The Evolving Landscape of Bispecific Antibodies in Hematologic and Solid Tumors

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

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

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

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

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

Host Dr. Nate Pennell and his guest, Dr. Chloe Atreya, discuss the ASCO Educational Book article, “Integrative Oncology: Incorporating Evidence-Based Approaches to Patients With GI Cancers,” highlighting the use of mind-body approaches, exercise, nutrition, acupuncture/acupressure, and natural products. Transcript Dr. Nate Pennell: Welcome to ASCO Education: By the Book, our new monthly podcast series that will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. We'll be bringing you compelling insights on key topics featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings and some deep dives on the approaches shaping modern oncology.  I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Medical Oncology Program as well as vice chair of clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Institute. Today, I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Chloe Atreya, a professor of Medicine in the GI Oncology Group at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Health, to discuss her article titled, “Integrative Oncology Incorporating Evidence-Based Approaches to Patients With GI Cancers”, which was recently published in the ASCO Educational Book. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Atreya, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for joining me. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Thanks Dr. Pennell. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Dr. Atreya, you co-direct the UCSF Integrative Oncology Program with a goal to really help patients with cancer live as well as possible. And before we dive into the review article and guidelines, I'd love to just know a little bit about what inspired you to go into this field? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, thank you for asking. I've had a long-standing interest in different approaches to medicine from global traditions and I have a degree in pharmacology, and I continue to work on new drug therapies for patients with colorectal cancer. And one thing that I found is that developing new drugs is a long-term process and often we're not able to get the drugs to the patients in front of us. And so early on as a new faculty member at UCSF, I was trying to figure out what I could do for the patient in front of me if those new drug therapies may not be available in their lifetime. And one thing I recognized was that in some conversations the patient and their family members, even if the patient had metastatic disease, they were able to stay very present and to live well without being sidelined by what might happen in the future. And then in other encounters, people were so afraid of what might be happening in the future, or they may have regrets maybe about not getting that colonoscopy and that was eroding their ability to live well in the present.  So, I started asking the patients and family members who were able to stay present, “What's your secret? How do you do this?” And people would tell me, “It's my meditation practice,” or “It's my yoga practice.” And so, I became interested in this. And an entry point for me, and an entry point to the Osher Center at UCSF was that I took the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program to try to understand experientially the evidence for this and became very interested in it. I never thought I would be facilitating meditation for patients, but it became a growing interest. And as people are living longer with cancer and are being diagnosed at younger ages, often with young families, how one lives with cancer is becoming increasingly important.   Dr. Nate Pennell: I've always been very aware that it seemed like the patients that I treated who had the best quality of life during their life with cancer, however that ended up going, were those who were able to sort of compartmentalize it, where, when it was time to focus on discussing treatment or their scans, they were, you know, of course, had anxiety and other things that went along with that. But when they weren't in that, they were able to go back to their lives and kind of not think about cancer all the time. Whereas other people sort of adopt that as their identity almost is that they are living with cancer and that kind of consumes all of their time in between visits and really impacts how they're able to enjoy the rest of their lives. And so, I was really interested when I was reading your paper about how mindfulness seemed to be sort of like a formal way to help patients achieve that split. I'm really happy that we're able to talk about that. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. So, each of our patients is more than their cancer diagnosis. And the other thing I would say is that sometimes patients can use the cancer diagnosis to get to, “What is it that I really care about in life?” And that can actually heighten an experience of appreciation for the small things in life, appreciation for the people that they love, and that can have an impact beyond their lifetime. Dr. Nate Pennell: Just in general, I feel like integrative medicine has come a long way, especially over the last decade or so. So, there's now mature data supporting the incorporation of elements of integrative oncology into comprehensive cancer care. We've got collaborations with ASCO. They've published clinical practice guidelines around diet, around exercise, and around the use of cannabinoids. ASCO has worked with the Society for Integrative Oncology to address management of pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue – lots of different evidence bases now to try to help guide people, because this is certainly something our patients are incredibly interested in learning about. Can you get our listeners up to speed a little bit on the updated guidelines and resources supporting integrative oncology? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Sure. I can give a summary of some of the key findings. And these are rigorous guidelines that came together by consensus from expert panels. I had the honor of serving on the anxiety and depression panel. So, these panels will rate the quality of the evidence available to come up with a strength of recommendation. I think that people are at least superficially aware of the importance of diet and physical activity and that cannabis and cannabinoids have evidence of benefit for nausea and vomiting. They may not be aware of some of the evidence supporting these other modalities. So, for anxiety and depression, mindfulness-based interventions, which include meditation and meditative movement, have the strongest level of evidence. And the clinical practice guidelines indicate that they should be offered to any adult patient during or after treatment who is experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression. Other modalities that can help with anxiety and depression include yoga and Tai Chi or Qigong. And with the fatigue guidelines, mindfulness-based interventions are also strongly recommended, along with exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, Tai Chi and Qigong during treatment, yoga after treatment.  And some of these recommendations also will depend on where the evidence is. So, yoga is an example of an intervention that I think can be helpful during treatment, but most of our evidence is on patients who are post-treatment. So, most of our guidelines separate out during treatment and the post-treatment phase because the quality of evidence may be different for these different phases of treatment.  With the pain guidelines, the strongest recommendation is for acupuncture, specifically for people with breast cancer who may be experiencing joint pain related to aromatase inhibitors. However, acupuncture and other therapies, including massage, can be helpful with pain as well. So those are a few of the highlights. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I was surprised at the really good level of evidence for the mindfulness-based practices because I don't think that's the first thing that jumps to mind when I think about integrative oncology. I tend to think more about physical interventions like acupuncture or supplements or whatnot. So, I think this is really fantastic that we're highlighting this.  And a lot of these interventions like the Qigong, Tai Chi, yoga, is it the physical practice of those that benefits them or is it that it gives them something to focus on, to be mindful of? Is that the most important intervention? It doesn't really matter what you're doing as long as you have something that kind of takes you out of your experience and allows you to focus on the moment. Dr. Chloe Atreya: I do think it is a mind, body and spirit integration, so that all aspects are important. We also say that the best practice is the one that you actually practice. So, part of the reason that it's important to have these different modalities is that not everybody is going to take up meditation. And there may be people for whom stationary meditation, sitting and meditating, works well, and other people for whom meditative movement practices may be what they gravitate to. And so, I think that it's important to have a variety of options. And one thing that's distinct from some of our pharmacologic therapies is that the safety of these is, you know, quite good. So, it becomes less important to say, “Overall, is Tai Chi better or is yoga better?” for instance. It really depends on what it is that someone is going to take up. Dr. Nate Pennell: And of course, something that's been really nice evidence-based for a long time, even back when I was in my training in the 2000s with Jennifer Temel at Massachusetts General Hospital, was the impact of physical activity and exercise on patients with cancer. It seems like that is pretty much a universally good recommendation for patients. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, that's absolutely right. Physical activity has been associated with improved survival after a cancer diagnosis. And that's both cancer specific survival and overall survival.  The other thing I'll say about physical activity, especially the mindful movement practices like Tai Chi and Qigong and yoga, is that they induce physiologic shifts in the body that can promote relaxation, so they can dampen that stress response in a physiologic way. And these movement practices are also the best way to reduce cancer-associated fatigue. Dr. Nate Pennell: One of the things that patients are always very curious about when they talk to me, and I never really feel like I'm as well qualified as I'd like to be to advise them around dietary changes in nutrition. And can you take me a little bit through some of the evidence base for what works and what doesn't work? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Sure. I do think that it needs to be tailored to the patient's needs. Overall, a diet that is plant-based and includes whole grains is really important. And I often tell patients to eat the rainbow because all of those different phytochemicals that cause the different colors in our fruits and vegetables are supporting different gut microbiota. So that is a basis for a healthy gut microbiome. That said, you know, if someone is experiencing symptoms related to cancer or cancer therapy, it is important to tailor dietary approaches. This is where some of the mindful eating practices can help. So, sometimes actually not just focusing on what we eat, but how we eat can help with symptoms that are associated with eating. So, some of our patients have loss of appetite, and shifting one's relationship to food can help with nutrition. Sometimes ‘slow it down’ practices can help both with appetite and with digestion. Dr. Nate Pennell: One of the things that you said both in the paper and just now on our podcast, talking about how individualized and personalized this is. And I really liked the emphasis that you had on flexibility and self-compassion over rigid discipline and prescriptive recommendations here. And this is perhaps one of the real benefits of having an integrative oncology team that can work with patients as opposed to them just trying to find things online. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, particularly during treatment, I think that's really important. And that was borne out by our early studies we called “Being Present.” So, after I was observing the benefits anecdotally among my patients of the ability to be present, we designed these pilot studies to teach meditation and meditative practices to patients. And in these pilot studies, the original ones were pretty prescriptive in a way that mindfulness-based stress reduction is fairly prescriptive in terms of like, “This is what we're asking you to do. Just stick with the program.” And there can be benefits if you can stick with the program. It's really hard though if someone is going through treatment and with GI cancers, it may be that they're getting chemotherapy every two weeks and they have one week where they're feeling really crummy and another week where they're trying to get things done. And we realized that sometimes people were getting overwhelmed and feeling like the mindfulness practice was another thing on their to-do list and that they were failing if they didn't do this thing that was important for them. And so, we've really kind of changed our emphasis. And part of our emphasis now is on incorporating mindfulness practices into daily life. Any activity that doesn't require a lot of executive function can be done mindfully, meaning with full attention. And so, especially for some of our very busy patients, that can be a way of, again, shifting how I'm doing things rather than adding a new thing to do. Dr. Nate Pennell: And then another part I know that patients are always very curious about that I'm really happy to see that we're starting to build an evidence base for is the use of supplements and natural products. So, can you take us a little bit through where we stand in terms of evidence behind, say, cannabis and some of the other available products out there? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, I would say that is an area that requires a lot more study. It's pretty complicated because unlike mindfulness practices where there are few interactions with other treatments, there is the potential for interactions, particularly with the supplements. And the quality of the supplements matters. And then there tends to be a lot of heterogeneity among the studies both in the patients and what other treatments they may be receiving, as well as the doses of the supplements that they're receiving.  One of my earliest mentors at Yale is someone named Dr. Tommy Chang, who has applied the same rigor that that we apply to testing of biomedical compounds to traditional Chinese medicine formulas. And so, ensuring that the formulation is stable and then formally testing these formulations along with chemotherapy. And we need more funding for that type of research in order to really elevate our knowledge of these natural products. We often will direct patients to the Memorial Sloan Kettering ‘About Herbs, Botanicals, and Other Products’ database as one accessible source to learn more about the supplements. We also work with our pharmacists who can provide the data that exists, but we do need to take it with a grain of salt because of the heterogeneity in the data. And then it's really important if people are going to take supplements, for them to take supplements that are of high quality. And that's something in the article that we list all of the things that one should look for on the label of a supplement to ensure that it is what it's billed to be. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, most of what we've been talking about so far has really been applying to all patients with cancer, but you of course are a GI medical oncologist, and this is a publication in the Educational Book from the ASCO GI Symposium. GI cancers obviously have an incredibly high and rising incidence rate among people under 50, representing a quarter of all cancer incidence worldwide, a third of cancer related deaths worldwide. Is there something specific that GI oncologists and patients with GI cancers can take home from your paper or is this applicable to pretty much everyone? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, so the evidence that we review is specifically for GI cancers. So, it shows both its strengths and also some of the limitations. So many of the studies have focused on other cancers, especially breast cancer. In the integrative oncology field, there are definitely gaps in studying GI cancers. At the same time, I would say that GI cancers are very much linked to lifestyle in ways that are complicated, and we don't fully understand. However, the best ways that we can protect against development of GI cancers, acknowledging that no one is to blame for developing a GI cancer and no one is fully protected, but the best things that we can do for overall health and to prevent GI cancers are a diet that is plant-based, has whole grains. There's some data about fish that especially the deep-water fish, may be protective and then engaging in physical activity.  One thing I would like for people to take away is that these things that we know that are preventative against developing cancer are also important after development of a GI cancer. Most of the data comes from studies of patients with colorectal cancer and that again, both cancer specific and overall mortality is improved with better diet and with physical activity. So, this is even after a cancer diagnosis. And I also think that, and this is hard to really prove, but we're in a pretty inflammatory environment right now. So, the things that we can do to decrease stress, improve sleep, decrease inflammation in the body, and we do know that inflammation is a risk factor for developing GI cancers. So, I think that all of the integrative modalities are important both for prevention and after diagnosis. Dr. Nate Pennell: And one of the things you just mentioned is that most of the studies looking at integrative oncology and GI cancers have focused on colorectal cancer, which of course, is the most common GI cancer. But you also have pointed out that there are gaps in research and what's going on and what needs to be done in order to broaden some of this experience to other GI cancers. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, and I will say that there are gaps even for colorectal cancer. So right now, some of the authors on the article are collaborating on a textbook chapter for the Society for Integrative Oncology. And so, we're again examining the evidence specifically for colorectal cancer and are in agreement that the level of evidence specific to colorectal cancer is not as high as it is for all patients with adult cancers. And so even colorectal cancer we need to study more.  