logo
Emerging Themes in GI Oncology from ASCO 2025

Emerging Themes in GI Oncology from ASCO 2025

Medscape01-07-2025
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I'm Dr Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I'm speaking from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we've seen some interesting new data in GI cancers. I always enjoy doing this kind of on-the-ground reporting, and the real reason I love coming to these meetings is, while it's wonderful to network with colleagues, there is true progress in our field that we can take back almost immediately to our clinics to help our patients.
There are three themes in GI oncology that I've seen emerge at this meeting. One is the utility or not of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in affecting treatment decisions. The second is the role of immunotherapy in GI oncology, and the third is, I think, a real triumph for targeted therapy in oncology.
Addressing the first, and to be honest, most controversial point: Where are we with ctDNA in GI oncology, and most importantly, where are we with these assays in terms of how we counsel our patients?
Sometimes what's most important about ASCO is trials that are arguably negative in their findings. This year, it really caught my attention that DYNAMIC-III sort of turned over the apple carton terms of ctDNA-informed approaches to colon cancer.
The design of this study was looking at patients with stage III colon cancer and using a ctDNA-informed approach in a randomized fashion to see if we should be escalating chemotherapy in patients who have a positive ctDNA signal. The randomization was against the standard of care.
For years, I think there has been a false binary between using modern ctDNA technology and our traditional clinicopathologic criteria. After all, the whole way we classify stage III colon cancer is based on TNM staging, so that remains the foundation. What we are trying to discern together, and especially together with our patients, is when it is appropriate for this technology to be layered on top of traditional clinicopathologic criteria and thus affect treatment decision-making.
The takeaway from this trial for me, especially since recurrence-free survival was worse for the ctDNA-informed cohort vs the standard of care, was that this is a prognostic assay, but not necessarily predictive. Patients who have a ctDNA signal that is positive who had escalation of their adjuvant therapy did not seem to benefit from the addition of, say, irinotecan to a traditional fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublet.
Interestingly, also, I think this study validated that roughly one third — maybe no more than 30% — of stage III colon cancer patients have a positive ctDNA signal. My takeaway, again, is we're sort of going back to the future. It was the MOSAIC trial that was published in June 2004 that established the current standard of care for how we approach adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer.
Now, slightly over two decades later, we really have not made vast improvements in the field, and ctDNA is wonderful, but it is not entirely supplanting the understanding we've had since MOSAIC and since IDEA.
Without getting too into the weeds, I'll also point out that I think the statistical design here was ambitious. The hazard ratio in this particular trial, DYNAMIC-III, was frankly suggestive of the fact the study might have been underpowered, enrolling just over 200 patients, whereas MOSAIC had over 2000 to reach its practice-changing conclusions.
Watch out for upcoming studies such as CIRCULATE-US and NRG-GI008, which will again use ctDNA negativity to look at de-escalation and ctDNA positivity to look at escalation. Until that trial matures, I don't think this assay is actually going to change the standard-of-care approach to stage III colon cancer in the United States.
The second point I'd like to make is about immunotherapy. I love the fact that when patients come to me, and I've been described before our first visit as a chemotherapy doctor, I can tell them that there's more to medical oncology than indiscriminate cytotoxicity. We are truly in the era where immunotherapy has a role to play in a variety of GI cancers.
We heard at the ASCO plenary session that immunotherapy has a major role to play now in adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer with mismatch repair deficiency. The ATOMIC trial showed a significant 3-year disease-free survival benefit using atezolizumab along with traditional FOLFOX chemotherapy to help patients in the adjuvant setting.
The MATTERHORN study showed the advantage of using durvalumab atop FLOT in the perioperative setting in gastric cancer. So two different GI histologies, but a huge role now for immunotherapy in this space.
Finally, dealing with metastatic colorectal cancer, the maturation of CheckMate-8HW shows that the ipilimumab-nivolumab (ipi-nivo) doublet definitely has a role to play in the metastatic setting.
This has been interesting because when I think about immunotherapy trials that have changed my practice, the one I keep coming back to is KEYNOTE-177. It was such a triumph at the time of its publication and remains so.
