Modern Management of Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Biological Risk, BTKi, and Beyond

Dr. Kimmie Ng sits down with host Dr. Hope Rugo to discuss the steady rise in early-onset cancer globally, as detailed in the co-authored ASCO Educational Book article, Understanding Contemporary Challenges in the Care of Patients With Early-Onset Cancer: Epidemiologic Trends, Patient Well-Being, Oncofertility, and Cancer Survivorship. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT  

Dr. Christopher Booth joins guest host Dr. Gerald Hsu to discuss his ASCO Educational Book article, "Innovation, Evidence, Compassion, and Hope: Delivering Outcomes That Matter," exploring how modern trial metrics and regulatory pathways frequently prioritize surrogate endpoints over meaningful survival and quality-of-life gains. Together, they discuss actionable strategies for clinicians and policymakers to  re-center cancer care on shared decision-making, patient priorities, and global access. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Guest host Dr. Gerald Hsu and Dr. Martin Dreyling discuss the latest clinical data in mantle cell lymphoma, as well as risk stratification methods and the future role of chemo-free regimens and immunotherapy in MCL. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano discuss the rapid paradigm shift of antibody-drug conjugates into frontline advanced and curative-intent perioperative settings and the clinical challenges of optimal sequencing, target selection, and cross-resistance. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Bridget Keenan discuss the innovative bioengineering allowing clinicians to target historically "immune-cold" tumors, the logistical evolution of bringing bispecific therapies safely into outpatient community clinics, and the complex future of predictive biomarkers and resistance mechanisms. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Peter Lee discuss frailty, geriatric assessments, and personalized care for older adults with genitourinary cancer. They highlight screening guidelines, treatment considerations, multidisciplinary interventions, and the emergence of AI and digital health tools in geriatric oncology. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT    

Drs. Pedro Barata, Yi Song, Meenakshi Jeeva, and Lauren Park discuss liver-directed therapies in colorectal cancer, ongoing developments in locoregional therapies for unresectable colorectal liver metastasis, and exciting research on expanding the role of thermal ablation in liver-dominant metastatic CRC. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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