Just as there are different phases of cancer where treatments may need to be tailored, we also may need to tailor our treatments for different cancer types. And that includes what symptoms the patients are commonly experiencing and how intense the treatment is, and also the duration of treatment. Those are factors that can influence which modalities may be most important or most applicable to a given individual. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, a lot of this sounds fantastic. It sounds like things that a lot of patients would really appreciate working into their care. Your article focused a little bit on some of the logistics of providing this type of care, including group medical visits, multidisciplinary clinics staffed by multiple types of clinicians, including APPs and psychologists, and talked about the sustainability of this in terms of increasing the uptake of guideline-based integrative oncology. Talk a little bit more about both at your institution, I guess, and the overall health system and how this might be both sustainable and perhaps how we broaden this out to patients outside of places like UCSF. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, that's a major focus of our research effort. A lot of comprehensive cancer centers and other places where patients are receiving care, people may have access to dietitians, which is really important and nutritionists. In the article we also provide resources for working with exercise therapists and those are people who may be working remotely and can help people, for instance, who may be in, in rural areas. And then our focus with the mind-body practices in particular has been on group medical visits. And this grew out of, again, my ‘being present’ pilot studies where we were showing some benefit. But then when the grant ends, there isn't a way to continue to deliver this care. And so, we were asking ourselves, you know, is there a way to make this sustainable? And group medical visits have been used in other settings, and they've been working really well at our institution and other institutions are now taking them up as well. And this is a way that in this case it's me and many of my colleagues who are delivering these, where I can see eight or ten patients at once. In my case, it's a series of four two-hour sessions delivered by telehealth. So, we're able to focus on the integrative practices in a way that's experiential. So, in the clinic I may be able to mention, you know, after we go over the CT scans, after we go over the labs and the molecular profiling, you know, may be able to say, “Hey, you know, meditation may be helpful for your anxiety,” but in the group medical visits we can actually practice meditation, we can practice chair yoga. And that's where people have that experience in their bodies of these different modalities. And the feedback that we're receiving is that that sticks much more to experience it then you have resources to continue it. And then the group is helpful both in terms of delivery, so timely and efficient care for patients. It's also building community and reducing the social isolation that many of our patients undergoing treatment for cancer experience. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that makes perfect sense, and I'm glad you brought up telehealth as an option. I don't know how many trained integrative oncologists there are out there, but I'm going to guess this is not a huge number out there. And much like other specialties that really can improve patients’ quality of life, like palliative medicine, for example, not everyone has access to a trained expert in their cancer center, and things like telemedicine and telehealth can really potentially broaden that. How do you think telehealth could help broaden the exposure of cancer patients and even practitioners of oncology to integrative medicine? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, I think that telehealth is crucial for all patients with cancer to be able to receive comprehensive cancer care, no matter where they're receiving their chemotherapy or other cancer-directed treatments. So, we will routinely be including patients who live outside of San Francisco. Most of our patients live outside of San Francisco. There's no way that they could participate if they had to drive into the city again to access this. And in the group setting, it's not even safe for people who are receiving chemotherapy to meet in a group most times. And with symptoms, often people aren't feeling so well and they're able to join us on Zoom in a way that they wouldn't be able to make the visit if it was in person. And so, this has really allowed us to expand our catchment area and to include patients, in our case, in all of California. You also mentioned training, and that's also important. So, as someone who's involved in the [UCSF] Osher Collaborative, there are faculty scholars who are at universities all over the US, so I've been able to start training some of those physicians to deliver group medical visits at their sites as well via telehealth. Dr. Nate Pennell: I'm glad we were able to make a plug for that. We need our political leadership to continue to support reimbursement for telehealth because it really does bring access to so many important elements of health care to patients who really struggle to travel to tertiary care centers. And their local cancer center can be quite a distance away.  So, sticking to the theme of training, clinician education and resources are really crucial to continue to support the uptake of integrative oncology in comprehensive cancer care. Where do you think things stand today in terms of clinician education and professional development in integrative oncology. Dr. Chloe Atreya: It's growing. Our medical students now are receiving training in integrative medicine, and making a plug for the Educational Book, I was really happy that ASCO let us have a table that's full of hyperlinks. So that's not typical for an article. Usually, you have to go to the reference list, but I really wanted to make it practical and accessible to people, both the resources that can be shared with patients that are curated and selected that we thought were of high-quality examples for patients. At the bottom of that table also are training resources for clinicians, and some of those include: The Center for Mind-Body Medicine, where people can receive training in how to teach these mind-body practices; The Integrated Center for Group Medical Visits, where people can learn how to develop their own group medical visits; of course, there's the Society for Integrative Oncology; and then I had just mentioned the Osher Collaborative Faculty Fellowship. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, that is fantastic. And just looking through, I mean, this article is really a fantastic resource both of the evidence base behind all of the elements that we've discussed today. Actually, the table that you mentioned with all of the direct hyperlinks to the resources is fantastic. Even recommendations for specific dietary changes after GI cancer diagnosis. So, I highly recommend everyone read the full paper after they have listened to the podcast today.  Before we wrap up, is there anything that we didn't get a chance to discuss that you wanted to make sure our listeners are aware of? Dr. Chloe Atreya: One thing that I did want to bring up is the disparities that exist in access to high quality symptom management care. So, patients who are racial and ethnic minorities, particularly our black and Latinx patients, the evidence shows that they aren't receiving the same degree of symptom management care as non-Hispanic White patients. And that is part of what may be leading to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes. So, if symptoms are poorly managed, it's harder for patients to stay with the treatment, and integrative oncology is one way to try to, especially with telehealth, this is a way to try to improve symptom management for all of our patients to help improve both their quality of life and their cancer outcomes. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, Dr. Atreya, it's been great speaking with you today and thank you for joining me on the ASCO Education: By the Book Podcast and thank you for all of your work in advancing integrative oncology for GI cancers and beyond. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Thank you, Dr. Pennell. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Dr. Nate Pennell: And thank you to all of our listeners who joined us today. You'll find a link to the article discussed today in the transcript of the episode. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year and our deep dives on approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate, educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today’s speakers:    Dr. Nathan Pennell   @n8pennell  @n8pennell.bsky.social  Dr. Chloe Atreya  Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Nate Pennell:       Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron      Research Funding (Institution): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi   Dr. Chloe Atreya: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Genentech, Agenus Research Funding (Institution): Novartis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant Health, Gossamer Bio, Erasca, Inc.

On the inaugural episode of ASCO Education: By the Book, Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Don Dizon share reflections on the evolution of the ASCO Educational Book, its global reach, and the role of its new companion podcast to further shine a spotlight on the issues shaping the future of modern oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nathan Pennell: Hello, I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, welcoming you to the first episode of our new podcast, ASCO Education: By the Book. The podcast will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. Each month, you'll hear nuanced views on key topics in oncology featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings, as well as some deep dives on the advances shaping modern oncology. Although I am honored to serve as the editor-in-chief (EIC) of the ASCO Educational Book, in my day job, I am the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair for clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center here in Cleveland. I'm delighted to kick off our new podcast with a discussion featuring the Ed Book's previous editor-in-chief. Dr. Don Dizon is a professor of medicine and surgery at Brown University and works as a medical oncologist specializing in breast and pelvic malignancies at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Rhode Island. Dr. Dizon also serves as the vice chair for membership and accrual at the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Don, it's great to have you here for our first episode of ASCO Education: By the Book. Dr. Don Dizon: Really nice to be here and to see you again, my friend. Dr. Nathan Pennell: This was the first thing I thought of when we were kicking off a podcast that I thought we would set the stage for our hopefully many, many listeners to learn a little bit about what the Ed Book used to be like, how it has evolved over the last 14 years or so since we both started here and where it's going. You started as editor-in-chief in 2012, is that right? Dr. Don Dizon: Oh, boy. I believe that is correct, yes. I did two 5-year stints as EIC of the Educational Book, so that sounds about right. Although you're aging me very clearly on this podcast. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I had to go back in my emails to see if I could figure out when we started on this because we've been working on it for some time. Start out a little bit by telling me what do you remember about the Ed Book from back in the day when you were applying to be editor-in-chief and thinking about the Ed Book. What was it like at that time? Dr. Don Dizon: You know, it's so interesting to think about it.  Ten years ago, we were both in a very different place in our careers, and I remember when the Ed Book position came up, I had been writing a column for ASCO. I had done some editorial activities with other journals for sure, but what always struck me was it was very unclear how one was chosen to be a part of the education program at ASCO. And then it was very unclear how those faculty were then selected to write a paper for the Educational Book. And it was back in the day when the Educational Book was completely printed. So, there was this book that was cherished among American fellows in oncology. And it was one that, when I was newly attending, and certainly two or three years before the editor's position came up, it was one that I referenced all the time. So, it was a known commodity for many of us. And there was a certain sense of selectivity about who was invited to write in it. And it wasn't terribly transparent either. So, when the opportunity to apply for editor-in-chief of the Educational Book came up, I had already been doing so much work for ASCO. I had been on the planning committees and served in many roles across the organization, and editing was something I found I enjoyed in other work. So, I decided to put my name in the ring with the intention of sort of bringing the book forward, getting it indexed, for example, so that there was this credit that was more than just societal credit at ASCO. This ended up being something that was referenced and acknowledged as an important paper through PubMed indexing. And then also to provide it as a space where we could be more transparent about who was being invited and broadening the tent as to who could participate as an author in the Ed Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It's going to be surprising to many of our younger listeners to learn that the Educational Book used to be just this giant, almost like a brick. I mean, it was this huge tome of articles from the Education Sessions that you got when you got your meeting abstracts book at the annual meeting. And you can always see people on the plane on the way out of Chicago with their giant books. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: That added lots of additional weight to the plane, I'm sure, on the way out. Dr. Don Dizon: And it was not uncommon for us to be sitting at an airport, and people would be reading those books with highlighters. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I fondly remember being a fellow and coming up and the Ed Book was always really important to me, so I was excited. We'll also let the listeners in on that. I also applied to be the original editor-in-chief of the Ed Book back in 2012, although I was very junior and did not have any real editorial experience. I think I may have been section editor for The Oncologist at that point. And I had spoken to Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan at WashU who had been the previous editor-in-chief about applying and he was like, “Oh yeah. You should absolutely try that out.” And then when Dr. Dizon was chosen, I was like, “Oh, well. I guess I didn't get it.” And then out of the blue I got a call asking me to join as the associate editor, which I was really always very thankful for that opportunity. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, it was a highly fruitful collaboration, I think, between you and I when we first started. I do remember taking on the reins and sort of saying, “You know, this is our vision of what we want to do.” But then just working with the authors, which we did, about how to construct their papers and what we were looking for, all of that is something I look back really fondly on. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it was interesting too because neither one of us had really a lot of transparency into how things worked when we started. We kind of made it up a little bit as we went along. We wanted to get all of the faculty, or at least as many of them as possible contributing to these. And we would go to the ASCO Education Committee meeting and kind of talk about the Ed Book, and we were thinking about, you know, how could we get people to submit. So, at the time it wasn't PubMed indexed. Most people, I think, submitted individual manuscripts just from their talk, which could be anywhere from full length review articles to very brief manuscripts. Dr. Don Dizon: Sometimes it was their slides with like a couple of comments on it. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And some of them were almost like a summary of the talk. Yeah, exactly. And so sort of making that a little more uniform. There was originally an honorarium attached, which went away, but I think PubMed indexing was probably the biggest incentive for people to join. I remember that was one of the first things you really wanted to get. Dr. Don Dizon Yeah. And, you know, it was fortuitous. I'd like to take all the credit for it, but ASCO was very forward thinking with Dr. Ramaswamy and the conversations about going to PubMed with this had preceded my coming in. We knew what we needed to do to get this acknowledged, which was really strengthening the peer review so that these papers could meet the bar to get on PubMed. But you know, within the first, what, two or three years, Nate, of us doing this, we were able to get this accepted. And now it is. If you look at what PubMed did for us, it not only increased the potential of who was going to access it, but for, I think the oncology community, it allowed people access to papers by key opinion leaders that was not blocked by a paywall. And I thought that was just super important at the time. Social media was something, but it wasn't what it is now. But anybody could access these manuscripts and it's still the case today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it's hard to overstate how important that was. People don't realize this, but the Ed Book is really widely accessed, especially outside the US as well. And a lot of people who can't attend the meeting to get the print, well, the once print, book could actually get access to essentially the education session from the annual meeting without having to fly all the way to the US to attend. Now, you know, we have much better virtual meeting offerings now and whatnot. But at the time it was pretty revolutionary to be able to do that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, and you know, it's so interesting when I think back to, you know, this sort of evolution to a fully online publication of the Ed Book. It was really some requests from international participants of the annual meeting who really wanted to continue to see this in print. At that time, it was important to recognize that access to information was not uniform across the world. And people really wanted that print edition, maybe not for themselves, but so that access in more rural areas or where access in the broadband networks were not established that they still could access the book. I think things have changed now. We were able, I think, in your tenure, to see it fully go online. But even I just remember that being a concern as we went forward. