Episode 82: Rewriting the Story of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Dr. Sara Tolaney
In this enlightening episode of the Patient From Hell, host Samira Daswani interviews Dr. Sara Tolaney, a leading oncologist specializing in breast cancer. They delve into the evolving landscape of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), exploring advancements in treatment, from targeted therapies to immunotherapy, and the challenges faced by patients in both early-stage and metastatic settings. With her characteristic warmth and expertise, Dr. Tolaney provides actionable insights for patients and caregivers, offering hope and understanding in navigating this complex diagnosis.
What we discussed
-
A New Paradigm in Early-Stage TNBC Treatment
Dr. Tolaney explains how neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes, achieving pathologic complete response rates above 60%.
-
Metastatic TNBC Advances
The discussion highlights the critical role of biomarker testing and the introduction of innovative therapies like antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), providing extended survival for many patients.
-
Empowering Patient Symptom Management
The episode underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes and emerging tools like health apps to enhance self-management and real-time support for side effects.
About our guest
-
Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH is the Chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and is internationally recognized for her research and education leadership in breast cancer. She also serves as Associate Director of the Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers and is a Senior Physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Tolaney received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and her medical degree from UC San Francisco. She subsequently completed her residency in Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, and fellowships in hematology and medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She obtained her Masters in Public Health from Harvard School of Public Health. Her research focuses on the development of novel therapies in the treatment of breast cancer and developing more effective and less toxic treatment approaches. Her work has demonstrated that a relatively low risk regimen is beneficial in women with early stage node-negative HER2-positive cancers, and this works has been incorporated into national and international guidelines. She has developed several follow-up studies looking at novel approaches to early stage HER2-positive disease and has also played a significant role in development of cdk 4/6 inhibitors, antibody drug conjugates, and immunotherapy in breast cancer. She currently chairs several registration studies in these areas and also leads many investigator-initiated trials. She is the author of over 150 peer-reviewed publications with manuscripts included in many prestigious journals such as the New England Journal, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology.
Watch the video of our episode on YouTube
Key Moments
-
8 minutes:
"It used to be that if someone had a triple negative breast cancer, we would often take someone to surgery and then after surgery give them some chemotherapy to kill any stray cells that might've gotten into the bloodstream and integrate radiation as needed. But we've really changed our approach very dramatically over the last few years where we've learned that if someone has an early stage, stage two or three triple negative breast cancer, it is actually very critical that they not go to upfront surgery, but in fact get chemotherapy with immunotherapy prior to surgery."
-
22 minutes:
"When compared head to head to chemo, [Trodelvy] not just improved how long someone's cancer was controlled, but in fact, you know, more than doubled survival in triple negative disease when compared to standard chemo. And then the other antibody drug conjugate (ADC) was the one we alluded to earlier, trastuzumab deruxtecan, which works in patients who have some level of HER2 expression in the tumor, where it also has had a very impressive benefit."
-
36 minutes:
"In fact, that's why we're here. So we want you to be calling us so that we can help manage these things. But I think with these new apps, I mean, it's really nice because they're also trying to do what you were suggesting is teach the patients also how to manage some of these things. So if you tell the app that, 'I've actually had two bowel movements today,' the app can tell you back, 'Well, please take two tablets of Imodium,' for example, and see now how you respond to that."
Full Episode Transcript
Samira (00:00.962)
Hi everyone. This is Samira Daswani, the host of the podcast, The Patient From Hell. I have a very special guest with us today, Dr. Sara Tolaney who's joining us to talk to us about triple negative breast cancer and what the landscape has been happening in the last maybe five, five issues. We'll go with five. Hi, Dr. Tolaney. Welcome. Welcome to the episode. Dr. Tolaney, you're a rock star in the world of breast cancer patients. No, really, you really are.
Sara Tolaney (00:21.329)
Thank you so much for having me, Samira.
Samira (00:29.71)
I would love to learn about your story. How did you end up in oncology? How did you end up working in breast oncology? Maybe we can start there.
Sara Tolaney (00:40.581)
sure. So, you know, I think I always knew I wanted to go into medicine. You know, early on, my parents both had medical issues when I was growing up. My dad, when I was in high school, got diagnosed with prostate cancer at a young age, and my mom was diagnosed with lupus. And so I sort of saw both of my parents dealing with a lot of medical issues. And I really felt that, you know, physicians had a really special place in the lives of
people because I saw what a difference it made to have a physician who was really involved in care. When I eventually went to medical school, what I loved was the very unique relationship that patients had with their oncologists. When someone's going through a cancer journey, it's a very challenging time in someone's life.
are going through that, you also see your physician on a pretty regular basis. So you get to know, for example, me as an oncologist, I get to know someone's family. I get to know their sisters or brothers, their mother, like whoever is coming in with them to clinic on a regular basis. And I just, it's an amazing experience. And when you get to help someone through that journey, that is just so incredible.
and rewarding to see. And so I knew right away when I saw that in medical school that that's what I wanted to do. And when I was in college and I met my, at that time, my future husband and his mom actually, unfortunately was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. And I saw that journey over many, years firsthand and just realized
how different breast cancer is than other diseases. She lived over a decade with metastatic disease and went through numerous targeted drugs. And it helped me see what a difference therapies can make in someone's lives and change their quality of life. Like she got to see her children get married, she got to see grandchildren born, because of the impact of treatments on her life.
