ASCO eLearning Weekly Podcasts

On the inaugural episode of ASCO Education: By the Book, Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Don Dizon share reflections on the evolution of the ASCO Educational Book, its global reach, and the role of its new companion podcast to further shine a spotlight on the issues shaping the future of modern oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nathan Pennell: Hello, I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, welcoming you to the first episode of our new podcast, ASCO Education: By the Book. The podcast will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. Each month, you'll hear nuanced views on key topics in oncology featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings, as well as some deep dives on the advances shaping modern oncology. Although I am honored to serve as the editor-in-chief (EIC) of the ASCO Educational Book, in my day job, I am the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair for clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center here in Cleveland. I'm delighted to kick off our new podcast with a discussion featuring the Ed Book's previous editor-in-chief. Dr. Don Dizon is a professor of medicine and surgery at Brown University and works as a medical oncologist specializing in breast and pelvic malignancies at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Rhode Island. Dr. Dizon also serves as the vice chair for membership and accrual at the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Don, it's great to have you here for our first episode of ASCO Education: By the Book. Dr. Don Dizon: Really nice to be here and to see you again, my friend. Dr. Nathan Pennell: This was the first thing I thought of when we were kicking off a podcast that I thought we would set the stage for our hopefully many, many listeners to learn a little bit about what the Ed Book used to be like, how it has evolved over the last 14 years or so since we both started here and where it's going. You started as editor-in-chief in 2012, is that right? Dr. Don Dizon: Oh, boy. I believe that is correct, yes. I did two 5-year stints as EIC of the Educational Book, so that sounds about right. Although you're aging me very clearly on this podcast. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I had to go back in my emails to see if I could figure out when we started on this because we've been working on it for some time. Start out a little bit by telling me what do you remember about the Ed Book from back in the day when you were applying to be editor-in-chief and thinking about the Ed Book. What was it like at that time? Dr. Don Dizon: You know, it's so interesting to think about it.  Ten years ago, we were both in a very different place in our careers, and I remember when the Ed Book position came up, I had been writing a column for ASCO. I had done some editorial activities with other journals for sure, but what always struck me was it was very unclear how one was chosen to be a part of the education program at ASCO. And then it was very unclear how those faculty were then selected to write a paper for the Educational Book. And it was back in the day when the Educational Book was completely printed. So, there was this book that was cherished among American fellows in oncology. And it was one that, when I was newly attending, and certainly two or three years before the editor's position came up, it was one that I referenced all the time. So, it was a known commodity for many of us. And there was a certain sense of selectivity about who was invited to write in it. And it wasn't terribly transparent either. So, when the opportunity to apply for editor-in-chief of the Educational Book came up, I had already been doing so much work for ASCO. I had been on the planning committees and served in many roles across the organization, and editing was something I found I enjoyed in other work. So, I decided to put my name in the ring with the intention of sort of bringing the book forward, getting it indexed, for example, so that there was this credit that was more than just societal credit at ASCO. This ended up being something that was referenced and acknowledged as an important paper through PubMed indexing. And then also to provide it as a space where we could be more transparent about who was being invited and broadening the tent as to who could participate as an author in the Ed Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It's going to be surprising to many of our younger listeners to learn that the Educational Book used to be just this giant, almost like a brick. I mean, it was this huge tome of articles from the Education Sessions that you got when you got your meeting abstracts book at the annual meeting. And you can always see people on the plane on the way out of Chicago with their giant books. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: That added lots of additional weight to the plane, I'm sure, on the way out. Dr. Don Dizon: And it was not uncommon for us to be sitting at an airport, and people would be reading those books with highlighters. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I fondly remember being a fellow and coming up and the Ed Book was always really important to me, so I was excited. We'll also let the listeners in on that. I also applied to be the original editor-in-chief of the Ed Book back in 2012, although I was very junior and did not have any real editorial experience. I think I may have been section editor for The Oncologist at that point. And I had spoken to Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan at WashU who had been the previous editor-in-chief about applying and he was like, “Oh yeah. You should absolutely try that out.” And then when Dr. Dizon was chosen, I was like, “Oh, well. I guess I didn't get it.” And then out of the blue I got a call asking me to join as the associate editor, which I was really always very thankful for that opportunity. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, it was a highly fruitful collaboration, I think, between you and I when we first started. I do remember taking on the reins and sort of saying, “You know, this is our vision of what we want to do.” But then just working with the authors, which we did, about how to construct their papers and what we were looking for, all of that is something I look back really fondly on. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it was interesting too because neither one of us had really a lot of transparency into how things worked when we started. We kind of made it up a little bit as we went along. We wanted to get all of the faculty, or at least as many of them as possible contributing to these. And we would go to the ASCO Education Committee meeting and kind of talk about the Ed Book, and we were thinking about, you know, how could we get people to submit. So, at the time it wasn't PubMed indexed. Most people, I think, submitted individual manuscripts just from their talk, which could be anywhere from full length review articles to very brief manuscripts. Dr. Don Dizon: Sometimes it was their slides with like a couple of comments on it. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And some of them were almost like a summary of the talk. Yeah, exactly. And so sort of making that a little more uniform. There was originally an honorarium attached, which went away, but I think PubMed indexing was probably the biggest incentive for people to join. I remember that was one of the first things you really wanted to get. Dr. Don Dizon Yeah. And, you know, it was fortuitous. I'd like to take all the credit for it, but ASCO was very forward thinking with Dr. Ramaswamy and the conversations about going to PubMed with this had preceded my coming in. We knew what we needed to do to get this acknowledged, which was really strengthening the peer review so that these papers could meet the bar to get on PubMed. But you know, within the first, what, two or three years, Nate, of us doing this, we were able to get this accepted. And now it is. If you look at what PubMed did for us, it not only increased the potential of who was going to access it, but for, I think the oncology community, it allowed people access to papers by key opinion leaders that was not blocked by a paywall. And I thought that was just super important at the time. Social media was something, but it wasn't what it is now. But anybody could access these manuscripts and it's still the case today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it's hard to overstate how important that was. People don't realize this, but the Ed Book is really widely accessed, especially outside the US as well. And a lot of people who can't attend the meeting to get the print, well, the once print, book could actually get access to essentially the education session from the annual meeting without having to fly all the way to the US to attend. Now, you know, we have much better virtual meeting offerings now and whatnot. But at the time it was pretty revolutionary to be able to do that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, and you know, it's so interesting when I think back to, you know, this sort of evolution to a fully online publication of the Ed Book. It was really some requests from international participants of the annual meeting who really wanted to continue to see this in print. At that time, it was important to recognize that access to information was not uniform across the world. And people really wanted that print edition, maybe not for themselves, but so that access in more rural areas or where access in the broadband networks were not established that they still could access the book. I think things have changed now. We were able, I think, in your tenure, to see it fully go online. But even I just remember that being a concern as we went forward. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, we continued with the print book that was available if people asked for it, but apparently few enough people asked for it that it moved fully online. One of the major advantages of being fully online now is of course, it does allow us to publish kind of in real time as the manuscripts come out in the months leading up to the meeting, which has been, I think, a huge boon because it can build momentum for the Education Sessions coming in. People, you know, really look forward to it. