• Click here for the Objective & Executive Summary
  • A must-attend, advanced, 2-day "immersion" training program that is specifically designed for pharmaceutical industry executives who are new or relatively new to Immune therapy for solid and hematologic malignancies.
  • The course uses a highly interactive learning format used successfully at other Master Classes.
  • This Master Class uses expert KOLs as the faculty to enable participants to establish or strengthen personal relationships with world-renowned KOLs treating malignancies with Immune Therapies.
  • This Master Class is also an excellent comprehensive review for pharmaceutical industry executives with a basic knowledge of Immune Therapy and who wish to be completely up-to-date on the latest developments and clinical applications using Immune Therapy for an increasing number of malignancies.
  • This course enables the pharmaceutical executive participants to be closely engaged with the
    faculty.

Dara L. Aisner, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Pathology
Co-Director of the Colorado Molecular Correlates Laboratory
University of Colorado School of Medicine
University of Colorado Cancer Center
Denver, CO

Philippe Armand, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Staff, Medical Oncology
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Boston, MA

Paul Bunn, Jr., MD
Paul Bunn, Jr., MD
Distinguished Professor
James Dudley Chair in Lung Cancer Research
Professor, Medical Oncology
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, CO

Adil I. Daud, MD
Adil I. Daud, MD
Clinical Professor,Department of Medicine
Director, Melanoma Clinical Research
University of California, San Francisco Medical Center
San Francisco, CA

Marianne Davies, DNP, MSN, RN, APRN, CNS-BC, ACNP-BC, AOCNP
Assistant Professor of Nursing
Division of Acute Care/Health Systems
Thoracic Oncology Program
Yale School of Nursing
Yale Cancer Center
New Haven, CT

Edward B. Garon, MD
Edward B. Garon, MD
Associate Clinical Professor
Department of Medicine
Director, Thoracic Oncology Program
UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
Los Angeles, CA

Leo I. Gordon, MD
Leo I. Gordon, MD
Abby and John Friend Professor of Cancer Research
Professor in Medicine
Director Lymphoma Program
Co-Director Hematologic Malignancies Program
Division of Hematology/Oncology
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
Medical Director of the John and Lillian Matthews Center for Cellular Therapy
Chicago, IL

Timothy F. Greten, MD
Head, Gastrointestinal Malignancy Section
Senior Investigator
Thoracic and Gastrointestinal Branch
National Cancer Institute
Bethesda, MD

Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD
Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD
Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine
Associate Vice President for Global Academic Programs
Department Chair
Department of Leukemia
Professor
Division of Cancer Medicine
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX

Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD
Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine and Pathology
Pia and Fred R. Hirsch Endowed Chair
Associate Director, University of Colorado Cancer Center
CEO, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC)
Denver, CO

Jim Koeller, MS
Professor
University of Texas at Austin
College of Pharmacy
Pharmacotherapy Division
Adjoint Professor
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
School of Medicine
Pharmacotherapy Education & Research Center
San Antonio, TX

Edward S. Kim, MD
Edward S. Kim, MD
Chair, Solid Tumor Oncology and Investigational Therapeutics
Donald S. Kim Distinguished Chair for Cancer Research
Levine Cancer Institute
Carolinas HealthCare System
Charlotte, NC

Andrew H. Ko, MD
Professor, Division of Hematology/Oncology
Gastrointestinal Oncology Program
Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of California San Francisco
San Francisco, CA

Stephen Madison
Stephen Madison
President and CEO
Oncology Learning Center, Inc., and the
BioMedical Learning Institute
Plano, TX

Ronald B. Natale, MD
Ronald B. Natale, MD
Director of the Lung Cancer Clinical Research Program Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, CA

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD
Professor of Medicine
Chair, Mayo Clinic Myeloma Amyloidosis Dysproteinemia Group
Associate Editor, Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Section Editor, Leukemia
The Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN
Chair, ECOG Myeloma Committee

Stanley Riddell, MD
Stanley Riddell, MD
Professor, School of Medicine
University of Washington
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Seattle, WA

Brian I. Rini, MD, FACP
Brian I. Rini, MD, FACP
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology
Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute
Cleveland, Ohio

Mario Sznol, MD
Mario Sznol, MD
Professor of Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine
Co-Director, Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer
Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center
New Haven, CT

H. Jack West, MD
Medical Director, Thoracic Oncology Program
Swedish Cancer Institute
President and CEO
Global Resource for Advancing Cancer Education
Seattle, WA