What's sobering to realize, though, is that as more time has elapsed since KEYNOTE-177 matured, the 5-year survival rate of the pembrolizumab arm remains about 60%. Also, you might remember that the initial survival curve dipped below the chemotherapy arm before it plateaued and improved for immunotherapy. There are certainly some patients who need an earlier, more aggressive response.
Enter ipi-nivo. What I like about this trial is that the ipilimumab dosing seems quite conservative, at 1 mg/kg, with four exposures to that agent before nivolumab continues by itself. That's appealing to those of us who have always had some reservations about using an anti-CTLA-4 approach.
The very first time I ever used immunotherapy in any setting was during fellowship. It was 2011, and it was ipilimumab in the setting of metastatic melanoma. I watched in amazement as this patient's disease melted away, but at a dose then of 10 mg/kg, the endocrinopathy was significant. I also watched as my patient suffered from pan-hypopituitarism.
For medical oncologists who are understandably tentative about anti-CTLA-4 as a mechanism, the question is always, is the juice worth the squeeze? Here, you do get a higher response rate from ipi-nivo than you would with nivolumab alone for patients who, say, might be on the verge of visceral crisis and need a faster initial response.
Finally, I want to talk about targeted therapy. I think what was incredible about ASCO this year is realizing just how much progress we're making with BRAF -mutant colon cancer. We have known for a very long time that this mutation confers a worse prognosis, and we've often wondered whether it's appropriate to treat these patients sequentially or should we take the BREAKWATER-informed approach of giving them encorafenib, cetuximab, a fluoropyrimidine, and a platinum upfront — arguably a quadruplet.
I think the answer from this meeting is a resounding yes— a doubling of median overall survival from 15 to 30 months by essentially frontloading all of the effective treatment and not trying to do it in sequential lines of therapy.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Really, what this means is we have to know as soon as possible that we're dealing with a BRAF mutation. There are certain clinical phenotypes that we look for — more aggressive disease, carcinoembryonic antigen rising in the right colon — but this is proof, once again, that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind.
I cannot take proper care of my patients without a fully biomarker informed approach, and I can't wait for these test results to come back. This study allowed for at least early exposure to FOLFOX alone while BRAF mutation results were maturing, but we really need to partner with a pathologist and understand metastatic disease in GI the same way we would understand it in metastatic breast cancer.
There is not a single breast cancer oncologist I know who would try treating their patients without knowing estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status. I think we are absolutely at the point in GI oncology where it should be unacceptable to treat our patients without knowing KRAS , NRAS , BRAF , and arguably HER2 status, and certainly mismatch repair or microsatellite instability status.
The final targeted therapy triumph at this ASCO looked at DESTINY-Gastric04. DESTINY has been an interesting suite of trials looking at the role of trastuzumab deruxtecan in a variety of HER2-positive cancers. I vividly remember the plenary session several years ago where the data for DESTINY-Breast04 earned a standing ovation.
I was one of those people who stood up as a GI oncologist because I could see how this was going to help patients with HER2-positive disease across various primary sites. What we learned at this meeting with the maturation of DESTINY-Gastric04 is this drug particularly seems to outperform traditional second-line therapies such as ramucirumab-paclitaxel.
There are downsides. This drug famously (or infamously) causes interstitial lung disease in about 1 in 7 patients. It's also absolutely vital to re-biopsy at time of progression to ensure that the HER2 target for this antibody-drug conjugate is still there.
HER2 heterogeneity remains something we haven't fully grappled with, but I find that my patients, when I explain the role of a targeted therapy, are generally willing to undergo another liver biopsy —if they understand the lock and key hypothesis between the HER2 mutation and a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan.
To sum up, from ASCO 2025 for GI oncology, the three main areas I see of progress, at least in our understanding, are number one, circulating tumor DNA remaining prognostic, but likely not predictive at this point; number two, immunotherapy having a major role to play now in the adjuvant colon cancer setting as well as in perioperative gastric cancer management; and number three, targeted therapy with BREAKWATER really becoming, I think, the standard of care in the first line for BRAF V600E-mutant colon cancer and trastuzumab deruxtecan making a strong play for second-line therapy in HER2-positive gastric cancer.
This has been Mark Lewis, the director of medical oncology for gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare, reporting for Medscape from ASCO 2025. Thank you.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