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, that was actually a concern, you know, when we were phasing out Ed Book and going to this continuous publication model where authors actually had the ability to sort of revise their manuscript and that would be automatically uploaded. You had a static manuscript that was fully printed, and it was no longer an accurate one. And we did have the ability to fix it. And it just goes to show exactly what you're saying. This idea that these are living papers was really an important thing that ASCO embraced quite early, I think. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And with the onset of PubMed indexing, the participation from faculty skyrocketed and almost within a couple of years was up to the vast majority of sessions and faculty participating. Now I think people really understand that this is part of the whole process. But at the time I remember writing out on my slides in all caps, “THIS IS AN EXPECTATION.” And that's about the best word I could give because I asked if we could make people do it, and they were like, no, you can't make people do it. Dr. Don Dizon: So right.  Actually, I don't think people are aware of the work on the back end every year when I was on as EIC, Nate and myself, and then subsequently Dr. Hope Rugo would have these informational sessions with the education faculty and we would tout the Ed Book, tout the expectation, tout it was PubMed indexed and tout multidisciplinary participation. So, we were not seeing four manuscripts reflecting one session. You know, this encouragement to really embrace multidisciplinary care was something that very early on we introduced and really encouraged people not to submit perspective manuscripts, but to really get them in and then harmonize the paper so that it felt like it was, you know, one voice. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I consider that after PubMed indexing, the next major change to the Ed Book, that really made it a better product and that was moving from, you know, just these short individual single author manuscripts to single session combined manuscript that had multiple perspectives and topics, really much more comprehensive review articles. And I don't even remember what the impetus was for that, but it was really a success. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, I mean, I think in the beginning it was more of a challenge, I think, because people were really not given guidance on what these papers were supposed to look like. So, we were seeing individual manuscripts come forward. Looking back, it really foreshadowed the importance of multidisciplinary management. But at the time, it was really more about ensuring that people were leaving the session with a singular message of what to do when you're in clinic again. And the goal was to have the manuscripts reflect that sort of consensus view of a topic that was coming in. There were certain things that people still argued would not fit in a multidisciplinary manuscript. You know, if you have someone who's writing and whose entire talk was on the pathology of thyroid cancer. Another topic was on survivorship after thyroid cancer. It was hard to sort of get those two to interact and cover what was being covered. So, we were still getting that. But you're right, at the end of my tenure and into yours, there were far fewer of those individual manuscripts. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I think it's even made it easier to write because now, you know, you just have to write a section of a manuscript and not put together an entire review. So, it has helped with getting people on board. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, the other thing I thought was really interesting about the process is when you're invited to do an Education Session at ASCO, you're either invited as a faculty speaker or as the chair of the session. And the responsibility of the chair is to ensure that it flows well and that the talks are succinct based on what the agenda or the objectives were as defined by the education committee for that specific group. But that was it. So really being named “Chair” was sort of an honor, an honorific. It really didn't come with responsibility. So, we use the Ed Book as a way to say, “As chair of the session, it is your responsibility to ensure A, a manuscript comes to me, but B, that the content of that paper harmonizes and is accurate.” And it was very rare, but Nate, I think we got dragged into a couple of times where the accuracy of the manuscript was really called into question by the chair. And those were always very, very tricky discussions because everyone that gets invited to ASCO is a recognized leader in their field. Some of us, especially, I would probably say, dating back 10 years from today, the data behind Standards of Care were not necessarily evidence-based. So, there were a lot of opinion-based therapies. You know, maybe not so much in the medical side, but certainly some of it. But when you went to, you know, surgical treatments and maybe even radiotherapy treatments, it was really based on, “My experience at my center is this and this is why I do what I do.” But those kinds of things ended up being some of the more challenging things to handle as an editor. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And those are the– I'll use “fun” in a broad sense. You know, every once in a while, you get an article where it really does take a lot of hands-on work from the editor to work with the author to try to revise it and make it a suitable academic manuscript. But you know what? I can't think, at least in recent years, of any manuscripts that we turned down. They just sometimes needed a little TLC. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah. And I think the other important thing it reminds me of is how great it was that I wasn't doing this by myself. Because it was so great to be able to reach out to you and say, “Can you give me your take on this paper?” Or, “Can you help me just join a conference call with the authors to make sure that we're on the same page?” And then on the rare example where we were going to reject a paper, it was really important that we, as the editorial team, and I include our ASCO shepherder, through the whole process. We had to all agree that this was not salvageable. Fortunately, it happened very rarely. But I've got to say, not doing this job alone was one of the more important facets of being the EIC of ASCO's Educational Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's nice to hear you say that. I definitely felt that this was a partnership, you know, it was a labor of love. So, I want to go to what I consider sort of the third major pillar of the changes to the Ed Book during your tenure, and that was the introduction of a whole new kind of manuscript. So up to, I don't know, maybe seven or eight years ago, all the articles were authored just by people who were presenting at the Annual Meeting. And then you had an idea to introduce invited manuscripts. So take me through that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, well, you know, again, it went to this sort of, what can people who are being asked to sort of lead ASCO for that year, what can they demonstrate as sort of a more tangible contribution to the Society and to oncology in general? And I think that was the impetus to use the Ed Book for everyone who was in a leadership position to make their mark. That said, I was here, and I was either president of the society or I was Education Program Chair or Scientific Program Chair, and they got to select an article type that was not being covered in the annual meeting and suggest the authors and work with those authors to construct a manuscript. Never did any one of those folks suggest themselves, which I thought was fascinating. They didn't say, “I want to be the one to write this piece,” because this was never meant to be a presidential speech or a commemorative speech or opportunity for them as leaders. But we wanted to ensure that whatever passion they had within oncology was represented in the book. And again, it was this sort of sense of, I want everyone to look at the Ed Book and see themselves in it and see what they contributed. And that was really important for those who were really shepherding each Annual Meeting each year for ASCO that they had the opportunity to do that. And I was really pleased that leadership really took to that idea and were very excited about bringing ideas and also author groups into the Educational Book who would not have had the opportunity otherwise. I thought that was just really nice. It was about inclusiveness and just making sure that people had the opportunity to say, “If you want to participate, we want you to participate.” Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. I think the ASCO leadership jumped on this and continues to still really appreciate the opportunity to be able to kind of invite someone on a topic that's meaningful to them. I think we've tried to work in things that incorporate the presidential theme each year in our invited manuscript, so it really allows them to put kind of a stamp on the flavor of each edition. And the numbers reflect that these tend to be among our more highly read articles as well. Dr. Don Dizon: You know, looking back on what we did together, that was something I'm really, really quite proud of, that we were able to sort of help the Educational Book evolve that way. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I agree. You brought up briefly a few minutes ago about social media and its role over time. I think when we started in 2012, I had just joined Twitter now X in 2011, and I think we were both sort of early adopters in the social media. Do you feel like social media has had a role in the growth of the Ed Book or is this something that you think we can develop further? Dr. Don Dizon: When we were doing Ed Book together, professional social media was actually a quite identified space. You know, we were all on the same platform. We analyzed what the outcomes were on that platform and our communities gathered on that platform. So, it was a really good place to highlight what we were publishing, especially as we went to continuous publishing.  