GROUP DISCOUNTS WHILE AVAILABLE · Register Now
90
46
Class limited to 90 participants
Day 1 - October 23, 2017 Co-Chairs: Drs. Paul Bunn and Leo Gordon
8:00AM
WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS, OBJECTIVES & CME/CE PRE-TEST
Steve Madison
Content Highlights
  • Like the other Master Classes of the Oncology Learning Center, this is a highly interactive, advanced-level course. Ninety (90) participants will be able to learn by interacting throughout the entire two days with the expert faculty via the use of their personal "smart devices," e.g., any Wi-Fi enabled devices such as iPads, Tablets, iPhones, Android Phones, Laptops, etc.). The participants will connect their smart devices to our private Master Class network. This will enable all 90 participants on an ongoing basis to submit and ask questions of the faculty that will be "queued-up" for the faculty members to answer at the numerous Q&A Discussion periods so that few, if any. questions asked of the participants in the audience will go unanswered.
  • In addition, using their smart devices participants will be able to answer the numerous faculty questions about patient treatments from various clinical cases presented, the one or two "Rapid-Fire" questions to start almost every presentation, and to answer other clinical and scientific questions asked by the faculty. The highly interactive learning format is designed to facilitate learning of immune therapy for cancer and has been extremely well received by participants at previous Master Classes conducted by the Oncology Learning Center.
  • Finally, the overall focus of this Master Class is on Immune Therapies for Malignancies. However, because the immune therapies either replace targeted therapies, or are used in combination with or in sequence with targeted therapies, and in some cases targeted therapies remain standards of care, despite the option of immune therapy, e.g., in NSCLC or melanoma patients with driver mutations. Approximately 20% of the content of this Master Class must include the relevant targeted therapy information for most malignancies. The same holds true for chemotherapy, e.g., most notably in front-line pancreatic cancer. So, despite the titles of many of the agenda topics suggesting immune therapies "only" this is never the case. Immune Therapies are discussed in the "real world" situation where all three modalities of systemic therapy for cancer co-exist and are in a n ongoing state of change as algorithms are updated by the emergence of new data creating new standards and eventually new guidelines such as those of the NCCN.
  • An example Rapid-Fire Question with a Yes/No answer will be presented here along with the instructions to the learners for participation in this highly-engaging, two-day Master Class.
SESSION 1: Science & Biology, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Head & Neck Cancer and Pathology
SCIENCE & BIOLOGY UNDERLYING THE USE OF IMMUNE THERAPIES FOR CANCER
8:15AM
ESSENTIAL SCIENCE & BIOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING IMMUNE CANCER
Dr. Bunn
Content Highlights
  • This initial session on the essential science & biology is designed to prevent duplication of this topic in all other presentations by the faculty, and, therefore will provide for maximum time during this Master Class for participants to learn as much as possible regarding the clinical applications by malignancy, and related questions and challenges regarding immune therapies for cancer.
  • The focus in this session as well as the focus of the entire Master Class is on currently available immune therapies and imminent immune therapy breakthrough such as CAR T-cells and checkpoint inhibitors including anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies.
  • The emphasis is on the elements of the immune system that are important to understand the mechanisms of action of checkpoint inhibition and other immune therapies for treating malignancies.
  • The critical role of T-lymphocytes and their relationships with cytotoxic, helper and suppressor cells in the various mechanisms of action of immune therapies for cancer.
  • Coverage of non-checkpoint inhibition immune biology that is relevant to the many drugs that are in very late-stage clinical development and immune therapy drugs which are likely to become commercially available in the next 12 months or so. The focus of this lecture and the interest of the audience is on the "what's happening now" and very short-term horizon.
  • Hematopoietic stem cells, Hematopoiesis, T-Cells, B-Cells, ADCC, IgG antibodies, Activated T-Cells, NK Cells, CDK3, CDK4, CDK8, etc; Chimeric, humanized, and fully human antibodies; immune checkpoints, etc.
  • Using visual aids on Power Point slides and slides with Key Concepts and Key Terns will help keep the learning pace relatively slow and facilitate participant learning; and keeping in mind that much of the audience is not a group of scientists, this initial scientific and biologic session will review the important mechanisms of action and biology of the current end late-stage emerging immune therapies for solid and hematologic malignancies focusing on the clinical applications of anti-PD1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies. This will help provide the audience with the basic immunology that they need, for helping them have a better understanding of the clinical presentations that follow for the next 2 full days of the Master Class for each malignancy and corresponding immune therapies.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the role of T- Cells in Checkpoint inhibition. Yes. No.
  2. I understand the mechanisms of action of checkpoint inhibition for treating malignancies. Yes. No.
  3. I understand and why the issue of patients with pre-existing auto-immune disease is important in immune therapy selection. Yes. No.
8:35AM
Open Forum, Q&A and Discussion
Drs. Bunn, Kim, and Garon
HEAD & NECK CANCER
9:10AM
HEAD & NECK CANCER: Immune Therapy and Novel Targeted and Chemotherapy
Dr. Kim
Content Highlights
  • The most current data regarding established standards of care and evolving paradigms with chemotherapy, anti-EGFR MAbs and immune therapies will be reviewed.
  • A review of the clinical applications of radiation therapy and its use in combination or in sequence with systemic immune therapies for patents with squamous cell carcinoma of the head & neck (SCCHN)?
  • The clinical data supporting the two FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitors will be reviewed, including KEYNOTE-012 and CheckMate 141 study results.
  • Ongoing clinical trials with opportunities for SCCHN patients to receive investigational therapies will be presented. These include: Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, Durvalumab, Avelumab, Atezolizumab, Ipilimumab and Tremelimumab. There are more than 100 clinical trials listed for SCCHN on the Clinical Trials.gov Website for evaluating SCCHN patients with immune therapies.
  • Immune therapies other than checkpoint inhibitors such as lirilumab, an anti-KIR agent will be reviewed.
  • The predictive value of the interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) signature association with overall response and that of PD-L1 levels will be discussed.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Is PD-L expression a valid biomarker for predicting response to checkpoint inhibitor and other immune therapy for head and neck cancer?
  2. Will chemotherapy be an essential backbone of all or most regimens for advanced or metastatic head and neck cancer despite the advances with immune therapy and New-Generation targeted therapy?
  3. Is checkpoint inhibition FDA approved for treatment-naïve patents with squamous cell carcinoma of the head & neck(SCCHN)?
9:25AM
Q&A and Discussion
Dr. Kim
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER
9:35AM
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): What are the standards of care using checkpoint inhibition and targeted and chemotherapy for treatment-naïve advanced NSCLC patients?
Dr. Garon
Content Highlights
  • Empirical use of immune therapy for treatment-naïve NSCLC patients: when, where and why?
  • Stopping therapy in responding NSCLC patients either permanently or temporarily. If therapy is stopped, for how long? And on which patients? If resumed what should be the new immune therapy: the same or different checkpoint inhibitor?
  • The clinical applications of checkpoint inhibition in patients with a pre-existing auto-immune disease such as colitis or rheumatoid arthritis: contraindication or not?
  • FDA-approved new indications for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in NSCLC.
  • Immune therapy applications for NSCLC patients with and without driver mutation with and without FDA-approved targeted therapies.
  • Combinations of dual checkpoint inhibition.
  • Combinations of checkpoint inhibition plus targeted therapy or chemotherapy.
  • Ongoing clinical trials with other checkpoint inhibitors such as durvalumab in the Phase 3 PACIFIC trial evaluating Stage 3 NSCLC therapy in early-stage, non-metastatic NSCLC.
  • The Phase 3 Atalante 1 trial with a novel, specific T-Cell immune therapy for NSCLC.
  • What are the most current standards of care for using immune therapy in squamous NSCLC patients?
  • A brief review of the data for ED-SCLC with checkpoint inhibition such as with durvalumab in the CASPIAN Phase 3 trial.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Can we ever stop permanently or temporarily immune therapy in a NSCLC patient responding to immune therapy? (e.g., a treatment holiday)?
  2. Now that there are two immune therapies approved by the FDA for previously treated patients should checkpoint inhibitors be used without biomarker selection for treatment-naïve NSCLC patients?
  3. How does one differentiate anti-PD1 MAb versus an anti-PD-L1 MAb especially given the requirement to test for PD-L1 expression for using the first FDA approved anti-PD-L1 agent?
  4. What is the role for immune-checkpoint inhibition as empirical therapy without patient selection?
9:55AM
Q&A and Discussion
Dr. Garon
10:00AM
BREAK
10:20AM
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): What are the optimal salvage therapies with immune therapy, targeted therapy or chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients (of all histologies) who have progressed after any systemic therapy either as monotherapy or as any combinations?
Dr. Natale
Content Highlights
  • The role of using immune therapy to "prime" NSCLC patients for better responses to immune therapy in the salvage settings.
  • Combinations of dual checkpoint inhibition in NSCLC.
  • Combinations of checkpoint inhibition plus targeted therapy or chemotherapy in NSCLC.
  • Ongoing clinical trials with avelumab for NSCLC.
  • Integrating the new-generation targeted therapy MAbs with the checkpoint inhibition immune therapy for NSCLC patients in sequence and in combination.
  • The roles of immune therapy with or without chemotherapy in the salvage settings.
  • The role of Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), an immunosuppressive enzyme that modulates the anti-tumor immune response by promoting regulatory T-cell generation and blocking effector T-cell activation, in NSCLC, thereby facilitating tumor growth by allowing cancer cells to avoid immune surveillance.
  • PARP inhibition with immune therapy for NSCLC and SCLC.
  • Maintenance therapy using immune therapies with or without targeted or chemotherapy.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the standard of care for salvage therapy using immune therapy in NSCLC patients with driver mutations?
  2. I understand the standard of care for salvage therapy using immune therapy in NSCLC patients without driver mutations?
  3. I understand the standard of care for salvage therapy using immune therapy in NSCLC patients without driver mutations?
  4. I understand the standard of care using immune therapy for NSCLC regardless of squamous or nonsquamous histology status.
10:40AM
Q&A
Dr. Natale
10:45AM
DEBATE #1: All treatment-naïve NSCLC patents should be tested for PD-L1 expression prior to any initial systemic therapy.
Yes - Dr. Natale
No - Dr. West
11:05PM
POST-DEBATE VOTE BY THE AUDIENCE, Q&A and PANEL DISCUSSION
All Science and Biology, Thoracic, and Pathology Faculty
11:20AM
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): Critical issues in NSCLC patient management using immune therapy alone or in combinations.
Dr. West
Content Highlights
  • Patients that request immune therapy upon initial examination before any test results. How to handle.
  • Using immune therapy for NSCLC patients who request it for early-stage or potentially curative setting of disease? Post-radiation? Post-surgery?
  • Knowingly using a checkpoint inhibitor in a patient with a pre-existing auto immune disease
  • Combinations versus monotherapy in NSCLC patients with low or no PD-L1 expression.
  • Empirical use of immune therapy for treatment-naïve NSCLC patients: when, where and why?
  • Investigational combination strategies using anti-PD1/PD-L1 plus anti-CTLA4 dual inhibition: for example, the Phase 3 NEPTUNE, MYSTIC and ARCTIC trial.
  • The optimal endpoints for measuring efficacy of checkpoint inhibition therapy in NSCLC.
  • Update on management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs).
  • Using immune therapies in patients who develop an immune-related toxicity that has been resolved while in remission on checkpoint inhibition therapy.
  • The limitations of tumor heterogeneity and blood-based testing as comparable testing with tissue-based testing.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the optimal management strategies for NSCLC patients with irAEs.
  2. I know when to use or not to use a checkpoint inhibitor for a NSCLC patient with a pre-existing auto-immune disease?
  3. I know how to treat a NSCLC patient responding to immune therapy and when and how to give him or her a drug holiday therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
11:40AM
Expert Panel Discussion and Q&A
Drs. Aisner, Garon, Hirsch, Kim, Natale, Bunn
12:00PM
LUNCH WITH THE PROFESSORS

This is one of numerous opportunities during this Master Class to meet with, initiate or strengthen your relationships with the expert KOL faculty. Participants may choose to sit with the KOL expert of their choice for in-depth discussions on the KOL faculty member's topics or areas of expertise. Only one KOL is assigned to a lunch table, and this is yet another, rare and very invaluable "one-on-one" opportunity for 7 participants per table, on a first-come basis, to meet with the KOL of their choice.