Sara Tolaney (02:54.109)
Again, that drew me into that field and I really wanted to get involved in drug development and so really just started that journey.
Samira (03:03.062)
Dr. Tolini, where did you grow up?
Sara Tolaney (03:05.675)
I grew up in Southern California. So very different from now being on the East Coast, particularly now when it's winter, I feel it. But I didn't miss this, sunny California, but yeah, that's where my parents actually still are.
Samira (03:20.066)
but you are in boss in a museum, Hank.
Sara Tolaney (03:22.473)
Yes, I am in Boston.
Samira (03:25.582)
Okay, all right. I am almost certain we can talk about, I have like 25 questions for you. So I'm trying to hold myself back. Can we maybe start with triple negative breast cancer? I'd love to hear from you just a one-on-one of what is it? Early stage metastatic, what's the difference? And then I have tons of followups.
Sara Tolaney (03:47.635)
Yeah, sure. So I think triple negative breast cancer has a very unfortunate name because it's kind of defined by what it isn't. So, know, in breast cancer, we think we've had for many years, three very basic receptors. It's honestly far more complex than that. But we've sort of thought of cancers as having the estrogen receptor, the progesterone receptor or the HER2 receptor. And we've lumped cancers based on
the presence or absence of these receptors. So for example, if a cancer has estrogen and or progesterone, we think of it as a hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Whereas if it has a HER2 receptor strongly present, we think of it as a HER2 positive cancer. And then if it doesn't have any of those three, so lack of estrogen receptor, lack of progesterone receptor and lack of HER2 receptor, that's when we think of it as triple negative breast cancer.
And so for years, this subtype of breast cancer was thought not to have targeted drugs and was thought to be a cancer where, again, there wasn't a clear target and was associated, unfortunately, with the worst prognosis of those three subtypes of breast cancer. However, I think we've come a long way from then where now there are multiple targeted agents available for triple negative disease and outcomes that continue to be.
as these newer and newer agents have moved into this space.
Samira (05:15.008)
Dr. Tuleni, can I ask you a follow up here? So with the unfortunate name of triple negative breast cancer or TNBC for short, if the biology of the cancer doesn't have the kind of targeted nature of it, how are there targeted treatments?
Sara Tolaney (05:33.791)
Yeah, no, it's a good question because the reason I think that the name is a bit unfortunate is because it's only looking at three receptors. And in fact, there's more to it than that. So for example, we used to think that a cancer to be truly HER2 positive had to be very strongly HER2 positive. And then we were using HER2 directed drugs for that cancer. But now it turns out, even if you just have a teeny tiny bit,
of that HER2 receptor, even if your cancer is not HER2 positive and you just have a little bit of that protein on your cell surface, that's enough to be a target. And so in fact, we have a drug called TRES2, so we have Dirextican or TdxD, some people also call it nHER2. This drug is an antibody drug conjugate where it binds to HER2 and is an antibody linked to chemo. So that whole antibody linked to chemo gets internalized into the cancer cell.
and then releases its chemotherapy. So we're able to have targeted delivery of chemotherapy. So even though it's a triple negative breast cancer, about a third of them will have a little bit of HER2 protein on their surface. And so can have a HER2 targeted antibody drug conjugate work in that setting. It also turns out that there are lots of other receptors on triple negative cancers. So for example, we know that almost all triple negative cancers have something called a Trope 2 receptor on it. And so this
is handy because it allows us to then also target trope two with an antibody drug conjugate and deliver potent amounts of chemotherapy. There are also other ways that we can target triple negative cancers. One is through use of immunotherapy, so activating the body's own immune system to target the cancer cell. And then for a subset of triple negative cancers, for example, that harbor a germline
BRCA mutation or even what we call somatic BRCA mutation, so a BRCA mutation in the tumor, then we can use drugs like PARP inhibitors. So it turns out there are lots of different targeted drugs that work in triple negative breast cancer and that's why I think it's not such a great name because there are lots of ways that we can kill these cancer cells.
Samira (07:47.586)
Thank you, that was super helpful. What about the difference between early stage triple negative and then metastatic triple negative? What are the modalities that are different?
