American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book / ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting最新文献

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) struggle with immense physical and psychological symptom burden, which negatively affect their quality of life (QOL) throughout the continuum of illness. These patients are often faced with substantial prognostic uncertainty as they navigate their illness course, which further complicates their medical decision making, especially at the end of life (EOL). Consequently, patients with HM often endure intensive medical care at the EOL, including frequent hospitalization and intensive care unit admissions, and they often die in the hospital. Our EOL health care delivery models are not well suited to meet the unique needs of patients with HMs. Although studies have established the role of specialty palliative care for improving QOL and EOL outcomes in patients with solid tumors, numerous disease-, clinician-, and system-based barriers prevail, limiting the integration of palliative care for patients with HMs. Nonetheless, multiple studies have emerged over the past decade identifying the role of palliative care integration in patients with various HMs, resulting in improvements in patient-reported QOL, symptom burden, and psychological distress, as well as EOL care. Importantly, these studies have also identified active components of specialty palliative care interventions, including strategies to promote adaptive coping especially in the face of prognostic uncertainty. Future work can leverage the knowledge gained from specialty palliative care integration to develop and test primary palliative care interventions by training clinicians caring for patients with HMs to incorporate these strategies into their clinical practice.

Communication in oncology has always been challenging. The new era of precision oncology creates prognostic uncertainty. Still, person-centered care requires attention to people and their care needs. Living with cancer portends an experience that is life-altering, no matter what the outcome. Supporting patients and families through this unique experience requires careful attention, honed skills, an understanding of process and balance measures of innovation, and recognizing that supportive care is a foundational element of cancer medicine, rather than an either-or approach, an and-with approach that emphasizes the regular integration of palliative care (PC), geriatric oncology, and skilled communication.

Cancer outcomes are largely measured in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival, which is highly dependent on timely diagnosis and access to treatment methods available within the country's existing health care system. Although cancer survival rates have markedly led in the past few decades, any improvement in the 5-year survival of gynecologic cancers has been modest, as in the case of ovarian and cervical cancers, or has declined, as in the case of endometrial cancer. The lack of effective screening options contributes to many women presenting with advanced-stage disease and the need for radical approaches to treatment. Although treatment for early-stage disease can lead to a cure, advanced-stage disease is fraught with a high potential for morbidity and mortality, and recent clinical trials have aimed to assess the noninferiority of minimally invasive options versus aggressive surgical approaches. Of particular interest is fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial and cervical cancers, which have recently been on the rise among younger women. Balancing morbidity with the risk of mortality, and loss of fertility and quality of life requires a targeted patient-centered approach to treatment. This is an ongoing area of intense research and sometimes may challenge current treatment paradigms. In this two-part review, we present an overview of current approaches to gynecologic cancer treatment and the need to de-escalate radical surgical approaches and preserve fertility. We also review the intricacies of ovarian and advanced endometrial cancer treatment, exploring the nuances in surgical debulking timing and its impact on outcomes.

Hematologic malignancies most often present in the sixth or seventh decade of life. Even so, many older adults may be unable to tolerate standard chemotherapy or require supplementary care or dose adjustments to do so. Both in community and academic centers, geriatric assessment (GA) can be used to improve the care of older adults with blood cancers. For example, hematologic oncologists can use GA to guide treatment selection, adjusting for patient frailty and goals, as well as prompt initiation of enhanced supportive care. After initial therapy, GA can improve the identification of older adults with aggressive myeloid malignancies who would benefit from hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), inform shared decision making, as well as allow transplanters to tailor conditioning regimen, donor selection, graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, and pre- and post-HCT treatments. As in HCT, GA can improve the care of older patients with relapsed lymphoma or multiple myeloma eligible for chimeric antigen receptor-T therapy, identifying patients at higher risk for toxicity and providing a baseline for subsequent neurocognitive testing. Here, we review the data supporting GA for the care of older adults with blood cancers, from the community to the academic center. In addition, we explore future directions to optimize outcomes for older adults with hematologic malignancies.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have reshaped the cancer treatment landscape across a variety of different tumor types. ADCs' peculiar pharmacologic design combines the cytotoxic properties of chemotherapeutic agents with the selectivity of targeted therapies. At present, the approval of many ADCs used in clinical practice has not always been biomarker-driven. Indeed, predicting ADCs' activity and toxicity through the demonstration of specific biomarkers is still a great unmet need, and the identification of patients who can derive significant benefit from treatment with ADCs may often be uncertain. With the lack of robust predictive biomarkers to anticipate primary, intrinsic resistance to ADCs and no consolidated biomarkers to aid in the early identification of treatment resistance (ie, acquired resistance), the determination of precise biologic mechanisms of ADC activity and safety becomes priority in the quest for better patient-centric outcomes. Of great relevance, whether the target antigen expression is a determinant of ADCs' primary activity is still to be clarified, and available data remain quite controversial. Antigen expression assessment is typically performed on tissue biopsy, hence only providing information on a specific tumor site, therefore unable to capture heterogeneous patterns of tumor antigen expression. Quantifying the expression of the target antigen across all tumor sites would help better understand tumor heterogeneity, whereas molecularly characterizing tumor-intrinsic features over time might provide information on resistance mechanisms. In addition, toxicity can represent a critical concern, since most ADCs have a safety profile that resembles that of chemotherapies, with often unique adverse events requiring special management, possibly because of the differential in pharmacokinetics between the small-molecule agent versus payload of a similar class (eg, deruxtecan conjugate-related interstitial lung disease). As such, the identification of robust predictive biomarkers of safety and activity of ADCs has the potential to improve patient selection and enrich the population of patients most likely to derive a substantial clinical benefit, especially in those disease settings where different ADCs happen to be approved in competing clinical indications, with undefined biomarkers to make precise decision making and unclear data on how to sequence ADCs. At this point, the identification of clinically actionable biomarkers in the space of ADCs remains a top research priority.