PATHOLOGY ISSUES & IMMUNE THERAPY
1:00PM
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): Pathology and related testing issues involving the use of immune therapy and targeted therapy for all NSCLC indications and in all treatment settings
Drs. Aisner/Hirsch
Content Highlights
  • Understanding the differences among the various IHC tests measuring PD-L1 expression.
  • Understanding the circumstances for justifying the use of checkpoint inhibition without first testing for PD-L1 expression.
  • NSCLC data and applicability for PD-L1 testing in SCLC and in mesothelioma?
  • The impact of tumor burden on PD-L1 expression testing results.
  • Testing for PD-L1 expression in early-stage NSCLC.
  • The limitations of tumor heterogeneity will blood-based testing as compared to tissue-based testing.
  • Understanding the differences in selecting and using a checkpoint inhibitor that does not require pre-measurement of PD-L1 expression version one that does before selecting the specific therapy.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the optimal management strategies for NSCLC patients with irAEs.
  2. I know when to use or not to use a checkpoint inhibitor for a NSCLC patient with a pre-existing auto-immune disease.
  3. I am confident in my ability to test for PD-L1 expression in SCLC patients given the different tests that are commercially available.
1:15PM
Expert Panel Discussion and Q&A
All Science and Biology, Thoracic, and Pathology Faculty
Session #2 MELANOMA
1:30PM
TREATMENT-NAIVE ADVANCED MELANOMA: Immune therapies with and without targeted therapies in combinations regimens or in sequence
Dr. Sznol
Content Highlights
  • Understanding the differences in therapy determination for treatment-naïve melanoma patients with and without driver mutations for MEK or BRAF.
  • The use of combination versus monotherapy for mutation-positive melanoma patients.
  • Combinations versus sequencing strategies for treating mutation-positive melanoma patients.
  • Combinations of dual immune therapies, dual targeted therapies(BRAF/MEK): for whom, and when and why?
  • The clinical role of talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy versus talimogene laherparepvec plus CTLA-4 blockade and talimogene laherparepvec plus PD-1 blockade.
  • The use of anti-CTLA-4 versus anti-PD-1/PD-L1 blockade or the combination(s) for mutation-negative melanoma patients.
  • The use of doublets or triplets in combination regimens for melanoma: either with dual immune therapies or with dual immune therapies plus targeted therapies.
  • Managing the toxicities of dual and triple drug strategies for melanoma: risks and rewards; pros and cons.
  • FDA approvals of immune therapies for Merkel cell carcinoma.
  • Using immune therapies for melanoma in the absence of disease progression.
  • Enrolling treatment-naïve melanoma patients in any of the many open clinical trials with investigational strategies for treatment-naïve melanoma. How to decide.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the optimal management strategies for melanoma patients who are mutation positive for MEK and/or BRAF
  2. I know when to use or not to use a checkpoint inhibitor for a melanoma patient with a pre-existing auto-immune disease.
  3. I am confident in my ability t determine when it is best to use combinations versus sequencing for mutation-positive melanoma.
1:50PM
Q&A
Dr. Sznol
2:00PM
SALVAGE THERAPY FOR MELANOMA PATIENTS: Immune and targeted therapies in combinations and sequential usage
Dr. Daud
Content Highlights
  • Understanding the differences in therapy determination for refractory melanoma patients with and without driver mutations for MEK or BRAF.
  • Combinations versus sequencing strategies for treating mutation-positive melanoma patients.
  • Combinations of dual immune therapies, dual targeted therapies(BRAF/MEK): for whom, and when and why?
  • Enrolling melanoma patients who have relapsed on initial therapy in any of the many open clinical trials with investigational strategies for relapsed or refractory malignant melanoma. How to decide.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand the optimal management strategies for relapsed melanoma patients who are mutation positive for MEK and/or BRAF.
  2. I know when to use or not to use a checkpoint inhibitor for a relapsed melanoma patient with a pre-existing auto-immune disease.
  3. I am confident that I know when it is time to enroll a refractory melanoma patient in a clinical trial to receive an investigational agent versus a known, FDA-approved strategy.
2:20PM
Q&A and Discussion
Dr. Daud
2:30PM
DEBATE #2: Adjuvant Therapy Options following first-line therapy for metastatic melanoma patients:
• Start adjuvant therapy as has been done historically (Dr. Daud)
• Wait until metastatic disease recurs before starting adjuvant therapy (Dr. Sznol)
2:45PM
POST-DEBATE VOTE BY THE AUDIENCE, Q&A and PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. Sznol
3:00PM
BREAK
Session #3 GASTRO-INTESTINAL (G/I) Malignancies
Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Gastric/Esophageal Cancers, and Pancreas Cancer
3:30PM
HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA: Patient Management Strategies using immune therapy versus targeted and/or chemotherapy.
Dr. Greten
Content Highlights
  • Understanding the only two TKI targeted therapies that are FDA approved for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
  • Recognizing that the only FDA-approved targeted therapy since 2007 was FDA approved for HCC in April 2017.
  • Recognizing that there is no clear standard of care for HCC patients who are refractory to initial TKI therapy.
  • Understanding how to evaluate the more than 1,500 trials for HCC reported on the Clinical Trials.gov website as of June 2017 as opportunities for improving outcomes in HCC patients.
  • The differences with using the FDA-approved TKIs versus investigational targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitors and other targeted therapies, e.g., the Calcineurin Inhibitor (CNI)-Sparing Strategy or additional targeted therapies such as sapanisertib, galunisertib, tivantinib or ramucirumab.
  • The large amount of recent data evaluating checkpoint inhibition with pembrolizumab, durvalumab/tremelimumab or nivolumab versus targeted therapies for HCC.
  • The role of radiation therapy (especially with either Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SART) or Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT)) plus systemic therapy for HCC, e.g., using internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with Yttrium 90 (Y90) versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the SIRveNIB study.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. I understand when to use targeted therapy versus immune therapy for HCC.
  2. I understand when to use monotherapy versus combination therapy for HCC.
  3. I understand which open and enrolling trials are potential good resources for improving outcome in my HCC patients using an investigational regimen.
3:50PM
Q&A Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Dr. Greten
4:00PM
GASTRIC & ESOPHAGEAL CANCERS: Patient management strategies using immune therapy versus targeted and/or chemotherapy.
Dr. Greten
Content Highlights
  • In 2010, the ToGA trial established trastuzumab as the first biological therapy with longer OS in patients with gastric cancer. It was a randomized Phase 3 study of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer and cancer of the GEJ.
  • Understanding that the use of target or immune therapy for gastric or esophageal cancer is largely dependent on the presence of driver mutations such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), c-Met, which is more common in gastroesophageal cancer, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblastic growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) signaling and phosphoinositide 3-kinase-Akt-mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/Akt/mTOR) pathway. These multiple molecular alterations can therefore be considered as potential druggable mutations for specific targeted therapies.
  • The FDA approval of a new generation- anti VEGFR or anti-angiogenic agent, ramucirumab, that targets VEGFR-2, was on April 21, 2014 when ramucirumab was approved by FDA as a single agent for the treatment of patients with advanced stomach cancer or Gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma that has progressed with or after fluoropyrimidine- or platinum-containing chemotherapy. On November 5, 2014, the FDA expanded the initial indication of ramucirumab to be used alone or with paclitaxel for the treatment of patients with advanced stomach cancer that has progressed with or after previous fluoropyrimidine- or platinum-containing chemotherapy.
  • In 2017, the newest data for treating gastric or esophageal cancer has started to involve the use of immune therapies and targeted therapies. At ASCO in June 2017 there were three abstracts on ramucirumab for gastric cancer. One abstract reinforced the efficacy and safety of using ramucirumab for locally advanced gastric cancer in the second-lie setting in Japan.
  • Another ASCO 2017 abstract evaluated ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab in a Phase1 trial in treatment-naïve and also in previously-treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. This is the first study to combine ramucirumab (anti-VEGFR2) with P (anti-PD-1) to simultaneously target both processes in the tumor microenvironment.
  • Yet another ASCO 2017 abstract on ramucirumab retrospectively evaluated the Quality of Life (QoL) changes in the RAINBW and REGARD Phase 3 trials. The investigators found that changes from baseline in QoL domains were significantly associated with BOR and PS outcomes.
  • A series of clinical trials in advanced gastric and esophageal cancers using various combinations of the anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 checkpoint Inhibitor antibodies is underway. Most of the trials are using the anti-PD-1 antibodies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab and the anti-PD-L1 antibodies, avelumab and durvalumab. Some trials, especially those with nivolumab or durvalumab are also using the anti-CTLA-4 antibody, ipilimumab or tremelimumab, respectively. Monotherapy was initially used to establish efficacy in these malignancies and quickly thereafter an increasing number of combinations of different novel targeted, chemotherapy and novel immune therapies being combined with PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitors.
  • Several Phase 3 trials are underway for possible FDA-approved indications for gastric or esophageal cancer with immune therapies. These include the KEYNOTE 012, KEYNOTE 181 and CheckMate 012 Checkmate 649, CheckMate 577 and ONO -4538-12. Ono 4538-12 is a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, standard therapy which met its primary endpoint of OS.
  • Data from targeting microtubules, e.g. the taxane, cabazitaxel.
  • Data from targeting mTOR.
  • Data from targeting Claudin 18.2
  • Data from targeting MMP-9.
  • Data from using the fluoropyrimidine TAS-118 plus oxaliplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.
  • Targeting the immune response with CRS-2017 in combination with pembrolizumab.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. If not a patient with a HER2 mutation, I understand how to treat a patient with advanced or metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer.