Sara Tolaney (07:58.389)
Yeah, that's a really good question. So when we think of an early stage triple negative breast cancer, in essence means that the cancer is limited to being within the breast and maybe the adjacent lymph nodes, but that that cancer has not spread outside of the breast, local lymph node area. It hasn't gone to somewhere else in the body. And so in that case, our treatment approach is that we really want to try to cure the patient of this cancer. And our approach for these cancers actually has changed a lot.
over the last few years. It used to be that if someone had a triple negative breast cancer, we would often take someone to surgery and then after surgery give them some chemotherapy to kill any stray cells that might've gotten into the bloodstream and integrate radiation as needed. And then, you know, really say that we were done with treatment. But we've...
really changed our approach very dramatically over the last few years where we've learned actually that if someone has an early stage, stage two or three triple negative breast cancer, it is actually very critical that they not go to upfront surgery, but in fact get chemotherapy with immunotherapy prior to surgery to help us not just shrink the cancer that's still in the breast and lymph nodes potentially,
but also because it helps us understand how well our therapy worked. Because if we give that treatment and then we take some into surgery, we actually know when they go to surgery, did we actually kill every cell that was in the breast? Because when they go to surgery, if we don't see any cancer, well, we did a great job, right? That that therapy really actually worked very well. And in my mind, it's almost like a surrogate to understand what the response would be in case there were stray cells floating around in the bloodstream.
we killed everything in the breast and we proved that at the time of surgery, then we probably also killed whatever could have been released into the bloodstream and was floating around. And so then that means that that patient who goes to surgery and everything's killed, we call that a pathologic complete response, then they don't need further chemotherapy. In that case, we would finish out a course of immunotherapy to complete a year of treatment, but we wouldn't give them any more chemotherapy.
Sara Tolaney (10:14.262)
But if we took them to surgery and there was still stuff left behind, maybe we killed some of the cancer, but we didn't kill it all when they went to surgery, that would tell us there was still what we would call some residual disease. And that makes me worry that maybe I didn't kill every single cell that got into the bloodstream. And so I probably do need to give them additional chemotherapy afterwards. And so again, it's had survival impact by changing this.
know, paradigm of how we approach patients with early stage disease by being able to understand response in the preoperative setting and then tailor the treatment after surgery based on that response has changed survival for our breast cancer patients. And the other change has been the use of immunotherapy, which we didn't have until just a few years ago. And now actually just this year, we saw follow-up data showing that adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in stage two and three triple negative disease.
improve survival for patients. So this is a big deal. That means that we are curing more and more patients with triple negative disease.
Samira (11:18.594)
Tuleni, before we go to metastatic triple negative, can I ask you a follow-up? Actually more on the... Sorry, pardon my analogy here. So I may need like 30 seconds to explain where my head is and then you can course correct me. So I was diagnosed with triple positive breast cancer in 2020. And it sounds a little bit like the triple negative early stage clinical paradigm is...
moving a little bit closer to the way triple positive is viewed, which is pre-surgery, some sort of systemic treatment. You get to surgery, surgery is looking for residual disease or pathological complete response, after which there's a sort of additional plan put in place, plus minus systemic treatment. It sounds like TNBC is moving closer to triple positive. I see you nodding, so I'm assuming that's a yes.
Sara Tolaney (12:11.935)
Yeah, so you're spot on that we learned with HER2 positive cancers a little bit earlier on that we needed to follow this paradigm that we needed to give HER2 directed therapy and chemotherapy before surgery and figure out if it worked or not and then tailor therapy based on response. And as you point out, that also has led to survival benefit by doing that. In triple negative disease, we had chemotherapy for a while.
But now with immunotherapy, I think that paradigm is even more important because my worry is that immunotherapy probably doesn't work as well if you give it after surgery. Because when someone's diagnosed with a new breast cancer, there are tumors in place. And if you give the chemotherapy with the immunotherapy while that tumor is still sitting there, there's more...
antigen exposure, right? There's more ability for the immune system to recognize that thing that doesn't belong in your body. Whereas if you've already cut it out, there's no tumor there. There's maybe some microscopic cells floating around, but it's harder for the immune system to learn to recognize those tiny little stray cells much easier if the tumor is actually in place. And so giving that immunotherapy upfront while the tumor is in place in my mind is super critical. So we really don't...
want to make a mistake of taking someone to upfront surgery who has stage two or three disease and giving the immunotherapy afterwards because my fear is that it probably doesn't work quite as well in that setting.
Samira (13:47.022)
That is super, super helpful. Can I ask you, sorry, pardon my analogy, but one thing that I remember talking to my surgeon about back when I was going through it, because this concept of neoadjuvant or preoperative care and then surgery and then post-surgery, there feels like this big, giant moment. And that decides my...
prognosis that decides my future treatment options. It felt really big. And I was trying to wrap my head around it. And he used this analogy and I'd love your take on it. He said, treating cancer feels like a game of chess where you make a move, cancer makes a move, you make another move, cancer makes another move. And the reason preoperative surgery, preoperative systemic treatment is important is it
preserves moves for later in the game. How do you think of that analogy? Does that resonate, not resonate?
