Aligning ESCC and GI Cancer Treatment Strategies With Current Guidelines

EP: 1.Prevalence and Characteristics of GI Cancers

EP: 2.Evolving Treatment Landscape for Upper GI and Esophageal Cancer

EP: 3.KEYNOTE-590 Trial Impacting Treatment Landscape for ESCC and Upper GI Cancer

EP: 4.Overview of CheckMate Trials 648 and 649

Now Viewing

EP: 5.Aligning ESCC and GI Cancer Treatment Strategies With Current Guidelines

EP: 6.Quality of Life Impacted by Treatment of ESCC and Upper GI Cancer

EP: 7.Optimizing Treatment Pathways for Patients with ESCC and GI Cancer

EP: 8.The Evolving Treatment Landscape of Upper GI and Esophageal Cancer

EP: 9.Key Cost Drivers in Treating Gastroesophageal Cancers

EP: 10.Unmet Needs for Patients With Esophageal and Upper-GI Cancers

EP: 11.Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Gastroesophageal Cancer Treatment Landscape

EP: 12.Decision-Making Within a Rapidly Evolving Field Where Labeling May Differ From Current Clinical Guidelines

EP: 13.Determining Individual Treatment Sequencing for Patients with Gastroesophageal Cancer

EP: 14.Selecting Optimal Gastroesophageal Treatment: Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy, and Combined Therapies

EP: 15.New Gastroesophageal Treatment Therapies Impacting Patient Quality of Life

EP: 16.Defining Appropriate Response to Gastroesophageal Cancer Treatment

EP: 17.Immunotherapy Considerations for Upper GI and Esophageal Cancer Treatment Pathways

EP: 18.Evaluating Gastroesophageal Cancer Pathway Decisions

EP: 19.Cost-Effective Analyses for Upper GI and Esophageal Cancer Treatment

EP: 20.Patient-Support Services and Programs for Patients With Gastroesophageal Cancer

Syma Iqbal, MD: It has become a difficult scenario for clinicians because the FDA guidelines and the FDA approvals for the incorporation of immunotherapy into the frontline setting isn’t consistent with the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines. This has made it somewhat difficult for clinicians to talk to patients who ask for immunotherapy.

The NCCN guidelines followed strict criteria in the context of looking at the primary end points of the clinical trials as they were designed. CheckMate 649 was designed to primarily look at patients who had a CPS [combined positive score] of 5 or greater. In subgroup analysis, specifically looking at CheckMate 649, it appears that patients who had a CPS of less than 5 likely didn’t have a significant response to treatment as opposed to patients who [had a score of] 5 or greater. It has put clinicians in a bad position because these drugs are approved, and patients come [into the clinic] asking for these drugs.

Usually, the approach that I take in my practice is I counsel these patients about the available data. If they truly have a PD-L1 CPS score of 0, I counsel the patients to take another approach in terms of treatment, because adding the potential toxicity of immunotherapy for a patient who likely isn’t going to benefit from the addition of that drug doesn’t seem worth the risk. When patients have a CPS in the 1 to 4 range, it becomes a more difficult conversation. I try to counsel those patients in accordance with those data. But many times, particularly in younger patients and when we’re concerned about a patient’s ability to go toward further therapy down the line, we’ll wind up trying to give those patients immunotherapy as well.

I also want to be clear that the patient populations for CheckMate 649 were HER2 negative. The HER2-positive population is a different entity. The FDA approved the addition of pembrolizumab for the frontline treatment of HER2-positive patients based on KEYNOTE-811. That’s regardless of PD-L1 CPS. But if you look at the data, patients who had a low PD-L1 CPS seemed to benefit from therapy. The disease control rate was upward of 90%. There are more data to come in that population. But that’s generally the approach I take in the HER2-negative population. If they have a CPS of less than 5, I try to counsel them. If they have a score of 0, I try not to give them immunotherapy. But [if they have a score of] 5 or above, we incorporate it into care.

Transcript edited for clarity.