wingard and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "Randomized Non-inferiority Trial of a Liberalized Diet Versus the Neutropenic Diet in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant and Acute Leukemia Patients," the reason behind the trial, its design, methodology, results, and the implications for future dietary approaches in hematology. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Guest Dr. John Gore and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "12-Month Results from the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer," which compares radical cystectomy and bladder sparing therapy for patients with recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Gore and Dr. Soldato focus on the study's patient-centered approach, eligibility criteria, and quality of life after treatment. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. John Gore, urologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and professor of urology at University of Washington School of Medicine. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "Twelve-Month Results From the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent High-Grade Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Gore. Dr. John Gore: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to jump right in. We know that patients who are diagnosed with recurrent high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer can be treated with two different approaches. So, one is radical cystectomy, and the other is bladder-sparing therapy. I just wanted to understand: what was the gap that you were trying to fill with this study? In particular, one point that is very important is that this study is very centered on the preference of the patients. Why did you choose this endpoint instead of going for more solid oncology-based endpoints? Dr. John Gore: Yeah, so CISTO was a study that was derived really organically from patient engagement. I think as a clinical gap in care, making a decision about when to pursue radical cystectomy for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is a tough decision for us as clinicians. We did some engagement work partnered with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and my partner Angela Smith, and found that it is also a huge gap for patients. You know, they are very anxious about recurrences, and the decision about when to take out the bladder is a very difficult one. We did an evidence synthesis and found that evidence guiding this decision is fairly limited. The reason we chose more of a patient-reported endpoint is several-fold. One is that we, as part of our engagement work, also worked with our patient survey network to identify outcomes that were important to patients. Some of those are the same outcomes that we care about as clinicians - recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival - but several outcomes came out that were more patient-centered. These were patient-reported outcomes such as the burden on my finances, the burden on my caregiver or loved one, and the ability to return to physical activities that are important to them. Part of what is unique about CISTO is that this was a contract with PCORI where we knew we would only have about 12-month outcomes for the majority of our patients. That is too early to really derive a lot of the clinical outcomes, but we are able to answer that patient-centered question of, "Am I going to be able to return to physical activities that are important to me?" And that was the genesis of that as the primary endpoint. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, who were the patients that were eligible to participate in the CISTO trial? What were the key eligibility criteria? This is very particular to this study because this was actually an observational study. Why did you think that such a pragmatic approach still can inform us on what is the best treatment approach for these patients? Dr. John Gore: The intent of CISTO was not necessarily to focus on the tightly defined BCG-unresponsive patient population. That is a clearly important patient population, but every day we are all faced in our real-world practice with patients with challenging, high-grade recurrences that don't fit neatly into that BCG-unresponsive box. The reason we chose a broader inclusion was to help doctors and patients answer these same questions they have when it doesn't fit nicely into this BCG-unresponsive category. You know, maybe their BCG exposure was two years ago, but now they are having a recurrence after intravesical chemotherapy. That is no less challenging a clinical conundrum, and we wanted to be able to enroll those patients. Other key inclusions were that all of the patients in CISTO had to have BCG at some point, and they had to have recent exposure to some adjuvant instillational or intravenous therapy like pembrolizumab. We also had some exclusions that were important. They couldn't be participating in a phase 2 clinical trial, and they couldn't have had a prior upper tract urothelial cancer. The other point about the observational trial design is I think a really important one. Part of our engagement work also asked patients about their willingness to randomize. There is a ton of literature in our history of trials that failed to accrue well when they were comparing a large-scale surgical intervention with a more conservative management strategy. What we found is only about 10% of patients would be willing to randomize when the clinical comparison is between radical cystectomy and bladder-sparing therapy. So it was very clear that an observational study design was the only way we were going to get evidence to inform clinical care when one of the key comparators was radical cystectomy. And so that is why we utilized the observational trial design. Dr. Davide Soldato: Starting to go deeper into the results, you mentioned before that the endpoint you chose for this trial was really centered on what patients thought was more important to them. In particular, the primary endpoint of the study was physical function as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. I just wanted to understand: first, did you have a solid hypothesis regarding how physical function could be impacted by either radical cystectomy or bladder-sparing treatments? And second, what were the key results of the study? Dr. John Gore: We figured that at 12 months after enrollment, given the burden and morbidity of a radical cystectomy, that patients in the radical cystectomy arm would have worse self-reported physical functioning than patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. We did hypothesize that some of our secondary outcomes might potentially be better after radical cystectomy, such as recurrence-free survival and potentially some other cancer-specific outcomes, because it is a more definitive management strategy. For our primary endpoint, however, we hypothesized that it would be worse. What we found, and the key finding of our study, is that at 12 months after enrollment, physical functioning was not different between patients undergoing radical cystectomy and patients undergoing bladder-sparing therapy, which is just important in terms of clinical counseling because it just means that you can tell your patients, "Gosh, if we could fast-forward your life six to nine months after this procedure, your physical functioning would be similar to as if you had been able to keep your bladder." Dr. Davide Soldato: And you mentioned that there were some key secondary endpoints of the study, which included both other dimensions of quality of life and also hard clinical outcomes. We mentioned metastasis-free survival, for example. Going a little bit into the key secondary quality of life outcomes, we know that radical cystectomy can impact physical functioning, but we also know that bowel, sexual symptoms, and also genitourinary symptoms might potentially be impacted by this type of treatment. We also know that, especially in a system like the US, financial toxicity can be a significant burden for patients. Considering the two different approaches, was radical cystectomy better also in other key secondary quality of life outcomes, and was financial toxicity different between the two arms? Dr. John Gore: Thank you for highlighting some of the really important secondary outcomes that I think are really important to trying to figure out what's best for your patients. Some of the main ones were some of the bladder cancer-specific quality of life outcomes you highlight. Urinary quality of life was worse at enrollment in patients in the radical cystectomy arm but was no different 12 months after. What is unique about how we measure that is we used an instrument called the Bladder Cancer Index because we're comparing a population of patients who have lost their bladder with a population of patients who have retained their bladder, and there are different considerations by gender. And so that instrument is agnostic to urinary diversion status and gender. We found that bowel function and sexual function were worse in the radical cystectomy arm. It appeared that bowel functioning was getting better to the point of near equivalence at 12 months in the radical cystectomy arm but was still inferior to bladder-sparing therapy, and that probably relates to the fact that we use the bowel as part of the urinary diversion, and that causes some transient disruption in bowel function. Financial toxicity is an outcome we weren't initially planning on having as part of the CISTO study, but based on that patient feedback, we made that one of our key secondary outcomes. That actually demonstrated superiority in the radical cystectomy arm. I think it's important that we remember that when we do bladder-sparing therapy, those patients are predisposed to a number of visits to our office, whether they're for instillational therapies or cystoscopy surveillance visits. Sometimes that involves the patient themselves, and sometimes that involves a caregiver. We live in an area with a very large geographic catchment, so sometimes that involves overnight hotel stays and airfare. It can be a particular burden, as you made mention, especially in our healthcare system. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back to the quality of life dimensions and especially considering the different treatments, 50% of the patients received radical cystectomy with robotic surgery. Did you look a little bit into whether the type of surgery that they received might potentially impact on these dimensions of quality of life? Dr. John Gore: These are some questions that a lot of urologists have asked us in the surgical arm, related to surgical approach, so robotic versus open, and urinary diversion type. We sometimes reconstruct the urinary tract with an incontinent diversion called an ileal conduit where the urine drains tonically into a bag, and we sometimes do a continent diversion where someone typically will have a neobladder, where you reconstruct a sphere reservoir out of intestines and sew it to the urethra. About 20% of patients in the radical cystectomy arm in CISTO had a neobladder. We have not yet looked at specific surgical factors and some of those outcomes. That is one of the secondary analyses that we have planned, but we have not drilled into how different surgical approach factors can affect some of our outcomes. Fortunately, we have about 200 patients in the radical cystectomy arm, so it's enough patients that hopefully we can look at some of those factors in the future. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back to the clinical endpoints, you mentioned that several of these were measured. There was metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival. We now have the data at 12 months. I am just wondering if you can comment on those when comparing the radical cystectomy with the bladder-sparing techniques. Dr. John Gore: I think importantly, bladder cancer-specific survival was very high in both arms, over 95% at one year. So both patient populations do very well in terms of cancer-specific and overall survival at one year. You know, when you take out the bladder, you're taking out a big source of recurrences. Not surprisingly, there was a marked reduction in recurrences in the radical cystectomy arm, so they had better recurrence-free survival. There actually was worse progression-free survival in the radical cystectomy arm, but there is a big asterisk to that. As you noted, it is an observational study, and one of the areas of imbalance in the study is that we had higher cancer severity in the radical cystectomy arm. So there was about a 20% rate of progression at the time of radical cystectomy to muscle-invasive and node-positive disease. Of those progressions, the overwhelming majority of them were progressions at the time of radical cystectomy, which I think speaks to a couple of important factors. Number one is the challenge in staging these patients. Our staging of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is very reliant on our resection. And so there is this risk of understaging our patients. Number two is just the challenge of decision making, that we fear losing our window of cure in this patient population, which is why we try to steer some patients toward radical cystectomy, and that progression figure kind of speaks to that. Dr. Davide Soldato: Also, one of the factors that was most common in the patients who received radical cystectomy was the presence of other high-risk features. For example, non-urothelial histology, which I think is something that in clinical practice we tend to fear a little bit in terms of recurrence, and so it might potentially bias a little bit towards proposing more strongly radical cystectomy to the patient. Another thing that I wanted to have a comment on, so this is not really in the paper, but I think it speaks a little bit to how the data will evolve over time. Do you imagine these clinical outcomes changing over time, and do you think that with higher maturity of these endpoints, this study might be even more informative when counseling patients regarding what they are obtaining with a radical cystectomy versus the other type of treatments? Dr. John Gore: You know, I think in this cancer universe, 12-month outcomes are great, but I think we all want to see two-year and five-year outcomes. We're very fortunate to supplement the work that we've done in the initial CISTO study, we're very fortunate that we've gotten supplementary funding from the