I don't remember if it was you or me, but we even started asking our authors for a tweet and those tweets needed work. It was you. It was you or I would actually lay in these tweets to say, “Yeah, we need to just, you know, work on this.” But I think it's harder today. There's no one preferred platform. Alternate platforms are still evolving. So, I think there are opportunities there. The question is: Is that opportunity meaningful enough for the Ed Book to demonstrate its return on an investment, for example? What I always thought about social media, and it's still true today, is that it will get eyes on whatever you're looking at far beyond who you intended to see it. So, you know, your tweets regarding a phase 3 clinical trial in lung cancer, which were so informative, were reaching me, who was not a lung oncologist who doesn't even see lung cancer and getting me more interested in finding that article and more and more pointing to the Educational Book content that speaks to that piece, you know. And I think coupling an impression of the data, associating that with something that is freely accessed is, I think, a golden opportunity not only for our colleagues, but also for anyone who's interested in a topic. Whether you are diagnosed with that cancer or you are taking care of someone with that cancer, or you heard about that cancer, there are people who would like to see information that is relevant and embedded and delivered by people who know what they're talking about. And I think our voices on social media are important because of it. And I think that's where the contribution is. So, if we had to see what the metric was for any social media efforts, it has to be more of the click rates, not just by ASCO members, but the click rates across societies and across countries. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, social media is, I mean, obviously evolving quite a bit in the last couple of years. But I do know that in terms the alt metrics for the track access through social media and online, the ones that are shared online by the authors, by the Ed Book team, do seem to get more attention. I think a lot of people don't like to just sit with a print journal anymore or an email table of contents for specific journals. People find these articles that are meaningful to them through their network and oftentimes that is online on social media. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes, 100%. And you know what I think we should encourage people to do is look at the source. And if the Ed Book becomes a source of information, I think that will be a plus to the conversations in our world. We're still dealing with a place where, depending on who sponsored the trial, whether it was an industry-sponsored trial, whether it was NCI sponsored or sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, for example, access to the primary data sets may or may not be available across the world, but the Ed Book is. And if the Ed Book can summarize that data and use terms and words that are accessible no matter what your grade level of education is. If we can explain the graphs and the figures in a way that people can actually easily more understand it. If there's a way that we structure our conversations in the Ed Book so that the plethora of inclusion/exclusion criteria are summarized and simplified, then I think we can achieve a place where good information becomes more accessible, and we can point to a summary of the source data in places where the source is not available. Dr. Nathan Pennell: One of the other things that I continue to be surprised at how popular these podcasts are. And that gives you an opportunity pretty much the opposite. Instead of sort of a nugget that directs you to the source material, you've got a more in-depth discussion of the manuscript. And so, I'm delighted that we have our own podcast. For many years, the Ed Book would sort of do a sort of a “Weird Al takeover” of the ASCO Daily News Podcast for a couple of episodes around the Annual Meeting, and I think those were always really popular enough that we were able to argue that we deserved our own podcast. And I'm really looking forward to having these in-depth discussions with authors. Dr. Don Dizon: It's an amazing evolution of where the Ed Book has gone, right? We took it from print only, societally only, to something that is now accessed worldwide via PubMed. We took it from book to fully online print. And now I think making the content live is a natural next step. So, I applaud you for doing the podcast and giving people an opportunity actually to discuss what their article discusses. And if there's a controversial point, giving them the freedom and the opportunity to sort of give more nuanced views on what may not be something that there's 100% consensus over. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yes. Well, I hope other people enjoy these as well. Just want to highlight a few of the things that have happened just in the couple years since you stepped down as editor-in-chief. One of them, and I don't know if you noticed, but last year we started adding manuscripts from the ASCO thematic meetings, so ASCO GI and ASCO GU, something we had certainly talked about in the past, but had lacked bandwidth to really do. And they seem to be pretty widely accessed. Dr. Don Dizon: That's fantastic. Yes, I do remember talking about the coverage of the thematic meetings and you're right, this takes a long time to sort of concentrate on the Annual Meeting. It may seem like everything happens in the span of like eight weeks. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It does feel like that sometimes. Dr. Don Dizon: Right? But this is actually something that starts a year before, once the education program is set. We're in the room when they set it. But then it's really chasing down manuscripts and then making sure that they're peer reviewed because the peer review is still really important, and then making sure that any revisions are made before it's finalized and goes to press. That is a many months process. So, when we're trying to introduce, “Oh, we should also do ASCO GU or-,” the question was, how do you want to do that given this very, very involved process going forward? So, I'm glad you were able to figure it out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's challenging. I don't think people realize quite the compressed timeline for these. You know, the Education Session and authors and invited faculty are picked in the fall, and then basically you have to start turning in your manuscripts in February, March of the following year. And so, it's a really tight turnaround for this. When we talk about the ASCO thematic meetings, it's an even tighter window. Dr. Don Dizon: Right, exactly. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And so, it's challenging to get that moving, but I was really, really proud that we were able to pull that off. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, congratulations again. And I think that is a necessary step, because so much of what's going on in the various disease management sites is only covered cursorily through the Annual Meeting itself. I mean, there's just so much science breaking at any one time that I think if we want to comprehensively catalog the Year in Review in oncology, it kind of behooves us to do that. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Some other things that are coming up because we now have manuscripts that are going to be coming in year-round, and just to kind of make it easier on the editorial staff, we're going to be forming an editorial board. And in addition to our pool of reviewers who get ASCO points, please feel free to go online to the ASCO volunteer portal and sign up if you are interested in participating. So, moving forward, I'm really excited to see where things are going to go. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, that's great. That's great. And I do remember talking about whether or not we needed to have an editorial board. At least when I was there, having this carried by three people was always better than having it carried by one person. And I think as you expand the potential for submissions, it will be very helpful to have that input for sure. And then it gives another opportunity for more members to get involved in ASCO as well. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely. People want involvement, and so happy to provide that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Is there anything we didn't cover that you would like to mention before we wrap up? Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I will say this, that ASCO and through its publications not only has had this real emphasis on multidisciplinary management of cancers, especially where it was relevant, but it also always had a stand to ensure representation was front and center and who wrote for us. And I think every president, every chair that I've worked with naturally embraced that idea of representation. And I think it has been a distinct honor to say that during my tenure as EIC, we have always had a plethora of voices, of authors from different countries, of genders, that have participated in the construction of those books. And it stands as a testament that we are a global community and we will always be one. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, thank you for that. And I'm happy to continue that as we move forward. Well, Don, thank you. It's been great speaking with you. You played such a pivotal role in the Ed Book's evolution and I'm so glad you were able to join me for our inaugural episode. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I'm just tickled that you asked me to be your first guest. Thank you so much, Nate. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, as well as our periodic deep dives on advances that are shaping modern oncology. Have a great day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell @n8pennell.bsky.social   Dr. Don Dizon @drdondizon.bsky.social  Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)   ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Nathan Pennell:      Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron     Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  Dr. Don Dizon: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Midi, Doximity Honoraria: UpToDate, American Cancer Society Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Kronos Bio, Immunogen Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb          