  2. I know when to use immune therapy for my patients with advanced gastric or esophageal cancer.
  3. I believe that treatment of non-HER2 positive metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer patient with a checkpoint inhibitor, although currently investigational, is likely to become a standard of care and an FDA-approved therapy.
4:20PM
Q&A Gastric and Esophageal Cancers
Dr. Greten
4:30PM
PANCREATIC CANCER: Patient Management Strategies using immune therapy versus targeted and/or chemotherapy.
Dr. Ko
Content Highlights
  • The use of the chemotherapy backbones of either gemcitabine and nab paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX (the combination of fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) as current standards of care for advanced, metastatic therapy. When to start with either regimen.
  • Adjuvant therapy options and supportive data for treating patients with pancreatic cancer.
  • Targeted therapy for pancreatic cancer with novel targeted therapeutic approaches such as including Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibition, and PARP inhibition.
  • Using Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR T-cells) for pancreatic cancer.
  • Using fluoropyrimidines such as TAS-118 (S1 plus leucovorin) in the GRAPE 3 trial.
  • Using TAS-102
  • Targeting Hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) for pancreatic cancer.
  • Incorporating checkpoint inhibition/immune therapy into pancreatic cancer therapy. o Using durvalumab and tremelimumab versus standard chemotherapy. o Using checkpoint inhibition plus chemotherapy.
  • Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. E.g., Erlotinib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel; and FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin)
  • Radiation therapy plus systemic therapy to improve pancreatic cancer outcome.
  • New and emerging salvage therapy regimens for pancreatic cancer including liposomal irinotecan.
  • The role of genomics to identify acquired resistance and improve outcomes.
  • The role of maintenance therapy for pancreatic cancer; with strategies using either PARP inhibition or nab-paclitaxel.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Will the chemotherapy backbone either with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel remain as the backbone of most if not all regimens for treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer?
  2. What is the expected clinical application of checkpoint inhibition for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer?
  3. Will CAR T-cell therapy prove to be a viable clinical standard for pancreatic cancer?
4:50PM
Q&A Pancreas Cancer
Dr. Ko
5:00PM
CLASS ADJOURNS TODAY
6:00PM
RECEPTION for "MEETING the KOL Faculty" and Networking with Industry Colleagues. This is one of numerous opportunities for pharmaceutical industry participants to meet one-on-on and establish and/or strengthen relationships with the KOLs on the expert faculty & also for industry colleagues, advertising agencies and consultants to network with their colleagues in therapeutic, diagnostic and supportive care companies.
7:00PM
"DINNER WITH THE PROFESSORS" This is another one of numerous one-one-one opportunities during this Master Class to meet with and initiate relationships with the KOL faculty. Participants choose to sit with the KOL expert of their choice for in-depth discussions and establishing relationships. Only one KOL is assigned a table and this is yet another rare opportunity for 7 Master Class participants, on a first-come basis, to have dinner with the KOL of their choice.
To register now click here or call 214-269-2014.
Day 2 - October 24, 2017
7:00AM
BUFFET BREAKFAST
Session #4 GENITO-URINARY (G/I) Malignancies
Urothelial Carcinoma & Bladder Cancer, Renal Cell & Other Kidney Cancers, Prostate Cancer
8:00AM
UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA & OTHER BLADDER CANCERS: Checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy for treatment-naïve patients.
Dr. Rini
Content Highlights
  • There now five FDA approved therapies for urothelial carcinoma, with similar indications. The FDA approved these five new drugs in 2016 and 2017. The need exists to carefully examine their clinical differences, whatever they may be and whatever size the differences may be. The FDA granted accelerated approvals to nivolumab, avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab. The FDA granted regular approval to pembrolizumab.
  • The significance of PD-L1 expression in checkpoint inhibition therapy selection for urothelial bladder cancer.
  • Updated data on the use of checkpoint inhibition in the first-line setting.
  • Combinations utilizing checkpoint inhibition: checkpoint inhibition plus chemotherapy or targeted therapy especially trials with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab plus epacadostat; dual checkpoint inhibition; and checkpoint inhibition plus anti-angiogenesis inhibition.
  • The effect of prior immune checkpoint inhibition on the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy.
  • The potential for using checkpoint inhibition for bladder cancer patients who fail BCG.
  • The potential of checkpoint inhibition for adjuvant treatment post cystectomy.
  • Optimal endpoints for measuring clinical efficacy with checkpoint inhibition in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. for treatment-naïve urothelial carcinoma and bladder cancer
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Will checkpoint inhibition therapy replace chemotherapy as front-line treatment for metastatic disease?
  2. Is PDL-1 expression a predictive marker for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma?
  3. What is the mechanism of BCG in patients with superficial disease? Will checkpoint inhibition therapy be effective in those patients who fail BCG?
  4. What are the studies evaluating checkpoint admission therapy as adjuvant treatment post cystectomy? What is the optimal patient population?
  5. What are the logical combinations to pursue of PDL-1/PD1 inhibitors in metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Chemotherapy? Anti-angiogenesis therapy? Other immune checkpoint inhibitors?
  6. Since median progression free survival not to be improved in patients treated with checkpoint inhibition therapy, what is the best endpoint?
8:20AM
RENAL CELL CARCINOMA & OTHER KIDNEY CANCERS: Checkpoint inhibition and Targeted Therapy
Dr. Rini
Content Highlights
  • Updated data on the only FDA approved checkpoint inhibitor for renal cell carcinoma, nivolumab.
  • Updated data on Phase 3 and Phase 2 trials with all 7 other checkpoint inhibitors, nivolumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, avelumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab.
  • Interim results from several ongoing Phase 3 trials in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) evaluating one active immune therapy, a vaccine, in a large Phase III trial. This vaccine trial is evaluating the Autologous Dendritic Cell Immunotherapy (AGS-003) in the ADAPT trial for mRCC.
  • Data providing a rationale for using checkpoint inhibition in an immune subgroup of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) the most aggressive form of RCC.
  • Data comparing monotherapy with nivolumab versus monotherapy with everolimus in pre-treated mRCC patients in the CheckMate -025 trial.
  • Preliminary data from 2 Phase 2 trials on the use of peri-operative nivolumab in mRCC (the PROSPER and ASSURE trials).
  • Preliminary data from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial evaluating pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib alone in treatment-naïve advanced mRCC.
  • Preliminary data from the Phase 3 JAVELIN RCC 101 trial evaluating avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RENAL CELL CANCER (aRCC).
  • Preliminary data on the adjuvant use of atezolizumab in the Phase 3 trial (the IMmotion010 trial).
  • Data on the roles of a 16-gene assay for prognostic and predictive use of adjuvant sunitinib in Stage 3 high-risk RCC.
  • Negative results from the Phase 3 trial evaluating pazopanib versus placebo (the PROTECT trial).
  • Updated results from the Phase 3 METEOR trial using cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This trial evaluates outcomes based upon age.
  • Preliminary data from the Phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of the anti-VEGFR 1-3 agent, lenvatinib, used in combination with everolimus plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib alone in first-line patients with mRCC.
  • Preliminary data on tivozanib versus sorafenib in its second Phase 3 trial (the first Phase 3 trial failed to meet is endpoint) in mRCC.
  • Highlights of several investigational trials in RCC that may offer opportunities for eligible RCC patients to receive experimental therapies including all 7 checkpoint inhibitors and other agents such as: lenvatinib, tivozanib, everolimus, sunitinib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, epacadostat, axitinib, sorafenib, TAK-228: formerly MLN0128, and TAK-117: formerly MLN117.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Should checkpoint inhibition therapy be used first-line in patients with metastatic kidney cancer?
  2. What is the best time during the course of metastatic disease to administer checkpoint inhibition therapy?
  3. What are the optimal combination treatments with checkpoint inhibition therapy to be evaluated in metastatic kidney cancer? Anti-angiogenesis therapy? mTOR inhibition?
  4. Should future immune therapy trials and locally advanced kidney cancer be pursued in patients treated Neo-Adjuvantly? Adjuvantly? Are there theoretical differences in outcome?
8:35AM
PROSTATE CANCER: The clinical applications of immune therapy, targeted therapy, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy.
Dr. Koeller
Content Highlights
  • The clinical applications of immune checkpoint therapy and determining the best metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer patient subtypes for treatment by the currently marketed immune therapies.
  • Checkpoint inhibition and hormone-sensitive versus hormone-resistant CRPC.
  • Relevant biomarkers for selecting immune therapies in CRPC.
  • Optimal endpoints for measuring clinical efficacy with checkpoint inhibition in CRPC.
  • The clinical applications of immune checkpoint therapy in visceral and non-visceral prostate cancer.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Is there a theoretical difference in the response to immune checkpoint therapy in patients who are hormone sensitive versus those who are CRPC?
  2. Since progression free survival does not appear to be a useful endpoint for measuring efficacy of immune therapy in CRPC, what endpoint should be used? Given the competing approved hormonal and chemotherapeutic agents for CRPC, is survival a viable endpoint?
  3. PD-L1 expression in metastatic CRPC specimens is low. What are other relevant immune markers in this disease?
  4. Should immune therapy be investigated in patients with non-visceral disease only?
8:50AM
Expert Panel Discussion and Audience Q&A on all Genito-Urinary Malignancies
Session #5A Hematologic Malignancies
Multiple Myeloma
9:30AM