Sara Tolaney (14:53.611)
That's actually really interesting. I haven't heard that analogy before. like it. So I might have to steal it. So I think that is interesting because you're right that I think it allows us to react, right? We can understand what happens with that one particular move and then react accordingly. Whereas if we don't give treatment before surgery, we don't have a chance to react because we don't see what the response is to the cancer.
from our systemic treatment. So I do think it's really important to be able to, you know, again, like you said, see what the move the cancer has made so that we can appropriately react to it, but without seeing that, we're not able to make that response. And so, you know, I think it's hard, I will say as a patient, I could imagine that it's a weird thing for an oncologist to tell you, hey, I want to actually leave your.
tumor sitting there. I'm not going to take you to surgery tomorrow. Most patients are like, what are you talking about? Just get this thing out of me. You know, I don't want this here. And I will say it's a little bit, I think it does take some explanation, for why we actually do this because again, the natural knee jerk reaction is, Hey, I've been diagnosed with cancer. I just want this thing out. But again, it is really important for people to realize that there is survival benefit from taking this approach.
that we cure more people, in fact, if we just give treatment right away with systemic drugs and see how the cancer responds. And it turns out, like in triple negative disease, a little over 60 % of people who go to surgery actually have a pathologic complete response to chemo with immunotherapy. So that means that the majority of patients actually go to surgery without any cancer seen at the time of surgery. And I think that's, again, something patients...
it takes a little time to kind of wrap your head around that actually you could go to surgery and actually there'd be no cancer that's actually seen. And that's amazing to me that the pathologic complete response rates have increased so much that they're in fact a little over 60%. And actually you pointed out the HER2 positive scenario and it turns out that that's actually similar in HER2 positive disease, a little over 60 % of patients also have pathologic complete response to their upfront treatment. So we are.
Sara Tolaney (17:11.431)
Again, seeing such dramatic improvements.
Samira (17:15.342)
Thank you. was super. I didn't realize the rate of PCR in DNBC patients. That's incredible. How has metastatic DNBC changed?
Sara Tolaney (17:26.163)
Yeah, that's also changed a lot. You know, I've been a breast medical oncologist now for over 15 years practicing. And just, know, when I think about how I started practicing 15 years ago, it's like night and day difference. even just over the last three to four years, the number of drugs that have been approved is just amazing to see the pace of change is so different these days than it was early in my career. And so I
and I see it coming more and more drugs over the next few years. It's just that pace is incredible. So yes, the way we're treating metastatic triple negative disease is very different than many years ago. what we now do have to test for certain biomarkers in a metastatic triple negative patient to help us figure out what the appropriate treatment is. So for example, if I meet a patient who's newly found to have metastatic triple negative
breast cancer. So I know, again, their tumor doesn't have estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or technically a positive HER2 receptor. I will need to know, is there a little bit of HER2 expression? So do they have what we call a HER2 low or ultra low tumor? I would need to know, have they had genetic testing? Do they have a germline BRCA or PALV2 mutation? I would need to know if their tumor expresses something called PDL1, so a receptor present and about.
40 % of triple negative breast cancers, which would then mean that immunotherapy would have a role in the metastatic setting. And then I also tend to get genomic tests off the tumor to see if there could be other genomic alterations that would trigger a treatment decision. does the tumor have a high tumor mutation burden, which could be an indication for immunotherapy. again, it does take...
getting information upfront to make that treatment decision. And so right away when we meet that patient, we make sure their tumors had PD-L1 testing. We make sure that they've had genetic testing. And then if they have a PD-L1 positive cancer, we usually give chemotherapy with immunotherapy as our first treatment approach. If the tumor does not express PD-L1, then it means that immunotherapy unfortunately now does not seem to work.
Sara Tolaney (19:45.501)
in metastatic triple negative cancers unless it has that PD-L1 receptor, which I think is really weird because in the early stage setting, we just said everyone with stage two, three triple negative disease gets immunotherapy. I didn't, we don't have to test for PD-L1 there. Everyone benefited irrespectively of whether or not their tumor had the PD-L1 receptor, but that's not true in the metastatic setting where in fact.
it was only the 40 % of patients that had the PD-L1 receptor that benefited from the immunotherapy. So it is different in different contexts, which I think is important to realize. And so if your tumor doesn't have PD-L1, then the traditional first treatment would be chemotherapy by itself, or sometimes we will give a PARP inhibitor to someone who has a BRCA or PALB2 mutation instead of chemotherapy in that.
front line setting. So again, that's why we need to know if the patient has a germline mutation or a somatic mutation in BRCA. So all these pieces of information become critical. And then beyond that, we usually turn to what we call antibody drug conjugates. So those drugs that are composed of an antibody targeting some type of receptor on the surface of the cancer cell.
and delivering chemotherapy and had targeted manner to that cancer cell. So we have two currently approved antibody drug conjugates, sacituzumab govitecan, the brand name for that is Trodelvy, which when compared head to head to chemo, not just improved how long someone's cancer was controlled, but in fact, you know, more than doubled survival in triple negative disease when compared to standard chemo.
And then the other antibody drug conjugate was the one we alluded to earlier, trastuzumab direct stican, which works in patients who have some level of HER2 expression in the tumor, where it also has had a very impressive benefit. I think we're usually thinking about integrating these antibody drug conjugates along the way and then use further chemotherapy over time as well.