FEMA's flood maps often miss dangerous flash flood risks, leaving homeowners unprepared
FEMA's flood maps often miss dangerous flash flood risks, leaving homeowners unprepared

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

FEMA's flood maps often miss dangerous flash flood risks, leaving homeowners unprepared

The deadly flash flooding in Texas on July 4, 2025, and destructive flash floods a week later in states including New Mexico, Vermont and Iowa are raising questions about the nation's flood maps and their ability to ensure that communities and homeowners can prepare for rising risks. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps are intended to be the nation's primary tool for identifying flood risks. Originally developed in the 1970s to support the National Flood Insurance Program, these maps, known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or FIRMs, are used to determine where flood insurance is required for federally backed mortgages, to inform local building codes and land-use decisions, and to guide flood plain management strategies. In theory, the maps enable homeowners, businesses and local officials to understand their flood risk and take appropriate steps to prepare and mitigate potential losses. But while FEMA has improved the accuracy and accessibility of the maps over time with better data, digital tools and community input, the maps still don't capture everything – including the changing climate. There are areas of the country that flood, some regularly, that don't show up on the maps as at risk. I study flood-risk mapping as a university-based researcher and at First Street, an organization created to quantify and communicate climate risk. In a 2023 assessment using newly modeled flood zones with climate-adjusted precipitation records, we found that more than twice as many properties across the country were at risk of a 100-year flood than the FEMA maps identified. Even in places where the FEMA maps identified a flood risk, we found that the federal mapping process, its overreliance on historical data, and political influence over the updating of maps can lead to maps that don't fully represent an area's risk. FEMA's maps are essential tools for identifying flood risks, but they have significant gaps that limit their effectiveness. One major limitation is that they don't consider flooding driven by intense bursts of rain. The maps primarily focus on river channels and coastal flooding, largely excluding the risk of flash flooding, particularly along smaller waterways such as streams, creeks and tributaries. This limitation has become more important in recent years due to climate change. Rising global temperatures can result in more frequent extreme downpours, leaving more areas vulnerable to flooding, yet unmapped by FEMA. For example, when flooding from Hurricane Helene hit unmapped areas around Asheville, North Carolina, in 2024, it caused a huge amount of uninsured damage to properties. Even in areas that are mapped, like the Camp Mystic site in Kerr County, Texas, that was hit by a deadly flash flood on July 4, 2025, the maps may underestimate their risk because of a reliance on historic data and outdated risk assessments. Additionally, FEMA's mapping process is often shaped by political pressures. Local governments and developers sometimes fight to avoid high-risk designations to avoid insurance mandates or restrictions on development, leading to maps that may understate actual risks and leave residents unaware of their true exposure. An example is New York City's appeal of a 2015 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps update. The delay in resolving the city's concerns has left it with maps that are roughly 20 years old, and the current mapping project is tied up in legal red tape. On average, it takes five to seven years to develop and implement a new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. As a result, many maps across the U.S. are significantly out of date, often failing to reflect current land use, urban development or evolving flood risks from extreme weather. This delay directly affects building codes and infrastructure planning, as local governments rely on these maps to guide construction standards, development approvals and flood mitigation projects. Ultimately, outdated maps can lead to underestimating flood risks and allowing vulnerable structures to be built in areas that face growing flood threats. New advances in satellite imaging, rainfall modeling and high-resolution lidar, which is similar to radar but uses light, make it possible to create faster, more accurate flood maps that capture risks from extreme rainfall and flash flooding. However, fully integrating these tools requires significant federal investment. Congress controls FEMA's mapping budget and sets the legal framework for how maps are created. For years, updating the flood maps has been an unpopular topic among many publicly elected officials, because new flood designations can trigger stricter building codes, higher insurance costs and development restrictions. In recent years, the rise of climate risk analytics models and private flood risk data have allowed the real estate, finance and insurance industries to rely less on FEMA's maps. These new models incorporate forward-looking climate data, including projections of extreme rainfall, sea-level rise and changing storm patterns – factors FEMA's maps generally exclude. Real estate portals like Zillow, Redfin, and now provide property-level flood risk scores that consider both historical flooding and future climate projections. The models they use identify risks for many properties that FEMA maps don't, highlighting hidden vulnerabilities in communities across the United States. Research shows that the availability, and accessibility, of climate data on these sites has started driving property-buying decisions that increasingly take climate change into account. As homebuyers understand more about a property's flood risks, that may shift the desirability of some locations over time. Those shifts will have implications for property valuations, community tax-revenue assessments, population migration patterns and a slew of other considerations. However, while these may feel like changes being brought on by new data, the risk was already there. What is changing is people's awareness. The federal government has an important role to play in ensuring that accurate risk assessments are available to communities and Americans everywhere. As better tools and models evolve for assessing risk evolve, FEMA's risk maps need to evolve, too. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeremy Porter, City University of New York Read more: Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding Why it can be hard to warn people about dangers like floods – communication researchers explain the role of human behavior The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here's how families and neighbors can help Jeremy Porter has nothing to disclose.