MULTIPLE MYELOMA (MM): The clinical application of immune therapies, novel targets and corresponding targeted therapies.
Dr. Rajkumar
Content Highlights
  • Phase 3 trial evaluating isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma the 2017 FDA approval data supporting the use of lenalidomide as maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant.
  • Data on the use of lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance in MM.
  • Updated clinical data on Checkpoint inhibition in various regimens such as the CheckMate -062 trial with nivolumab plus elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; the combination of durvalumab plus lenalidomide; atezolizumab monotherapy and in combination with lenalidomide.
  • Updated information on the dual immune therapy approach using the combination of lenalidomide and pembrolizumab in the KEYNOTE-023 study.
  • Updated clinical data on the role of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies such as daratumumab
  • Updated data on the use of lenalidomide in combination with daratumumab: from the November 2016 FDA approval of daratumumab for MM.
  • Updated data on the Phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study randomized to elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone or lenalidomide.
  • Recent data from the Phase 3 trial (ICARIA-MM) evaluating isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
  • New strategies for targeted and immune therapies under evaluation for treatment-naïve and newly-diagnosed MM patients including the FORTE trial.
  • Data from recent and ongoing clinical trials with investigational immune and targeted therapies for Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
  • Synergistic combinations of novel targeted antibody and IMiDs.
  • Recent data on clinical trials with agents targeting Signaling Lymphocytic Activation Molecule F7 (SLAMF7).
  • Biomarkers for multiple myeloma patient selection to receive immune therapy.
  • A review of the ongoing clinical trials with various novel targeted and immune therapies for MM including nivolumab, pembrolizumab, lirilumab, targeting the bone marrow microenvironment, carfilzomib, venetoclax, panobinostat, CAR T-Cells, T-Cell engaging bispecific antibodies against CD3 or BCMA, and BiTE antibodies targeting CD3, and isatuximab (formerly SAR650984), pomalidomide, and of course, lenalidomide.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Is there a role for immune-checkpoint inhibition as empirical therapy without patient selection for multiple myeloma?
  2. Can a clinician best recognize and manage the unique characteristic of checkpoint inhibition, including the different patterns of response to therapy, and, the immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in patients with multiple myeloma?
  3. Is there a subset of target/mutation-negative patients with multiple myeloma who are ideal candidates for Immune therapy versus targeted therapy?
  4. Should predictive biomarkers such as protein targets or PD-L1 expression be used for selecting myeloma patient candidates for immune therapy?
  5. How much more potential is there with using immune modulatory agents (IMiDs) in combinations of other immune therapies and with various new-generation targeted therapy antibodies?
  6. Are the traditional endpoints such as OS, OPFS and RR still appropriate for myeloma patients treated with immune therapies?
9:55AM
Q&A Multiple Myeloma
Dr. Rajkumar
10:10AM
BREAK
Session #5B Hematologic Malignancies
Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Hodgkin Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
10:30AM
ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA (AML): Immune therapies, novel targets and novel targeted therapies and chemotherapy.
Dr. Kantarjian
Content Highlights
  • A review of the pivotal clinical registration trial data (RATIFY Phase 3 trial or CALGB 10613 Alliance trial) leading to the FDA approval of the "first-in-class" new targeted therapy, midostaurin (a FLT3+ or FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive inhibitor) for two AML indications. Prior to the FDA approval of midostaurin for AML, the therapeutic strategies have remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. The first indication is for the treatment of AML in newly diagnosed patients who are FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive (FLT3+), as detected by an FDA-approved test, in combination with chemotherapy. The second indication is to treat adults with advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM), which includes aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN) and mast cell leukemia.
  • Reviews of the most recent clinical data and ongoing trials with several other FLT3+ or FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive inhibitors including quizartinib monotherapy versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML, the QuANTUM-R study; the FLT3 agent, gilteritinib, versus salvage chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia; data from the non-randomized Phase 2 trial with crenolanib in combination with chemotherapy in newly-diagnosed AML patients with FLT3 mutations.
  • Data from the non-FLT3 but innovative and important investigational targeted therapies for AML such as azacitidine in Phase 3 and CC-486 in post-induction AML maintenance therapy; enasidenib (AG-221) an IDH2 inhibitor already under review at the FDA for AML; CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin) (Phase 3); guadecitabine in Phase 3; ivosidenib in Phase 2 and both practinostat and brentuximab vedotin in Phase 1.
  • Gilteritinib as AML maintenance therapy; Review of the ongoing Phase 3 trial data using gilteritinib maintenance following induction/consolidation therapy.
  • A review of the data from an ongoing trial (no longer recruiting patients) evaluating CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine and liposomal daunorubicin to "7+3" (cytarabine and daunorubicin) in untreated high-risk elderly AML patients. The objective is to confirm the efficacy of CPX-351 compared to "7+3" as first line therapy in elderly patients (60-75 years) with high risk (secondary) Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Are all FLT3+ or FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive inhibitors somewhat unique like is the case with the checkpoint inhibitors or is it too early to determine?
  2. Will chemotherapy remain the induction therapy for AML or might that change with the newer and emerging AML targeted and immune therapies?
  3. When should a patient with AML be treated with existing novel versus emerging targeted therapies?
  4. For which patients should the combination of both targeted and immune therapies for AML and ALL be used?
  5. Are CAR-T cells ready for prime time?
  6. Which ALL or AML patients be considered for clinical trials include CAR T-cells?
10:50AM
Q&A Immune therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
Dr. Kantarjian
11:00AM
ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC/LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA (ALL): Immune therapies, novel targets and novel targeted therapies.
Dr. Riddell
Content Highlights
  • Review of the new data using pembrolizumab in association with detecting CAR T-cells in pediatric ALL.
  • Update on Dr. Riddell's own data from its initial release in February 2016 showing that in one arm of the study 27 of 29 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia showed no trace of cancer in their bone marrow following their infusions.
  • Development and clinical results of the bi-specific T-Cell engaging antibody, blinatumomab, for acute lymphoblastic leukemia
  • Review of current data using ofatumumab in the first-line ALL setting.
  • Investigational agent ponatinib for Ph+ ALL.
  • Efficacy and toxicity profile of blinatumomab in relation to disease burden
  • Development and clinical results of CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) modified T cells
  • Design of chimeric receptors – does it matter?
  • Efficacy and toxicity profile of CAR-T cells in relation to disease burden
  • Current concepts concerning the pathogenesis of serious neurotoxicity after CAR-T cells
  • Evolution in the management of toxicities of CAR-T cells
  • What to do with an ALL patient that achieves a complete remission – to transplant or not?
  • What are the mechanisms of non-response and relapse?
  • Is there a future for combination therapies?
  • Challenges in developing bi-specific antibodies and CAR-T cells in acute myeloid leukemia
  • Key lessons learned in a rapidly evolving field
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Is there a CD19 targeted antibody or cell therapy of choice for relapsed/refractory ALL?
  2. When should treatment be instituted for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity resulting from blinatumomab or CAR-T cells?
  3. Should immunotherapy for ALL replace allogeneic stem cell transplant or be used as a bridge to transplant?
  4. When should a patient with ALL be treated with existing novel versus emerging targeted therapies
11:20AM
Q&A Immune therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)
Dr. Riddell
11:30AM
CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA: Immune therapies, novel targets and novel targeted therapies
Dr. Kantrajian
Content Highlights
  • Review of the recent clinical data using pembrolizumab in relapsed/refractory CLL.
  • Update on the clinical data with the FDA approved drug, venetoclax, for CLL with the 17p deletion. The FDA granted accelerated approval for venetoclax in May 2016. In concert with the venetoclax FDA approval, the agency also cleared a companion diagnostic test, the Vysis CLL FISH probe kit, which must be used to test patient tumors for the 17p deletion.
  • Review of the recent ASCO 2017 data evaluating the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib in a Phase 3 CLL trial.
  • Review the 2017 updated data with the regimen of ublituximab and ibrutinib for previously-treated genetically high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia from the GENUINE Phase 3 study. It showed a statistically superior response rate to ibrutinib alone,
  • Review of the four-year follow-up with ibrutinib in previously-treated 391 CLL patients who were randomized to receive ibrutinib or ofatumumab. This is the RESONATE trial. Long-term treatment with ibrutinib in the international phase 3 RESONATE study was well-tolerated and continues to show sustained PFS and OS regardless of high-risk cytogenetics. These data add to the body of evidence supporting ibrutinib as a cornerstone therapeutic option in patients with CLL.
  • Review the data from the Phase 2 COSMOS MOR208 trial evaluating idelalisib or venetoclax in relapsed/refractory CLL.
  • Review of the CAR-T-cell data for CLL including Dr. Riddell's work and that of Dr. Porter from Pennsylvania
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Are there any trials in relapsed/refractory CLL patients using a checkpoint inhibitor?
  2. Can treatment-naïve CLL patients with the 17p deletion be treated with a targeted therapy as identified by a companion diagnostic test or is treatment reserved for the refractory setting only?
  3. Are CAR T-cells ready for widespread investigational trials in CLL?
11:50AM
Q&A Immune therapy for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
Dr. Kantrajian
12:00PM
LUNCH WITH THE PROFESSORS