Resources such as facilities, equipment, medications, and trained healthcare professionals are essential to provide proper care. Yet, many areas in the US and around the globe have challenges providing some of such resources. This ASCO Education podcast will explore oncology practice in low resource settings.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Dr. Richard Ingram, a Medical Oncologist at Shenandoah Oncology in Winchester, Virginia, and Chair of the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance and Dr. Sana Al Sukhun, an Adjunct Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of Oncology Practice at Al-Hayat Medical Center in Jordan will discuss the barriers they face providing cancer care in low resource areas in the US (1:48) and Jordan (11:52) and the one challenge that is key to solve in order for proper treatment to be administered in the US (29:07) and Jordan (31:42). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Sana A. Al-Sukhun: Honoraria – Novartis; Speakers' Bureau – Novartis, Roche, Pfizer; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – Roche, BMS Dr. Richard Ingram:  None Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Consulting or Advisory – Merck, Bayer, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc.; Research Funding – Epizyme, EMD Serono, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Springworks, Astellas Pharma, Deciphera Resources  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Hello, dear ASCO audience, welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Today, we will examine practicing oncology in a low-resource setting. Managing cancer patients is a multifaceted challenge. Resources such as facilities, equipment, medications, and trained healthcare professionals are essential to provide proper care. Yet, many areas in the US and around the globe have challenges providing some of such resources. I'm Dr. Thierry Alcindor. I'm a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Joining us are Dr. Richard Ingram, a Medical Oncologist at Shenandoah Oncology in Winchester, Virginia, and Chair of the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance. He is, as well, the current president of the Virginia State Oncology Society. We are also very pleased to be joined by Dr. Sana Al Sukhun. She is an Adjunct Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of Oncology Practice at Al-Hayat Medical Center in Jordan. She is also the past president of the Jordanian Oncology Society.  So, I'll begin with Dr. Ingram. You have experience with patients in the Appalachian region of the US by practicing medical oncology in rural northwestern Virginia for the past 25 years. Can you describe this unique region for our listeners and detail some of the challenges you face when providing care there? Dr. Richard Ingram: I have been practicing here in Northwestern Virginia for the past 25-ish years, and have seen over time barriers to care that I think could be applied anywhere. And, I think we'll hear some interesting stories today from our colleague from Jordan also, in that regard. The main barriers I think are somewhat slightly stereotypical but real where I am. There is a diverse population here, meaning a big geographic area and a somewhat underpopulated area. So, resources are scattered and scarce sometimes and located in concentrated areas. So, patients have difficulty with access to cancer screening, imaging, and sometimes downstream or tertiary care where I am. I have patients that will travel an hour and a half to two hours one way i.e., a three to four-hour round trip - sometimes over some difficult terrain, meaning some difficult roads out our way, both with mountains and some geographic challenges just to get to us. You can imagine the difficulty that is with either coordination of care with a multidisciplinary patient having to see multiple providers or more practically, a patient receiving radiotherapy on a daily basis. And, this not only is time but money because you're trying to make a decision about follow-up appointments and missing work at an hourly wage versus working that week and paying your bills. I have patients currently who are working around that. I have several concurrent chemo-radiotherapy patients - currently, actually two I saw this morning - in clinic, both of which live in a town called Petersburg, West Virginia, which is about an hour and 45 minutes one way. So, three and a half hours from us. And, we've had to connect them appropriately with resources around transportation to make sure they stay compliant with their care.  You have this empathy and drive to care for patients and try to apply the same care you would across the continuum. That socioeconomic status is not unique to Appalachia but I think is somewhat emblematic in our area - lovely, hardworking people and diligent in their craft. But, when you have barriers such as cancer diagnosis and now superimposed strain and stress on your family life and work life, it can throw things out of balance.  A similar patient of mine that I saw today actually in clinic, same area, same concurrent diagnosis, their big access issue is that they're also the primary caregiver for some grandchildren that are staying at home. They've taken in their grandchildren and, not unique to Appalachia, but somewhat in that we have a lot of multigenerational families living together. So, you're trying to help that person get through their therapy and still be the homemaker for grandchildren and try to battle their cancer diagnosis and at the same time not bankrupt them financially from a socioeconomic standpoint. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: What's the insurance coverage pattern like? Dr. Richard Ingram: In my area, about half to 60% of our patients are on either uninsured or they are on public insurance, whether that be Medicare or state Medicaid or exchange programs. From the private sector, there are private plans, but a lot of those are self-funded, meaning they are local municipalities, teachers' unions, first responders, and then a small pocket of what you and I would call traditional commercial insurance coverage. And so, for us, we for a lot of our patients have built relationships, for instance, we know this gastrointestinal group will take that insurance of a Medicaid or uninsured patient and this one won't, or vice versa. So, there is some fragmentation of care if you're not very conscious and deliberate at the medical oncology and radiation oncology side, which is in my practice about making sure the patient can get access to care. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: I understand. So you talked about the lack of adequate or complete primary care coverage. Do you have enough medical oncologists? Dr. Richard Ingram: Excellent question. I appreciate that. Yes. So we do, in that my group does and my region does. So we are very strong, as I like to say, the end of the funnel. You know, I consider cancer care screening a funnel you've got to screen through. I imagine you have a giant funnel of trying to screen through patients for the screening program appropriately and then the positive screens come out at the end of the funnel.  At the end of the funnel, we can receive these patients and take care of them and provide all of the touch points of surgical, radiation, medical oncology, genetic counseling, survivorship. My biggest passion and what I've tried to do in the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is raise awareness on the screening and getting the screening activities out into these rural communities so we can get stage migration to an earlier stage of cancer. Still take care of the people who develop positive screens and downstream disease, obviously, but it'd be nice to start getting stage migration to the left, meaning to earlier stages for patients.  What we really have out here is a lack of primary care doctors and stability of primary care doctors because it's a very difficult area to practice primary care with geography, very difficult area, with the payer mix and the socioeconomic status, and a difficult area for people to desire to live in when you're trying to practice primary care, not surrounded by every specialist. A rural primary care provider really has to be, in essence, a true solo practitioner in Appalachia. They have to have a broad skill set because they just don't have a cardiologist sitting next door or a neurosurgeon immediately available.  We have a full complement of surgical oncology specialists, radiation, three-dimensional stereotactic, clinical trials, genetic counseling, eight medical oncologists, a well-equipped ICU, and care. But our catchment area we serve is a geographic radius of two to two and a half hours, of which there's not much in between. There are some rural clinics, some community outposts, some critical access hospitals. And really creating that infrastructure of navigation has been the key success in our area of trying to navigate a patient through the system and trying to support these single clinics or smaller critical access hospitals from afar, support them intellectually with cognitive capabilities over the telephone to help work a consult up and trying to navigate the patient in.  But again, the physical or the geographic, or distance barriers are real, and the socioeconomic barriers are real. Even once we can make a link with the primary care doctor and be more than willing to see the patient, sometimes just physically getting them to us can be a challenge. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: So what is the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance doing to improve cancer screening, cancer care outcomes in the region? Dr. Richard Ingram: Excellent question. So the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance started organically. So myself, as president of Virginia, got together with other state presidents, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, and said, “Gosh, what could we do collectively? Or what are our collective issues and problems?” Because we kind of serve a similar population and geography. And out of that was born kind of a homebrewed alliance, which formalizes the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance.  And I want to kind of just start with a quick story, and then I'll explain where we launched. I had a patient that really resonates with me personally. So it was a patient I met in the emergency room, happened to actually be kind of mid-pandemic. I was on call, very nice patient, presented with severe dyspnea orthopnea platypnea, came to the ER, had a large pleural effusion lung mass, medial spinal mass, worked them up, ended up being metastatic non-small cell lung cancer stage IV. Got them plugged into treatment and took care of them.  