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, we continued with the print book that was available if people asked for it, but apparently few enough people asked for it that it moved fully online. One of the major advantages of being fully online now is of course, it does allow us to publish kind of in real time as the manuscripts come out in the months leading up to the meeting, which has been, I think, a huge boon because it can build momentum for the Education Sessions coming in. People, you know, really look forward to it. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, that was actually a concern, you know, when we were phasing out Ed Book and going to this continuous publication model where authors actually had the ability to sort of revise their manuscript and that would be automatically uploaded. You had a static manuscript that was fully printed, and it was no longer an accurate one. And we did have the ability to fix it. And it just goes to show exactly what you're saying. This idea that these are living papers was really an important thing that ASCO embraced quite early, I think. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And with the onset of PubMed indexing, the participation from faculty skyrocketed and almost within a couple of years was up to the vast majority of sessions and faculty participating. Now I think people really understand that this is part of the whole process. But at the time I remember writing out on my slides in all caps, “THIS IS AN EXPECTATION.” And that's about the best word I could give because I asked if we could make people do it, and they were like, no, you can't make people do it. Dr. Don Dizon: So right.  Actually, I don't think people are aware of the work on the back end every year when I was on as EIC, Nate and myself, and then subsequently Dr. Hope Rugo would have these informational sessions with the education faculty and we would tout the Ed Book, tout the expectation, tout it was PubMed indexed and tout multidisciplinary participation. So, we were not seeing four manuscripts reflecting one session. You know, this encouragement to really embrace multidisciplinary care was something that very early on we introduced and really encouraged people not to submit perspective manuscripts, but to really get them in and then harmonize the paper so that it felt like it was, you know, one voice. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I consider that after PubMed indexing, the next major change to the Ed Book, that really made it a better product and that was moving from, you know, just these short individual single author manuscripts to single session combined manuscript that had multiple perspectives and topics, really much more comprehensive review articles. And I don't even remember what the impetus was for that, but it was really a success. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, I mean, I think in the beginning it was more of a challenge, I think, because people were really not given guidance on what these papers were supposed to look like. So, we were seeing individual manuscripts come forward. Looking back, it really foreshadowed the importance of multidisciplinary management. But at the time, it was really more about ensuring that people were leaving the session with a singular message of what to do when you're in clinic again. And the goal was to have the manuscripts reflect that sort of consensus view of a topic that was coming in. There were certain things that people still argued would not fit in a multidisciplinary manuscript. You know, if you have someone who's writing and whose entire talk was on the pathology of thyroid cancer. Another topic was on survivorship after thyroid cancer. It was hard to sort of get those two to interact and cover what was being covered. So, we were still getting that. But you're right, at the end of my tenure and into yours, there were far fewer of those individual manuscripts. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I think it's even made it easier to write because now, you know, you just have to write a section of a manuscript and not put together an entire review. So, it has helped with getting people on board. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, the other thing I thought was really interesting about the process is when you're invited to do an Education Session at ASCO, you're either invited as a faculty speaker or as the chair of the session. And the responsibility of the chair is to ensure that it flows well and that the talks are succinct based on what the agenda or the objectives were as defined by the education committee for that specific group. But that was it. So really being named “Chair” was sort of an honor, an honorific. It really didn't come with responsibility. So, we use the Ed Book as a way to say, “As chair of the session, it is your responsibility to ensure A, a manuscript comes to me, but B, that the content of that paper harmonizes and is accurate.” And it was very rare, but Nate, I think we got dragged into a couple of times where the accuracy of the manuscript was really called into question by the chair. And those were always very, very tricky discussions because everyone that gets invited to ASCO is a recognized leader in their field. Some of us, especially, I would probably say, dating back 10 years from today, the data behind Standards of Care were not necessarily evidence-based. So, there were a lot of opinion-based therapies. You know, maybe not so much in the medical side, but certainly some of it. But when you went to, you know, surgical treatments and maybe even radiotherapy treatments, it was really based on, “My experience at my center is this and this is why I do what I do.” But those kinds of things ended up being some of the more challenging things to handle as an editor. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And those are the– I'll use “fun” in a broad sense. You know, every once in a while, you get an article where it really does take a lot of hands-on work from the editor to work with the author to try to revise it and make it a suitable academic manuscript. But you know what? I can't think, at least in recent years, of any manuscripts that we turned down. They just sometimes needed a little TLC. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah. And I think the other important thing it reminds me of is how great it was that I wasn't doing this by myself. Because it was so great to be able to reach out to you and say, “Can you give me your take on this paper?” Or, “Can you help me just join a conference call with the authors to make sure that we're on the same page?” And then on the rare example where we were going to reject a paper, it was really important that we, as the editorial team, and I include our ASCO shepherder, through the whole process. We had to all agree that this was not salvageable. Fortunately, it happened very rarely. But I’ve got to say, not doing this job alone was one of the more important facets of being the EIC of ASCO's Educational Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's nice to hear you say that. I definitely felt that this was a partnership, you know, it was a labor of love. So, I want to go to what I consider sort of the third major pillar of the changes to the Ed Book during your tenure, and that was the introduction of a whole new kind of manuscript. So up to, I don't know, maybe seven or eight years ago, all the articles were authored just by people who were presenting at the Annual Meeting. And then you had an idea to introduce invited manuscripts. So take me through that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, well, you know, again, it went to this sort of, what can people who are being asked to sort of lead ASCO for that year, what can they demonstrate as sort of a more tangible contribution to the Society and to oncology in general? And I think that was the impetus to use the Ed Book for everyone who was in a leadership position to make their mark. That said, I was here, and I was either president of the society or I was Education Program Chair or Scientific Program Chair, and they got to select an article type that was not being covered in the annual meeting and suggest the authors and work with those authors to construct a manuscript. Never did any one of those folks suggest themselves, which I thought was fascinating. They didn't say, “I want to be the one to write this piece,” because this was never meant to be a presidential speech or a commemorative speech or opportunity for them as leaders. But we wanted to ensure that whatever passion they had within oncology was represented in the book. And again, it was this sort of sense of, I want everyone to look at the Ed Book and see themselves in it and see what they contributed. And that was really important for those who were really shepherding each Annual Meeting each year for ASCO that they had the opportunity to do that. And I was really pleased that leadership really took to that idea and were very excited about bringing ideas and also author groups into the Educational Book who would not have had the opportunity otherwise. I thought that was just really nice. It was about inclusiveness and just making sure that people had the opportunity to say, “If you want to participate, we want you to participate.” Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. I think the ASCO leadership jumped on this and continues to still really appreciate the opportunity to be able to kind of invite someone on a topic that's meaningful to them. I think we've tried to work in things that incorporate the presidential theme each year in our invited manuscript, so it really allows them to put kind of a stamp on the flavor of each edition. And the numbers reflect that these tend to be among our more highly read articles as well. Dr. Don Dizon: You know, looking back on what we did together, that was something I'm really, really quite proud of, that we were able to sort of help the Educational Book evolve that way. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I agree. You brought up briefly a few minutes ago about social media and its role over time. I think when we started in 2012, I had just joined Twitter now X in 2011, and I think we were both sort of early adopters in the social media. Do you feel like social media has had a role in the growth of the Ed Book or is this something that you think we can develop further? Dr. Don Dizon: When we were doing Ed Book together, professional social media was actually a quite identified space. You know, we were all on the same platform. We analyzed what the outcomes were on that platform and our communities gathered on that platform. So, it was a really good place to highlight what we were publishing, especially as we went to continuous publishing.  I don't remember if it was you or me, but we even started asking our authors for a tweet and those tweets needed work. It was you. It was you or I would actually lay in these tweets to say, “Yeah, we need to just, you know, work on this.” But I think it's harder today. There's no one preferred platform. Alternate platforms are still evolving. So, I think there are opportunities there. The question is: Is that opportunity meaningful enough for the Ed Book to demonstrate its return on an investment, for example? What I always thought about social media, and it's still true today, is that it will get eyes on whatever you're looking at far beyond who you intended to see it. So, you know, your tweets regarding a phase 3 clinical trial in lung cancer, which were so informative, were reaching me, who was not a lung oncologist who doesn't even see lung cancer and getting me more interested in finding that article and more and more pointing to the Educational Book content that speaks to that piece, you know. And I think coupling an impression of the data, associating that with something that is freely accessed is, I think, a golden opportunity not only for our colleagues, but also for anyone who's interested in a topic. Whether you are diagnosed with that cancer or you are taking care of someone with that cancer, or you heard about that cancer, there are people who would like to see information that is relevant and embedded and delivered by people who know what they're talking about. And I think our voices on social media are important because of it. And I think that's where the contribution is. So, if we had to see what the metric was for any social media efforts, it has to be more of the click rates, not just by ASCO members, but the click rates across societies and across countries. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, social media is, I mean, obviously evolving quite a bit in the last couple of years. But I do know that in terms the alt metrics for the track access through social media and online, the ones that are shared online by the authors, by the Ed Book team, do seem to get more attention. I think a lot of people don't like to just sit with a print journal anymore or an email table of contents for specific journals. People find these articles that are meaningful to them through their network and oftentimes that is online on social media. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes, 100%. And you know what I think we should encourage people to do is look at the source. And if the Ed Book becomes a source of information, I think that will be a plus to the conversations in our world. We're still dealing with a place where, depending on who sponsored the trial, whether it was an industry-sponsored trial, whether it was NCI sponsored or sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, for example, access to the primary data sets may or may not be available across the world, but the Ed Book is. And if the Ed Book can summarize that data and use terms and words that are accessible no matter what your grade level of education is. If we can explain the graphs and the figures in a way that people can actually easily more understand it. If there's a way that we structure our conversations in the Ed Book so that the plethora of inclusion/exclusion criteria are summarized and simplified, then I think we can achieve a place where good information becomes more accessible, and we can point to a summary of the source data in places where the source is not available. Dr. Nathan Pennell: One of the other things that I continue to be surprised at how popular these podcasts are. And that gives you an opportunity pretty much the opposite. Instead of sort of a nugget that directs you to the source material, you've got a more in-depth discussion of the manuscript. And so, I'm delighted that we have our own podcast. For many years, the Ed Book would sort of do a sort of a “Weird Al takeover” of the ASCO Daily News Podcast for a couple of episodes around the Annual Meeting, and I think those were always really popular enough that we were able to argue that we deserved our own podcast. And I'm really looking forward to having these in-depth discussions with authors. Dr. Don Dizon: It's an amazing evolution of where the Ed Book has gone, right? We took it from print only, societally only, to something that is now accessed worldwide via PubMed. We took it from book to fully online print. And now I think making the content live is a natural next step. So, I applaud you for doing the podcast and giving people an opportunity actually to discuss what their article discusses. And if there's a controversial point, giving them the freedom and the opportunity to sort of give more nuanced views on what may not be something that there's 100% consensus over. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yes. Well, I hope other people enjoy these as well. Just want to highlight a few of the things that have happened just in the couple years since you stepped down as editor-in-chief. One of them, and I don't know if you noticed, but last year we started adding manuscripts from the ASCO thematic meetings, so ASCO GI and ASCO GU, something we had certainly talked about in the past, but had lacked bandwidth to really do. And they seem to be pretty widely accessed. Dr. Don Dizon: That's fantastic. Yes, I do remember talking about the coverage of the thematic meetings and you're right, this takes a long time to sort of concentrate on the Annual Meeting. It may seem like everything happens in the span of like eight weeks. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It does feel like that sometimes. Dr. Don Dizon: Right? But this is actually something that starts a year before, once the education program is set. We're in the room when they set it. But then it's really chasing down manuscripts and then making sure that they're peer reviewed because the peer review is still really important, and then making sure that any revisions are made before it's finalized and goes to press. That is a many months process. So, when we're trying to introduce, “Oh, we should also do ASCO GU or-,” the question was, how do you want to do that given this very, very involved process going forward? So, I'm glad you were able to figure it out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's challenging. I don't think people realize quite the compressed timeline for these. You know, the Education Session and authors and invited faculty are picked in the fall, and then basically you have to start turning in your manuscripts in February, March of the following year. And so, it's a really tight turnaround for this. When we talk about the ASCO thematic meetings, it's an even tighter window. Dr. Don Dizon: Right, exactly. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And so, it's challenging to get that moving, but I was really, really proud that we were able to pull that off. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, congratulations again. And I think that is a necessary step, because so much of what's going on in the various disease management sites is only covered cursorily through the Annual Meeting itself. I mean, there's just so much science breaking at any one time that I think if we want to comprehensively catalog the Year in Review in oncology, it kind of behooves us to do that. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Some other things that are coming up because we now have manuscripts that are going to be coming in year-round, and just to kind of make it easier on the editorial staff, we're going to be forming an editorial board. And in addition to our pool of reviewers who get ASCO points, please feel free to go online to the ASCO volunteer portal and sign up if you are interested in participating. So, moving forward, I'm really excited to see where things are going to go. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, that's great. That's great. And I do remember talking about whether or not we needed to have an editorial board. At least when I was there, having this carried by three people was always better than having it carried by one person. And I think as you expand the potential for submissions, it will be very helpful to have that input for sure. And then it gives another opportunity for more members to get involved in ASCO as well. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely. People want involvement, and so happy to provide that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Is there anything we didn't cover that you would like to mention before we wrap up? Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I will say this, that ASCO and through its publications not only has had this real emphasis on multidisciplinary management of cancers, especially where it was relevant, but it also always had a stand to ensure representation was front and center and who wrote for us. And I think every president, every chair that I've worked with naturally embraced that idea of representation. And I think it has been a distinct honor to say that during my tenure as EIC, we have always had a plethora of voices, of authors from different countries, of genders, that have participated in the construction of those books. And it stands as a testament that we are a global community and we will always be one. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, thank you for that. And I'm happy to continue that as we move forward. Well, Don, thank you. It's been great speaking with you. You played such a pivotal role in the Ed Book’s evolution and I'm so glad you were able to join me for our inaugural episode. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I'm just tickled that you asked me to be your first guest. Thank you so much, Nate. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, as well as our periodic deep dives on advances that are shaping modern oncology. Have a great day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today’s speakers:   Dr. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell @n8pennell.bsky.social   Dr. Don Dizon @drdondizon.bsky.social  Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)   ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Nathan Pennell:      Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron     Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  Dr. Don Dizon: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Midi, Doximity Honoraria: UpToDate, American Cancer Society Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Kronos Bio, Immunogen Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb          