This is one of numerous opportunities during this Master Class to meet with, initiate or strengthen your relationships with the expert KOL faculty. Participants may choose to sit with the KOL expert of their choice for in-depth discussions on the KOL faculty member's topics or areas of expertise. Only one KOL is assigned to a lunch table, and this is yet another, rare and very invaluable "one-on-one" opportunity for 7 participants per table, on a first-come basis, to meet with the KOL of their choice.

LYMPHOMA
1:00PM
LEUKEMIA Expert Panel Discussion and Audience Q&A
leukemia faculty
1:20PM
DEBATE #3: Will allogeneic transplant soon become obsolete in lymphoma?
  • YES (Dr. Gordon)
  • NO (Dr. Armand)
1:50PM
CLASSIC HODGKIN LYMPHOMA (cHL): Immune Therapy and Targeted Therapy
Dr. Gordon
Content Highlights
  • Discuss the new algorithm for classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) with pembrolizumab's March 2017 approval for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with refractory cHL, or those who have relapsed after three or more prior lines of therapy.
  • Update data is discussed on the clinical roles of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of patients with classic Hodgkin Lymphoma.
  • Review the data presented at ASCO in June 2017 on the Phase 1/Phase 2 CheckMate 436 trial that will evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin in patients with CD30-expressing relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
  • Discuss the rational for combining checkpoint inhibition and brentuximab vedotin: complementary mechanisms of action and low immunosuppressive impact may result in more frequent and durable responses.
  • Discuss the recent data on the applications of immune checkpoint inhibition versus ASCT.
  • Discuss the recent data on the applications of immune checkpoint inhibition after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), e.g., the KEYNOTE-055 trial
  • update on salvage therapy strategies for cHL.
  • Review open/ongoing recruiting trials in cHL for possibly receiving checkpoint inhibition as investigational therapy for eligible cHL patients.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. Can immune checkpoint inhibition replace Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) in cHL?
  2. Should check point inhibitor therapy be used as a consolidation after initial therapy for DLBCL?
  3. Is there a subgroup of treatment-naïve patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma who are candidates for Immune oncology therapy?
  4. Are the traditional endpoints such as OS, PFS and RR still appropriate for lymphoma patients treated with immune therapies?
2:10PM
IMMUNOTHERAPY IN NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMA (NHL)
Dr. Armand
Content Highlights
  • Discuss the new algorithm resulting from the January 2017 FDA approval of ibrutinib for the treatment of patients with marginal zone lymphoma who require systemic therapy and have received at least 1 previous anti-CD20–based therapy.
  • The first "immune therapy" the IMiD lenalidomide, is FDA approved for Mantle Cell Lymphoma, but it is also being studied in a wide range of lymphomas in clinical trials that include Diffuse Large B-Cell (DLBCL), Follicular Lymphoma (FL) and other Indolent lymphomas. Review an update on the increasing clinical applications of this IMiD.
  • Review the other ibrutinib data from ASCO 2017 on the combination of ibrutinib plus buparlisib for relapsed FL and DLBCL.
  • Review the data from June 2017 ASCO that evaluates the combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
  • Review the data from June 2017 ASCO that evaluates preliminary data on the Phase 1/ Phase 2 trial (Zuma-6) evaluating atezolizumab in combination with another CAR T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; KTE-C19) in patients with refractory DLBCL.
  • Review the data from June 2017 ASCO that evaluates durvalumab in combination with R-CHOP in previously-untreated high-risk DLBCL patients.
  • Review the data from June 2017 ASCO that evaluates he data from the JAVELIN DLBCL study, a Phase 1/Phase 3 global study assessing immunotherapy-based regimens containing avelumab in combination with utomilumab (a novel 4-1BB agonist), azacitidine, rituximab, and/or conventional chemotherapy (CT; bendamustine) in patients with R/R DLBCL.
  • Discuss the recent FDA approval for the combination of rituximab plus hyaluronidase for adult follicular lymphoma patients.
  • Review the ASCO 2017 data on relapsed/refractory Follicular Lymphoma to include an evaluation of maintenance therapy with either R2 (rituximab plus lenalidomide) or rituximab monotherapy (from the MAGNIFY trial).
  • Review the ASCO 2017 data on the combination of pembrolizumab plus rituximab for relapsed follicular lymphoma in a Phase 2 trial. The rationale is that the combination of pembrolizumab and rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody that induces ADCC, is likely to be synergistic through activation of both the innate and adaptive immune systems and result in enhanced clinical activity in FL.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. What is the role of new effective agents in the treatment of relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin Lymphoma?
  2. How do you manage the side-effects of novel targeted agents in the treatment of lymphoma?
  3. Does lenalidomide have an indication for maintenance therapy in lymphoma? In myeloma?
2:30PM
Q&A on immune therapy in lymphoma
Drs. Gordon and Armand
3:15PM
BREAK
Session #6 Toxicity/Nursing and Formulary/Pharmacy Management and Issues
3:40PM
IMMUNE THERAPY TOXICITY MANAGEMENT & CLINICAL NURSING ISSUES
Dr. Davies
Content Highlights
  • The lack of widespread awareness of how to best utilize oncology nurses, oncology nurse practitioners, and oncology nurse navigators, as vital numbers of the multidisciplinary team treating patients with NSCLC, especially involving the communication of treatment induced side effects, monitoring adverse reactions and how do expect what type of response to therapy is a major quality patient outcomes practice gap for most community based oncology and hematology practices and many academic-based oncology/hematology practices. The oncology/hematology nurses most often are the first and sometimes the only source of valuable information communicated between cancer patients and clinicians undergoing immune therapy and targeted, chemotherapy and other cancer-treatments.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. We have and utilize formal protocols in our clinic (practice or hospital) for managing immune- related adverse events (irAEs) with patients experiencing irAEs from immune therapy for their malignancies. Yes/No
  2. We have good communication between our patients, their families and our staff of clinicians at all key stages of therapy to monitor compliance and patient outcomes. Yes? No? Not Really?
4:00PM
Q&A Immune Therapy Toxicity Management and Nursing Clinical Issues
Dr. Davies
4:20PM
IMMUNE THERAPY CLINICAL PHARMACY & FORMULARY/ COST-MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Dr. Koeller
Content Highlights
  • The lack of widespread awareness of how to best utilize in oncology/hematology pharmacists to help physicians, nurses and other members of the multidisciplinary team of HCPs who care for patients with malignances treated by immune therapy, especially as it relates to decisions involving cost-effectiveness and value of therapy, and especially in today's environment with highly expensive new immune and targeted therapies where differences in response rates and durations of therapy are significant making it difficult to decide on the best value of therapy for a particular patient is a major quality patient outcomes practice gap for most community based oncology and hematology practices and many academic-based oncology/hematology practices.
RAPID-FIRE Questions
  1. We have and utilize formal protocols in our clinic (practice or hospital) for ensuring patient adherence to oral anti-cancer therapies, and to immune therapy protocols. Yes/No
  2. We have good communication between our patients, their families and our staff of clinicians at all key stages of therapy to monitor therapy compliance and patient outcomes. Yes? No? Not Really?
4:40PM
Q&A Immune Therapy Formulary/Pharmacy Issues and Cost Management
Dr. Koeller
4:55PM
CME/CE POST-TEST
5:00PM
MASTER CLASS ADJOURNS