And then when I had a moment, I went back through their files as we usually do when we're taking a history and I had noticed that they had had a low-dose chest CT several years earlier at a community center out in their rural area of West Virginia. And I asked the patient about it and he kind of recalled getting the CAT scan. But bottom line, the area had set up a screening program but had not set up an actual mechanism or a flow of navigation. And/or if they had, the patient was unaware. So basically, the patient dutifully went through a screening program. There was the pandemic, there was a turnover of staff and it wasn't the patient was forgotten, but the patient never got navigated to work things up. And lo and behold, that positive low-dose CT screen turned into stage four cancer years later.  So I wanted to focus on cancers we could make an intervention with in Appalachia and what was formed was called the Lung Cancer Screening Task Force. That was our first successful endeavor of the alliance. So this task force was formed after about a year and a half or so of work of the states I mentioned. It has become its own task force that reports to the alliance and we're very proud of it because it has been recognized in President Biden and Jill Biden's Moonshot Initiative for Cancer. It's actually obtained funding and we've worked backward to work on a navigation program as well as screening in the most underserved and lowest-screened areas in Appalachia. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Well, that sounds exciting. Like, I feel that there is a nice infrastructure as well as projects coming along and I'm quite eager to hear from Dr. Al Sukhun whose practice is based in Jordan.  Dr. Alsukhun, in 2022 you gave a presentation where you highlighted how low-income countries had experienced greater increases in breast cancer incidence and mortality compared to high-income countries in the last decade. What challenges are patients and doctors facing and what should be prioritized? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Interesting question. First, thank you so much for inviting me to take part in this very interesting discussion. Pleasure to join, listen, learn, and reflect. Indeed, I've enjoyed listening to Dr. Ingram very much. He was speaking about his area and indeed discussing most of the issues, believe it or not, we face in different parts of the world referred to as countries with limited resources. When you refer to limited resource environments or countries, you're really referring to two different types of limited resources: very low-income countries or middle-income countries. The challenges are a bit different. The first challenge we generally face is access to the application of knowledge. For example, in Jordan, we have access to the knowledge. We have excellent infrastructures, we have an excellent health workforce. The problem is the application of the knowledge, application of what we have learned to help our patients. However, the challenge in different limited resources goes across the theme of a multidisciplinary approach. It starts from prevention, early detection, where, as you mentioned, we are facing a significant increase in the number of cases diagnosed with breast cancer. The proportion of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in countries of limited resources is 62% of the worldwide new cancer cases. Why do we have such a significant increase in the number of cases? Most countries undergoing what's called socioeconomic transition, they are facing increasing risk factors to develop breast cancer. One of those which is significant not only when it comes to breast cancer but to most kinds of cancers is indeed a significant increase in the proportion of the population suffering from obesity. The highest absolute increase in the prevalence of obesity worldwide over the past couple of decades has been seen in the Middle East, Central Asia and North America. That by itself is a significant risk factor for the development of breast cancer and other long lists of cancers.  In addition, of course, to smoking. For example, last year, unfortunately, and I'm not proud to say Jordan ranked among the highest in terms of smoking prevalence among men in the region. So these two important risk factors, in addition to the westernization of lifestyle, less physical activity, you know, all these risk factors, most important is awareness that these risk factors are important in terms of attributing to cancer. This is not common knowledge across all countries. We do not have enough campaigns across all countries to emphasize the importance of prevention. Then comes early detection. When it comes to early detection, you know, the challenge is not homogeneous. For example, in Jordan, a couple of decades back, most cases with breast cancer were diagnosed at an advanced stage. Barely one-quarter to one-third of cases were diagnosed at stages I to II. Right now, almost 60% of the cases diagnosed annually are really stage I or II early breast cancer. Thanks to the campaigns from government, non government organizations, NGOs, college society, all people are working together to emphasize the importance of prevention and early detection. That was quite successful in Jordan, and as you can see here almost two-thirds of cases are diagnosed early. However, contrast that with neighboring countries. I'm referring to Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and if you notice I'm mentioning countries with conflict. Those countries not only suffer from limited resources but also instability. And when Richard was referring to the access transportation challenge, indeed, we in Jordan treat so many of the patients diagnosed with cancer coming to Jordan seeking treatment from Iraq, from Yemen, from Sudan, that by itself is a challenge. And at the same time, it reflects the status they suffer from, they suffer from lack of health workforce, lack of enough oncologists. Very few, if any, oncologists are available there. And not only you're referring to oncologists, you need pathologists, enough well-trained pathologists, surgeons, radiation oncology service. Those are quite limited when it comes to many of the surrounding countries and many countries actually with limited resources.  For example, in Africa, same challenges, the multidisciplinary approach that's quite vital for the proper treatment of patients with cancer is indeed also lacking in many countries. The infrastructure takes not only having hospitals but also a multidisciplinary workforce. Then when it comes to treatment, you are faced by a common belief across many cultures that a diagnosis of cancer is equated to a death sentence. Very few, if any, believe that they can be treated from cancer or at least live with cancer in some situations. With breast cancer, patients with metastatic breast cancer deserve to be treated and can survive for years with excellent quality of life as well, still contributing to their society. Especially more than 50% of patients in countries of limited resources when diagnosed with breast cancer, they are younger than age 55, which is ten years younger than patients diagnosed in countries of high income. So they are still in the prime time of their life. They are needed by their family, their society. That's a huge actual economic impact on society and not only on the family. So these are issues to be tackled, to be emphasized across societies so that they can seek treatment when they have access to it. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Can you tell us about access to cancer medicine, whether chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: We are living in a fantastic area where precision medicine has really revolutionized our approach to the treatment of many tumors. But at the same time, while we are talking about equity, improving access, it created another challenge and it created, unfortunately, disparity and made equity even more difficult.  Right now, we do have, there is a huge difference between access, availability, and affordability. Most of these new medications, whether basic chemotherapeutics or recently approved targeted therapeutics or immunotherapy are available, but the problem is they are not affordable. Some of them are available in certain institutions, while in the same country, other institutions, if the patient's insurance happens to be in another institution, they cannot access it. So even within the same country, across different institutions, so many of the recently approved targeted therapeutics or immunotherapeutics are not offered. So equity is lacking even within the same country, in many countries with limited resources.  Sometimes the irony is you will have the very highly-priced medications while out of the blue you are faced with the challenge of shortage of basic therapeutics, platinums, for example. And I learned from colleagues, the states suffered from a similar shortage the last few weeks. And you can imagine not being able to access platinum to treat your patients can make a huge difference and impact. Even if you have immunotherapy, you don't have it. That's ironic.  And another challenge, most patients with the availability of social media and Google, thanks to Dr. Google, you check Dr. Google, and the first option you get is very pricey options, immunotherapy, targeted therapy. So the patient comes to you and he's getting the recommendation of having basic chemotherapy, sometimes because the indication is chemotherapy, sometimes because they cannot afford- you offer them the higher price medications, but they cannot afford it still. You still advise chemotherapy because it does work, but the patients are under the belief that if they do not take the very pricey medication, they are doomed and they cannot be treated. So they put treatment off altogether.  These are conflicting concepts. They need awareness campaigns, they need explanation. Social media needs to do a better job improving what it markets. It usually markets the very pricey medications as life-saving, while talking about chemotherapy as something that really hurts patients, while in reality, sometimes this is all we have and it does make a difference.  