Resources such as facilities, equipment, medications, and trained healthcare professionals are essential to provide proper care. Yet, many areas in the US and around the globe have challenges providing some of such resources. This ASCO Education podcast will explore oncology practice in low resource settings.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Dr. Richard Ingram, a Medical Oncologist at Shenandoah Oncology in Winchester, Virginia, and Chair of the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance and Dr. Sana Al Sukhun, an Adjunct Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of Oncology Practice at Al-Hayat Medical Center in Jordan will discuss the barriers they face providing cancer care in low resource areas in the US (1:48) and Jordan (11:52) and the one challenge that is key to solve in order for proper treatment to be administered in the US (29:07) and Jordan (31:42). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Sana A. Al-Sukhun: Honoraria – Novartis; Speakers' Bureau – Novartis, Roche, Pfizer; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – Roche, BMS Dr. Richard Ingram:  None Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Consulting or Advisory – Merck, Bayer, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc.; Research Funding – Epizyme, EMD Serono, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Springworks, Astellas Pharma, Deciphera Resources  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at [email protected]. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Hello, dear ASCO audience, welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Today, we will examine practicing oncology in a low-resource setting. Managing cancer patients is a multifaceted challenge. Resources such as facilities, equipment, medications, and trained healthcare professionals are essential to provide proper care. Yet, many areas in the US and around the globe have challenges providing some of such resources. I'm Dr. Thierry Alcindor. I'm a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Joining us are Dr. Richard Ingram, a Medical Oncologist at Shenandoah Oncology in Winchester, Virginia, and Chair of the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance. He is, as well, the current president of the Virginia State Oncology Society. We are also very pleased to be joined by Dr. Sana Al Sukhun. She is an Adjunct Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of Oncology Practice at Al-Hayat Medical Center in Jordan. She is also the past president of the Jordanian Oncology Society.  So, I'll begin with Dr. Ingram. You have experience with patients in the Appalachian region of the US by practicing medical oncology in rural northwestern Virginia for the past 25 years. Can you describe this unique region for our listeners and detail some of the challenges you face when providing care there? Dr. Richard Ingram: I have been practicing here in Northwestern Virginia for the past 25-ish years, and have seen over time barriers to care that I think could be applied anywhere. And, I think we'll hear some interesting stories today from our colleague from Jordan also, in that regard. The main barriers I think are somewhat slightly stereotypical but real where I am. There is a diverse population here, meaning a big geographic area and a somewhat underpopulated area. So, resources are scattered and scarce sometimes and located in concentrated areas. So, patients have difficulty with access to cancer screening, imaging, and sometimes downstream or tertiary care where I am. I have patients that will travel an hour and a half to two hours one way i.e., a three to four-hour round trip - sometimes over some difficult terrain, meaning some difficult roads out our way, both with mountains and some geographic challenges just to get to us. You can imagine the difficulty that is with either coordination of care with a multidisciplinary patient having to see multiple providers or more practically, a patient receiving radiotherapy on a daily basis. And, this not only is time but money because you're trying to make a decision about follow-up appointments and missing work at an hourly wage versus working that week and paying your bills. I have patients currently who are working around that. I have several concurrent chemo-radiotherapy patients - currently, actually two I saw this morning - in clinic, both of which live in a town called Petersburg, West Virginia, which is about an hour and 45 minutes one way. So, three and a half hours from us. And, we've had to connect them appropriately with resources around transportation to make sure they stay compliant with their care.  You have this empathy and drive to care for patients and try to apply the same care you would across the continuum. That socioeconomic status is not unique to Appalachia but I think is somewhat emblematic in our area - lovely, hardworking people and diligent in their craft. But, when you have barriers such as cancer diagnosis and now superimposed strain and stress on your family life and work life, it can throw things out of balance.  A similar patient of mine that I saw today actually in clinic, same area, same concurrent diagnosis, their big access issue is that they're also the primary caregiver for some grandchildren that are staying at home. They've taken in their grandchildren and, not unique to Appalachia, but somewhat in that we have a lot of multigenerational families living together. So, you're trying to help that person get through their therapy and still be the homemaker for grandchildren and try to battle their cancer diagnosis and at the same time not bankrupt them financially from a socioeconomic standpoint. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: What's the insurance coverage pattern like? Dr. Richard Ingram: In my area, about half to 60% of our patients are on either uninsured or they are on public insurance, whether that be Medicare or state Medicaid or exchange programs. From the private sector, there are private plans, but a lot of those are self-funded, meaning they are local municipalities, teachers' unions, first responders, and then a small pocket of what you and I would call traditional commercial insurance coverage. And so, for us, we for a lot of our patients have built relationships, for instance, we know this gastrointestinal group will take that insurance of a Medicaid or uninsured patient and this one won't, or vice versa. So, there is some fragmentation of care if you're not very conscious and deliberate at the medical oncology and radiation oncology side, which is in my practice about making sure the patient can get access to care. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: I understand. So you talked about the lack of adequate or complete primary care coverage. Do you have enough medical oncologists? Dr. Richard Ingram: Excellent question. I appreciate that. Yes. So we do, in that my group does and my region does. So we are very strong, as I like to say, the end of the funnel. You know, I consider cancer care screening a funnel you've got to screen through. I imagine you have a giant funnel of trying to screen through patients for the screening program appropriately and then the positive screens come out at the end of the funnel.  At the end of the funnel, we can receive these patients and take care of them and provide all of the touch points of surgical, radiation, medical oncology, genetic counseling, survivorship. My biggest passion and what I've tried to do in the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is raise awareness on the screening and getting the screening activities out into these rural communities so we can get stage migration to an earlier stage of cancer. Still take care of the people who develop positive screens and downstream disease, obviously, but it'd be nice to start getting stage migration to the left, meaning to earlier stages for patients.  What we really have out here is a lack of primary care doctors and stability of primary care doctors because it's a very difficult area to practice primary care with geography, very difficult area, with the payer mix and the socioeconomic status, and a difficult area for people to desire to live in when you're trying to practice primary care, not surrounded by every specialist. A rural primary care provider really has to be, in essence, a true solo practitioner in Appalachia. They have to have a broad skill set because they just don't have a cardiologist sitting next door or a neurosurgeon immediately available.  We have a full complement of surgical oncology specialists, radiation, three-dimensional stereotactic, clinical trials, genetic counseling, eight medical oncologists, a well-equipped ICU, and care. But our catchment area we serve is a geographic radius of two to two and a half hours, of which there's not much in between. There are some rural clinics, some community outposts, some critical access hospitals. And really creating that infrastructure of navigation has been the key success in our area of trying to navigate a patient through the system and trying to support these single clinics or smaller critical access hospitals from afar, support them intellectually with cognitive capabilities over the telephone to help work a consult up and trying to navigate the patient in.  But again, the physical or the geographic, or distance barriers are real, and the socioeconomic barriers are real. Even once we can make a link with the primary care doctor and be more than willing to see the patient, sometimes just physically getting them to us can be a challenge. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: So what is the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance doing to improve cancer screening, cancer care outcomes in the region? Dr. Richard Ingram: Excellent question. So the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance started organically. So myself, as president of Virginia, got together with other state presidents, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, and said, “Gosh, what could we do collectively? Or what are our collective issues and problems?” Because we kind of serve a similar population and geography. And out of that was born kind of a homebrewed alliance, which formalizes the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance.  And I want to kind of just start with a quick story, and then I'll explain where we launched. I had a patient that really resonates with me personally. So it was a patient I met in the emergency room, happened to actually be kind of mid-pandemic. I was on call, very nice patient, presented with severe dyspnea orthopnea platypnea, came to the ER, had a large pleural effusion lung mass, medial spinal mass, worked them up, ended up being metastatic non-small cell lung cancer stage IV. Got them plugged into treatment and took care of them.  And then when I had a moment, I went back through their files as we usually do when we're taking a history and I had noticed that they had had a low-dose chest CT several years earlier at a community center out in their rural area of West Virginia. And I asked the patient about it and he kind of recalled getting the CAT scan. But bottom line, the area had set up a screening program but had not set up an actual mechanism or a flow of navigation. And/or if they had, the patient was unaware. So basically, the patient dutifully went through a screening program. There was the pandemic, there was a turnover of staff and it wasn't the patient was forgotten, but the patient never got navigated to work things up. And lo and behold, that positive low-dose CT screen turned into stage four cancer years later.  So I wanted to focus on cancers we could make an intervention with in Appalachia and what was formed was called the Lung Cancer Screening Task Force. That was our first successful endeavor of the alliance. So this task force was formed after about a year and a half or so of work of the states I mentioned. It has become its own task force that reports to the alliance and we're very proud of it because it has been recognized in President Biden and Jill Biden's Moonshot Initiative for Cancer. It's actually obtained funding and we've worked backward to work on a navigation program as well as screening in the most underserved and lowest-screened areas in Appalachia. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Well, that sounds exciting. Like, I feel that there is a nice infrastructure as well as projects coming along and I'm quite eager to hear from Dr. Al Sukhun whose practice is based in Jordan.  Dr. Alsukhun, in 2022 you gave a presentation where you highlighted how low-income countries had experienced greater increases in breast cancer incidence and mortality compared to high-income countries in the last decade. What challenges are patients and doctors facing and what should be prioritized? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Interesting question. First, thank you so much for inviting me to take part in this very interesting discussion. Pleasure to join, listen, learn, and reflect. Indeed, I've enjoyed listening to Dr. Ingram very much. He was speaking about his area and indeed discussing most of the issues, believe it or not, we face in different parts of the world referred to as countries with limited resources. When you refer to limited resource environments or countries, you're really referring to two different types of limited resources: very low-income countries or middle-income countries. The challenges are a bit different. The first challenge we generally face is access to the application of knowledge. For example, in Jordan, we have access to the knowledge. We have excellent infrastructures, we have an excellent health workforce. The problem is the application of the knowledge, application of what we have learned to help our patients. However, the challenge in different limited resources goes across the theme of a multidisciplinary approach. It starts from prevention, early detection, where, as you mentioned, we are facing a significant increase in the number of cases diagnosed with breast cancer. The proportion of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in countries of limited resources is 62% of the worldwide new cancer cases. Why do we have such a significant increase in the number of cases? Most countries undergoing what's called socioeconomic transition, they are facing increasing risk factors to develop breast cancer. One of those which is significant not only when it comes to breast cancer but to most kinds of cancers is indeed a significant increase in the proportion of the population suffering from obesity. The highest absolute increase in the prevalence of obesity worldwide over the past couple of decades has been seen in the Middle East, Central Asia and North America. That by itself is a significant risk factor for the development of breast cancer and other long lists of cancers.  In addition, of course, to smoking. For example, last year, unfortunately, and I'm not proud to say Jordan ranked among the highest in terms of smoking prevalence among men in the region. So these two important risk factors, in addition to the westernization of lifestyle, less physical activity, you know, all these risk factors, most important is awareness that these risk factors are important in terms of attributing to cancer. This is not common knowledge across all countries. We do not have enough campaigns across all countries to emphasize the importance of prevention. Then comes early detection. When it comes to early detection, you know, the challenge is not homogeneous. For example, in Jordan, a couple of decades back, most cases with breast cancer were diagnosed at an advanced stage. Barely one-quarter to one-third of cases were diagnosed at stages I to II. Right now, almost 60% of the cases diagnosed annually are really stage I or II early breast cancer. Thanks to the campaigns from government, non government organizations, NGOs, college society, all people are working together to emphasize the importance of prevention and early detection. That was quite successful in Jordan, and as you can see here almost two-thirds of cases are diagnosed early. However, contrast that with neighboring countries. I'm referring to Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and if you notice I'm mentioning countries with conflict. Those countries not only suffer from limited resources but also instability. And when Richard was referring to the access transportation challenge, indeed, we in Jordan treat so many of the patients diagnosed with cancer coming to Jordan seeking treatment from Iraq, from Yemen, from Sudan, that by itself is a challenge. And at the same time, it reflects the status they suffer from, they suffer from lack of health workforce, lack of enough oncologists. Very few, if any, oncologists are available there. And not only you're referring to oncologists, you need pathologists, enough well-trained pathologists, surgeons, radiation oncology service. Those are quite limited when it comes to many of the surrounding countries and many countries actually with limited resources.  