Master Class Objective & Executive Summary top

The overall objective of this live, 2-day IMMUNE THERAPIES FOR CANCER MASTER CLASS 2017 is to provide much needed training to pharmaceutical company executives regarding the newest class of anti-cancer therapies, immunotherapy, which is rapidly finding a growing number of important clinical applications for treating many solid and hematologic malignancies.

The current and emerging immune therapies for cancer include checkpoint inhibitor antibodies, and an increasing number of other types of drugs that affect the immune system such as CAR T cells. In addition, this immune therapies for cancer training initiative is also designed to help non-industry Health Care Professionals (HCPs) who provide direct patient care, to better understand the most recent clinical developments regarding immune therapies for malignancy.

This Master Class begins with interactive presentations that serve as the foundation for the entire course: 1) the science and biology of immunology, reviewing the basics of how the immune system functions. This initial presentation provides what the learners need to know to better understand the clinical applications of immune therapies for cancer. 2) Next is the Keynote Plenary Session reviewing the development of checkpoint inhibition. The modern era of immune therapy began in 2010 with the first Phase III trial that showed an improvement in survival in melanoma patients treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. 3) The final introductory presentation reviews the toxicities and their management associated with the clinical applications of immunotherapies.

Recognizing the time constraints of a two-day course, certain malignancies will receive more time on the agenda than others, reflecting the relative proportion of mature clinical data for treating a one malignancy versus another with immune therapy. For example today, the clinical applications of immune therapy for both melanoma and lung cancer are more advanced and supported by more data from a large number of clinical trials versus the more recent clinical applications of immune therapy such as their roles in treating bladder cancer, renal cell cancer, prostate cancer and head and neck cancer. In addition, with several more years of clinical experience using checkpoint inhibition for malignancies such as melanoma and lung cancer, more questions exist for those cancers, such as: "How long should checkpoint immune therapy be continued for a lung cancer or melanoma patient who is in remission or has stable disease?" Also, "What combinations of immune therapies are optimal for malignancies such as melanoma and lung cancer?"

The Master Class agenda has been structured so that the expert cancer KOL faculty helps pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies to provide better service to their customers: the oncologists, hematologists, pathologists, fellows, nurses pharmacists and other HCPs involved in delivering anti-cancer care with immune therapy.

This Master Class is a CME/CE-accredited course (certified for physicians, nurses and pharmacists) that utilizes world renowned academic experts as the program faculty. This affords a rare opportunity to the pharmaceutical industry executives attending the Master Class to establish and/or strengthen their relationships with the leading KOLs involved with immune therapy for cancer. There are several meal functions and an evening reception and dinner where one KOL faculty member is assigned to one table to enable 7 pharmaceutical executives to interact with the KOLs of their choice . The Oncology Learning Center (OLC) has accredited this course for 17 hours of CME/CE credit because many of the executives within pharmaceutical and diagnostic/laboratory companies are physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other HCPs. The OLC has also intentionally made this Master Class a CME/CE event so that no commercial interests could be a part of the faculty and to help avoid any type of commercial influence. This Master Class is therefore an objective, unbiased review of the current and emerging therapies and diagnostics for using immune therapy for numerous malignancies.

Outside of this Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class, pharmaceutical industry and diagnostic industry professionals have only very limited opportunities to engage with the KOLs, who for the most part are the experts who are typically any or all of the following: Principal Investigators of key lung cancer clinical trials; authors of publications and abstracts from key lung cancer trials; authors of many textbook chapters on lung cancer; committee members of various guidelines and other professional cancer organizations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology and The American Society of Hematology.

The comprehensive Master Class agenda on this Website describes in great detail the content of each interactive presentation. In addition, the expert academic and leading ancillary expert faculty members and their biographies are provided.

The educational format or learning design of this Master Class is one that is intentionally very interactive. To begin each presentation, the expert faculty member asks the audience of pharmaceutical executives several "Rapid-Fire" questions to stimulate their involvement with the faculty. During each presentation the expert faculty member also asks questions of the audience to enhance the learning process.

And throughout the entire Master Class, each audience participant is able to ask questions of the expert faculty. These questions are asked via the use of iPads and our private Wi Fi network inside the classroom. All questions are continuously "queued-up" and visible to all faculty members and the entire audience. The ability of the audience to "up-vote" any questions helps ensure that the most important questions are answered. And by structuring a least 15 minutes for Q&A and expert panel sessions after each presentation the agenda permits a maximum amount of time for Q&A to further enhance the learning experience.

To receive CME/CE credit, the learners attending the Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class, have two weeks following the program to complete the required program survey (on line), and to successfully answer the knowledge test questions found on Oncology Learning Center (OLC) Website for this Master Class to earn up to 17 hours of continuing education credit. All of the Master Class presentations' PowerPoint® slides will be available for downloading immediately following the Master Class. Approximately 4 months later the entire Maser Class will be recreated using the original audio and slides as Webinars that are archived for one year, and available to everyone on a "24/7" basis.

NOTE to the pharmaceutical executive audience participants: Bring your own "Smart Devices" to interact with the faculty. Please bring your iPhones, iPads, Tablets, Androids, Laptop Computers, etc., to the Master Class. We will also have a few extra iPads for participants who may have not brought a smart device. Using any smart Device connected to our private Wi Fi network will enable the Master Class participants to ask any questions of the faculty throughout the 2-day program from their seats in the audience, and also, to enable participants in the audience to answer the numerous clinical questions from each faculty member during their presentations.

Educational Need

In 2017, cancer deaths in the US remain a significant unmet medical need, and, is expected to be a major clinical and scientific challenge for the foreseeable future, but with modest incremental advances. The introduction of immune therapy, especially checkpoint inhibitors, beginning in 2010 for melanoma, then subsequently for lung cancer, and most recently for bladder cancer and head and neck cancer, represents a significant advance in the fight against cancer.

Immune therapy represents the third major class of anti-cancer drugs, following chemotherapy and targeted therapy. The need for advanced, in-depth, and high-quality education regarding immune therapy has never been greater. This Master Class helps address this educational need with the added benefit of establishing relationships with the KOLs who in many cases conducted the clinical trials for these immune therapies for various malignancies. This educational topic continues to become more important each day, as new immune therapies and strategies on applying them in the clinic for treating cancer patients are introduced into standards of care.

Target Audience top

The target audience for this CME/CE Master Class on Immune Therapy for Cancer is primarily the pharmaceutical and diagnostic industry executives who are involved in either drug development or commercialization. A large and an increasing number of pharmaceutical and diagnostic company executives holding various medical, research, marketing, sales and other vital positions within drug and diagnostic companies involved in treating cancer with immune therapy, have clinical, scientific or advanced healthcare degrees and licenses, such as NPs, oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Physician assistants, PhDs, dieticians and other physicians and Health Care Professionals (HCPs) and have chosen to utilize their HCP degrees for careers within pharmaceutical, biotech and diagnostic/laboratory companies, and ancillary companies such as medical advertising and communications companies. In addition, all HCPs, including oncologists, hematologists, other physicians nurses, pharmacists and other HCPs, in either private practice or academia, who are interested in this Immune Therapy Master Class CME/CE activity are invited to attend. And finally, anyone else who may not be a HCP, but rather is an important and integral member of the chain of professionals involved in the delivery of care to cancer patients are also invited to "audit this Master Class for no CME/CE credit." This is especially true for many marketing and sales executive but it also includes consultants, and other corollary personnel involved in lung cancer. The inclusion of everyone from various backgrounds will only help to facilitate an important interactive dialogue during this Master Class.

Learning Objectives

Physicians

  1. Understand the differences in efficacy and toxicity between the current and emerging checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 )and other immunotherapies such as CAR T Cells Hematopoietic stem cells, Hematopoiesis, T Cells, B- Cells, ADCC, IgG antibodies, Activated T-Cells, NK Cells, CD19, CD30, CD38, ZAP70, SLAMF7, CDK3, CDK4, CDK8, etc.
  2. Compare and contrast the various emerging and current immune therapies for pancreatic cancer.
  3. Compare and contrast the targeted and emerging immune therapies for leukemia.
  4. Analyze the different strategies for non-small cell lung cancer involving immune therapy.
  5. Devise various treatment strategies using immunotherapy utilizing monotherapy, combinations and sequencing of therapies for melanoma and NSCLC.
  6. Assess the new and emerging data utilizing immune therapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma.
  7. Compare and contrast the use of the immune therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, and Follicular Lymphoma.
  8. Evaluate the different therapeutic strategies for Multiple Myeloma, including New-Generation targeted therapy, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibition and with IMiDs, in both combination and monotherapy regimens.
  9. Integrate the new checkpoint inhibitor immune therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
  10. Describe the various immune therapy strategies for metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer (mUBC).
  11. Compare and contrast the different immunotherapy strategies for metastatic and relapsed squamous cell Head & Neck cancer.

