Dizon, Don S.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Abstract In the United States, over 2 million individuals openly identify with a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth. A cancer diagnosis is physically and psychologically taxing—and, in some, traumatic. However, for transgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) people, many of whom have experienced discrimination in myriad health care settings, the challenges may be even greater. These recommendations focus on how best to deliver quality cancer care to transgender men (individuals who identify as men but were assigned female sex at birth), transgender women (individuals who identify as women but were assigned male sex at birth), and people who identify somewhere beyond this gender spectrum as nonbinary or using other terms, based on the available, albeit sparse, literature. This review broaches: (1) the epidemiology of cancer in TGD individuals, including the incidence of cancer and cancer‐related mortality; (2) cancer center practices that are welcoming and affirming to TGD patients; (3) the need for awareness and intentionality in the spaces of diagnosis and treatment for cancer; (4) the inevitable conclusion that gender differences exist but much more needs to be learned about the impact of gender‐affirming therapy, consisting of gender‐affirming surgeries and gender‐affirming hormone therapy, on cancer therapy; and (5) the efficacy and perceived safety of antineoplastic therapy and gender‐affirming hormone therapy.

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

5589 Background: Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral SERD designed to deliver continuous estrogen receptor (ER) target inhibition aimed to improve outcomes for patients (pts) with ER+ cancers. In the first-in-human Phase 1a/1b EMBER trial (NCT04188548), imlunestrant showed favorable safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical benefit in pre-treated pts with ER+ advanced breast cancer or EEC. Here, we report updated imlunestrant monotherapy data and the first clinical data of imlunestrant + abemaciclib in ER+ EEC pts from EMBER. Methods: Eligible pts had ER+ EEC previously treated with (or deemed inappropriate for) platinum-containing chemotherapy. Prior fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor therapy was not allowed. In Phase 1a, pts received imlunestrant alone, and in Phase 1b, pts were randomized (1:1) to imlunestrant alone or with abemaciclib. Plasma samples were collected at baseline (all pts) and at cycle 2 (monotherapy pts) for ctDNA analysis (Guardant 360 assay) to correlate with clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were RP2D of imlunestrant monotherapy and in combination. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR: complete or partial response, or stable disease ≥24 weeks), and progression-free survival (PFS) using RECIST v1.1. Results: Overall, 72 pts were treated; 39 pts received monotherapy (33 at 400mg [RP2D] and 6 at 800mg po daily) and 33 pts received imlunestrant (29 at 400mg and 4 at 800mg po daily) + abemaciclib (150mg po twice daily). Baseline characteristics, safety, and preliminary efficacy are presented (Table). For monotherapy, the most common TEAEs (all grade/grade 3) were nausea (36%/3%), diarrhea (26%/0), urinary tract infection (26%/3%), and abdominal pain (21%/8%). For imlunestrant + abemaciclib, the most common TEAEs (all grade/grade 3) were diarrhea (88%/3%), nausea (67%/0), fatigue (49%/9%) and anemia (46%/12%). In the monotherapy arm, pts with deeper (≥ 50%) declines in ctDNA variant allele frequency had a higher CBR (4/7 vs 4/17). Conclusions: Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or with abemaciclib, appears safe and tolerable with preliminary evidence of efficacy in pts with metastatic ER+ EEC. Clinical trial information: NCT04188548 . [Table: see text]

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

PURPOSE To assess efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin (C) and gemcitabine (G) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced vulvar cancer not amenable to surgery. METHODS Patients enrolled in a single-arm phase II study. Pretreatment inguinal-femoral nodal assessment was performed. Sixty-four Gy IMRT was prescribed to the vulva, with 50-64 Gy delivered to the groins/low pelvis. Radiation therapy (RT) plans were quality-reviewed pretreatment. C 40 mg/m2 and G 50 mg/m2 were administered once per week throughout IMRT. Complete pathologic response (CPR) was the primary end point. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and adverse events were assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.0. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients enrolled, of which 52 were evaluable. The median age was 58 years (range, 25-58), and 94% were White. Forty (77%) had stage II or III disease, and all had squamous histology. A median of six chemotherapy cycles (range, 1-8) were received. Eighty-five percent of RT plans were quality-reviewed with 100% compliance to protocol. Seven patients came off trial because of toxicity or patient withdrawal. Of 52 patients available for pathologic assessment, 38 (73% [90% CI, 61 to 83]) achieved CPR. No pelvic exenterations were performed. With a median follow-up of 51 months, the 12-month PFS was 74% (90% CI, 62.2 to 82.7) and the 24-month OS was 70% (90% CI, 57 to 79). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hematologic toxicity and radiation dermatitis. There was one grade 5 event unlikely related to treatment. CONCLUSION Weekly C and G concurrent with IMRT sufficiently improved CPR in women with locally advanced vulvar squamous cell carcinoma not amenable to surgical resection.

AbstractCancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium’s conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SPOP mutations drive opposing molecular and immune landscapes in prostate and endometrial cancers, suggesting tailored therapies

Twitter use has increased among patients with cancer, advocates, and oncology professionals. Hashtags, a form of metadata, can be used to share content, organize health information, and create virtual communities of interest. Cancer-specific hashtags modeled on a breast cancer community, #bcsm, led to the development of a structured set of hashtags called the cancer tag ontology. In this article, we review how these hashtags have worked with the aim of describing our experience from 2011 to 2017. We discuss useful guidelines for the development and maintenance of health-oriented communities on Twitter, including possible challenges to community sustainability and opportunities for future improvement and research.