For example, in Africa, same challenges, the multidisciplinary approach that's quite vital for the proper treatment of patients with cancer is indeed also lacking in many countries. The infrastructure takes not only having hospitals but also a multidisciplinary workforce. Then when it comes to treatment, you are faced by a common belief across many cultures that a diagnosis of cancer is equated to a death sentence. Very few, if any, believe that they can be treated from cancer or at least live with cancer in some situations. With breast cancer, patients with metastatic breast cancer deserve to be treated and can survive for years with excellent quality of life as well, still contributing to their society. Especially more than 50% of patients in countries of limited resources when diagnosed with breast cancer, they are younger than age 55, which is ten years younger than patients diagnosed in countries of high income. So they are still in the prime time of their life. They are needed by their family, their society. That's a huge actual economic impact on society and not only on the family. So these are issues to be tackled, to be emphasized across societies so that they can seek treatment when they have access to it. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Can you tell us about access to cancer medicine, whether chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: We are living in a fantastic area where precision medicine has really revolutionized our approach to the treatment of many tumors. But at the same time, while we are talking about equity, improving access, it created another challenge and it created, unfortunately, disparity and made equity even more difficult.  Right now, we do have, there is a huge difference between access, availability, and affordability. Most of these new medications, whether basic chemotherapeutics or recently approved targeted therapeutics or immunotherapy are available, but the problem is they are not affordable. Some of them are available in certain institutions, while in the same country, other institutions, if the patient's insurance happens to be in another institution, they cannot access it. So even within the same country, across different institutions, so many of the recently approved targeted therapeutics or immunotherapeutics are not offered. So equity is lacking even within the same country, in many countries with limited resources.  Sometimes the irony is you will have the very highly-priced medications while out of the blue you are faced with the challenge of shortage of basic therapeutics, platinums, for example. And I learned from colleagues, the states suffered from a similar shortage the last few weeks. And you can imagine not being able to access platinum to treat your patients can make a huge difference and impact. Even if you have immunotherapy, you don't have it. That's ironic.  And another challenge, most patients with the availability of social media and Google, thanks to Dr. Google, you check Dr. Google, and the first option you get is very pricey options, immunotherapy, targeted therapy. So the patient comes to you and he's getting the recommendation of having basic chemotherapy, sometimes because the indication is chemotherapy, sometimes because they cannot afford- you offer them the higher price medications, but they cannot afford it still. You still advise chemotherapy because it does work, but the patients are under the belief that if they do not take the very pricey medication, they are doomed and they cannot be treated. So they put treatment off altogether.  These are conflicting concepts. They need awareness campaigns, they need explanation. Social media needs to do a better job improving what it markets. It usually markets the very pricey medications as life-saving, while talking about chemotherapy as something that really hurts patients, while in reality, sometimes this is all we have and it does make a difference.  Another challenge we face, our region, for example, it's a conflict region with so many refugees. To give you a very simple example, I had a patient coming from a Syrian camp, hemoptysis, worked her out, and it looks like lung cancer, and I managed - she cannot afford any kind of treatment - but I managed with the hospital to get the CT scan free. We got the biopsy, and the good news is that companies, pharmaceuticals can and do help. They offered to test the biopsy for EGFR, and it turned out to be positive. Of course, we have no access to EGFR-targeted therapy. So what can we do? Indeed, that patient, we offered her platinum, but at that time we didn't have platinum. Within a couple of months, she presented with a very advanced-stage disease. And unfortunately, we lost her before we could start treatment because platinum was not available. Not only EGFR inhibitors, but we're talking about the simple things. Basic chemotherapeutics are important, those we need to emphasize availability. We keep talking about cutting-edge therapeutics. They're very fascinating to use, to treat, they made a huge difference, but still, our old friend, basic chemotherapy can and does make a difference, something we need to talk about more and more.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: I agree with you, and that's true of even high-resource countries. I mean, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment for many cancers, even in 2023.  But I'd like to ask you a question following up on what you just described so well regarding availability, access. Do you have research infrastructure that would allow you, like for example, they have done in India at Tata Memorial Hospital, to conduct research with lower doses of those expensive agents? I think that this is quite a promising direction for low-resource countries. What do you think?  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: You touched on a very dear subject to my heart, actually. Right now we're working with ASCO discussing a policy, discussing clinical trials in limited resource environments. Indeed, this is one of the very important aspects that can improve truly access to medications and contribute to the knowledge worldwide. Unfortunately, there are so many barriers.  A short answer to your question is very few centers, if any, in the region do have infrastructure that can facilitate enrollment in phase three randomized trials. Investigator-initiated trials, particularly like the ones you're alluding to, more or less similar to the FinHer trial when we learned that short courses of trastuzumab six months versus twelve months can be reasonable for patients with a limited number of risk factors. Such trials, unfortunately, so far the infrastructure does not allow having such investigator-initiated trials. Not only the infrastructure, pharma needs to be more open for the support of such trials in these environments. Most governments in the region are still struggling with the concept of having human subjects enrolled in clinical trials. That needs awareness, not only at the level of the society or the patients or the physicians, by the way, who also, we struggle because we do not have protected time or appreciation. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: So you're talking with such passion about those challenges, and I feel that there is quite a lot of effort that you're putting in. So maybe you can tell us about the improvements that you have noted. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: It’s interesting when you look over the past couple of decades how things have moved. Particularly in Jordan, having a cancer center, the first comprehensive cancer center in the region, really set a good example for Jordan itself where other institutions improved to try and compete, improve their services similar to what King Hussein Cancer Center currently has. Also, they managed to have an infrastructure for clinical trials. And as I mentioned, they do have some of the phase III clinical trials already running, participating in large multinational clinical trials. That’s a huge improvement, a huge step. Still, investigator-initiated clinical trials is something we are working with the government to support and start and encourage. Our screening program really succeeded and we are more or less similar to high-income countries when it comes to the rate of early detection. Still, we are working on improvement. We don’t have a national screening problem. We have a national awareness campaign problem.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay, so that's a lot of success.  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: That's huge success. Not only that, in October, now you come to Jordan. It's not only one government-run program. You see all clinics offering mammography services, either free or 50% off for patients across the kingdom. That actually did reflect positively on neighboring countries. Egypt, for example, right now started the last couple of years a similar national awareness downstaging program with excellent numbers of cases caught up early. The region is really improving - I'm talking about our region in the Middle East - if it were not for the conflicts. That’s not the case when it comes to, unfortunately, countries with conflict, we all struggle. Jordan, Lebanon, even Syria, we all struggle with the refugee problem. Still, the refugees do not have enough funding, but a lot of NGOs are trying to help them. Along with what Richard described, you find many NGOs, they start themselves to help with access, to help with transportation, to help with medical fees for early detection. I believe we are moving far ahead when it comes to cancer, in particular over the past decade or so, as compared to many other diseases. Still, I believe we need contribution or cooperation between all stakeholders. That's what we still need. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay, excellent. So I have a couple of questions that I would like to address to the two of you. Which barrier do you feel is the most difficult to solve when providing cancer care in low-resource settings? Is that the infrastructure? Is that the personnel who has not been properly trained? Equipment? Which would it be? Dr. Richard Ingram: Yeah. I appreciate it. And I really have been reflecting on Dr. Al Sukhun's heartfelt passion and comments. And thank you for sharing that, Sana. I think that's something we all need to be aware of. And a compliment to you and your team for being so inclusive in that region. I mean, cancer is a difficult enough diagnosis, but yet alone in a conflict zone, I can only applaud and empathize with you and a sincere tip of the cap to you and your team. That's incredible work. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you. Dr. Richard Ingram: In general, you have to change the culture. You have to build trust in the process, the medical process, because that medical system may have let patients, family members, or neighbors down previously. So, I think building trust around screening and building trust around that there is an infrastructure that's going to take care of you if you have a positive screen.  I have several patients, but one comes to mind a very complicated trimodality disease, esophageal cancer. But the long and the short of it is, the patient presented to a rural outside emergency room with obstructive symptoms. The emergency room doctor was savvy enough to have some resources in their area but stabilize the patient. The test they could get; they could just get really kind of a barium swallow at the facility, saw there was a problem, but then called an oncology nurse navigator program that we've instituted in our region to cover this wide footprint. The nurse navigator was able to basically navigate this patient very successfully into a GI endoscopy program, which then got them in the cancer program and worked hand in hand with a social worker arm that we've instituted also to help assist the nurse navigation program. So the social worker was able to work on food insecurity, getting the patient actually applied for and got them Medicaid and got them transportation, barriers lifted.  So, it was a very successful anecdote compared to my unsuccessful anecdote earlier around lung cancer. So, to me, it's an example of a playbook that the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is trying to develop. So, maybe we can aggregate best practices in some way, shape, or form as the alliance and get those across the world, get those to Dr. Al Sukhun and the King Hussein Center in Jordan, and get it to wherever we need to in the world to help patients because the patient's problems are not unique to Appalachia. They're just unique to under-resourced and geographically spread out areas. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Absolutely. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Yeah. That's well explained. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Sana, which barrier would you say is the most difficult one for you?  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: We all get involved and cancer is an emotional diagnosis. It's completely different from all other diagnoses. No matter what, all illnesses are challenging, but the word 'cancer', nobody can deny it. It still carries a lot within those few letters. So, good infrastructure, not only in terms of building - this is very important - it's also a multidisciplinary team within that infrastructure.  The other day, a patient came to the emergency room of the hospital across the street from where I practice. He was 25 years old, healthy, just some fatigue lately, and he collapsed. Actually, they found him pancytopenic. So, looking at the blood film, long story short, was highly suspicious for acute leukemia. The patient cannot afford admission to a private hospital, but he had insurance in the Royal Medical Services. In Jordan, we have different kinds of insurance depending on which section you belong to. It's more like the VA in the States. I talk to my colleague over there, tell them high suspicion for leukemia and he's like, "Send him right away." He was admitted simply because he had coverage; he had insurance. They do have also a good cancer center there. So, they had him admitted, had his bone biopsy done, diagnosed, and started treatment. That is an excellent example of how a good infrastructure, when available with good access to that infrastructure - so it’s infrastructure and good access to that infrastructure - can make a huge difference.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: That's right. So, the two of you have offered plenty of potential solutions, which is, in fact, to a certain extent, the point of this podcast. But if you had to state what would be your first step, which one would it be? Rich? Dr. Richard Ingram: I think if I could not pick one thing but a collection of things, it really would be, top of mind, would be just an awareness that we have gaps in our infrastructure. Cancer care and navigation, even in the most resourced areas of probably the most resourced country in the world here in the United States, yet alone in some of our under-resourced portions of the United States. So you can only imagine in an underserved or under-resourced other part of the world. So I think awareness of the issues, awareness that we need to create a somewhat seamless infrastructure throughout the entire continuum from the screening of cancer to diagnostic studies to therapeutic studies to survivorship to palliative care and counseling. And then along the way layer in clinical research, which is the only way we're going to move the needle, and services such as genetic counseling along the way. So I would say awareness of the issues and then starting with the key stakeholders in your area, all coming around to the awareness of the issues, then you can start to build the infrastructure. And I think once you build the infrastructure, it will become easy to recruit and retain healthcare staff in a sound infrastructure - meaning I think that will get over the barrier of understaffing rural areas like Appalachia or other underserved areas in this country, in that if you have a great infrastructure, I think I know, as Sana alluded to, once you create this infrastructure, you as a provider want to practice there. You want to be part of something that has a great infrastructure because A) you're proud of the work done, B) the patient gets state-of-the-art comprehensive care, and C)  you're making a difference in your community. Patients aren't having to travel, patients are safe and have their arms around them with a program right in their backyard. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Excellent. Sana, what would be your first step? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you, Thierry, and thank you, Richard. You know Richard, every time you speak, you speak my mind. It just speaks for how much we are alike across the globe rather than we are different. We share the same challenges, we share similar barriers, and indeed solutions are more or less similar. After all, we're all human. If I were to think of one important thing, it's awareness. Awareness campaigns targeting the society, discussing the importance of early detection, prevention, and treatment. Awareness campaigns targeting all stakeholders, policymakers, number one, emphasizing the importance of infrastructure to be supported, to be environment-attractive for a good workforce to work together, build it forward, treat patients in a safe environment. Also targeting industry to collaborate with other NGOs in the society to support that infrastructure and empower it to start clinical trials for each community. Not only targeting the community needs but also the way you describe it, Thierry, using the new therapeutics in a society-adapted approach to improve access to treatment. Those infrastructures, once empowered and doesn't have to be one, once empowered, they can be infectious. They can contribute to elevating the medical care in different settings in each society. So, one good infrastructure can set the example for other institutions to improve their care and collaborate as well. So, it’s awareness campaigns putting all key stakeholders together including the society. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay. Well, I think we had a very insightful and lively discussion so I would like to thank both Dr. Sana Al Sukhun and Dr. Richard Ingram for having joined us for a discussion about practicing oncology in low-resource settings. And for the audience to know, the ASCO Education podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education podcast, please email us at [email protected] and to stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Many thanks again. A pleasure to talk with 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.  