Pharmacist, Nurses, and Advanced Nurse Practitioners

  1. Review the differences in efficacy and toxicity between the current and emerging checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4) and other immunotherapies such as CAR T Cells Hematopoietic stem cells, Hematopoiesis, T Cells, B- Cells, ADCC, IgG antibodies, Activated T-Cells, NK Cells, CD19, CD30, CD38, ZAP70, SLAMF7, CDK3, CDK4, CDK8, etc.
  2. List the various emerging and current immune therapies for pancreatic cancer.
  3. List the targeted and emerging immune therapies for leukemia.
  4. Recall the different strategies for non-small cell lung cancer involving immune therapy.
  5. Identify various treatment strategies using immunotherapy utilizing monotherapy, combinations and sequencing of therapies for melanoma and NSCLC.
  6. Review the new and emerging data utilizing immune therapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma.
  7. Review the use of the immune therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, and Follicular Lymphoma.
  8. Identify the different therapeutic strategies for Multiple Myeloma, including New-Generation targeted therapy, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibition and with IMiDs, in both combination and monotherapy regimens.
  9. Describe the new checkpoint inhibitor immune therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
  10. List the various immune therapy strategies for metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer (mUBC).
  11. Recall the different immunotherapy strategies for metastatic and relapsed squamous cell Head & Neck cancer.

CME & CE Credit top

This symposium provides 17 hours of CME credit to physicians, 17 hours of CNE credit to nurses, 17 hours of CPE credit to pharmacists, and a Certificate of Attendance for fellows and other HCPs for receiving 17 hours of credit from their professional organizations and accrediting societies.

Accreditation Statements top

Physicians

The BioMedical Learning Institute is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

The BioMedical Learning Institute designates this live activity for a maximum of 17 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Pharmacists

The BioMedical Learning Institute is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education.

UAN: 0838-0000-17-004-L01-P
Credits: 17 hours (1.7 ceus)
Type of Activity: Knowledge

To receive CE contact hour credit, attendance at the entire activity and the successful completion of the post‐test and evaluation form is required.

Nurses

The BioMedical Learning Institute is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

The BioMedical Learning Institute designates this educational activity for 17 contact hours.

Accreditation by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation refers to recognition of educational activities and does not imply approval or endorsement of any product.

To receive CE contact hour credit, attendance at the entire activity and the successful completion of the post‐test and evaluation form is required.

Other

Physician Assistants: AAPA accepts certificates of attendance for educational activities certified for Category 1 credit from AOACCME, Prescribed credit from AAFP, and AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ from organizations accredited by ACCME or a recognized state medical society. Physician Assistants may receive a maximum of 17 hours of Category 1 credit for attending this symposium.

Fellows will receive a certificate of attendance that they can submit to their accrediting organizations for continuing education credit.

Hotel (Location) top

The Immune Master Class will be conducted at the Grand Hyatt DFW located in Terminal D which is very conveniently located inside the Dallas/Ft. Forth (DFW) International Airport.

We have secured 90 sleeping rooms at a discounted room rate of $259 per night (single and double occupancy) at the Grand Hyatt DFW. Triple occupancy is $284. Quadruple occupancy is $309. All of these discounted rates are exclusive of applicable taxes which are estimated at 13%. The Cut-Off date for the discounted rooms is 9/28/2017.

Click here to reserve your room.

The contact information is:
2337 S International Pkwy, Dallas, TX 75261
Phone: (972) 973-1234

Airline Transportation (Very Important Information) top

For the convenience of all participants of the forthcoming Master Class we have selected the Grand Hyatt DFW, inside Terminal D of the Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, for conducting the Master Class and for all sleeping rooms.

Please note #1: There are two Hyatt hotels located inside the Dallas (DFW) Ft. Worth International Airport. One is the Grand Hyatt DFW (inside Terminal D) where the Master Class will be held and where we have reserved sleeping rooms at a special discounted rate. Detailed hotel information is provided below.

Please note #2: As is the situation in many cities in the United States, there is another major airport servicing the Dallas and Ft. Worth, Texas cities and surrounding areas: That airport is Dallas Love Field which is the national (US) hub and headquarters of Southwest Airlines.

The Dallas Love Field airport is located approximately 30 miles away from Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) International airport, where the Master Class will be conducted. Depending upon ground automobile traffic this will be between a 30-and 90-minute taxi drive between these two airports (Dallas Love Field and DFW International) plus approximately an $80 taxi fare. Also, please note that Southwest Airlines DOES NOT service Dallas Ft. Worth (DFW) International Airport.

Therefore, it is highly advisable that all executives flying to Dallas to attend the Master Class use an airline that flies to Dallas Ft. Worth (DFW) International airport (the location of the Lung Cancer Master Class) and NOT to Dallas Love Field which is mandatory if you fly Southwest Airlines. Southwest does not fly to Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW).

Privacy Policy

Our privacy policy is that any information provided by any participant will not be sold or distributed outside of the Oncology Learning Center, Inc. Information you provide will be used only to contact you for our other Oncology Learning Center Master Classes or other training courses. You may opt out of our mailing list at any time by contacting us at registration@OncologyLearningCenter.com or call 214-269-2014 and leave a detailed message.

  • Pharmaceutical executives who are new or relatively new to the clinical applications of Immune Therapies for malignancies
  • Medical Affairs, Clinical development, R & D
  • MSLs (Medical Science Liaisons)
  • Marketing, Marketing Research
  • Commercial development, Business Development
  • KOL/Thought Leader Managers and Liaisons
  • Training Directors, Managers and Associates
  • Strategic planning and development
  • Executives with experience in lung cancer
  • Advertising Agency Executives and Writers
  • Market Research Companies
  • Medical Communication Executives and Writers
  • Sales Management/Sales Representatives
  • Consultants to Pharmaceutical companies
  • Publication Planners
  • Clinical Research Organizations (CROs)
  • Investment Bankers
  • A limited number of private-practice oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and other HCPs who provide anti-cancer patient care
  • This Master Class will be most beneficial to pharmaceutical industry participants who have at least a basic understanding of cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and targeted therapy, with at least 6 to 12 months of experience.
  • This Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class is designed to benefit both highly experienced pharmaceutical and diagnostic/laboratory executives, as well as executives who are new or relatively new to immune therapies for cancer because the field of immune therapy is changing rapidly. Much of what was "new" 6 months ago is "old news" today.
  • Can you afford not to attend this Master Class on immune therapies for cancer and not be the most competitive within your industry?
  • Can you afford to allow your competition to have stronger relationships with the immune therapy KOLs?
  • In most oncology/hematology pharmaceutical companies, only the sales representatives receive formal cancer training of any kind. In addition, your customers, the practicing oncologists, hematologists and other cancer HCPs are required to take 30 hours of oncology/hematology CME or CE training annually. Therefore, how do cancer executives like yourself receive this essential training, especially on immune therapy for cancer? How do you keep current? How do retain your competitive advantage, especially with the KOLs?
  • This Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class is the ONLY practical and cost-effective way for any pharmaceutical executive to become current regarding the information that such an industry executive needs to know.
  • This Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class is the ONLY practical and cost-effective way for anyone to get to know, personally, most of the country's top-tier KOLs in lung cancer.
  • Attending this Immune Therapies for Cancer Master Class provides a major benefit: establishing and/or strengthening personal relationships with the immune therapy for cancer KOLs while learning the subject in a 2-day, advanced-level immersion course.
  • This is the ONLY training course available for pharmaceutical executives that is taught by the KOLs on the subject of immune therapy for cancer. No other such immune therapies immersion training course exists.
  • Today, there is so much new information on so many current, new and emerging immune therapies for such a large number of malignancies: melanoma, lung cancer, bladder cancer, renal cell cancer, prostate cancer, head & neck cancer, pancreatic cancer, Hodgkin Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, leukemia and multiple myeloma.
  • Today, there is so much new information on the management of immune-related toxicities.
  • Within the R&D pipelines of numerous pharmaceutical companies, there is an ever increasing number of immune therapies, more of which will become FDA approved in 2017.
  • Because this Master Class is taught by the top-tier expert KOLs, it affords a rare opportunity to personally meet, establish and/or strengthn your relatonships with them.
  • During the Master Class, there is a one-hour welcome reception on day one, and also a private dinner where one KOL sit at each table enabling 7 industry executives to meet the KOLs of their choice.
  • There are several meal functions (lunches, breakfast and dinner) where individual KOL faculty members are assigned separate tables to enable pharmaceutical industry participants to sit with the KOLs of their choice: one formal dinner, two buffet breakfasts, and two buffet lunches.
  • There are also numerous beverage breaks. With a limit of only 90 participants there is ample time for personal meetings with the KOLs.
  • Private practice medical oncologists/hematologists and related cancer HCPs will benefit from this 2-day update by the academic experts and by networking with the pharmaceutical/diagnostic industry executives.
© 2017 Oncology Learning Center, Inc.