Samira (21:58.158)
So Dr. Ptoleni, if I take a tiny bit of a step back on metastatic TNBC, so you're doing all of this upfront testing that's looking at many, many, different things, where does something like a somatic mutation, so like a PI3K mutation, where does that factor into the sort of like macro biomarker testing that's happening?
Sara Tolaney (22:24.469)
So we do, when we ordered genomic testing off the tumor, we get it early on, but the truth is in triple negative breast cancer, those types of mutations that you're mentioning, things like a PI3 kinase mutation, they're not what we consider actionable in triple negative disease, meaning that, you know, it turns out like 8 % or so of patients with triple negative disease will have a PIC3CA mutation, but...
in triple negative breast cancer, at least so far, we don't have an approval for a drug that targets PI3 kinase that has shown benefit in metastatic triple negative breast cancer, which is not the case in other subtypes of breast cancer, right? In hormone receptor positive breast cancer, for example, we do know that you do need to know if a tumor harbors that mutation because in fact, we do have drugs that turn off that signaling that have significant improvements in outcomes for patients.
We are studying this in triple negative disease as well, but to date, none of the agents that target that pathway have proven to have significant benefits. I think that will maybe change in the future because there are newer and newer drugs that are even more selective for PI3 kinase that are emerging. We'll have to see over time if that changes. But right now, there are not a lot of what I consider actionable somatic alterations in triple negative disease.
We do know that if you have a somatic BRCA alteration, that those patients can benefit from PARP inhibition. If you have high TMB or high tumor mutation burden, you could benefit from immunotherapy. If you have a tumor that's MSI high, so has microsatellite instability, then immunotherapy could work. But there are other rare mutations.
like N-TREC, for example, that we almost never see in breast cancer, less than 1%, that can lead to use of targeted agents. But for the most part, there aren't very many targetable alterations that are somatic that are actionable in triple negative disease.
Samira (24:35.406)
Super, super helpful. And then I have one more question before I wanted to move to like the symptom management side of the house from a patient lens. But my one question is, how do you think about first line versus second thought, fourth line treatment for TNBC in the metastatic side?
Sara Tolaney (24:54.155)
So usually in the frontline setting, the first question we have in our mind is, is this patient going to benefit from immunotherapy? And so that's the very first thing we need to address. And so that's why it's really important to wait to make a decision about first-line treatment until you have that PD-L1 information. And once you know that that...
Samira (24:54.891)
Yeah.
Sara Tolaney (25:16.629)
tumor has a PD-L1 receptor present, then you know that you can give chemo immunotherapy. And I like to give it as the very first treatment because we also worry that immunotherapy may not work as well if you use it later on during someone's disease course. Because we do think that tumors tend to have fewer and fewer immune cells around when they've been treated.
So, you you could imagine if someone's had a bunch of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, if you look at the number of infiltrating lymphocytes surrounding the tumor, we see that it dramatically falls as someone's had more and more treatment in the metastatic setting. And so immunotherapy doesn't seem to work very well when tested in later lines of treatment. It only seems to work in that frontline setting. So we like to use it upfront if we know it's gonna have potential benefit.
So I think that is an important thing that we try to integrate early on. But if, again, the tumor doesn't have the PD-L1 receptor, then we're not looking at immunotherapy.
Samira (26:23.982)
Interesting, very interesting. And then what about someone who is newly diagnosed, like a de novo metastatic diagnosis versus a recurrence? Because presumably an early stage DNBC patient who had treatment and unfortunately now has a recurrence, how do you think about that with frontline care?
Sara Tolaney (26:45.147)
That's actually a really complicated question. So I had a good question. So it turns out that if you were to like look at all the patients that we see who present with metastatic triple negative disease, about a third of those patients will have that the proportion of patients across all the metastatic patients, about a third of them will have presented with de novo metastatic triple negative breast cancer. And we think that that proportion is.
increasing over time because I think we're also curing more patients in the early stage setting because we are giving more immunotherapy upfront. And so there are fewer patients relapsing and therefore, you if you're looking at your metastatic patients, more of them over time have started to have de novo disease. But your point is important because we do really factor in whether or not someone's had prior treatment.
and how long ago that prior treatment was. And one challenge with triple negative disease is that when it comes back after having an early stage cancer, it tends to come back pretty quickly as opposed to like an air positive cancer where patients can recur five, 10, 15 years later. In triple negative disease, the vast majority of people are recurring pretty fast, usually within the first three or four years. And in fact,
we do know that about half of the recurrences even occur within the first 12 months of their adjuvant treatment. So they can be rapid recurrences. And so if someone recurs that fast within 12 months, that makes you think all that stuff you gave them to try to cure them of that early stage cancer didn't really work, right? And so that means that their tumor cells are.
really resistant to all that stuff you just gave them. So if they got chemo and immunotherapy and it's recurred within a year of that, I'm not really interested in reusing any of those drugs because the cancer just came back so fast. It just makes me think those drugs didn't do what I needed them to do. And I need to think of another plan. And so in those patients with really rapid relapse, we tend to jump to antibody drug conjugates because that's something at least right now.