National Cancer Institute to get long-term outcomes in this patient population. So we are continuing to follow all of our CISTO study patients to get two-year and five-year outcomes. What we expect to find is the accrual of new events in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. About 7% of patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm underwent cystectomy in the first year, but that number will probably go up either as they have recurrences or progression events. We definitely expect the recurrence-free survival to continue to have superiority in the cystectomy arm, but we probably will see the progression events equilibrate as more progression events accrue in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. Maybe by five years, we hypothesize that we'll see clinical superiority in the radical cystectomy arm. By then, we might also see mortality events that separate bladder cancer-specific survival and overall survival between the two arms potentially. But we don't know. Hypothetically, cystectomy has its own downstream risks. It is a major reconstruction with some metabolic sequelae and renal functional sequelae, and so there may be some general medical events that accrue in the cystectomy arm that are also impactful. Dr. Davide Soldato: One other thing that I think should be complimented on this study is that you also looked at several other endpoints that might be important for patients. For example, anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms. Dr. John Gore: Yeah, I think one of the other key secondary outcomes we looked at were mental health outcomes. We utilized the PROMIS domains of anxiety and depression. Not unexpectedly, our radical cystectomy arm patients exhibited higher anxiety symptoms and higher depression symptoms at enrollment. What we found is at 12 months, they actually had significantly lower anxiety and depression than patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. We hypothesized in this paper that that actually relates probably mostly to cancer-specific anxiety. You know, when you experience this cavalcade of recurrences, it just breeds an anxiety about adverse cancer-specific outcomes, and by taking out the bladder, you kind of eliminate this prevalent source of anxiety. We followed up the study with a qualitative piece where we interviewed 50 patients and 20 caregivers. Based on those interviews, and that's just a sample of the patient population, it did seem to be cancer-specific anxiety that was driving a lot of those responses. Dr. Davide Soldato: I would like to end with a methodological consideration on your part because we said that this was an observational study. Frequently we tend to think that observational studies come with a lot of bias, and so we tend to downgrade a little bit the results. But I think that a lot of the merit that goes in the CISTO study that was published in the JCO, and I think it also speaks to the fact that this is very high-quality data, comes with the fact that the methodology behind this study was really robust in terms of informing us. Even with this observational study that, as you said, was the only one that we could perform considering the patient population. So just a comment on your part also to speak to the solidity of the data that was published. Dr. John Gore: Importantly, you know, if you look at ClinicalTrials.gov or other sources, CISTO is the only trial that has radical cystectomy as a major comparator. In many ways, this study is our only source of evidence for radical cystectomy. So we'd rather have flawed observational evidence than no evidence at all. We all experience flaws of our RCTs as well. They tend to be these narrowly defined patient populations that may not match the patient in front of you. So I think there are unrecognized flaws on the other side as well. The way that we try to counterbalance that, and none of these techniques are perfect, but we used a strategy called 'targeted maximum likelihood estimation'. Like many methods, such as propensity scores or instrumental variable analysis, what we're trying to do theoretically is coax randomization from non-randomized data. And TMLE, which is the technique we use, tends to be pretty robust to that. So it's the best available way that we can try to counterbalance the bias based on age and clinical severity between the two patient arms. I also think what's important about this is that even when there are biases, I think we are able to infer those out and still extract meaningful details from the data. So even with the biased data, I think we all glean some really important clinical learnings from it. Dr. Davide Soldato: Absolutely, but I would also say that in terms of observational data, the work that you have done is really something that makes us quite confident about what you found in the CISTO study. So with this, I would like to thank you again for joining us today. Dr. John Gore: Thank you so much, and thank you for highlighting the CISTO study. We are very excited about the data. Dr. Davide Soldato: So Dr. Gore, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, "Twelve-Month Results From the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent High-Grade Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Guest Disclosure Dr. Gore:Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Melis Canturk summarizes the article, "Phase 2 Trial of Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Women with Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneum: A GOG Partners Trial," by Slomovitz et al. TRANSCRIPT Melis Canturk: Hello, and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host, Melis Canturk, and today we will be discussing the JCO article, "Phase 2 Trial of Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Women with Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneum: A GOG Partners Trial." Building on the fact that more than 95% of low-grade serous carcinoma are estrogen receptor positive and often exhibit abnormalities in the CDK4/6 signaling pathway, researchers launched the GOG 3026 trial. This study investigated the effectiveness of pairing the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib with letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, adapting a therapeutic approach that has already transformed the treatment landscape for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Low-grade serous ovarian cancer is a rare malignancy characterized by its hormonally driven nature and relative resistance to traditional platinum-based chemotherapy. While it's associated with longer survival than high-grade serous carcinoma, recurrent disease presents a significant clinical challenge due to low response rates to standard treatments. The GOG 3026 trial was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study that enrolled 51 women with measurable, recurrent, low-grade serous ovarian cancer. To ensure diagnostic accuracy, all cases underwent central pathology review. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2. While there was no limit on the number of prior therapies, patients were excluded if they had previously used CDK4/6 inhibitors. Prior endocrine therapy was permitted only if the patient had discontinued it at least 6 months before the study and had not experienced disease progression while on that specific therapy. Additionally, women with intact ovarian function were required to undergo ovarian suppression. The treatment regimen consisted of 600 mg of oral ribociclib daily for the first 21 days of a 28-day cycle, paired with a continuous daily dose of 2.5 mg of letrozole. The trial's primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate. The results were clinically meaningful. The confirmed overall response rate was 30.6%, which included one complete response and 14 partial responses. The clinical benefit rate, which includes stable disease, reached 84%. These outcomes are particularly notable given the heavily pretreated study population, where nearly 40% of patients had received three or more prior lines of systemic therapy. Durability and survival data further underscored the potential of this combination. Among those who responded to treatment, the median duration of response was 21.2 months. The median progression-free survival was 14.5 months, and the median overall survival reached 44.5 months. In terms of safety, the profile was consistent with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor studies. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 47% of patients. However, it was asymptomatic and managed through dose modification. Only 4% of patients discontinued the trial due to adverse events, and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. When comparing these results to other therapeutic benchmarks, the ribociclib-letrozole combination demonstrated more favorable outcomes than historical endocrine monotherapy. It yields response rates of only 13% to 14%. Furthermore, while MEK inhibitors like trametinib or the combination of avutometinib defactinib show similar response rates, the ribociclib-letrozole regimen displayed significantly better tolerability. Specifically, only 4% of patients in this trial discontinued the therapy due to adverse events, compared to much higher discontinuation rates seen with MEK inhibitor strategies. In conclusion, the GOG 3026 trial successfully establishes ribociclib plus letrozole as a clinically active and well-tolerated regimen for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer. By achieving durable disease control in a heavily pretreated, relatively chemoresistant population, this combination may redefine the therapeutic paradigm for this rare cancer. These findings support the continued evaluation of CDK4/6 endocrine strategies as a preferred chemotherapy-sparing option that prioritizes both disease control and patients' quality of life. Thank you for tuning into JCO Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Kerin Adelson and Dr. Maureen Canavan discuss JCO article "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life with Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality," highlighting adverse outcomes for patients who receive any type of systemic anticancer therapy(SACT) at EOL (end of life) and the need for better communication between oncologists and patients regarding expected risk and benefits of such treatments to properly align goals-of-care. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Maureen Canavan, epidemiologist and associate research scientist at Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center; and by Dr. Kerin Adelson, Chief Quality and Value Officer, medical oncologist, and clinical researcher on health services and clinical care delivery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. In the manuscript "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." that you recently published in the JCO, you performed an analysis that included more than 30,000 older adults in the SEER-Medicare database, and you observed that 7.6% of these patients received any systemic anticancer medication within 30 days of death. So, I wanted you to explain why you thought that this was a priority right now, and whether there was any previous data that was published in the literature, and if you think that there was any significant gap in the literature that led you to the research you just published. Dr. Kerin Adelson: We have published a series of articles looking at real-world trends in patterns of care, particularly related to systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life. This has been gaining increasing focus in recent years because of the understanding that when patients stay on systemic anticancer therapy, that is often a surrogate for a lack of goal-concordant care. So, patients who continue to receive systemic therapy have worse quality of life, are more likely generally to have a medicalized death, and less likely to use hospice. And what our prior work has shown is that more and more we are seeing patients using immunotherapies and targeted therapies towards the end of life. No prior work had really comprehensively examined whether these novel therapies were associated with those same patterns of care increases in acute care utilization and decreases in hospice. Dr. Davide Soldato: So basically, the data that we had up until that point was mostly with cytotoxic chemotherapy, and the emergence of this new treatment, which frequently are thought to be less toxic and so less problematic also in the end of life, led to this research. Is that correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. Dr. Maureen Canavan: I would also build on that. I think that as the landscape of cancer care changes, it is important to really understand the availability of treatments, but then also, as Kerin noted, it is important to focus on goal-concordant care. We have established literature, studies we have done and some other studies that have looked at cytotoxic chemotherapy, but with the emergence of these targeted therapies, we really did not know a few things. We did not know the rates of utilization in a large national population, and how that was associated with these elements of medicalized death like ED use, hospitalizations, acute care use. So this was really a question that we had going into it. How can we expand the knowledge base so that both patients and providers can be more cognizant when thinking about goals of care conversations and ensuring that that is in place? Dr. Kerin Adelson: And our work has kind of evolved to answer some critical questions. So, one of our early papers looked at different rates of systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life, and that is where we showed that we were seeing a lot more immunotherapy and targeted therapy. And then we asked the question, well, oncologists generally when they give these treatments, they are hoping that those treatments are going to work and help the patients live longer. So we did another paper where we actually looked at practices who were more aggressive near the end of life and whether they had better overall survival than practices that were less aggressive, accounting for the fact that there could be populations of patients who benefited. And in fact, we showed there was no survival difference. So then this paper sort of answered the question: Well, if it is not having benefit, is this treatment actually doing harm? And this study gets at that question: What are the harms of continuing patients on therapy past the point of benefit? Dr. Maureen Canavan: And I think building off of that, the use of the SEER-Medicare database is a quite robust database. So in this, we have very specific data we can track. We can track the exact type of treatment they had, you know, was it a targeted therapy? Was it immunotherapy? So looking at those subclasses of therapy. We were also able to directly link it within that time frame to the acute care utilization, a limitation that we had in some of our previous work that that data was not always available. So it is more focused in the sense that we were looking at older adults, so patients 66 years of age and older, but we were able to get those individual metrics. So to Kerin's point, we did not see the survival benefit. What do we see then for these medicalized death elements? So the higher rates of all of them across the board. Dr. Davide Soldato: So coming back to the cohort and to the data that you utilized, Dr. Canavan mentioned the use of the SEER system to analyze these data. You already mentioned that you included mostly older adults, so those aged 66 and more. And also there was a little bit of restriction regarding the fact that the patient needed to be covered by Medicare in the last year of death concerning Part A and Part B, and the last 30 days from death concerning Part D. So I just wanted to ask a little bit of a question regarding these findings and whether you think that we also need additional work, especially in the younger population because I think it is something that all of us who work in oncology have seen. The aggressiveness, and this is also something that you showed in your data, tends to increase as the age of the patient tends to decrease. So we tend to be more aggressive towards younger patients. So just a comment on that on the population and generalizability of the findings. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Yeah, I will start with the data question element. Thank you. I think there are a few things to point out for that. So in terms of the restriction to ensure that they had continuous Part D coverage, that was necessary for us to track their oral medication use during that time. So kind of an easy response. The Part A, Part B requirement, it is actually pretty widely used in studies of SEER-Medicare data, and that is you want to establish the patient population, that they are not getting treated with another insurance provider in some way that you are not able to track. So that ensures that we can track not only their systemic anticancer therapy use but also when we are trying to make sure that we are controlling for confounders like chronic conditions and stuff, we are able to track the presence of chronic conditions. So we wanted to make sure we were not biasing the data, so I think that was an important consideration. You do point out very wisely that there are then limitations with the generalizability, and I think we would be lacking if we did not account for that. But I think it is important to establish this baseline relationship association, and then you can step out, we will say, to more diverse populations. So I think we could potentially maybe try to relax the timeline to see if people that might have influx in and out of the Medicare system are still seeing those same rates. I think it is likely they would. But I think to the bigger point that you bring up is that establishing this within the older adults where, you know, we do see as they get older maybe less rates of systemic therapy, extending it to the younger population. There is a challenge with that in that just that data is not available to the robust level that SEER-Medicare is. Both Kerin and I have noted that there is the possibility to look within one specific insurance provider type. Again, recognizing the limitations of the generalizability, but always slowly pushing the needle, finding out more about younger adult populations. And I think this is maybe in an ideal world, but setting the precedent that we really do need to track this on a national scale within younger adults because they do have the need. We do see these higher rates of utilization, and really making sure again with the mindset always of the best interest of patients and the most informative to providers in how we are looking at care. So I think generalizability is definitely a goal. However, there are limitations of the availability of data for younger populations and I think that they are a necessary restraint that all researchers should acknowledge. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Yeah, I think it is important for our audience to understand that health services research and large database research is really limited by what databases are available and what are the characteristics of those databases. So we have done a lot of work in an electronic health record database, and there you can get certain kinds of granularity that you may not be able to get in a payer or a claims-based database. But what you do not get is that comprehensive look at, say, what happens if a patient goes to another practice. Claims-based databases offer you that, but research on US populations is limited by our payment system. So when you look at younger patients, there are so many different insurance companies that when you are trying to get that comprehensive view, it can be hard or very expensive actually. These commercial insurers will sell their data to different databases. So for us, the largest single payer in the United States is the US government, and that is for patients who are over age 65, and that is why you see lots of US-based studies done in the Medicare population. Interestingly, a recent paper by a Canadian group showed very, very similar patterns. It was a significantly smaller study but, right, Canada is a single-payer system and so they were able to really look at all ages, and we did see the same patterns of care in a different payment system. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back a little bit to the type of treatments that were observed in your manuscript, so we start from a 7.6% of patients who received any type of systemic anticancer therapy within 30 days from death. And when we split the different categories that you analyzed, which I think is a very strong aspect of your manuscript, we see that more or less 50% of the patients received chemotherapy, 20% more or less received immunotherapy, more or less 20% targeted therapy, and then there is a combination of those agents. So just wanted to have a little bit of your opinion compared also to the data that you already published and that you mentioned before. Was this in line with previous data? Was there anything surprising about this? We saw a little bit of a raise in the use of immunotherapy and targeted therapy as you were saying, but still, there is a very high proportion of chemotherapy, 50%. Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I think that really, really reflects the time period in which we studied where immunotherapies were gaining ground. There was tons of excitement and we were seeing this shift. I bet if we do the same study in five years that chemotherapy percent may even go down to half, and we are going to see more and more targeted and immunotherapies, and that is just reflecting the pattern of drug discovery that we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: Coming to the real question that you wanted to answer with this manuscript, so is systemic anticancer therapy associated with worse outcomes in terms of healthcare utilization and use of hospice resources? Was there any hint that for example immunotherapy was related to less of these adverse outcomes? Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I will be honest, I was a little bit surprised that the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy was that much more strongly correlated with acute care use at the end of life. You know, I had really thought most likely that what we would see were similar rates. And we did. Each different type of systemic anticancer therapy was associated with significantly higher odds of ending up in the hospital, going to the ICU, dying in the hospital, going to the ED. But that group that got dual therapy was that much higher, you know, over three times the risk. And that surprised me because what it suggested is that there is likely a component of treatment toxicity that is leading to some of the acute care use. It is not simply just a constellation of patients who have not yet transitioned towards hospice or palliative care or end-of-life care who are then more likely to end up in the hospital. But the fact that we see a difference between, say, single-agent immunotherapy and dual combination with chemotherapy does suggest that the treatments are actually contributing to some of what we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: But still, all of the treatments that you evaluated were still associated with higher healthcare utilization. Like there was no signal that, for example, giving immunotherapy at the end of life was not associated with these adverse outcomes. Correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. And you will find oncologists out there who will say, actually, these treatments are so good that they might actually lower rates of hospitalization because they keep patients healthy. And certainly, that may be true upstream or earlier in the course of disease, but at the end of life, any form of systemic anticancer therapy is really a surrogate marker for lack of transition towards what is likely appropriate end-of-life therapy. And I just want to point out that time spent in the hospital, going back and forth to invasive procedures, going to the intensive care unit, even going back and forth to an infusion center, that is time that is not spent at home with loved ones for people who have very little time left to live. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was exactly the point that I wanted you to stress because I think it is really the most important message that we can get as oncologists from this manuscript. Like there is no treatment that is not associated with potentially harming our patient and, as you were saying, taking off time with loved ones in a critical period of the life of these individuals who have been diagnosed and treated for cancer. So, basically what we saw in the paper was a 7.65% utilization of systemic anticancer therapy. And I might imagine that for some oncologists or for some hematologists that might not actually be that much. Like they could potentially say, "Okay, but it is like 7%, it is not that high. I would have expected something higher." So I just wanted a little bit of perspective regarding also quality metrics that we have available for these types of indicators at end-of-life care. What would be the appropriate percentage of people receiving any type of treatment within 30 days from death? Dr. Maureen Canavan: A couple caveats, as a data person I always like to give those. This was among all cancer patients, so not necessarily patients that had been on active treatment. So I think that number was actually quite lower than when we looked in another study about patients that had chemo within the last year, so on, you know, active treatment. So I think that is an element to take into consideration is that those numbers will vary based on who your denominator population is. So that is important to consider. Additionally, the National Quality Forum, they call for reducing rates of systemic therapy at end of life. But I think they, similar to how I would be, are cautious to point out this is the exact number, or it should be zero. Because there are cases where you have to go in line with patient preferences. And if a patient is very adamant that they want to continue treatment, that needs to be a decision that comes between them and their provider. So, you know, the zero, though sounding ideal to us who want to encourage transitions and encourage goals of care conversation is a nice number, it is not a realistic. So, to evade your question completely, I do not think there is a set number. But the goal is to make sure that both patients, providers, everyone is informed and is making the best holistic decision. So there is this natural tendency, I think, to keep fighting both for the patient and the provider to try to beat something, but recognizing the point at which we are beyond a benefit of treatment and what would be most beneficial to the patient in terms of getting back to that idea of, you know, the time with their families and whatnot. So is the number zero? No. Could it probably be lower than we have? I think yes, definitely. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I completely agree with everything Dr. Canavan said. I think one of the other challenges is that this data isn't being tracked and publicly reported across the world. And so what that optimal rate is, is a little unclear. We see different rates also depending on the population included. So one of the things Dr. Canavan said is our database included patients who were likely treated long ago for cancer and cured of their cancer. So they were less likely to die on systemic therapy. But until everybody starts tracking and reporting, it is really hard to know where we are as a country or really as a global population, and then what are the bars that we want to achieve in driving down the rates. I think some data shows that probably something in the range of 10% or below, you know, for patients who have more active cancer is probably where we should be going and driving towards. But until we have more public reporting of these metrics and consistency in how we measure them, it is really hard to come up with a single number. Dr. Davide Soldato: I have the impression that sometimes there is also a little bit of difficulty for the oncologist or the hematologist to really understand who are the patients who are approaching end of life. So there has been some data and you also report some of them in the discussion of the manuscript regarding, for example, prompts inside of the electronic health records or the use of artificial intelligence to try to predict what is the disease course. So just wanted a little bit of perspective if you think that these tools could potentially be helpful and if you think that we will be able at a certain point to implement them in routine clinical care. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I have been working on trying to do this actually at MD Anderson and coming up with a really reliable data tool that will tell us who are the patients who are going to die in short order after receiving systemic anticancer therapy. And it is not that easy, I will say. So, you know, I think we all want this amazing machine learning model that is incredibly reliable. But like any statistical test, there are problems, right? So a very sensitive test that is going to identify high, high risk of dying at the end of life is going to be compromised by false positives. And when an oncologist knows that the test might be a false positive, it becomes very hard for them to take action on it. Similarly, you know, a very, very specific test is going to be compromised by false negatives. So in that case, you could end up having patients who are at risk for dying and still treating them with chemotherapy. And so, you know, I think in the end we need some tools. It will be great if machine learning becomes very reliable and we have the right structured data elements in our electronic health records to give these reliable prediction tools. But I think there are some basic things that we all know, and those are the markers of chronicity of cancer. So patients who have had multiple lines of therapy already, right? Past the point of clinical trial benefit. Patients who have lost significant amounts of weight. Patients who are not getting out of bed and have worse performance status. Patients who are increasingly confused, right? And not mentally engaging the way they did previously. Those markers have been shown in numerous publications by a colleague of mine, David Hui and others, to really be pretty strong predictors, and they resonate with clinicians more than a machine learning score might. You know, I think when clinicians do not understand what the elements in a machine learning tool are, they are less likely to trust it and more likely to say, "Oh, it is a false positive or a false negative." But very few clinicians can argue against the fact that the patient who hasn't gotten out of bed in two weeks is somebody who is less likely to benefit. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Adelson, I would like to close this podcast and I would like to thank you again for joining us today. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Thank you so much. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Thank you so much for having us. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Canavan, Dr. Adelson, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can f ind all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Disclosures Kerin AdelsonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Carrum Health Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, Quantum Health, Gilead SciencesPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Genentech Other Relationship: Genentech/Roche Employment: Emilio Health/Brightline Health(An Immediate Family Member) Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Emilio Health/Brightline Health, Lyra Health (An Immediate Family Member)

JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I'm Jonathan Friedberg, editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome to JCO After Hours, where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the BRUIN CLL-314 study, and this is a phase 3 randomized trial of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with CLL or SLL who had not previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the BRUIN CLL-313 study was, in fact, the first phase 3 study with pirtobrutinib in exclusively untreated CLL patients. It was a randomized study where we challenged pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine-rituximab. At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don't have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to congratulate our two guests who presented these very influential papers at the ASH Annual Meeting, and chose to publish them in JCO, so we thank you for that, and Dr. Davids for your commentary - really appreciated. That is this episode of JCO After Hours. Thank you for your attention. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. 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. Disclosures Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ Health, Plexus Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, BeiGene, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nuvalent, Inc., Galapagos NV, Schroedinger Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma, Novartis, MEI Pharma, AstraZeneca

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ece Cali Daylan interviews author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley about the article, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer" by Bradley, et al published October 13, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss the manuscript, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study." The PACIFIC-2 study was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of simultaneous durvalumab with concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab to the concurrent chemoradiation followed by placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized 2:1 to durvalumab and placebo, respectively. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet its primary endpoint. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two arms. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 53% of the patients in the durvalumab arm compared to 59% of the patients in the placebo arm. Of note, the frequency of pneumonitis was similar in the two arms. Approximately 28% of patients in each arm developed pneumonitis, and about 5% of the pneumonitis observed in each arm was grade 3 or higher in severity. Treatment discontinuation rates secondary to the adverse events were higher in the durvalumab arm, 25% compared to 12%. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and death were more frequently seen in the durvalumab arm during the first four months of the treatment, which corresponds to the simultaneous administration of chemoradiation and durvalumab. Dr. Bradley, before we delve into the results, can you please explain the rationale for this study design and how this concept fits into the current treatment landscape? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, this trial came on the heels of PACIFIC after there was a progression-free survival benefit showed in PACIFIC that in the locally advanced unresectable population that consolidation immunotherapy, in this case durvalumab, had a progression-free survival benefit. A number of us in the clinical trial space thought to add concurrent immunotherapy in addition to consolidation immunotherapy that that would also improve outcomes for patients. So a number of trials were launched to follow up of PACIFIC. In this case, this is a phase III trial where the control arm was placebo. There was no overall survival results yet from PACIFIC, just a PFS benefit, and a number of countries across the world had not approved maintenance durvalumab in this space. So this trial looked at the experimental arm, which was concurrent immunotherapy, durvalumab, and chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab versus placebo. Dr. Ece Cali: And if we were to focus on the safety profile first, an increased pneumonitis risk was a theoretical concern when immunotherapy is given concurrently with radiation. Do we see any major differences in the safety profile between the two arms in this trial? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: No, and we were concerned about the addition of concurrent immunotherapy and chemoradiation, like you said, towards concern about increased pneumonitis rate, but we did not see increased pneumonitis in the experimental arm over placebo. And the grade 3 or higher, as you said, it was roughly 5%, more or less, in both arms, so we didn't see increase in pneumonitis toxicity with concurrent IO and chemoradiation. Dr. Ece Cali: But interestingly though, despite the lack of significantly increased toxicity with durvalumab, unfortunately, administering immunotherapy simultaneously with chemoradiation therapy did not improve survival. Lack of superiority of this treatment regimen, as you mentioned, is further confirmed across multiple similar negative trial readouts such as ECOG-ACRIN 5181 and CheckMate 73L. Dr. Bradley, in your view, what are some potential explanations for why this strategy did not pan out in clinical trials? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Regarding toxicity, let me go back and point out that we did see an increased number of immune-mediated adverse events. It was 34.7% in the concurrent immunotherapy arm versus 15.7% in the placebo arm. So that led to a higher number of discontinuations of immunotherapy which I think probably had an effect. So we didn't... there was an increased pneumonitis toxicity, but there were expected immune-mediated toxicities that caused people to stop giving immunotherapy. You can see that in the PFS curves. They were, you know, they crossed over after like a month, but initially there was lower PFS for the experimental arm, and then the experimental arm got better after we divided into four months, before four months and after four months. Dr. Ece Cali: For one reason or another, it looks like the simultaneous administration did not really improve outcomes. We now know that simultaneously giving them another concurrent radiation should really no longer be pursued in clinical trials for this patient population. Can you share with our audience what strategies are being studied in this setting and what trials to watch out for in the future? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Sure, I think when you add concurrent radiation to immunotherapy, there were more central tumors in this trial, I think you're killing lymphocytes and negating the effect of immunotherapy. So I think that's the smoking gun for this trial, for the ECOG trial, for the small cell trial that NRG reported, LU005, and other trials. So correct, I don't think there's any need to continue to pursue concurrent immunotherapy in this space of lung cancer. But that's not to say there aren't many other trials that are either ongoing, have accrued and awaiting results, or being planned for the next phase of clinical trials. We have a trial within NRG Oncology called NRG-LU008. It's a randomized phase III trial that is using an SBRT boost to a peripheral primary and chemoradiation to the nodes, because the primary tumor is the one that fails more often than the lymph nodes, and that's compared to PACIFIC in the control arm. PACIFIC-9 is another trial in the same line as the other PACIFIC trials. That one is using dual checkpoint inhibition versus the control arm being PACIFIC. So there are three arms in that trial, durva and oleclumab, durva and monalizumab versus the PACIFIC arm. And that trial is completed accrual, but we have no results from that study yet. Johnson & Johnson has a trial open looking at a nanoparticle. That's a radiosensitizer where bronchoscopy is used to inject the primary tumor and the lymph nodes with a radiosensitizer. That's a randomized phase ll trial that's ongoing. It's got three arms, two different doses of this radiosensitizing drug and then a control arm without injection at all. The control arm is again the PACIFIC arm. And then those of us within the NCI-based clinical trials evaluation program, CTEP, are proposing an intergroup trial that would compare induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemoradiation followed by maintenance immunotherapy versus PACIFIC in a phase III study. So I think there's other trials that are either completed, ongoing completed, or on the horizon to assess in this patient population. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, we definitely have an unmet need to improve survival outcomes for stage III patients, and it's great to hear that there are so many efforts looking at different strategies to improve outcomes for these patients. Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley, for this informative discussion and for sharing your insights. Any last thoughts? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, we need something, you know. PACIFIC was first reported in 2017, and we really haven't made progress in terms of changing that standard of care control for the last eight years. So we need progress in this area. Dr. Ece Cali: Yep, definitely. Thank you so much for joining, Dr. Bradley. And thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. DISCLOSURES Dr. Bradley Honoria: Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Varian, Inc, Genentech, Inc. Research Funding: Varian Medical Systems Dr. Cali Research Funding Company: BeiGene, Nuvalent, Inc., Astra Zeneca