People who live in major cities in the US and abroad tend to benefit from better cancer care due to having access to more doctors, facilities and equipment. In contrast, those who live in rural areas face many challenges accessing consistent and quality care.  In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast Dr. Jack Hensold, a hematologist/oncologist in Bozeman, Montana and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force, Dr. Chris Prakash, Medical Oncologist in Paris, Texas and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Townsville, Australia and the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia will examine the realities of practicing oncology in rural areas.  They will discuss the need for rural populations to access clinical trials (1:42), using telemedicine for chemotherapy and clinical trials (3:00) and using political advocacy to improve cancer care in rural areas (13:00). Speaker Disclosures Sabe Sabesan: Speakers Bureau - Merck Sucharu Prakash: Speakers Bureau - Myriad Genetics   Jack Hensold:  Consulting or Advisory Role Company - Vibliome Therapeutics Resources Policy Recommendations for Improving Rural Cancer Services in the United States                                If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at [email protected]. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Jack Hensold:  Hello and welcome to this two-part episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Today we will explore some real-time and real-world issues that oncologists face while practicing in rural areas in the US and abroad. I'm Dr. Jack Hensold, a Methodologist Oncologist in Bozeman, Montana, and chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force. I also serve as Medical Director of Regional Outreach at Bozeman Health. Joining me is Dr. Chris Prakash, an Oncologist and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and the President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology. Chris is also the Director of Quality Services for the statewide group and leads Texas Oncologist Precision Medicine Initiative.  Also joining me is Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Regional, Australia. He's the President-elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and the Clinical Director of the Australian Teledyne Health Program, led by the Queensland State Department of Health. Professor Sabazin is an internationally recognized expert in the area of teleoncology and has developed and evaluated various oncology models to deliver cancer care closer to home.  In part one, our guests were explaining what got them into rural practice and the issues they face in patient transportation, telehealth, getting access to the latest information on treatments, and connecting with other colleagues to get insight on patient cases. Here, I ask Dr. Prakash about one issue that does not get talked about very often. Dr. Chris Prakash: I think we don't talk enough about access to clinical trials for rural populations. And that's a hard problem. These are regulated. But I wonder about real-world trials. Those are a little easier to do. Maybe we can put more patients on those, the hub-and-spoke model, that would be helpful in that. And I know people are trying and many societies are trying to enroll more rural populations in trials, but it continues to be a challenge. Dr. Jack Hensold: Correct. And actually, ASCO has a workforce right now that's trying to address this problem. That includes patient representatives, as well as, I think, people from National Cancer Institute and people from the pharmaceutical industry who've been on that task force and really is trying to address what are the barriers that keep us from getting trials out to our patients in rural areas because it is identified as a real problem. I think, as we all know, excellent cancer care requires access to clinical trials, and limited access means quality of care is going to be less.  Dr. Sabesan, you've been working on improving chemotherapy access in rural parts of Australia. Do you think your programs like tele-chemotherapy could be implemented in other regions and even in this country, the United States, and can they be applied to clinical trials and teletrials essentially? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: This is where I get really excited because the use of telemedicine, beyond providing consultations and then using it for chemotherapy and clinical trials, actually that's what keeps me up in the morning and keeps me awake at night as well. What I see these things as they are system solutions for a chronic problem. In tele-chemotherapy, it's simple, really. It's rural nurses. They are not chemotherapy nurses, they are general nurses. They administer selected chemotherapy regimens under the direct supervision of doctors, nurses, and pharmacies from larger centers through telemedicine, tele-nursing, and tele-pharmacy. So all we need for tele-chemotherapy to happen, if you have a larger center willing to supervise a smaller center or a larger center is now expected to do that through Health System directives, then I think we can implement that throughout the system.  And what we have done in Queensland, we got the Queensland State Government to implement that because we got a governance document called “Queensland Remote Chemotherapy Supervision Model and Guide for Implementation.” Basically, that articulates how to set up these services safely. But we already published that in the Journal of Oncology Practice in 2018, so that was a rewarding experience. But then what we found, we could do immunotherapy infusions, toxic chemotherapy like that and all those things in smaller centers, but we couldn't do clinical trials because, as Chris said, it's highly regulated. So then we said, “How come you can do toxic intensive chemotherapy but not clinical trials?” So that's how the Australasian teletrial model was born.  So we thought we will use the teletrial model to connect larger centers with smaller centers to create trial clusters so that you can really distribute the clinical trials activity to the regional, rural, and remote areas. So now we have an Australian teletrial model and a national teletrial principle as a government policy to enable that. Through some pilots we published in the Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, the Australian government actually funded $125 million to transform the Australian clinical trial sector as a network and a national system, so that patients from regional, remote, and rural areas can access clinical trials, some or all aspects of clinical trials closer to home. So that is exciting because it's about one year into the program and already we could see the narrative is changing, and we are saying clinical trials need to be offered as networks, not as silos anymore, because of social justice and equity. So that's been becoming powerful.  And also, we've been now pushing the Ethics Committee to mandate that clinical trials need to be done as clusters because it is an ethical social justice issue. So I think if you have good governance and government support, I feel that we can actually implement these models in larger parts of the rural sector. Not all of them, but in larger parts. But I just wanted to highlight before I finish that the decentralized trials becoming popular and I feel like the decentralized trials are kind of hijacking the rural narrative here because they are not decentralized trials in my observation, they should be decentralized trial systems. And rather than bypassing hospitals and directly dealing with patients at home, in a lot of the trials, it seems that most of those patients are actually metropolitan patients. And I think any decentralized trial systems have to focus on partnerships with rural sectors, capability or capacity building of rural sectors so that you could really deliver clinical trials in a distributed network system to really fix this problem once and for all. Dr. Jack Hensold: Sabe, it sounds like there's much that we can learn from paying attention to what's going on in Australia. It seems like your group is well ahead of the curve in terms of what needs to happen in rural areas. Chris, comments about that as well? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I was going to say, I think excellent job, Sabe. Kudos to you for doing this in Australia. It's a clinical dilemma. It's an ethical dilemma. Sometimes clinical trials are fundamental to providing good quality care for our patients. But the American healthcare system is complex. Clinical trials, sad to say, I mean, that they're money makers for a lot of big institutions or pharmaceutical companies for sure. So what these companies are looking for is if they have a new drug, they want to get a trial done as quickly as possible, get positive data, and then get it approved. It's really hard to find a good phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial anymore. They're just nonexistent. They're all phase I, II, quick one year, get the data, and file for approval with the FDA. So I get your point. I think I would love to have a good trial where we can put patients on, rural patients on, but I don't know if that's going to be possible.  Now, what I'm doing in Texas Oncology, I'm the director of Quality Services, so that is my goal; is to give quality care to the whole state population wherever we can. And clinical trials is the most difficult task, I'm finding. I can make testing consistent, I can make treatment protocols consistent, but getting patients on clinical trials is a very difficult task. So, kudos to you, Sabe. You're doing an excellent job. Dr. Jack Hensold: It's actually the main enabler for us is actually the government intervention, because what we felt was the rural sector has been left in the hands of clinicians and local health managers for far too long, but no one was in charge of that gap. So now, by the governments coming to the party and trying to implement some policies and funding mechanisms, things are changing. But really still, I found the advocacy hasn't stopped and there's still a long way to go, even in Australia, but it's pure advocacy from rural oncologists like us. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think that kind of highlights the difference in American and Australian healthcare systems probably. I know the American healthcare system is still very private. I mean, we have a big Medicare part of the equation, but again, a lot of health care is really delivered by private companies, hospital systems that are for profit, pharmaceutical companies really have strong lobbying systems. So it's a complex situation here. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yeah, I would agree with that fully in that, when I was hearing Sabe talk about things and comparing it to our experience in this country, we are very fragmented in terms of our care delivery systems, and trying to get a coordinated approach to how we address this rural health problem is difficult because we're bringing so many different people to the table who all have different points of view in terms of how they look at this. So, again, this may be a much harder piece to try to achieve just simply because of the fragmentation of the way we provide care in this country.  So, Dr. Prakash, you’re a member of several groups that address the needs for rural cancer care in the United States including ASCO's Rural Cancer Care Task Force, as well as the work you do with the Texas Oncology Society. Can you be a little bit more specific about those efforts?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Thanks, Jack. As you know, I was a member of the ASCO Task Force on Rural Cancer Care. This was put together in 2019, and then the pandemic happened. The timing was just right. But we were tasked with finding and really defining what the challenges of rural cancer care are and what are the solutions that we can come up with. It was a very hard job, but we did come up with some solutions on that, mainly increasing provider education, workforce enhancement. We have talked about a few of these things already - telehealth, promotion, and of course, research. But as you know, these solutions are easier said than done, and work continues on these fronts. And thank you, Jack, for taking the lead on many of these issues in the US.  So currently, as you know, I'm the President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and I'm doing a lot of advocacy work at the state capitol in Austin regarding various bills and provisions, but especially to garner support on a new biomarker bill. So this bill, if passed, will help pay for all biomarker testing in cancer. So there are disparities and rural disparities in cancer care. So if this bill is passed with the biomarker testing, this may go a long way in removing some of the disparities that our patients face in terms of testing biomarkers and payment for those tests as well. And I firmly believe that quality of care should be consistent no matter where a patient lives. I'm the Director of Quality Services for Texas Oncology. I'm leading the Precision Medicine initiative for the state, and I'm developing protocols for consistent biomarker testing, mutational analysis, and tumors and treatment protocols. So efforts continue, and please stay tuned. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you for that and all the work you do, Chris. I think it's an important point, and I've been involved through the Montana State Oncology Society, which is our society in terms of doing advocacy at the state level as well. And I think that's very important, particularly for states that have large rural populations, because I'm not sure nationally, people fully understand some of the difficulties that those patients face. And advocating for improved health care across the board is critical. And the rural patient needs to be considered. As we think about any changes to how we invest in healthcare in this country, the laws are regulated. Dr. Chris Prakash: You're exactly right. I mean, advocacy is very, very important. And our Congressmen and representatives, they do listen. As a physician, you go and talk to them and express concerns about what the constituents are going through and the hurdles they're facing in their care. They will listen and you can make a change. And that's what fascinates me about practicing in a rural setting, is that I can make a difference. I can see a change. Just over the last 20 years that I've been here, things have changed. Not all for the better, but you can be a part of the whole process. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, I would completely concur. I think our legislators nationally and statewide are very responsive to our voices. If there's something that's impacting their constituents in terms of the care that they're receiving, they're going to want to know about that. And they're happy to look like the champions, I think, to support improving their care. It's something we all can do a better job at nationally. Sabe, not to leave you out of that conversation, any thoughts about that? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: I mean, the advocacy is the key. That is also one of our jobs as doctors. But the main thing about advocacy is actually self-care, I found. As long as we don't burn out and we keep our energy level going and focus on recharging and minimizing energy discharge, we stay strong and take our colleagues with us. I think that's what I learned in advocacy is to make sure we don't drain our energy in that process. Dr. Jack Hensold: The quality of care should be the same for every patient, no matter where they live. And that really is kind of one of the driving principles for me in terms of why I got into this rural cancer care task force and the initiatives that we're taking on. And I'd like to describe a project right now that I've undertaken with ASCO and with our local regional health center and a medium-sized hospital in our area. Actually not in our area, it's 125 miles away, but an area that we service, and patients regularly come to our regional center for their cancer care, I think, was the appreciation that this 250-mile round trip, particularly to receive things like chemotherapy, was just a tremendous burden for patients from that area.  And in addition to the problems with the financial aspects of traveling long distances to receive that care, there was also the issue that we were sending patients back to fairly distant sites to experience the toxicities associated with our treatments without sufficient support in those sites locally in terms of understanding what needed to be done. That really led to this initiative with ASCO and Barrett Health in Montana, as well as Bozeman Health. And we've now been funded as part of a multi-year pilot program to increase high-quality and equitable cancer care at this site in rural Montana. And the work in this area was based on, again, the prior work on the task force that Dr. Prakash talked about in terms of identifying what barriers were in place to getting care to patients in their own community and how we could overcome these barriers.  And really, the concept of this program is to enable patients to receive care in their own community through what's described as a hub-and-spoke care delivery model. This is an established method for extending access to cancer care in remote rural areas. In fact, I think, as Dr. Sabesan talked about, I think much of the published work in this area has actually come out of Australia. So again, kudos again to that health system in terms of taking the initiative on these things.  And the initiative that we were talking about aims again to keep patients in their own community for as much of their cancer care as feasible, not to rely on that long drive to our regional site to get care. We understand this will require education and training of primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, and nurses at what we would refer to as the spoke site. And specifically, this needs to focus on education regarding how to properly administer infusion services and also how do we provide adequate supportive care for the cancer patients.  We do appreciate that those providers at that distant site, we can never really expect them to have full knowledge to appreciate what treatment cancer patients will need at any given point in time. But that really is where the expertise of the oncologist comes in. And oversight from the hub site will be provided by oncologists both by telehealth and supplemented, by regularly scheduled onsite visits by the oncologist to ensure just a seamless integration of care at both the hub and the spoke site and also to ensure the shared culture of cancer care between those two sites.  So that is the intent of the pilot that we're setting up. As we achieve function of that site, we will be doing quality measures to ensure that the care that's being administered at the spoke is really equivalent to what they would be receiving at the hub. So hopefully this will become a model for how we can deliver care to more remote rural areas in this country. I'd like to give Dr. Sabesan and Dr. Prakash an opportunity to make further comments regarding that model and any suggestions they may have; I'm willing to take in terms of how we can achieve this end. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah. Thank you, Jack. And again, kudos to you for being so passionate about taking care of patients in rural areas with their cancer care. But I think you highlighted the most important thing: we’ve got to be passionate, we’ve got to care, we have to do everything possible, find solutions. There are many challenges in this realm. So the hub-and-spoke model, that's very helpful, but again, we may need more multi-hub models or regional hubs, so to say on that. Education, keep developing the workforce, retain the workforce that we have, provide access to research, promote telehealth as much as possible. I think these are all pieces to the puzzle. Keep doing advocacy and just work and hopefully not get burnt out. So yeah, it's a work in progress, but again, that's why I'm doing this because I'm passionate about this, and thank you so much for having me as a part of this conversation. Dr. Jack Hensold: Well, thank you for participating. Sabe, any comments? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: Yeah, thank you. I really enjoyed being part of this conversation and I think it looks like it's almost good to have a community of international rural practice like this so that we can share and implement within our sector. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how your pilot project evolves, Jack, and how that can become a model for the whole of the country. Good luck to you. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you very much for that. And again, just a comment about the international working on this. We do have someone from Romania on our current task force. There's a group there that's very interested in providing kind of hub-and-spoke model care. So these are topics that I think are really getting on everyone's radar internationally. Again, I think the more buy-in we get internationally as well as nationally, the more wind we will have at our backs in making some improvements in this. Thank you, Dr. Prakash, for your insight into this topic and also to Professor Sabesan for his perspective from his practice in Australia. I'm Dr. Hensold and I would like to thank all of our listeners of Cancer Topics and ASCO Education Podcast. This is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to hear on the show, please email us at [email protected]. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org.  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.      