Sara Tolaney (29:03.007)
patients in the early stage setting have not seen. And so does seem to be a different approach that that cancer would be naive to and hopefully would be sensitive to. Whereas if someone had their cancer recur several years after their adjuvant therapy, so that treatment used in the early stage setting, well then I think they still could be sensitive to some of those drugs they got before.
And so for example, even if they got immunotherapy years ago, I might consider reusing it, but I'll be honest, we don't really have data about this yet because we only recently started using immunotherapy for early stage cancers. We actually don't know what happens if you re-expose that patient to immunotherapy, will it work? I think we generally do it if someone has a PD-L1 positive tumor, but the honest truth is we just don't have enough information about efficacy. But as you can see, we are factoring in not only
is this a recurrent cancer, but we're also factoring in that interval of time between last exposure to systemic treatment in the early stage setting and what those systemic drugs were to figure out what the appropriate treatment is once they've.
Samira (30:13.336)
That is super super helpful. I feel as though I'm learning so much right now.
I'm a nerd, sorry.
Sara Tolaney (30:20.779)
That's okay. am too. My kids like to tell me that all the time.
Samira (30:29.742)
So it's fascinating. It's fascinating to hear how an oncologist thinks about different, like it's still breast cancer, right? And if we had the same conversation about her to positive disease, I imagine that the conversation would look and feel very different than what we're talking about with the DNBC. So I appreciate the context. So I'm gonna use this as a transition point into one of my latest favorite areas of information seeking.
is symptom management, specifically around self-management. So what I mean by that is, let me tell you the way I'm thinking about it, and please, of course, correct me, because I'm almost certain I'm going to be wrong on a whole bunch of things. So the way I think about symptom management, I've heard four words used kind of interchangeably. The symptoms, side effect, toxicity, adverse event. And it kind of feels like different things, but sort of kind of used almost all the time in different ways.
but in a very naive sense for me, it's a symptom, I'm feeling it as a patient. When I'm feeling it, I have some version of a scale, mild, moderate, severe, very severe, which loosely for my many nerds in the audience translates to graded events. Grade one, two, three, four. But for the non-nords, mild, moderate, severe, very severe. And...
For TNBC, my macro question is one, how do you think about symptoms, side effect, toxicity, AEs or adverse events? And then what are the common ones that you see patients are grappling with in the early stage settings and the metastatic settings? And then my last question for you is gonna be around self-management. How do you enable the patient to start to self-manage some of these things that are sitting in the mild or moderate or like the grade one or grade two on their own, because sometimes it feels like you kind of are managing on your own.
And my best friend, Dr. Google, helps me, which is not great.
Sara Tolaney (32:27.307)
Let's go.
Samira (32:33.484)
We don't want that. Hence my question to you.
Sara Tolaney (32:36.287)
No, definitely not. Well, first, maybe to take your first question, which is, how do we think of these different terms and sort of what does it mean? So when we think, for example, of an adverse event, I think of that more as the way we grade toxicities when someone's on a clinical trial, for example. We're trying to understand what side effects a patient's experiencing, but I will say the caveat is,
This is through the lens of the physician who's treating the patient. This is not through the patient lens. And I think they are different. So for example, if I'm treating a patient on a clinical trial and they have diarrhea, the way I'm grading that diarrhea is based on how many bowel movements a day that they're having, right? And how that has changed compared to their baseline rate of how many bowel movements they normally have.
So, you that is how we grade the intensity, if you will, of that particular side effect. And then that, again, is through the physician lens. But you can understand that the physician and the patient lens are not always exactly the same. And for some of the things that we're grading, we don't do such a great job of grading it. So, you know, I learned this the hard way when I ran a clinical trial where I was trying to understand differences in side effects of two different treatment approaches.
And, you when I was treating a bunch of patients with these two different approaches, it was clear to me that patients felt a lot better on one treatment approach than the other. But when I looked at their adverse events and I summed how many adverse events people had on one drug compared to the other, in fact, the sum total was exactly the same. But I knew that could really be the same because I treated all these patients. kind of knew how they were feeling. So then we looked at
patient-reported outcomes. And we the patients provide us their side effects. And it was very clear there were differences in patient-reported outcomes favoring the drug that we all kind of knew people were tolerating better. And so I will say, I don't think we are perfect in our assessment of toxicities. And you do have to take some of this with a grain of salt, because what's reported when you look at what the adverse events were for a particular drug in a trial,
Sara Tolaney (35:00.519)
RN1, select group of patients, they're super healthy patients that generally go on to trials. They're not usually older patients that are going on to trials. And so you have to realize that the data that you're getting for the side effect profile is in a pretty good performing group of patients. And again, the data is not always perfect. So for example, if you look at rates of hair loss, you're going to see it's not always so accurate because doctors...
are not always paying attention to the degree of hair loss as their primary reporting. And so they don't report it very well in clinical trials. And so you'll see it, there's one drug that we know everyone goes bald with, but if you look at the reporting, it says only about 30 % of people go bald. And we're like, nah, that's not true. I've never had a patient ever keep their hair with that drug. So I think you have to realize there's some caveats to this stuff that is not perfect.