Another challenge we face, our region, for example, it's a conflict region with so many refugees. To give you a very simple example, I had a patient coming from a Syrian camp, hemoptysis, worked her out, and it looks like lung cancer, and I managed - she cannot afford any kind of treatment - but I managed with the hospital to get the CT scan free. We got the biopsy, and the good news is that companies, pharmaceuticals can and do help. They offered to test the biopsy for EGFR, and it turned out to be positive. Of course, we have no access to EGFR-targeted therapy. So what can we do? Indeed, that patient, we offered her platinum, but at that time we didn't have platinum. Within a couple of months, she presented with a very advanced-stage disease. And unfortunately, we lost her before we could start treatment because platinum was not available. Not only EGFR inhibitors, but we're talking about the simple things. Basic chemotherapeutics are important, those we need to emphasize availability. We keep talking about cutting-edge therapeutics. They're very fascinating to use, to treat, they made a huge difference, but still, our old friend, basic chemotherapy can and does make a difference, something we need to talk about more and more.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: I agree with you, and that's true of even high-resource countries. I mean, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment for many cancers, even in 2023.  But I'd like to ask you a question following up on what you just described so well regarding availability, access. Do you have research infrastructure that would allow you, like for example, they have done in India at Tata Memorial Hospital, to conduct research with lower doses of those expensive agents? I think that this is quite a promising direction for low-resource countries. What do you think?  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: You touched on a very dear subject to my heart, actually. Right now we're working with ASCO discussing a policy, discussing clinical trials in limited resource environments. Indeed, this is one of the very important aspects that can improve truly access to medications and contribute to the knowledge worldwide. Unfortunately, there are so many barriers.  A short answer to your question is very few centers, if any, in the region do have infrastructure that can facilitate enrollment in phase three randomized trials. Investigator-initiated trials, particularly like the ones you're alluding to, more or less similar to the FinHer trial when we learned that short courses of trastuzumab six months versus twelve months can be reasonable for patients with a limited number of risk factors. Such trials, unfortunately, so far the infrastructure does not allow having such investigator-initiated trials. Not only the infrastructure, pharma needs to be more open for the support of such trials in these environments. Most governments in the region are still struggling with the concept of having human subjects enrolled in clinical trials. That needs awareness, not only at the level of the society or the patients or the physicians, by the way, who also, we struggle because we do not have protected time or appreciation. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: So you're talking with such passion about those challenges, and I feel that there is quite a lot of effort that you're putting in. So maybe you can tell us about the improvements that you have noted. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: It's interesting when you look over the past couple of decades how things have moved. Particularly in Jordan, having a cancer center, the first comprehensive cancer center in the region, really set a good example for Jordan itself where other institutions improved to try and compete, improve their services similar to what King Hussein Cancer Center currently has. Also, they managed to have an infrastructure for clinical trials. And as I mentioned, they do have some of the phase III clinical trials already running, participating in large multinational clinical trials. That's a huge improvement, a huge step. Still, investigator-initiated clinical trials is something we are working with the government to support and start and encourage. Our screening program really succeeded and we are more or less similar to high-income countries when it comes to the rate of early detection. Still, we are working on improvement. We don't have a national screening problem. We have a national awareness campaign problem.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay, so that's a lot of success.  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: That's huge success. Not only that, in October, now you come to Jordan. It's not only one government-run program. You see all clinics offering mammography services, either free or 50% off for patients across the kingdom. That actually did reflect positively on neighboring countries. Egypt, for example, right now started the last couple of years a similar national awareness downstaging program with excellent numbers of cases caught up early. The region is really improving - I'm talking about our region in the Middle East - if it were not for the conflicts. That's not the case when it comes to, unfortunately, countries with conflict, we all struggle. Jordan, Lebanon, even Syria, we all struggle with the refugee problem. Still, the refugees do not have enough funding, but a lot of NGOs are trying to help them. Along with what Richard described, you find many NGOs, they start themselves to help with access, to help with transportation, to help with medical fees for early detection. I believe we are moving far ahead when it comes to cancer, in particular over the past decade or so, as compared to many other diseases. Still, I believe we need contribution or cooperation between all stakeholders. That's what we still need. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay, excellent. So I have a couple of questions that I would like to address to the two of you. Which barrier do you feel is the most difficult to solve when providing cancer care in low-resource settings? Is that the infrastructure? Is that the personnel who has not been properly trained? Equipment? Which would it be? Dr. Richard Ingram: Yeah. I appreciate it. And I really have been reflecting on Dr. Al Sukhun's heartfelt passion and comments. And thank you for sharing that, Sana. I think that's something we all need to be aware of. And a compliment to you and your team for being so inclusive in that region. I mean, cancer is a difficult enough diagnosis, but yet alone in a conflict zone, I can only applaud and empathize with you and a sincere tip of the cap to you and your team. That's incredible work. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you. Dr. Richard Ingram: In general, you have to change the culture. You have to build trust in the process, the medical process, because that medical system may have let patients, family members, or neighbors down previously. So, I think building trust around screening and building trust around that there is an infrastructure that's going to take care of you if you have a positive screen.  I have several patients, but one comes to mind a very complicated trimodality disease, esophageal cancer. But the long and the short of it is, the patient presented to a rural outside emergency room with obstructive symptoms. The emergency room doctor was savvy enough to have some resources in their area but stabilize the patient. The test they could get; they could just get really kind of a barium swallow at the facility, saw there was a problem, but then called an oncology nurse navigator program that we've instituted in our region to cover this wide footprint. The nurse navigator was able to basically navigate this patient very successfully into a GI endoscopy program, which then got them in the cancer program and worked hand in hand with a social worker arm that we've instituted also to help assist the nurse navigation program. So the social worker was able to work on food insecurity, getting the patient actually applied for and got them Medicaid and got them transportation, barriers lifted.  So, it was a very successful anecdote compared to my unsuccessful anecdote earlier around lung cancer. So, to me, it's an example of a playbook that the Appalachian Community Cancer Alliance is trying to develop. So, maybe we can aggregate best practices in some way, shape, or form as the alliance and get those across the world, get those to Dr. Al Sukhun and the King Hussein Center in Jordan, and get it to wherever we need to in the world to help patients because the patient's problems are not unique to Appalachia. They're just unique to under-resourced and geographically spread out areas. Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Absolutely. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Yeah. That's well explained. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Sana, which barrier would you say is the most difficult one for you?  Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: We all get involved and cancer is an emotional diagnosis. It's completely different from all other diagnoses. No matter what, all illnesses are challenging, but the word 'cancer', nobody can deny it. It still carries a lot within those few letters. So, good infrastructure, not only in terms of building - this is very important - it's also a multidisciplinary team within that infrastructure.  The other day, a patient came to the emergency room of the hospital across the street from where I practice. He was 25 years old, healthy, just some fatigue lately, and he collapsed. Actually, they found him pancytopenic. So, looking at the blood film, long story short, was highly suspicious for acute leukemia. The patient cannot afford admission to a private hospital, but he had insurance in the Royal Medical Services. In Jordan, we have different kinds of insurance depending on which section you belong to. It's more like the VA in the States. I talk to my colleague over there, tell them high suspicion for leukemia and he's like, "Send him right away." He was admitted simply because he had coverage; he had insurance. They do have also a good cancer center there. So, they had him admitted, had his bone biopsy done, diagnosed, and started treatment. That is an excellent example of how a good infrastructure, when available with good access to that infrastructure - so it's infrastructure and good access to that infrastructure - can make a huge difference.  