There was time during the early 70’s when the field of oncology began to take hold where the singular focus was to extend the patient’s life. In this ASCO Education podcast, our guest was one of the first to challenge that notion and rethink methods that focused the patient’s QUALITY of life. Dr. Patricia Ganz joins us to describe her transition from cardiology to oncology (6:00), the moment she went beyond treating the disease and began thinking about treating the WHOLE patient (10:06) and the joy of the increasing numbers of patients who survive cancer (21:47).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Patricia Ganz: Leadership - Intrinsic LifeSciences  Stock and Other Ownership Interests - xenon pharma,  Intrinsic LifeSciences, Silarus Therapeutics, Disc Medicine, Teva,  Novartis, Merck. Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories Consulting or Advisory Role - Global Blood Therapeutics, GSK, Ionis, akebia, Rockwell Medical Technologies, Disc Medicine, InformedDNA, Blue Note Therapeutics, Grail Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property - related to iron metabolism and the anemia of chronic disease, Up-to-Date royalties for section editor on survivorship Resources If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at [email protected]. TRANSCRIPT  Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.   Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of the podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting and inspirational people and topics in and outside the world of oncology. Pat Loehrer: The field of oncology is relatively new. The first person treated with chemotherapy was in the 1940s. Medical oncology was just recognized as a specialty during the 1970s. And while cancer was considered by most people to be a death sentence, a steady growth of researchers sought to find cures. And they did for many cancers. But sometimes these treatments came at a cost. Our next guest challenged the notion that the singular focus of oncology is to extend the patient's duration of life. She asked whether an oncologist should also focus on addressing the patient's quality of life.  Dave Johnson: The doctor asking that question went to UCLA Medical School, initially planning to study cardiology. However, a chance encounter with a young, dynamic oncologist who had started a clinical cancer ward sparked her interest in the nascent field of oncology. She witnessed advances in cancer treatment that seemingly took it from that inevitable death sentence to a potentially curable disease. She also recognized early on that when it came to cancer, a doctor must take care of the whole patient and not just the disease.  From that point forward, our guest has had a storied career and an incredible impact on the world of cancer care. When initially offered a position at the West LA VA Medical Center, she saw it as an opportunity to advance the field of palliative care for patients with cancer. This proved to be one of her first opportunities to develop a program that incorporated a focus on quality of life into the management of cancer. Her work also focused on mental, dietary, physical, and emotional services to the long-term survivors of cancer.  That career path has led to many accomplishments and numerous accolades for our guest. She is a founding member of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, served as the 2004 Co-chair of ASCO's Survivorship Task Force, and currently directs UCLA's Cancer Survivorship Center of Excellence, funded in part from a grant from Livestrong. Our guest is Dr. Patricia Ganz. Dr. Patricia Ganz: It's great to be with both of you today. Dave Johnson: We always like to ask our guests a little about their background, where they grew up, a little about their family. Dr. Patricia Ganz: Yes. I grew up in the city of Beverly Hills where my parents moved when I was about five years old because of the educational system. Unlike parts of the East Coast, we didn't have very many private schools in Los Angeles, and so public education was very good in California at that time. So I had a good launch and had a wonderful opportunity that many people didn't have at that time to grow up in a comfortable setting. Dave Johnson: Tell us about your mom. I understand she was a businesswoman, correct? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Yes, actually, my parents got married when my mom was 19 and my dad was 21. He was in medical school at the University of Michigan. His father and mother weren't too happy with him getting married before he could support a wife. But she worked in a family business in the wholesale produce business in Detroit. One of six children, she was very involved with her family in the business. And they were married, and then World War II started, my father was a physician in the military, so she worked in the family business during the war. After finally having children and growing up and being in Beverly Hills, she sat back and was a homemaker, but she was always a bit restless and was always looking for something to do. So wound up several years later, when I was in my early teens, starting a business with one of my uncles, an automobile parts business. They ultimately sold it out to a big company that bought it out.  Pat Loehrer: Where did your father serve in World War II? Dr. Patricia Ganz: He was actually D-Day Plus 21. He was in Wales during the war. They had to be stationed and moved down into the south before he was deployed. I have my parents’ correspondence and letters from the war. He liberated some of the camps. Actually, as I have learned about the trauma of cancer and post-traumatic stress that happens in so many people, our military veterans, most recently, I think he had post-traumatic stress. He didn't talk very much about it, but I think liberating the camps, being overseas during that time, as it was for that silent generation, was very profound in terms of their activities.   He wound up practicing medicine, and Los Angeles had a practice in industrial medicine, and it was a comfortable life. He would work early in the morning till maybe three or four in the afternoon and then go to the gym, there were moonlighting physicians who worked in the practice. But I kind of saw an easy kind of medicine, and he was always very encouraging and wanted me to go into medicine -- that I could be an ophthalmologist or a radiologist, good job for a woman. But I didn't really see the tough life of some of the internists and other people who were really working more 24/7, taking care of patients in the way medicine used to be practiced. Dave Johnson: Yeah. So you were interested in, early in your career, in cardiology. Could you tell us about that, and then a little bit more about the transition to oncology?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: I went away to college, I went to Harvard Radcliffe and I came home during the summers. And was interested in doing something during the summer so I actually in a pediatric cardiology research laboratory as a volunteer at UCLA for a couple of summers between my freshman and sophomore year then my sophomore and junior year. And then I actually got a California Heart Association Fellowship between my junior and senior year in college.  And this pediatric cardiology lab was very interesting. They were starting to give ketamine, it had an identification number, it wasn’t called ketamine. But they were giving it to children in the cardiac cath lab and then were very worried about whether it would interfere with measuring the pressures in the heart. So we had intact dogs that had catheters implanted in the heart, and the drug would be given to the animals and we would then measure their pressures in the heart.  That cardiology experience in 1970, the summer between my first and second year of medical school, the Swan-Ganz catheter was being tested. I worked at Cedars that summer and was watching them do the various studies to show the value of the catheter. And so by the time I was kind of finishing up medical school, I’d already invested all this time as an undergraduate. And then a little bit when I was in medical school and I kind of understood the physiology of the heart, very exciting. So that’s kind of where I was headed until we started my internship. And I don’t know if any of you remembered Marty Cline, but he was the oncologist who moved from UCSF to Los Angeles to start our hem-onc division. And very exciting, a wonderful bedside teacher.   And so all of a sudden, I’ve never been exposed to oncology and this was very interesting. But at the same time, I was rotating through the CCU, and in came two full-arrest patients, one of whom was a campus cop who was very obese, had arrested at his desk in the police station. And we didn’t have emergency vehicles to help people get on campus at that time. This was 1973 or 1974, something like that. And he came in full arrest, vegetable. And then another man had been going out of his apartment to walk his dog and go downstairs, and then all of a sudden his wife saw him out on the street being resuscitated by people. And he came in also in full arrest.   So those two experiences, having to deal with those patients, not being able to kind of comfort the families, to do anything about it. As well as taking care of patients in my old clinic who had very bad vascular disease. One man, extremely depressed with claudication and angina, all of a sudden made me feel, “Well, you know what? I’m not sure I really want to be a cardiologist. I’m not sure I like the acute arrest that I had to deal with and the families. And also, the fact that people were depressed and you couldn’t really talk to them about how serious their disease was.” Whereas I had patients with advanced cancer who came in, who had equally difficult prognoses, but because of the way people understood cancer, you could really talk about the problems that they would be facing and the end-of-life concerns that they would have.  So it was all of those things together that made me say, “Hmm.” And then also, Pat, you’ll appreciate this, being from Indiana, we were giving phase II platinum to advanced testicular cancer patients, and it was miraculous. And so I thought, “Oh my gosh, in my lifetime, maybe cancer is going to be cured! Heart disease, well, that’s not going to happen.” So that was really the turning point.   Pat Loehrer: When many of us started, we were just hoping that we could get patients to live a little bit longer and improve the response rate. But you took a different tack. You really looked at treating the whole patient, not just the disease. That was really a novel approach at the time. What influenced you to take that step forward? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Well, it was actually my starting– it was thought to be in a hospice ward. It would turn out it was a Sepulveda VA, not the West LA VA, but in any case, we have two VAs that are affiliated with UCLA. And it was an intermediate care ward, and there was an idea that we would in fact put our cancer patients there who had to have inpatient chemotherapy so they wouldn't be in the acute setting as well as patients who needed to travel for radiation. Actually, the West LA VA had a hospice demonstration project. This is 1978. It's really the beginning of the hospice movement in England, then in Canada, Balfour Mount at Montreal and McGill was doing this. And so I was very much influenced by, number one, most of our patients didn't live very long. And if you were at a VA Hospital, as I was at that time, you were treating patients with advanced lung cancer, advanced colon cancer, advanced prostate cancer, other GI malignancies, and lung cancer, of course. So it was really the rare patient who you would treat for curative intent.  In fact, small cell lung cancer was so exciting to be treating in a particularly limited small cell. Again, I had a lot of people who survived. We gave them chemo, radiation, whole brain radiation, etc. So that was exciting. This was before cisplatin and others were used in the treatment of lung cancer. But really, as I began to develop this ward, which I kind of thought, “Well, why should we wait just to give all the goodies to somebody in the last few weeks of life here? I'm treating some patients for cure, they're getting radiation. Some of them are getting radiation and chemo for palliation.” But it was a mixed cancer ward. And it was wonderful because I had a team that would make rounds with me every week: a pharmacist, a physiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, a dietitian. This was in 1978 or ‘79, and the nurses were wonderful. They were really available to the patients. It wasn't a busy acute ward. If they were in pain, they would get their medication as soon as possible. I gave methadone. It was before the days of some of the newer medications, but it was long-acting. I learned how to give that. We gave Dilaudid in between if necessary. And then we had Brompton solution, that was before there was really oral morphine.  And so the idea was all of these kinds of services should really be available to patients from the time of diagnosis until death. We never knew who was going to be leaving us the next few days or who was going to be living longer and receiving curative intent. We had support groups for the patients and their families. It was a wonderful infrastructure, something that I didn't actually have at UCLA, so it was a real luxury. And if you know the VA system, the rehabilitation services are wonderful. They had dental services for patients. We had mostly World War II veterans, some Korean, and for many of these individuals, they had worked and lived a good life, and then they were going to retire and then they got cancer. So this was kind of the sadness. And it was a suburban VA, so we had a lot of patients who were in the San Fernando Valley, had a lot of family support, and it was a wonderful opportunity for me to learn how to do good quality care for patients along the continuum.  Dave Johnson: How did you assemble this team? Or was it in place in part when you arrived, or what? Nobody was thinking about this multidisciplinary approach?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: I just designed it because these were kind of the elements that were in a hospice kind of program. And I actually worked with the visiting nurses and I was part of their boards and so forth. And UCLA didn't have any kind of hospice or palliative care program at that time. But because the VA infrastructure had these staff already, I didn't have to hire them, you didn't have to bill for anything. They just became part of the team. Plus there was a psychiatrist who I ultimately began doing research with. He hired a psychologist for the research project. And so there was kind of this infrastructure of interest in providing good supportive care to cancer patients. A wonderful social worker, a wonderful psychologist, and they all saw this patient population as very needy, deserving, and they were glad to be part of a team.  We didn't call it a hospice, we called it a palliative care unit. These were just regular staff members who, as part of their job, their mission was to serve that patient population and be available. I had never been exposed to a physiatrist before. I trained at UCLA, trained and did my residency and fellowship. We didn't have physiatry. For whatever reason, our former deans never thought it was an important physical medicine, it wasn't, and still isn't, part of our system. Pat Loehrer: Many decisions we make in terms of our careers are based on singular people. Your dad, maybe, suggesting going into medicine, but was there a patient that clicked with you that said, "Listen, I want to take this different direction?" Or was it just a collection of patients that you were seeing at the VA? Is there one that you can reflect back on? Dr. Patricia Ganz: I don't know if you all remember, but there was something called Consultation Liaison Psychiatry where, in that time, the psychiatrist really felt that they had to see medical patients because there were psychological and sometimes psychiatric problems that occurred on the medical ward, such as delirium. That was very common with patients who were very sick and very toxic, which was again due to the medical condition affecting the brain. And so I was exposed to these psychiatrists who were very behaviorally oriented when I was a resident and a fellow, and they often attended our team meetings in oncology on our service, they were on the transplant service, all those kinds of things. So they were kind of like right by our side.  And when I went to the VA, the psychiatry service there also had a couple of really excellent psychiatrists who, again, were more behaviorally focused. Again, you have to really remember, bless her heart, Jimmie Holland was wonderful as a psychiatrist. She and Barrie Cassileth were the kind of early people we would see at our meetings who were kind of on the leading edge of psychosocial oncology, but particularly, Jimmie was more in a psychiatric mode, and there was a lot of focus on coping. But the people that I began to work with were more behaviorally focused, and they were kind of interested in the impact of the disease and the treatment on the patient's life and, backwards, how could managing those kinds of problems affect the well-being of the patient. And this one psychiatrist, Richard Heinrich, had gotten money from the VA, had written a grant to do an intervention study with the oncology patients who I was serving to do a group intervention for the patients and their families. But, in order to even get this grant going, he hired a project manager who was a psychologist, a fresh graduate whose name was Anne Coscarelli, and her name was Cindie Schag at that time. But she said, "I don't know much about cancer. I've got to interview patients. I've got to understand what's going on." And they really, really showed me that, by talking to the patient, by understanding what they were experiencing, they could get a better handle on what they were dealing with and then, potentially, do interventions. So we have a wonderful paper if you want to look it up. It's called the “Karnofsky Performance Status Revisited.” It's in the second issue of JCO, which we published; I think it was 1984.  