Trump's attorney general drops fraud case tied to COVID vaccinations
Trump's attorney general drops fraud case tied to COVID vaccinations

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's attorney general drops fraud case tied to COVID vaccinations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday dropped a case against a Utah doctor accused of falsifying COVID-19 vaccination certificates and destroying more than $28,000 worth of government-provided COVID-19 vaccines. Bondi, in a statement posted on X, said Michael Kirk Moore Jr., of Salt Lake County, Utah did not deserve the jail time he was facing. Moore was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2023 and his trial had begun earlier this month. "Dr. Moore gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so. He did not deserve the years in prison he was facing. It ends today," Bondi said. COVID-19 vaccine skeptics have been embraced by the Trump administration. The Pentagon, for example, has sought to re-enlist servicemembers who were ousted for refusing to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who for decades has sown doubt about the safety of vaccines contrary to evidence and research by scientists, wrote on X in April: "Dr. Moore deserves a medal for his courage and his commitment to healing!" According to a 2023 statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah, Moore allegedly ran the false certifications out of a plastic surgery center. His activities allegedly included administering saline shots to minors, at the request of their parents, so the children would think they were receiving COVID-19 vaccines, the statement said. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a U.S. lawmaker from Georgia and staunch Trump supporter, had championed dropping the case against Moore, who she called a hero in a statement on Saturday. "We can never again allow our government to turn tyrannical under our watch," she said in a post on X. The latest move by Bondi comes amid scrutiny of her firings of senior Justice Department officials who worked on investigations into Trump, stoking accusations of political retribution in a department whose mission is to enforce U.S. laws.

Bondi dismisses charges against doctor accused of faking vaccination records
Bondi dismisses charges against doctor accused of faking vaccination records

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Bondi dismisses charges against doctor accused of faking vaccination records

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Saturday that she is dismissing the criminal charges against a Utah plastic surgeon who was currently on trial for allegedly issuing fake Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 vaccination records cards to people who sought fake vaccine cards. Dr. Michael Kirk Moore, whose criminal trial was currently underway in Utah, was indicted by the Justice Department in 2023. Moore, his medical corporation and three co-defendants were accused of allegedly destroying more than $28,000 worth of government-provided COVID-19 vaccines and distributing at least 1,937 falsely marked COVID-19 doses on vaccine cards in exchange for direct cash payments or donations to a charitable organization. Moore pleaded not guilty to the charges, while one of his co-defendants entered into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge and another co-defendant entered into a diversion agreement. One co-defendant is currently on trial with Moore. A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to questions on whether or not the charges against them would be dropped as well. In court filings, attorneys for Moore argued that the CDC vaccine regulations in place were unconstitutional. The Biden Justice Department alleged that Moore was not administering COVID-19 vaccines in exchange for the payment, and was administering saline shots to minors, at the request of their parents, so children would think they were receiving a vaccine dose. Moore and his co-defendants were also charged with conspiracy to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property; and the conversion, sale, conveyance, and disposal of government property and aiding and abetting for their efforts to forge the vaccine cards. The fake cards were sold for $50 each, charging documents said, during the scheme they allegedly operated between May 2021 and September 2022. "Dr. Moore gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so. He did not deserve the years in prison he was facing. It ends today," Bondi wrote on X, thanking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has a history of casting doubts on the efficacy of COVID vaccines, for raising awareness of his case. "She has been a warrior for Dr. Moore and for ending the weaponization of government," Bondi wrote. In a post on X on Saturday, Greene called Moore a "hero who refused to inject his patients with a government mandated unsafe vaccine!" It was not immediately clear if the charges were being dismissed for Moore's co-defendants. The announcement comes as the department is facing uncertainty after a clash between Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino over a Justice Department review of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, which led to Bongino not showing up for work on Friday, as sources say he is considering leaving his post over the dispute. How a father's persistence unlocked his son's brilliance Global backlash grows to Trump's tariff threats Takeaways from Trump's tour of Texas flooding damage

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store