Dr. Thierry Alcindor: That's right. So, the two of you have offered plenty of potential solutions, which is, in fact, to a certain extent, the point of this podcast. But if you had to state what would be your first step, which one would it be? Rich? Dr. Richard Ingram: I think if I could not pick one thing but a collection of things, it really would be, top of mind, would be just an awareness that we have gaps in our infrastructure. Cancer care and navigation, even in the most resourced areas of probably the most resourced country in the world here in the United States, yet alone in some of our under-resourced portions of the United States. So you can only imagine in an underserved or under-resourced other part of the world. So I think awareness of the issues, awareness that we need to create a somewhat seamless infrastructure throughout the entire continuum from the screening of cancer to diagnostic studies to therapeutic studies to survivorship to palliative care and counseling. And then along the way layer in clinical research, which is the only way we're going to move the needle, and services such as genetic counseling along the way. So I would say awareness of the issues and then starting with the key stakeholders in your area, all coming around to the awareness of the issues, then you can start to build the infrastructure. And I think once you build the infrastructure, it will become easy to recruit and retain healthcare staff in a sound infrastructure - meaning I think that will get over the barrier of understaffing rural areas like Appalachia or other underserved areas in this country, in that if you have a great infrastructure, I think I know, as Sana alluded to, once you create this infrastructure, you as a provider want to practice there. You want to be part of something that has a great infrastructure because A) you're proud of the work done, B) the patient gets state-of-the-art comprehensive care, and C)  you're making a difference in your community. Patients aren't having to travel, patients are safe and have their arms around them with a program right in their backyard. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Excellent. Sana, what would be your first step? Dr. Sana Al Sukhun: Thank you, Thierry, and thank you, Richard. You know Richard, every time you speak, you speak my mind. It just speaks for how much we are alike across the globe rather than we are different. We share the same challenges, we share similar barriers, and indeed solutions are more or less similar. After all, we're all human. If I were to think of one important thing, it's awareness. Awareness campaigns targeting the society, discussing the importance of early detection, prevention, and treatment. Awareness campaigns targeting all stakeholders, policymakers, number one, emphasizing the importance of infrastructure to be supported, to be environment-attractive for a good workforce to work together, build it forward, treat patients in a safe environment. Also targeting industry to collaborate with other NGOs in the society to support that infrastructure and empower it to start clinical trials for each community. Not only targeting the community needs but also the way you describe it, Thierry, using the new therapeutics in a society-adapted approach to improve access to treatment. Those infrastructures, once empowered and doesn't have to be one, once empowered, they can be infectious. They can contribute to elevating the medical care in different settings in each society. So, one good infrastructure can set the example for other institutions to improve their care and collaborate as well. So, it's awareness campaigns putting all key stakeholders together including the society. Dr. Thierry Alcindor: Okay. Well, I think we had a very insightful and lively discussion so I would like to thank both Dr. Sana Al Sukhun and Dr. Richard Ingram for having joined us for a discussion about practicing oncology in low-resource settings. And for the audience to know, the ASCO Education podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education podcast, please email us at education@asco.org and to stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Many thanks again. A pleasure to talk with you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

People who live in major cities in the US and abroad tend to benefit from better cancer care due to having access to more doctors, facilities and equipment. In contrast, those who live in rural areas face many challenges accessing consistent and quality care.  In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast Dr. Jack Hensold, a hematologist/oncologist in Bozeman, Montana and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force, Dr. Chris Prakash, Medical Oncologist in Paris, Texas and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Townsville, Australia and the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia will examine the realities of practicing oncology in rural areas.  They will discuss the need for rural populations to access clinical trials (1:42), using telemedicine for chemotherapy and clinical trials (3:00) and using political advocacy to improve cancer care in rural areas (13:00). Speaker Disclosures Sabe Sabesan: Speakers Bureau - Merck Sucharu Prakash: Speakers Bureau - Myriad Genetics   Jack Hensold:  Consulting or Advisory Role Company - Vibliome Therapeutics Resources Policy Recommendations for Improving Rural Cancer Services in the United States                                If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Jack Hensold:  Hello and welcome to this two-part episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Today we will explore some real-time and real-world issues that oncologists face while practicing in rural areas in the US and abroad. I'm Dr. Jack Hensold, a Methodologist Oncologist in Bozeman, Montana, and chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force. I also serve as Medical Director of Regional Outreach at Bozeman Health. Joining me is Dr. Chris Prakash, an Oncologist and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and the President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology. Chris is also the Director of Quality Services for the statewide group and leads Texas Oncologist Precision Medicine Initiative.  Also joining me is Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Regional, Australia. He's the President-elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and the Clinical Director of the Australian Teledyne Health Program, led by the Queensland State Department of Health. Professor Sabazin is an internationally recognized expert in the area of teleoncology and has developed and evaluated various oncology models to deliver cancer care closer to home.  In part one, our guests were explaining what got them into rural practice and the issues they face in patient transportation, telehealth, getting access to the latest information on treatments, and connecting with other colleagues to get insight on patient cases. Here, I ask Dr. Prakash about one issue that does not get talked about very often. Dr. Chris Prakash: I think we don't talk enough about access to clinical trials for rural populations. And that's a hard problem. These are regulated. But I wonder about real-world trials. Those are a little easier to do. Maybe we can put more patients on those, the hub-and-spoke model, that would be helpful in that. And I know people are trying and many societies are trying to enroll more rural populations in trials, but it continues to be a challenge. Dr. Jack Hensold: Correct. And actually, ASCO has a workforce right now that's trying to address this problem. That includes patient representatives, as well as, I think, people from National Cancer Institute and people from the pharmaceutical industry who've been on that task force and really is trying to address what are the barriers that keep us from getting trials out to our patients in rural areas because it is identified as a real problem. I think, as we all know, excellent cancer care requires access to clinical trials, and limited access means quality of care is going to be less.  Dr. Sabesan, you've been working on improving chemotherapy access in rural parts of Australia. Do you think your programs like tele-chemotherapy could be implemented in other regions and even in this country, the United States, and can they be applied to clinical trials and teletrials essentially? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: This is where I get really excited because the use of telemedicine, beyond providing consultations and then using it for chemotherapy and clinical trials, actually that's what keeps me up in the morning and keeps me awake at night as well. What I see these things as they are system solutions for a chronic problem. In tele-chemotherapy, it's simple, really. It's rural nurses. They are not chemotherapy nurses, they are general nurses. They administer selected chemotherapy regimens under the direct supervision of doctors, nurses, and pharmacies from larger centers through telemedicine, tele-nursing, and tele-pharmacy. So all we need for tele-chemotherapy to happen, if you have a larger center willing to supervise a smaller center or a larger center is now expected to do that through Health System directives, then I think we can implement that throughout the system.  And what we have done in Queensland, we got the Queensland State Government to implement that because we got a governance document called “Queensland Remote Chemotherapy Supervision Model and Guide for Implementation.” Basically, that articulates how to set up these services safely. But we already published that in the Journal of Oncology Practice in 2018, so that was a rewarding experience. But then what we found, we could do immunotherapy infusions, toxic chemotherapy like that and all those things in smaller centers, but we couldn't do clinical trials because, as Chris said, it's highly regulated. So then we said, “How come you can do toxic intensive chemotherapy but not clinical trials?” So that's how the Australasian teletrial model was born.  So we thought we will use the teletrial model to connect larger centers with smaller centers to create trial clusters so that you can really distribute the clinical trials activity to the regional, rural, and remote areas. So now we have an Australian teletrial model and a national teletrial principle as a government policy to enable that. Through some pilots we published in the Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, the Australian government actually funded $125 million to transform the Australian clinical trial sector as a network and a national system, so that patients from regional, remote, and rural areas can access clinical trials, some or all aspects of clinical trials closer to home. So that is exciting because it's about one year into the program and already we could see the narrative is changing, and we are saying clinical trials need to be offered as networks, not as silos anymore, because of social justice and equity. So that's been becoming powerful.  