Dave Johnson: In the early 90s, you relocated back to UCLA. Why would you leave what sounds like the perfect situation to go back to a site that didn't have it? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Okay, over that 13 years that I was at the VA, I became Chief of the Division of Hem-Onc. We were actually combined with a county hospital. It was a wonderful training program, it was a wonderful patient population at both places. And we think that there are troubles in financing health care now, well, there were lots of problems then. Medicaid came and went. We had Reagan as our governor, then he became president, and there were a lot of problems with people being cared for. So it was great to be at the VA in the county, and I always felt privileged. I always had a practice at UCLA, which was a half-day practice, so I continued there, and I just felt great that I could practice the same wherever I was, whether it was in a public system, veteran system, or in the private system.   But what happened was, I took a sabbatical in Switzerland, '88 to '89. I worked with the Swiss International Breast Cancer Consortium group there, but it was really a time for me to take off and really learn about quality of life assessment, measurement, and so forth. When I came back, I basically said, "I want to make a difference. I want to do something at a bigger arena." If I just continue working where I am, it's kind of a midlife crisis. I was in my early 40s, and my office was in the San Fernando Valley at the VA, but my home was in West Los Angeles. One day I was in UCLA, one day I was at the VA, one day I was at the county, it was like, "Can I practice like this the next 20 years? I don't know that I can do this. And I really want to have some bigger impact.” So I went to Ellen Gritz who was my predecessor in my current position, and I was doing my NCI-funded research at UCLA still, and I said, “Ellen, I really would like to be able to do research full time. I really want to make a difference. Is there anything available? Do you know of anything?" And she said, "Well, you know, we're actually recruiting for a position that's joint between the School of Public Health and the Cancer Center. And oh my goodness, maybe I can compete for that, so that's what I did. And it was in what was then the department called Health Services, it's now called Health Policy and Management. I applied, I was competing against another person who I won't name, but I got the position and made that move.  But again, it was quite a transition because I had never done anything in public health, even though UCLA had a school of public health that was right adjacent to the medical school. I had had interactions with the former dean, Lester Breslow, who I actually took an elective with when I was a first-year medical student on Community Medicine. So it kind of had some inklings that, of what I was interested in. I had actually attendings in my medical clinic, Bob Brook, a very famous health policy researcher, Sheldon Greenfield. So I'd been exposed to a lot of these people and I kind of had the instinctive fundamentals, if you will, of that kind of research, but hadn't really been trained in it. And so it was a great opportunity for me to take that job and really learn a lot and teach with that.  And then took, part of my time was in the cancer center with funding from the core grant. And then, within a year of my taking this position, Ellen left and went to MD Anderson, so all of a sudden I became director of that whole population science research group. And it was in the early ‘90s, had to scramble to get funding, extramural funding. Everybody said to me, "How could you leave a nearly full-time position at the VA for a soft money position?" But, nevertheless, it worked out. And it was an exciting time to be able to go into a new career and really do things that were not only going to be in front and center beneficial to patients, but to a much larger group of patients and people around the world.  Pat Loehrer: Of all the work that you have done, what one or two things are you most proud of in terms of this field? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Recognizing the large number of people who are surviving cancer. And I think today we even have a more exciting part of that. I mean, clearly, many people are living long-term disease-free with and without sequelae of the disease. But we also have this new group of survivors who are living on chronic therapy. And I think the CML patients are kind of the poster children for this, being on imatinib or other newer, targeted agents over time, living with cancer under control, but not necessarily completely gone. And then melanoma with the immunotherapy, lung cancer, all of these diseases now being converted to ones that were really fatal, that are now enjoying long-term treatment.   But along with that, we all know, is the financial toxicity, the burdens, and even the ongoing symptoms that patients have. So the fact that we all call people survivors and think about people from the time of diagnosis as potentially being survivors, I think was very important. And I would say that, from the clinical side, that's been very important to me. But all of the work that I was able to do with the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine, the 2013 report that we wrote on was a revisit of Joe Simone's quality of care report, and to me was actually a very pivotal report. Because in 2013, it looked like our health care system was in crisis and the delivery of care. We're now actually doing a National Cancer Policy Forum ten-year follow-up of that report, and many of the things that we recommended, surprisingly, have been implemented and are working on. But the healthcare context now is so much more complicated.  Again, with the many diseases now becoming rare diseases, the cost of drugs, the huge disparities, even though we have access through the Affordable Care Act and so forth, there's still huge disparities in who gets care and treatment. And so we have so many challenges. So for me, being able to engage in the policy arena and have some impact, I think has been also very important to me. Dave Johnson: 20 years ago, the topic of survivorship was not that common within ASCO, and you led a 2004 task force to really strengthen that involvement by that organization, and you also were a founding member of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. I wonder if you might reflect on those two activities for us for a moment. Dr. Patricia Ganz: In 1986, Fitzhugh Mullen, who in 1985 had written a really interesting special article for the New England Journal called "Seasons of Survivorship" - he was a young physician when he was found to have a mediastinal germ cell tumor and got very intensive chemotherapy and radiation therapy and survived that, but realized that there was no place in the healthcare system where he could turn to to get his questions answered, nor get the kind of medical care that was needed, and really wrote this very important article. He then, being somebody who was also kind of policy-oriented and wanting to change the world, and I would say this was a group of us who, I think went to college during the Vietnam era - so did Fitz - and we were all kind of restless, trying to see how we could make a difference in the world and where it was going.   And so he had this vision that he was going to almost develop an army of survivors around the country who were going to stand up and have their voices heard about what was going on. Of course, most people didn't even know they were a survivor. They had cancer treatment, but they didn't think about themselves as a survivor. And so he decided to get some people together in Albuquerque, New Mexico, through a support group that he had worked with when he was in the Indian Health Service in New Mexico. And there were various people from the American Cancer Society, from other support organizations, social workers, and a couple of us who are physicians who came to this meeting, some Hodgkin survivors who had been treated at Stanford and were now, including a lawyer, who were starting to do long term late effects work. And we gathered together, and it was a day and a half, really, just kind of trying to figure out how could a movement or anything get oriented to try and help patients move forward.  So that's how this was founded. And they passed the hat. I put in a check for $100, and that was probably a lot of money at that time, but I thought, well, this is a good investment. I'll help this organization get started. And that was the start. And they kind of ran it out of Living Beyond Cancer in Albuquerque for a few years. But then Fitz, who was in the Washington, DC. area decided they weren't going to be able to get organizations all over the country organized to do this, and they were going to have to do some lobbying. So Ellen Stovall, who was a Hodgkins survivor living in the Washington area, beginning to do policy work in this area, then became the executive director and took the organization forward for many years and championed this, got the Office of Cancer Survivors established at the NCI in the 1990s, and really did a lot of other wonderful work, including a lot of the work at the Institute of Medicine. She was very involved with the first Quality of Care report and then ultimately the survivorship report, the Lost and Transition report in 2005, 2006, I was on that committee. So that was really how things were evolving.  And by that time, I was also on the ASCO board, 2003 to 2006. And so all of these things were kind of coming together. We had 10 million survivors. That was kind of an important note and a lot of diseases now - lymphoma, breast cancer, multi-agent therapy had certain benefits, but obviously toxicities. We lived through the horrible time of high-dose chemotherapy and transplant for breast cancer in the ‘90s, which was a problem, but we saw a lot of toxicities after that. And so there were people living after cancer who now had sequelae, and the children obviously had been leading the way in terms of the large number of childhood cancer survivors. So this was this idea that the children were kind of the canary in the coal mine. We saw them living 20, 30 years later after their cancer diagnosis, and we were now beginning to see adults living 10, 15, 20 years later, and we needed to think about these long-term and late effects for them as well. Dave Johnson: I'm glad you mentioned Fitz's article in the New England Journal that still resonates today, and if listeners have not read it, "Seasons of Survivorship" is a worthwhile five-minute read.  What do you think the most pressing issues and challenges in cancer survivorship care today?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: Many people are cured with very little impact. You can think of somebody with T1 breast cancer maybe needing endocrine therapy for five years, and lumpectomy radiation. That person's probably not going to have a lot that they're going to be worried about. But if they're a young breast cancer patient, say they're 35 or 40, you're going to get five years of ovarian suppression therapy. You're going to be put into acute menopause. You're going to lose bone density. You're going to have cardiac risk acceleration. You may have cognitive changes. You may have also problems with cognitive decline later. I mean, all of these things, the more intense treatments are associated, what we're really thinking about is accelerated aging. And so a lot of what I've been studying the last 20-25 years in terms of fatigue and cognitive difficulties are related to neuroinflammation and what happens when somebody has intensive systemic therapy and that accelerated process that's, again, not everyone, but small numbers of patients, could be 10-15-20%. So I worry a lot about the young patients. So I've been very focused on the young adult population who are treated intensively for lymphoma, leukemia, and breast. And that's, I think, something that we need to be looking out for.  The other thing is with the newer therapies, whether it's immunotherapy or some of the targeted therapies, we just don't know what the late effects are going to be. Where we're very schooled now in what the late effects of radiation, chemo, and surgery could be for patients, we just don't know. And another wonderful part of my career has been to be able to do quality-of-life studies within the Clinical Trials Network. I've been affiliated with NSABP, I was SWOG previously, but NSABP is now NRG Oncology doing patient-reported outcomes and looking at long-term outcomes in clinical trials. And I think we're going to need this for all of these new agents because we have no idea what the long-term toxicities are going to be. And even though it's amazing to have people surviving where they wouldn't have been, we don't know what the off-target long-term effects might be. So that's a real challenge right now for survivorship.  And the primary care doctors who we would want to really be there to orchestrate the coordinated care for patients to specialists, they are a vanishing breed. You could read the New England Journal that I just read about the challenges of the primary care physician right now and the overfilled inbox and low level of esteem that they're given in health systems. Where are we going to take care of people who really shouldn't be still seeing the oncologist? The oncologist is going to be overburdened with new patients because of the aging of the population and the many new diagnoses. So this is our new crisis, and that's why I'm very interested in what we're going to be looking at in terms of a ten-year follow-up report to the 2013 IOM report. Dave Johnson: The industry-based trials now are actually looking at longer-term treatment. And the trials in which interest is cancer, we cut it down from two years of therapy down to nine weeks of therapy, looking at minimizing therapy. Those are difficult trials to do in this climate today, whereas the industry would just as soon have patients on for three to five years worth of therapy as opposed to three to five months. Talk a little about those pressures and what we should be doing as a society to investigate those kinds of therapies and minimizing treatments. Dr. Patricia Ganz: Minimizing treatments, this is the place where the government has to be, because we will not be able to do these de-escalation studies. Otherwise, there will be countries like the UK, they will be able to do these studies, or other countries that have national health systems where they have a dual purpose, if you will, in terms of both financing health care and also doing good science. But I think, as I've seen it, we have a couple of de-escalation trials for breast cancer now in NRG Oncology, which is, again, I think, the role that the NCTN needs to be playing. But it's difficult for patients. We all know that patients come in several breeds, ones who want everything, even if there's a 1% difference in benefit, and others who, “Gee, only 1 out of 100 are going to benefit? I don't want that.” I think that's also the challenge. And people don't want to be denied things, but it's terrible to watch people go through very prolonged treatments when we don't know that they really need it for so long.  Dave Johnson: Pat and I both like to read. I'm wondering if there's something you've read recently that you could recommend to us. Dr. Patricia Ganz: It's called A Gentleman in Moscow by Amor Towles. I do like to read historical fiction. This one is about a count at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution who then gets imprisoned in a hotel in Moscow and how constrained his life becomes, but how enriched it is and follows him over really a 50-year period of time and what was happening in the Soviet Union during that time. And of course, with the war in Ukraine going on, very interesting. Of course, I knew the history, but when you see it through the drama of a personal story, which is fictional, obviously it was so interesting.   My husband escaped from Czechoslovakia. He left in '66, so I had exposure to his family and what it was like for them living under communism. So a lot of that was interesting to me as well.  Dave Johnson: Thank you for joining us. It's been a wonderful interview and you're to be congratulated on your accomplishments and the influence you've had on the oncology world.  We also want to thank our listeners of Oncology, Etc., and ASCO Educational Podcast where we will talk about oncology, medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, by all means, email us at [email protected]. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other ASCO educational content, please visit education.asco.org. 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.