And I think we always have to make sure we're also looking at these things through a patient lens and not always from the treating physician lens. so nowadays we do try to capture both when we're studying new drugs so that we're getting patient reported toxicities as well as the physician reporting.
Samira (36:15.342)
And then how you differentiate between symptom and side effect or toxicity.
Sara Tolaney (36:21.759)
Yeah, I I think of what we were just talking about, those adverse events as like the toxicities that we're seeing. But the symptoms I think of more is like, how's the patient actually feeling on a day-to-day basis with this drug? And that's where I think, you know, we really need to get patient-reported outcomes to understand that and how that trajectory changes over time, because, you know, the patient's only seeing the physician at certain time intervals, right? If I'm seeing that patient every three weeks on a treatment,
I'm not collecting their toxicity every single day of those three weeks. I asked them to summarize them for me when I see them three weeks later, but it's not perfect. And so, you know, there are a lot of new systems where there are, for example, apps on people's phones where you can start reporting side effects. And to me, that's really interesting because that gets you a more real time assessment of what's going on with that person over time. And, know, to your point, we don't want...
the patients trying to manage all these things on their own. In fact, that's why we're here. So we want you to be calling us so that we can help manage these things. But I think with these new apps, I mean, it's really nice because they're also trying to do what you were suggesting is teach the patients also how to manage some of these things. So if you tell the app that, I've actually had two bowel movements today, the app can tell you back, well, please take two tablets of Imodium, for example, and see now how you respond to that. And so I think
know, futuristically speaking, I hope we can move towards better ways to be helping patients on a more day-to-day basis than we do now.
Samira (37:58.008)
That is super helpful. really appreciate this. I'm going to use this to transition into what I call the rapid fire. I'm just going to ask you a... Sorry.
Sara Tolaney (38:07.627)
I'm a little scared, I'm proud of myself.
Samira (38:13.486)
Most guests like it. Most guests like it. Most. I'll just ask you a series of what questions. So short answers. Attention span today, Dr. Tuleni, as you can imagine, has gone down. What we do is we clip our podcast into small snippets and we'll publish them on social media. So anybody who doesn't want to listen to the full episode listens to that little thing. So it allows us to.
Sara Tolaney (38:15.755)
You
Sara Tolaney (38:21.642)
Okay.
Samira (38:42.542)
create credible content but in short attention span.
Sara Tolaney (38:46.283)
That's great.
Samira (38:51.488)
Alright, you ready for me?
Sara Tolaney (38:53.929)
I am, I'm ready to go.
Samira (38:57.998)
Alright, what is an AE?
Sara Tolaney (39:01.139)
And AE is what we would call an adverse event, which really means that it's a side effect that's emerging from a particular treatment.
Samira (39:11.296)
What is alopecia?
Sara Tolaney (39:14.163)
Alopecia is a fancy term that means hair loss. And so if someone develops alopecia, it in essence means they went bald from the treatment that they were receiving.
Samira (39:26.828)
What is neutropenia?
Sara Tolaney (39:29.927)
Neutropenia means that you have a low neutrophil count. And neutrophils are a type of white blood cells that are really important for fighting infection. This can be a side effect of chemotherapy. And if someone is neutropenic at that time, it means they're not gonna be so good at fighting infections.
Samira (39:49.944)
What is febrile neutropenia?
Sara Tolaney (39:53.707)
So febrile neutropenia means that the patient has a fever. So we call that a temperature over 100.5. And it means that they have low neutrophil counts at the same time. So it means that they have not enough infection fighting white blood cells, but also have a fever. And so to us, this is an emergency because again, they're not gonna be able to fight off that infection they have. And usually patients need to be hospitalized if they have febrile neutropenia and covered with ib-n-bio.
Samira (40:25.484)
What is an ILD?
Sara Tolaney (40:28.971)
ILD means interstitial lung disease. So in essence, that means that someone has developed inflammation within their lungs. This can sometimes be a side effect of some particular drugs. And if someone does develop significant enough ILD from a drug, we often need to hold that drug and then do something to help those lungs improve, usually give steroids to calm them down and help resolve that inflammation in the lungs.
Samira (40:57.75)
What is TMB?
Sara Tolaney (41:01.643)
TMB stands for tumor mutation burden. So that means that when we get a genomic assay, they often will provide this number called a TMB, which looks at how many mutations per megabase are present. And if a TMB is over 10, we consider that a high tumor mutation burden. And there now is approval for use of immunotherapy in patients who have high TMB tumor.
Samira (41:32.076)
What is MSI?
Sara Tolaney (41:34.853)
MSI refers to microsatellite instability. These are cancers that tend to be very sensitive to immunotherapy. In breast cancer, unfortunately, we don't see very many high MSI tumors, but if you do have one, then immunotherapy may be a reasonable treatment.