Guest Dr. Sundar Jagannath and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "Long-Term (≥5-Year) Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma," and the efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM (relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma). TRANSCRIPT Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author, Professor Sundar Jagannath, Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Tisch Cancer Institute. He also serves as Network Director for the Center of Excellence for Multiple Myeloma, and he is an internationally recognized expert in the field of multiple myeloma. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "Long-Term Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma." Thank you for speaking with us, Professor Jagannath. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: Thank you for having me, Dr. Davide Soldato. It is a pleasure to be here. JCO is a highly recognized journal among the oncologists, so I am very happy and privileged to be here today. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you so much for being with us. So, I wanted to start a little bit with the rationale of the study and the population that was included in the study. So, the trial that we are discussing, CARTITUDE-1, was already published before, and we observed very good results with a single infusion of cilta-cel. So we had previously reported a median progression-free survival of 30 months, and median overall survival was not reached. So, I just wanted to ask you if you could guide us a little bit into the population that was included in the study and also explain a little bit to our listeners what is the drug that we are discussing, cilta-cel. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: It is a CAR T-cell. This is a patient's own lymphocytes, which goes through apheresis and is sent to the company, where they modify it and introduce the B cell receptor. In this case, you know, there is a heavy chain gene receptor for the BCMA, and in cilta-cel, there are actually two receptor sites on each molecule, or there are two binding domains on each receptor molecule. So, it is considered to be quite efficacious. As you reported, the earlier results that the patients who participated, 97% of the patient responded. Now, you asked about the patients who participated in the clinical trial. This clinical trial was conducted between July of 2018 and October of 2019. At that time, this was a phase 1b/phase 2 trial, and the whole idea was to take patients who had relapsed all the available treatment regimen so that these patients were considered to have, in the unmet medical need situation. So, what does that entail? That means the patient should have been exposed to a proteasome inhibitor, to an immunomodulatory molecule, and to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and should have received at least three or more prior lines of therapy and should be actually progressing on their last line of therapy. So with that requirement, if you look at it, the median number of prior therapy on the patients who participated was actually six. So patients were heavily pretreated. They had exhausted all available treatment options. So, they can participate in this clinical trial. And if not, there have been real-world evidence, such as LocoMMotion, which had reported what is the outcome for such a patient if they were treated outside of this clinical trial, if they were treated with the then available regimen. Their median progression free survival would have been only 3 months, and most patients would have lost their life within a year. So, this was truly an unmet medical need with patients in a very difficult clinical situation. Let's put it that way. So, those were the patients who participated in this particular trial. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And as we mentioned before, the results that were obtained in this clinical trial were really very interesting. And now, in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, you are reporting data with a longer follow up. So we are actually at more than 5 years of follow up for the patients included in this trial. So, I just wanted a little bit of insight into why you decided to report these long-term outcomes and what type of information do you think you could provide with this study to the medical community? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because this was a clinical trial that was done in patients who were, as I said, in unmet medical need. Most of the patients had prior stem cell transplantation, had gone through a proteasome inhibitor. Many of them have had both Velcade and carfilzomib treatment. Most of them had been exposed to lenalidomide and pomalidomide. And as required, all of the patients had to have had prior exposure to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody or daratumumab. So, the patients were heavily pretreated. Typically, TIL CAR T-cells came into the field at this particular moment, until then, we were developing small molecules, and they usually would have a PFS of 3 months and median life expectancy of a year, the overall response rate of 30%, and that is how, if you look back, that is how carfilzomib was approved, that is how pomalidomide was approved. So, the drugs which were approved, including daratumumab, you know, the response rate was in the same ballpark. So you would see that most agents, single agents, would have had a response rate in the neighborhood of 30%, the progression-free survival would have been between 3 to 5 months or 6 months at the most, and the life expectancy was short. And here comes a drug, and when I was following the patients at Mount Sinai, I found that there were a subset of patients, they got one-time treatment and they were in complete remission, no trace of cancer with annual evaluation with PET CT and bone marrow evaluation for MRD. So, I said this is remarkable, and this needs to be reported. And I went to the Janssen and company, and they agreed to review the entire experience. This is remarkable that 32 of the 97 patients, or one third of the patients, were alive and progression-free. This is unheard of for any clinical trial until now, that the patient will be progression-free, one third of the patients on a clinical trial will be progression-free, in the late stage of their disease. So that is the most important impact. And that is why this 5-year follow-up results were presented. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. And as you said, we are speaking about a population that was heavily pretreated, that had exhausted all type of treatment options outside of a clinical trial. And as you said, one third of the patients was alive and progression-free after 5 years from being included and infused inside of the study. So, considering this population that, as we said, had received all treatment options, I was wondering if you observed any kind of differences in terms of disease characteristics when looking at these patients that had exceptional response, so, alive and progression-free at 5 years, and the patients that sadly had developed a progression after the infusion in the study. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because we wanted to see who are the patients who are having this exceptional outcome. And we looked at all the 97 patients. If we look at all the patients, we saw that there were initially, out of the 97, 17 patients died earlier in the disease course due to treatment related complications, etc. But there were about 46 patients who had progression of disease and 32 patients, or one third, were alive without progression of disease. Then we looked at the 46 patients who had progression of disease. Of them, we found that 30 had disease progression and its complication, and there were actually 13 patients who were still alive even after progression of disease. So we decided to compare these 46 patients who had progression of disease versus 32 patients who had no progression of disease to see what is the difference. To our surprise, the age was similar, male, female distribution was similar. High-risk cytogenetics, which we would have thought, you know, that is why we say high-risk disease, the term, high-risk cytogenetics was equally distributed. That was really a surprise. Number of lines of prior therapy, number of exposure to drugs, all of that was the same. So that was also interesting. But a theme did emerge. Patients, in general, tend to have lower burden of disease who had the exceptional outcome. But there is one which we considered as bad, the extramedullary disease. Multiple myeloma being a blood cancer, it is usually in the bone marrow. When it starts growing outside of the bone marrow, the extramedullary disease, usually it portends poor prognosis. But we were surprised that actually there were an equal number of extramedullary disease patients even in the long-term survivor as those who had progressed of disease. So the most important takeaway was patients who had lower burden of disease, they had less number of myeloma cells in their bone marrow, percentage wise, and the soluble BCMA level was lower. Soluble BCMA is an indirect measure of the amount of plasma cells in the patient's body. It is like a tumor burden. So they were low. So, this was an important finding because it has future ramification, as you can understand. If this treatment is made available earlier in the disease course of the patients, where we are able to control the disease better, then more patients are likely to have such wonderful outcomes as one third of the patient experience in the late stage of the disease. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, you already mentioned soluble BCMA as a marker of potentially better prognosis as being correlated to a lower volume of disease. I was wondering if you could give us some more information about the biomarkers that you evaluated in the study. For example, you evaluated a little bit the CAR T expansion kinetics and also some others that I think could be interesting and could point to some population that experienced such important benefit. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important point because CAR T-cell, it is a live cell and its efficacy depends upon how well the CAR T-cell is going to function. And then, you know, the patient undergoes apheresis. This is a patient's own lymphocyte. So first and foremost is who would generate good CAR T-cell. Those who have plenty of lymphocytes at the time they are coming for apheresis. This is likely to happen earlier in the course of the disease than in patients who have gone through numerous lines of therapy and exhausted. So, in this particular trial, of course this was in late stage of the disease, and so we were able to show patients who had lower number of T cell in circulation, and the way to measure is if they had more neutrophils and less lymphocytes. So that is what is called as a higher T cell over neutrophil, they did better. If they have more neutrophil than T cells, then they did not do well. So, procurement. The second one is also whether the T cells are more naive, you know, not exhausted T cells. So more naive T cells, if you are able to procure from the patient, they did very well. Now, after the CAR T-cell manufacture, then the expansion, when you put it back into the patient, if the T cells expand very well, so that the effector, that is the CAR T-cells to the tumor ratio is good, so there are more effector cells, the CAR T was able to expand and the amount of tumor was less, then the efficacy was very, very good. As I said, the patients in this group, those who had a lower burden of disease, they did better, and that is because of the CAR T-cell expansion, so the effector to the target ratio was favorable. So that is another important. And then there are also the type of CAR T-cells, having CD4 T cells with central memory phenotype at the peak expansion also makes a difference. So all of that matters. But this is important because the efficacy of the CAR T-cell, it is persistent, long persistent and keeping the cancer down. Its ability to get rid of the cancer completely at the first go around because usually we are not able to detect the CAR T-cells beyond 6 months in the majority of patients and very rarely after a year or two. So it is very uncommon to find the CAR T-cells in circulation or even in the regular bone marrow evaluation. So, efficacy, the expansion, having naive T cells, having good effector to target ratio and more central memory kind of T cell, because if it is all effector T cell, they will get quickly utilized and get exhausted, whereas the central memory cells can expand more and give more effective CAR T-cells. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. I was wondering if you could guide us a little bit into what is your opinion regarding the positioning of CAR T-cells given all of these logistics that is necessary compared, for example, with bispecific antibodies against BCMA, which have the same target, but they do not have all of these logistics before being administered to the patient. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important question, how to sequence these treatments now that we have two BCMA-directed CAR T-cells available. We have three BCMA-directed bispecific and one GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibodies are available. And so the question comes in for at least the currently approved CAR T-cell therapy, there is an obligatory time. You have to go through apheresis and you have to ship to the company, and there is a manufacturing time, roughly about 2 months before they can receive it. During that time, you want to make sure the patient's disease is under control. So that is a given. There are several ways to look at it when we evaluate the patient and talk to the patient. One good thing is now the two CAR T-cells which are approved, one is cilta-cel we talked about, and the other one is ide-cel. Ide-cel is approved in earlier line of therapy, two or more prior lines of therapy, and cilta-cel is approved in patients who have failed one line of therapy and who are lenalidomide refractory. So, the treatment of CAR T-cell is available earlier. And as I said, when you administer CAR T-cell earlier, you are able to keep the disease burden down, and it is a one and done deal. There is a better quality of life for the patient, and you are able to produce long, durable remission and potentially a cure. Now coming to the bispecific, they are currently available in later lines of therapy. So if you look at it from a patient's perspective, you can use the CAR T-cell earlier and then go through the bispecific therapy. But if the patient comes with relapsed refractory myeloma and has not used the CAR T-cell therapy and has not used the bispecific therapy, then the physicians have to decide which one they want to use. If somebody's disease is rapidly progressing and they need immediate tumor reduction and they have already exhausted all available therapy, then going through BCMA bispecific therapy is quite appropriate. And secondly, CAR T-cell therapy is generally given to somewhat physically more fit patients, whereas bispecific therapy, because you are giving antibody at step-wise dosing in this patient, and you have the ability to stop at any particular dose and then come back and redose, whereas CAR T is, you just give it to them one time, you have a lot more control. So intermediate frail or even frail patients can go through bispecific therapy, whereas it would not be in the best interest of the patient to go through a CAR T-cell therapy when they are frail. So that is another important point. But from the information available, when the patient goes on a BCMA bispecific therapy and they start progressing on treatment, usually it is their T cells are exhausted or the BCMA is no longer expressed on the tumor cells. So coming with CAR T-cell later on is usually not effective, whereas giving CAR T-cell earlier, if the patient relapses later, they have good T-cell function and most of the time the BCMA is still expressed. So you are able to give the BCMA to the maximum benefit by using the CAR T first and BCMA later. So if somebody asked me how to sequence this, just off the bat, you will say CAR T first, BCMA bispecific second. But as I said, there are unique situations. Then there is another potential that is happening. You can change the target. You can use a BCMA against GPRC5D to reduce the tumor, and then go ahead and consolidate it with a CAR T-cell therapy. That is also possible. You are changing the target from GPRC5D to BCMA, the tumor is already down, so the patient is likely to benefit. So these are all newer treatment options which have become available to the physician. So they will have to look at individual patients and decide what is the best course of action for that patient. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just wanted to close a little bit with your opinion about how these results translate into clinical practice. So considering this outstanding 5-year data that we have seen, one third of the patients who are alive and progression-free after a single infusion of cilta-cel, do you think that we could start to think about functional cure even in patients who have a diagnosis of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: My feeling is this is important because in this particular study which is published, 12 patients who were followed at Mount Sinai out of the 32 patients who are alive and progression-free, 12 were followed at Mount Sinai. And they were evaluated every year with bone marrow MRD testing by clonoSEQ in 11 of the 12 patients, and one was by multiparametric flow cytometry. So most of them were 10 to the minus 6, not even one in a million cancer cells, and all of them had functional imaging, which is called PET CT every year. So these were patients who had no evidence of disease that we could detect with the technology available today, serologically, in the bone marrow, or anywhere else in the body with a PET CT. They were found to be disease free after a single infusion of cilta-cel. So, that would be almost to the definition of a cure because if you look at cure as a definition for any cancer, cure is defined as a state of complete remission with no trace of cancer that persists over a period of 5 years or longer without maintenance. And that will be applicable for breast cancer, lymphoma, leukemia. So it is a general statement. And if we use that in myeloma too, then I could say that these 12 patients from my center, we proved that they are cured of their myeloma. They are not functionally cured. You've got to remember, there is only cure. That was the definition across all diseases. So there is nothing like a functional cure. They are cured of myeloma. So is myeloma curable? This is the first time we are looking at that. We do know, every physician treating myeloma that there are patients out there, 10 year and beyond, without evidence of disease. This has been published by University of Arkansas, Bart Barlogie's group, who has been saying that myeloma is a curable disease for a long time. And many others have shown long-term follow up. But this one in a late stage disease, we were able to show that they were one treatment with no maintenance. All other studies have been in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Nobody has shown in late relapse patients on a clinical trial a third of the patient will be progression-free. And 12 of them who were studied were actually disease free. So they were cured of the disease. So if we accept that, then the next question is, first step towards cure is achieving complete remission. They should have no monoclonal protein by any technology you want to use, no measurable residual disease using next gen sequencing or clonoSEQ, and functional imaging whole body PET CT or whole body MRI. So that is important, definition of the complete remission. And then it has to be sustained. That is something the IMWG and IMS, International Myeloma Society, they will have to come together for a consensus. How many years should they be followed and should be in this kind of status with no trace of cancer? Is it, 3 years are enough? 4 years enough? 5 years is enough? For me, I said in this paper, 5 years is a good definition for achieving a potential cure. Then you use the term 'functionally cured'. I have a problem with functionally cured and operationally cured or whatever. Functionally cured was originally put out by Paiva from Spain. There were 8% of newly diagnosed myeloma patients who have, after they go get treated, they will have an MGUS like phenomenon, a small amount of paraprotein detectable, and they are only 8%. And he said that these patients could be off treatment and the disease does not progress. But the problem is when you are giving treatment like maintenance therapy continuously until progression, you do not know exactly who is in the MGUS situation. So you have to have done sophisticated flow cytometry like Paiva did, and it is not quite clinically applicable. So functionally cured applies only for 8% of the people, so it should go out of the vocabulary. Then you can say 'operationally cured'. These are the patients traditionally Bart Barlogie and others showed that they have a large number of patients who have been followed for 10 years with no recurrence of disease, not on treatment. But in those days, they did not have MRD PET CT and all of them done systematically. So that is why they had to come up with a situation where they said they were operationally cured. So yes, myeloma patients have been cured since auto transplant was introduced. I completely agree. It is not new to the CAR T-cell therapy. But the beauty of the CAR T-cell therapy was it was in relapsed refractory myeloma, unmet medical need, number one. Number two, they were studied systematically. It was a clinical trial adjudicated by FDA and EMA for drug approval, cilta-cel was approved. So these patients were carefully followed, and it was a multi-center study. And in that group of patients, we were able to show patients- So, I think this would indicate cure is a reality in myeloma, and as these kind of treatments, immunologic treatment, either it is a CAR T-cell therapy or BCMA bispecific or whatever, there is a chance more patients are likely to be cured, and these treatments have to move forward and so that we are looking towards a cure. That is the beauty of it, and I just thank you for asking and also throwing in this so-called functionally cured, which people like to use casually, and I say it is time to talk more cure and not stuck with functionally cured because that does not allow the field to progress. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very interesting. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: And provocative. Dr. Davide Soldato: A little bit, but I think that we needed to close the podcast with this kind of reflection coming from someone who is an expert in the field, as you are. So, I really wanted to thank you for joining us today and for sharing more on your article, which is titled, "Long-Term Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: Thank you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Giancarlo Di Guiseppe discuss the JCO article "Long-Term Dynamic Financial Impacts Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Longitudinal Matched-Cohort Study" TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hi everybody and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we go in depth on manuscripts that are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Shannon Westin, social media editor of JCO and gynecologic oncologist extraordinaire. I'm so very excited to talk to you today. We're going to speak about "Long-Term Dynamic Financial Impacts Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Longitudinal Matched-Cohort Study." And I'm joined today by Dr. Giancarlo Di Giuseppe. He has a PhD in epidemiology that he actually just defended with this very work you're going to hear about today at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. He is now a research fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children. Welcome, Dr. Di Giuseppe. It's so exciting to have you. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Shannon Westin: So we'll get right to it. Let's level set. Can you talk a little bit about the financial impact of cancer on survivors in general? I think this has been a growing area of interest and research, certainly. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, and I think that's a very important question, and I'm so happy that this research is now becoming more popular in the research world because it really addresses a critical issue that cancer survivors and their families must face. You know, you're diagnosed with cancer, and now you need to take time off work because you're hospitalized for chemotherapy. You're going back and forth to the hospital, and that all requires time away from your employment, and as a result of that, that has a significant financial strain, both on you and your family. And that's during therapy. Now, in survivorship, in the years after you've survived your cancer, you still need to deal with all the late effects associated with your treatment and your disease, and that can be psychological, physical, and that impacts your workability as well. So, it's not just exclusive to individuals undergoing treatment but also in survivorship afterwards. It really gets the financial strait that you face as a cancer survivor because you're time away from work and your lost productivity. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, that makes sense. Then I think it would be great to talk a little bit specifically about the patient population that you studied in this particular manuscript. Can you talk a little bit about the adolescent young adult cohort, you know, why you singled out this particular group of people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Absolutely. Adolescents and young adults, or AYAs, which I'll now refer to them as - I'm one of them - we're at a unique crossroads of our life and in our developmental stage of life. We are finishing our post-secondary education. We're entering the workforce. We're forming romantic relationships, and we're really achieving financial autonomy. It's because of this unique developmental stage in life where we've become quite susceptible to health shocks such as cancer. Really, does a cancer and the associated negative financial impacts affect our long term trajectory? So, I'm just finishing my PhD. If I was diagnosed with cancer, I would require a year or two away from my studies. I may or may not finish my education that could then impact my employment and then my financial outcomes later on in life. So it's really this unique population who are going through so many transitions and changes in their lives. How does that cancer really impact that life course trajectory? I think it's unique from an adult who might have, you know, large savings where they can bear the brunt of their cancer financial impacts, whereas AYAs may not have that same financial stability, provide a safety net for the financial impact resulting from their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: You broke my heart a little bit. I realized I'm no longer in that group, so I guess it's time to move on. Okay. So, let's talk a little bit about the overall design of the study. Can you just kind of walk us through how you set everything up? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. So it's a matched cohort study at the population level here in Canada. We have large national administrative databases, and we have this really unique set of data at the national level through Statistics Canada that we can link our cancer registry to tax records. It really provides this unique opportunity to longitudinally follow individuals from their disease forward in time. The main overall design is the matched cohort study. At the time of diagnosis of a cancer case, they're matched to someone from the population on certain characteristics. I follow these individuals from the index date of their cancer case forward in time. The crux of the study itself is a quasi-experimental two-group pre-post study design where I have information before the cancer diagnosis, I have information from their income after their cancer diagnosis, and it's really quantifying how much does that total income change from before the cancer to the after-cancer period. Dr. Shannon Westin: I'm always intrigued about hearing more about financial toxicity in general, certainly very multi-dimensional. Can you speak a little bit about the different ways that you can assess this and measure this and kind of what you chose? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, so financial toxicity really has two main spheres of measurement. There's a direct and the indirect measurements of financial toxicity. So your direct financial toxicities could be related to actually paying for medical treatment and any sort of financial burden as a direct consequence of your disease. Fortunately here in Canada, we have a universal health care system, so patients don't have to pay directly for most of their treatment. There's also indirect financial toxicities, which are not a direct result of the disease. So in this study here, one of the, or the indirect financial toxicity that I measured was the financial impact to income. That's not the only indirect financial toxicity. There could be out-of-pocket expenses for drugs that may not be covered in the universal health care system here. It could be lost productivity at work. There's really this direct and indirect financial toxicities that together result in a significant financial burden and hardships for cancer patients and survivors. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, so you guys did a lot of matching. It was extensive. Can you speak a little bit about the factors you used to match your patients and your controls and kind of why you chose them? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. The matching I think is a really critical aspect of the study, and it really establishes this baseline period of individuals who are cancer-free, who look as similar as possible to the individuals who would eventually develop cancer. So I matched on birth year, sex, marital status, whether or not they had children, if they were born here in Canada or not, as well as a geographic measurement of census division. So it's really in the city or in a rural town. Then I also matched on a 5% buffer of their total income in the year prior to the cancer diagnosis. All this matching was really done in the year before they were diagnosed, and it's to establish this comparator cohort of individuals from the general population who looked as similar as possible to the individuals, or the AYAs, who would develop cancer. It's again to establish this baseline period of a control cohort who looks as similar as possible. So any differences that we might see after the cancer can be attributed to the effects of the AYA who would develop cancer. It's quite powerful, I think, from a study design perspective because it establishes causal inference methods through the study design and through the matching itself. Fortunately, I was able to match on an extensive list of covariates given the large population-based data that I used, particularly the tax records. Tax records contain a whole wealth of information, your marital status, your sex, your income, where you live. So it really provided this rich opportunity to match as closely as possible the AYAs who would develop cancer to someone from the population who wouldn't. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, and I mean I think that's the only way to do this type of research and really make it generalizable and actually, you know, know that you can trust the results that you've got. So I just want to again congratulate you because I think this was just- when I read the design, I was so impressed. So now that we know the design and we understand everything, let's talk a little bit about the characteristics of the actual patient population that you studied. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, for sure. So average age of diagnosis was in their early 30s, so around 32 years old. The breakdown of the population was mostly females, so I think two-thirds of the cohort were actually females who were diagnosed with cancer. Really, a lot of the cancers were thyroid and the breast cancers. These cancers are more common in women than they are in men. So it's really reflective of the different distribution of cancer in AYAs compared to other populations like in children or in older adults. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, bottom line. What did your primary analysis demonstrate and how was the income different based on the types of cancer that people might have been diagnosed with? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, the bottom line is actually quite a disturbing message, I would say, and it's really that cancer causes this long, prolonged financial hardship in survivors. That's, I think, a very important result from the study, and I think it has far-reaching implications. This study demonstrates that these individuals who were diagnosed with this disease that is unforeseen also pay a financial price, and that sustains for many years after their diagnosis. That's overall on average. Once I dove deeper, actually looking at the different cancer types, the message actually gets even more disturbing, I would say, particularly in some disease subgroups. So the central nervous system cancer survivors really have a large reduction in their income, which sustains over 25%, 10 years after their diagnosis, and they never really recover financially from their disease. There are some groups of cancer survivors who really pay a large financial price for their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't know if you're able to tease this out. This is just me thinking off the top of my head. Do you think it's the long-lasting side effects? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think you hit the nail on the head there, absolutely. I think what we're seeing here is a direct result of the late effects that cancer survivors experience. CNS cancer survivors, whether that is a surgical resection, radiation to the head for their tumor, the late effects really impact these individuals in the post-cancer survivorship period. So I think what we're really seeing are these late effects here. Dr. Shannon Westin: The other thing I was kind of struck by is the differential and income loss over time. Can you speak a little bit about that in your work? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. There really is this period of financial vulnerability in the first couple years of diagnosis. So that's year zero, one, two, and three, these first couple years when these individuals are diagnosed with cancer, they are significantly impacted by their disease financially. Some of these reductions in their income is 15%, 20% in the year of diagnosis and the year afterwards. It's unsurprising because this is when these individuals typically are undergoing their treatment. They're not working. They may have even lost their job or quit their job. So it's really reflective in the results in that first few years of their diagnoses where these financial impacts are the largest. I think it provides an opportunity where certain interventions might alleviate some of these large reductions in their income. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, I really was disturbed by your work, and I hate to kind of say it that way because it's such important work. So I'm really- congratulations on everything that you're able to achieve and especially your PhD. But I think shining a light on these types of things is always pretty rough when you really look at the nitty-gritty details. So any thoughts about where we go from here, how do we support these people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think we can support them at multiple different levels. So at the individual level, I think within the clinic setting, financial screening for financial toxicity, financial literacy, I think all these things can be incorporated into cancer care continuum to kind of educate AYAs with cancer about the financial implications of their disease, both in the short and the long term. So I think educating these cancer patients is important. I think at the employer level, really working at the institutional level to incorporate workplace accommodations that might facilitate the return to work process for cancer survivors after their treatment or during, I think would also make the financial burden slightly less if cancer survivors are able to return to work or not have to quit their job because of their disease. And then return to work easier, I think might alleviate some of the employment consequences that these individuals face, which then lead to their adverse financial effects. Then I think also at the policy level, at the governmental level, whether that's incorporating any sort of fiscal stimulus for cancer survivors, whether they're under treatment or in survivorship, any sort of tax breaks that they might be available to them to kind of alleviate some of that financial stress. The reality of it is being diagnosed with cancer and having your income reduced by even 5% - cost of living is expensive, especially now - so I can't even imagine what cancer survivors who are in this economy are facing with rising inflation and cost of living going up. So I think really having tax breaks as well as financial aid for these cancer survivors could really support them both in their cancer journey while they're undergoing treatment as well as some of the sustained effects that they experience afterwards. It's particularly important, as we touched on earlier, for CNS cancer survivors, right? These individuals have this sustained effect that never really returns back to normal, and I think having sort of disability pension or kind of financial aid for these individuals to support them, I think is important. Dr. Shannon Westin: We see this all the time in gynecologic cancers, these young women that support their families, young children, and then lose their ability to do so due to their diagnosis and the treatment they have to receive. So I can't say this enough how important this work was and how honored I am to get to speak with you today. I learned a ton. And thank you to all of you listeners. We're just so excited to have you. This has been long term dynamic financial impacts among adolescents and young adults with cancer: a longitudinal matched cohort study. Thanks again for listening to JCO After Hours, and please do check out our other offerings wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Hani Babiker discuss the JCO article "Tumor Treating Fields With Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study." TRANSCRIPT TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in depth with manuscripts that have been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, gynecologic oncologist Shannon Westin, social media editor at the JCO, and just excited to be here to learn today about pancreatic cancer. None of our participants have conflicts of interest related to this podcast, and it is my honor to introduce Dr. Hani Babiker. He is an associate professor of medicine, consultant in oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Welcome, Dr. Babiker. Dr. Hani Babiker: Hi, Dr. Westin. Thank you for the great opportunity to discuss our trial, and thank you for having me here. I really appreciate it, and I am excited. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, so are we. So we are going to be talking about "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study." This was simultaneously published and presented in the JCO and at the annual meeting of ASCO on 5/31/2025. So, let's level set. Can you speak to us just a little bit about pancreatic cancer? What is the survival, and what is the typical treatment for locally advanced disease? This gynecologic oncologist has not kept up in this field. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely, Dr. Westin, and thank you for that question. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer. When I first started my career, the 5-year survival, per the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, was at 4.5%. I always, whenever I was giving talks, say that I really hope that I will see it in the double digit. Now, the 5-year survival for all pancreatic adenocarcinoma is 13.3%. And the 5-year survival, and although it is a double digit, I still hope that I will see it in a higher double digit in the future. It is even worse in patients with metastatic cancer, about 3% 5-year survival for metastatic pancreatic cancer. It is a dismal diagnosis. I really hope in the future we will find a better therapeutic approach to this lethal cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yes, I just lost a very dear friend and colleague to this disease, so I completely agree with you. Well, now that we are settled kind of with the basics here, I would love to talk a little bit about kind of the primary piece of this intervention, the Tumor Treating Fields. So, how does this work? And what diseases has it gotten indications in as yet? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, Tumor Treating Fields is alternating frequency electrical fields that have been studied preclinically and shown that it abrogates cancer cell proliferation. Earlier on, we knew that it inhibits polymerization of tubulin, and hence, it affects cancer cells from proliferating. Later, we are learning that there are multiple mechanisms of action. It affects permeability, allowing for better drug delivery. It also inhibits cancer cell proliferation through affecting autophagy mechanisms that pancreatic cancer cells will use for proliferating and becoming more aggressive. There is also some early data preclinically in colorectal cancer cell lines and lung cancer cell lines and in vivo models showing that it potentially could activate the microenvironment to make it more pro-immunogenic. We recently published papers showing that it could also affect the nanomechanical properties of the tumor microenvironment within pancreatic cancer, hinting towards affecting, potentially, the stroma. So, there are multiple mechanisms to Tumor Treating Electric Fields. It is a new, novel therapeutic approach. Sometimes when I speak with my trainees, I say, "Well, we have surgery, we have radiation and chemotherapy, and this is something new." Tumor Treating Fields initially was studied in refractory GBM and got an indication there. Subsequently, frontline treatment of GBM in a randomized clinical trial, and then malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer. We have studied it in pancreatic cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't think I have ever heard it described so perfectly. That was brilliant. So thank you, and I hope everyone listening knows that you just got a masterclass on this mechanism. You know, they dabbled in it a little bit in ovarian cancer and it didn't quite make the grade, so I was a little definitely disappointed. But very excited about the data we're going to talk about today. So let's get into the PANOVA-3 study. Can you highlight the overall design and also the key eligibility criteria that would be helpful for our listeners? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, it started off with preclinical work in pancreatic cancer showing Tumor Treating Fields with chemo abrogate cancer cell perforation. It led to a trial, the PANOVA-2 trial, that was run in Europe that showed efficacy for OS and PFS in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, which included metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, more so in locally advanced that led to the PANOVA-3 trial, which was an international, global study. This was in more than 190 centers, 20 countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and Asia. It was a randomized trial. Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to either chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel per drug label. The other arm was with Tumor Treating Fields at 150 kHz for a recommendation for patients to wear it 18 hours per day. The primary end point of the trial was OS, overall survival. The secondary end point included other efficacy landmarks such as local PFS, pain control, quality of life, and safety. And there was a post hoc that looked at distant PFS. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's a pretty common secondary end point in pancreatic studies of looking at the pain-free interval. I thought that was really brilliant because, you know, I think in gyn cancers, we see resolution of symptoms as being a really big deal, but it's not necessarily something that we always look at. So I thought that was really nice that you included that. Okay, talk to us a little bit about the population. So, the population that actually got treated in PANOVA-3 is pretty generalizable to what people are treating in the clinic. Dr. Hani Babiker: So, in pancreatic cancer, unfortunately, most of our patients present, approximately 80%, with metastatic disease. Local is divided to resectable, borderline, and locally advanced. We studied this trial, a randomized trial, in locally advanced and unresectable, which is really an unmet need. Most of our patients with locally advanced and unresectable are grouped up with other trials in the metastatic setting without a focus on locally advanced and unresectable, save for a few trials. This year, a trial that we were looking for for a long time, the LAPLACE trial, unfortunately, that we were very excited about, this is a molecule that targeted connective tissue growth factor, that showed earlier efficacy in a randomized trial, did not meet up the median OS end point. And hence, PANOVA-3 is the first trial in locally advanced and unresectable that did meet its primary end point. So, it's a very unmet need in locally advanced and unresectable. A lot of the times, our patients in clinic are treated with frontline chemotherapy that was studied in metastatic disease and locally advanced and unresectable, which include either FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine/abraxane. I do have in my clinic multiple patients that would stay on the regimen for such a long time, and then we would have to devise a mechanism of maintenance, although this is not studied really in details, either with capecitabine or dropping the oxaliplatin to continue FOLFIRI. And then we also approach chemoradiotherapy. So the trial was in a disease in pancreatic cancer that really is an unmet need. So the inclusion criteria included a patient with locally advanced and unresectable. These were done at multiple centers. Most of them academic centers were discussed at the tumor board, and if it's unresectable, they will be meeting specific metrics of appropriate liver function tests, kidney function tests, and blood counts. We excluded patients that obviously had, given that these are electric fields, patients that have, for example, stimulators or pacemakers, knowing that this could potentially affect some of these devices. But for the most part, it was locally advanced and unresectable patients with a very good performance status and good counts. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. I think everyone's excited to hear about the primary outcome of overall survival. What did you find, and how does it compare to some of the recent trials? Dr. Hani Babiker: We're very excited that it did meet its primary end point of median overall survival. It was very exciting knowing that a lot of us were disappointed a little bit of some of the trials that were presented at ASCO GI, such as the LAPLACE trial that I alluded to. Just before the presentation, the PRODIGE 29 trial that is in locally advanced and unresectable that randomized patients with locally advanced disease to either FOLFIRINOX or single-agent gemcitabine, allowing for a crossover, although it did meet its primary end point of PFS, there was no overall survival benefit. So that kind of got us a little bit disappointed, but having the PANOVA-3 trial being positive in median OS got us all excited. In addition, the 12-year overall survival rate was increased in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat. The modified intention-to-treat were patients that have had at least one cycle of therapy with TTFields daily and/or one cycle with chemotherapy, which was gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. There was a trend to improvement in PFS and local PFS, although that did not have statistical significance, but the 12-year PFS rate in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat was significant. For me, as one of the investigators, that told me that there might be a specific biomarker that would tell me that patients could respond greater than others, more exceptional than others, given that 12-month PFS rate was improved. On a post hoc analysis, the distant PFS was improved with the intervention of Tumor Treating Fields with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. In addition, there was an improvement in global health status and quality of life in addition to pain-free survival, which is a strong hurdle in our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma that most present with significant abdominal pain. Dr. Shannon Westin: One of the other questions that I think has come up is around central review. So did you all use central review in this study? Dr. Hani Babiker: Most of the centers were academic centers. These were discussed in tumor boards, which included radiation oncologists and surgeons. I wanted to point out that it's very important to note that the primary end point was overall survival. So the primary end point was not PFS. Hence, the central review would help us, for example, with elaborating and making sure patients were actually locally advanced disease, but in a setting where the primary end point is overall survival, that was the key point of the clinical trial. This trial was discussed at academic centers, and all included tumor boards to decide if patients were locally advanced or not. In the trial, there was a good proportion of patients, or percentage, that had a CA 19-9 more than 1000. That could indicate that potentially there are a fraction of patients that actually had metastatic disease, micrometastatic disease. So that could hint towards why the median OS was slightly lower then in both arms when compared to, for example, the trial that was presented at ASCO GI, the LAPLACE trial. However, having said that, we were very excited about the trial. It was the first positive trial in locally advanced and unresectable to meet median OS survival. Dr. Shannon Westin: It's so awesome. So congratulations. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about your very detailed secondary end points because you had a lot of really prudent choices there. So anything that was interesting or informative in those end points? Dr. Hani Babiker: One major hurdle back we have for most of our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, like I mentioned earlier, is pain. We try to approach it, obviously, with narcotics. If it doesn't work, we try to do celiac axis block interventionally, and that sometimes is successful and sometimes is not. So actually, to see the pain-free survival end point to be met was very exciting for us. And as for me, as a scientist that studies TTFields in clinic and lab as also to develop a mechanism and understanding really how that works. That was very important for us that in addition to chemotherapy, it improved pain-free survival or deterioration of pain. And most importantly, our patients with pancreatic cancer, this disease is very aggressive. It affects quality of life of patients. Patients feel fatigued, tired. It's a procoagulant tumor that causes clots and strokes, etcetera, marantic endocarditis. And one big problem we deal with when we're seeing patients in clinic is obviously that quality of life. Although data have shown with treatment, with frontline regimens, that quality of life improves with treatment and chemotherapy, it's actually great to see that that improvement happens early in addition to Tumor Treating Fields. The other interesting point was that it was not only pain and quality of life, but also digestive symptoms that are improved with this intervention, knowing that a lot of our patients do have pancreatic cancer, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency that affect also with digestion, and a lot of our patients have abdominal pain after eating and diarrhea. So it was interesting to see that also improved with the intervention. Dr. Shannon Westin: You have touched a little bit on some of the adverse events, kind of with the TT mechanisms, but I'd love to hear a little bit more detail around adverse events in general in this study, as well as specific AEs related to the Tumor Treating Fields. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So when we compared both arms, there was a similar toxicity related to the regimen, mostly with chemotherapy, but in specifically to Tumor Treating Fields, there was a rash, and that included dermatitis and rash. Most of the side effects were grade 1 and grade 2. Grade 3 toxicities related to skin was less than 10%, approximately 7% to 8%, and hence did not affect many patients. But it was something to note, and it's something that in the future, when we develop a mechanism of treating patients to note early. We in our clinic have learned to treat patients in the clinical trial early with topical steroids to each patient, of shifting the arrays to mitigate some toxicity and rash. We do advise our patients in hot areas, we keep them aware that sweating, for example, can lead to higher conductivity of electrical fields with a predisposition for rash. So if there's an opportunity to stay in a little bit of a cold area, make sure that the arrays are shifted, use topical steroids early. If it's a significant rash, to hold treatment for at least 48 hours and speak to the investigators. And through these mechanisms, we have learned that we were able to mitigate the rash quite a bit. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, I'm, it's summer right now, and I think- I'm in Texas, you're in Florida, like we know. Okay, so I guess, again, you have been kind of touching on this, but I would love to know, like if in the quality-of-life assessments or if just in your discussions with patients, like how easy is this to use? How easy is the Tumor Treating Fields device to use, and what do patients really think? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. We have learned that whenever we speak with patients, it's always good to discuss with them briefly the science of it. A lot of patients would want to know if it's interventional, is that something that goes, is delivered percutaneously or not, and we explain that these are delivered through arrays that are through the skin. We always touch base with them about a lot of question I get about mechanism of action and then about compliance. So I think one important thing to note is that compliance with the use of the device is a lot of the question we'll get quite a bit. Patients know there's going to take an effort from them, and some of my patients enjoyed it because they felt like they also are fighting the disease by wearing the device. I have learned very quickly that having a team, surrounded by a team that knew how to mitigate some of the side effects and knew how to explain how to use the device helped quite a bit. And this included some of our nurses and our nurse practitioners and our clinical research coordinators who've done a wonderful job of showing these arrays actually to patients before they start on the trial, look at it, know how it works. The other point to know is that the sponsor provided Device Support Specialist, we call them DSS, they have been instrumental in helping us, helping the patients know how to use the device, how to use the generator, how to change the batteries, and that helped us conduct the trials and enroll very well. I would envision in the future with education and relying on the Device Support Specialist and having a team that knows how to use the device and mitigate some of the side effects will go a long way for patients to learn about this treatment. Many of the times our patients said while they are on the clinical trial felt like they are also being part of this team in applying the device and fighting the cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Well, I guess the bottom line. Is it ready for prime time? Is this something you are going to use for your patients in the clinic? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. In a disease that has poor prognosis, and we are trying our best to find new treatments to fight this cancer and treatment modalities, presenting patients with all the treatment options that are out there would be recommended. It's what I would do it for in my clinic. And you know, it's funny that I am mentioning that right now. I had a patient who was seen internationally asking about the trial and the device and had locally advanced and unresectable before they start frontline treatment. I do think that there is going to be an educational piece. Obviously, this is not a pill, it's not an intravenous chemotherapy that we're very well and accustomed to. And some of us in academic centers know it very well. I usually joke that whenever I am talking about it in pancreatic cancer, if there is a radiation oncologist in the room, they will be like, "Yeah, we know all about it. We have been treating patients with GBM over there." So a lot of the times, when we first went to trial, if I had any questions, I would call them and ask them. So from their perspective, they, because they use it as a standard of care in treatment of GBM, they develop significant expertise in it. I think in the GI world, specifically and with oncologists that treat pancreatic cancer and specifically oncologists in the community, learning about the device and how to use it, how to recommend it, how to mitigate side effects, will be hopefully for prime time in the future. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. Sounds like some real educational opportunities there. Well, this has been awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. Babiker. I mean, I learned a ton, and I wish that we could find a way to use this in gynecologic cancers, but really, really just want to commend you on the design of the trial and the success in this really devastating disease. So again, this was "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study." And as always, I am your host, Shannon Westin. Please go check out our other offerings wherever you get your podcasts and have an awesome day. 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. Dr. Babiker Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role: Endocyte, Celgene, Idera, Myovant Sciences, Novocure, Ipsen, Caris MPI, Incyte, Guardant Health Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health Research Funding: Spirita Oncology, Novocure, AstraZeneca, JSI, Incyte, Qurient, HiFiBiO Therapeutics, Revolution Health Care, Elevation Oncology, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Zelbio, BMS, Mirati Therapeutics, Strategia