Communication in oncology was challenging long before the emergence of the US 21st Century Cures Act. Before 2021, a growing body of evidence had demonstrated the benefits of patients' access to and review of the clinical notes in their charts (open notes); however, studies examining the benefits of immediate access to test results were scarce until the implementation of the Cures Act's Information Blocking Rule. Individuals grappling with cancer today now possess immediate access to their laboratory results, imaging scans, diagnostic tests, and progress notes as mandated by law. To many clinicians, the implementation of the Cures Act felt sudden and presented new challenges and concerns for oncologists surrounding patients' potential emotional reactions to medical notes or lack of control over the careful delivery of potentially life-changing information. Despite data that show most patients want immediate access to information in their records before it is communicated directly by a health care professional, surveys of oncologists showed trepidation. In this chapter, perspectives from a patient with cancer, an oncologist, and a cancer psychiatrist (in that order) are shared to illuminate the adjustments made in clinician-patient communication amid the era of nearly instantaneous results within the electronic health record.

Germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes confer elevated risks of breast, ovarian, and other cancers. Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with increased risks of multiple cancer types including colorectal and uterine cancers. Current cancer risk mitigation strategies have focused on pharmacologic risk reduction, enhanced surveillance, and preventive surgeries. While these approaches can be effective, they stand to be improved on because of either limited efficacy or undesirable impact on quality of life. The current review summarizes ongoing investigational efforts in cancer risk prevention strategies for patients with germline PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, or LS-associated genes. These efforts span radiation, surgery, and pharmacology including vaccine strategies. Understanding the molecular events involved in the premalignant to malignant transformation in high-risk individuals may ultimately contribute significantly to novel prevention strategies.

In the dynamic landscape of oncology, collaborative efforts between the medical community and patient advocacy groups are pivotal in shaping standards of care and advancing research. Nowhere is this collaboration more evident than in sarcoma, a group of rare cancers posing unique challenges to diagnosis, management, and treatment, which profoundly affect patient outcomes. Here, we explore the vital role of patient-centric collaboration in improving global health outcomes in sarcoma, emphasizing the transformative power of collective action and shared expertise. Challenges in sarcoma care, including diagnostic complexities, disparities in access to care, and genomic tumor heterogeneity, underscore the urgent need for collaborative solutions. Initiatives like the Sarcoma European and Latin American Network (SELNET) and The Life Raft Group (LRG) exemplify successful models of collaborative research and patient advocacy, driving advancements in diagnosis, treatment, and disease understanding. Stakeholders across disciplines are uniting to improve sarcoma care and outcomes through the development of clinical practice guidelines, continuous medical education, patient registries, virtual tumor boards, and consortium-driven research endeavors, all of which foster the growth of global collaborative groups. The success of these collaborative efforts serves as a model for other rare diseases, highlighting the potential of collective action to drive progress and innovation in health care.

The worldwide cancer burden is growing, and populations residing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are experiencing a disproportionate extent of this growth. Breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers are among the top 10 most frequently diagnosed malignancies, and they also account for a substantial degree of cancer mortality internationally. Effective screening strategies are available for all three of these cancers. Individuals from LMICs face substantial cost and access barriers to early detection programs, and late stage at diagnosis continues to be a major cause for cancer mortality in these communities. This chapter will review the epidemiology of breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers, and will explore prospects for improving global control through novel approaches to screening in cost-constrained environments.