Samira (41:54.188)
What is an ADC?
Sara Tolaney (41:57.033)
An ADC is an antibody drug conjugate. So that means that we've taken an antibody, we've linked that antibody to chemotherapy. And so that antibodies targeting a particular receptor on the cancer cell, can bind to that receptor, get internalized into the cancer cell, and then release its chemotherapy into the cancer cell.
Samira (42:19.448)
What is a PARP inhibitor?
Sara Tolaney (42:22.631)
A PARP inhibitor is a drug that is used to take advantage of patients who have homologous recombination deficiency, in particular patients who have known BRCA mutations. We know that they don't know how to repair DNA in one way. And because that's the case, if we remove the other mechanism to repair DNA through a PARP inhibitor, then that
tumor in essence doesn't have a way to repair any damaged DNA and therefore it will die. And so it essence takes advantage of the fact if a tumor doesn't have one DNA repair mechanism, we can take away the other one and then cause those tumor cells to die.
Samira (43:06.102)
What is PD-L1?
Sara Tolaney (43:09.227)
PD-L1 is a receptor that can be expressed on tumor cells and in essence binds to PD-1, which is on the T cell and turns it off. So it's kind of an inhibitory signal that is sent from the tumor cell to the body's own immune cells, trying to evade the immune system. But now we have drugs that sort of inhibit that interaction and so therefore can allow the immune cells to work.
and go after the tumor cells.
Samira (43:41.986)
What is a somatic mutation?
Sara Tolaney (43:45.183)
The somatic mutation means that there's a mutation that is found within the tumor cells themselves. So it is not a mutation that is an inheritable mutation. So it's not within the germline of that patient, but rather just within the tumor.
Samira (44:01.346)
What is PCR?
Sara Tolaney (44:04.373)
PCR stands for pathologic complete response. It is the way that we look at response in a tumor after someone's received neoadjuvant or treatment preoperatively before going to surgery. And so if they have a PCR, it means that there is no tumor that is found either within the breast or the adjacent lymph nodes.
Samira (44:29.986)
What is the most common piece of advice you give to a newly diagnosed, early stage, triple negative breast cancer patient?
Sara Tolaney (44:39.487)
That's a tough one. I will say that if someone has a newly diagnosed triple negative breast cancer, obviously it's a big shock to come into that diagnosis. But I will say that even though triple negative breast cancer generally has been associated with worse outcomes and other subtypes, I do make sure patients are aware that we can cure many triple negative breast cancers. And this is something that is
a potentially curable disease. And we are doing even better with the introduction of immunotherapy in this setting, where many more patients are being cured. We are seeing survival outcomes improve. And so while it is a challenging journey to go through chemotherapy and potentially immunotherapy, again, we see many patients where these cancers never come back. And so we are doing better.
Samira (45:32.494)
What is the most common piece of advice you give to a metastatic triple negative breast cancer patient?
Sara Tolaney (45:40.105)
It's really hard when being found to have metastatic disease because I think the challenge is that, you we know that unfortunately right now we generally aren't curing the vast majority of patients of metastatic triple negative breast cancer. And I think it's challenging to think that you're going to be on some form of systemic therapy, you know, at all times in essence throughout your lifetime. But I will say the thing that I find the most encouraging and the most hopeful is that
our drugs are really changing outcomes for patients with metastatic disease, whether it be immunotherapy or antibody drug conjugates. We are seeing more and more of these drugs get approved and the landscape for treatment just keeps evolving literally every several months. And so what I know today is not maybe what I'm gonna know in a year or two years and it's just gonna keep improving. And so, you I would make sure you continue to remain hopeful because we do have excellent treatment approaches now and I think they're just gonna continue to improve.
Samira (46:40.014)
That was my last question. Thank you for being such an incredible guest. I had so much fun. I so appreciate you.
Sara Tolaney (46:46.603)
So I just want thank you so much for having me. really a great conversation, so I appreciate it.
Samira (46:53.24)
Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season and I would love to have you back here when something has changed in our landscape. So hopefully in the next few months we can have you back here telling us about what has changed for TNBC patients.
Sara Tolaney (47:07.827)
That'd be a lot of fun. Things keep changing all the time, so I'd love that. That'd be great.
Samira (47:12.77)
Thank you so much.
Sara Tolaney (47:14.389)
Thanks, have a great day.
Disclaimer: This podcast blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice, and no doctor/patient relationship is formed. The use of information on this podcast blog or materials linked from this podcast blog is at the user's own risk. The content of this podcast blog is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard, or delay in obtaining, medical advice for any medical condition they may have, and should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such conditions.
This episode is sponsored by Gilead Oncology. Gilead had no involvement or input in the podcast content. Gilead Oncology is working to transform how cancer is treated. We are innovating with next-generation therapies, combinations, and technologies to deliver improved outcomes for people with cancer. From antibody drug conjugates and small molecules to cell therapy-based approaches, our portfolio and pipeline assets are creating new possibilities for people with cancer.