And also, we've been now pushing the Ethics Committee to mandate that clinical trials need to be done as clusters because it is an ethical social justice issue. So I think if you have good governance and government support, I feel that we can actually implement these models in larger parts of the rural sector. Not all of them, but in larger parts. But I just wanted to highlight before I finish that the decentralized trials becoming popular and I feel like the decentralized trials are kind of hijacking the rural narrative here because they are not decentralized trials in my observation, they should be decentralized trial systems. And rather than bypassing hospitals and directly dealing with patients at home, in a lot of the trials, it seems that most of those patients are actually metropolitan patients. And I think any decentralized trial systems have to focus on partnerships with rural sectors, capability or capacity building of rural sectors so that you could really deliver clinical trials in a distributed network system to really fix this problem once and for all. Dr. Jack Hensold: Sabe, it sounds like there's much that we can learn from paying attention to what's going on in Australia. It seems like your group is well ahead of the curve in terms of what needs to happen in rural areas. Chris, comments about that as well? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I was going to say, I think excellent job, Sabe. Kudos to you for doing this in Australia. It's a clinical dilemma. It's an ethical dilemma. Sometimes clinical trials are fundamental to providing good quality care for our patients. But the American healthcare system is complex. Clinical trials, sad to say, I mean, that they're money makers for a lot of big institutions or pharmaceutical companies for sure. So what these companies are looking for is if they have a new drug, they want to get a trial done as quickly as possible, get positive data, and then get it approved. It's really hard to find a good phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial anymore. They're just nonexistent. They're all phase I, II, quick one year, get the data, and file for approval with the FDA. So I get your point. I think I would love to have a good trial where we can put patients on, rural patients on, but I don't know if that's going to be possible.  Now, what I'm doing in Texas Oncology, I'm the director of Quality Services, so that is my goal; is to give quality care to the whole state population wherever we can. And clinical trials is the most difficult task, I'm finding. I can make testing consistent, I can make treatment protocols consistent, but getting patients on clinical trials is a very difficult task. So, kudos to you, Sabe. You're doing an excellent job. Dr. Jack Hensold: It's actually the main enabler for us is actually the government intervention, because what we felt was the rural sector has been left in the hands of clinicians and local health managers for far too long, but no one was in charge of that gap. So now, by the governments coming to the party and trying to implement some policies and funding mechanisms, things are changing. But really still, I found the advocacy hasn't stopped and there's still a long way to go, even in Australia, but it's pure advocacy from rural oncologists like us. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think that kind of highlights the difference in American and Australian healthcare systems probably. I know the American healthcare system is still very private. I mean, we have a big Medicare part of the equation, but again, a lot of health care is really delivered by private companies, hospital systems that are for profit, pharmaceutical companies really have strong lobbying systems. So it's a complex situation here. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yeah, I would agree with that fully in that, when I was hearing Sabe talk about things and comparing it to our experience in this country, we are very fragmented in terms of our care delivery systems, and trying to get a coordinated approach to how we address this rural health problem is difficult because we're bringing so many different people to the table who all have different points of view in terms of how they look at this. So, again, this may be a much harder piece to try to achieve just simply because of the fragmentation of the way we provide care in this country.  So, Dr. Prakash, you're a member of several groups that address the needs for rural cancer care in the United States including ASCO's Rural Cancer Care Task Force, as well as the work you do with the Texas Oncology Society. Can you be a little bit more specific about those efforts?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Thanks, Jack. As you know, I was a member of the ASCO Task Force on Rural Cancer Care. This was put together in 2019, and then the pandemic happened. The timing was just right. But we were tasked with finding and really defining what the challenges of rural cancer care are and what are the solutions that we can come up with. It was a very hard job, but we did come up with some solutions on that, mainly increasing provider education, workforce enhancement. We have talked about a few of these things already - telehealth, promotion, and of course, research. But as you know, these solutions are easier said than done, and work continues on these fronts. And thank you, Jack, for taking the lead on many of these issues in the US.  So currently, as you know, I'm the President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and I'm doing a lot of advocacy work at the state capitol in Austin regarding various bills and provisions, but especially to garner support on a new biomarker bill. So this bill, if passed, will help pay for all biomarker testing in cancer. So there are disparities and rural disparities in cancer care. So if this bill is passed with the biomarker testing, this may go a long way in removing some of the disparities that our patients face in terms of testing biomarkers and payment for those tests as well. And I firmly believe that quality of care should be consistent no matter where a patient lives. I'm the Director of Quality Services for Texas Oncology. I'm leading the Precision Medicine initiative for the state, and I'm developing protocols for consistent biomarker testing, mutational analysis, and tumors and treatment protocols. So efforts continue, and please stay tuned. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you for that and all the work you do, Chris. I think it's an important point, and I've been involved through the Montana State Oncology Society, which is our society in terms of doing advocacy at the state level as well. And I think that's very important, particularly for states that have large rural populations, because I'm not sure nationally, people fully understand some of the difficulties that those patients face. And advocating for improved health care across the board is critical. And the rural patient needs to be considered. As we think about any changes to how we invest in healthcare in this country, the laws are regulated. Dr. Chris Prakash: You're exactly right. I mean, advocacy is very, very important. And our Congressmen and representatives, they do listen. As a physician, you go and talk to them and express concerns about what the constituents are going through and the hurdles they're facing in their care. They will listen and you can make a change. And that's what fascinates me about practicing in a rural setting, is that I can make a difference. I can see a change. Just over the last 20 years that I've been here, things have changed. Not all for the better, but you can be a part of the whole process. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, I would completely concur. I think our legislators nationally and statewide are very responsive to our voices. If there's something that's impacting their constituents in terms of the care that they're receiving, they're going to want to know about that. And they're happy to look like the champions, I think, to support improving their care. It's something we all can do a better job at nationally. Sabe, not to leave you out of that conversation, any thoughts about that? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: I mean, the advocacy is the key. That is also one of our jobs as doctors. But the main thing about advocacy is actually self-care, I found. As long as we don't burn out and we keep our energy level going and focus on recharging and minimizing energy discharge, we stay strong and take our colleagues with us. I think that's what I learned in advocacy is to make sure we don't drain our energy in that process. Dr. Jack Hensold: The quality of care should be the same for every patient, no matter where they live. And that really is kind of one of the driving principles for me in terms of why I got into this rural cancer care task force and the initiatives that we're taking on. And I'd like to describe a project right now that I've undertaken with ASCO and with our local regional health center and a medium-sized hospital in our area. Actually not in our area, it's 125 miles away, but an area that we service, and patients regularly come to our regional center for their cancer care, I think, was the appreciation that this 250-mile round trip, particularly to receive things like chemotherapy, was just a tremendous burden for patients from that area.  And in addition to the problems with the financial aspects of traveling long distances to receive that care, there was also the issue that we were sending patients back to fairly distant sites to experience the toxicities associated with our treatments without sufficient support in those sites locally in terms of understanding what needed to be done. That really led to this initiative with ASCO and Barrett Health in Montana, as well as Bozeman Health. And we've now been funded as part of a multi-year pilot program to increase high-quality and equitable cancer care at this site in rural Montana. And the work in this area was based on, again, the prior work on the task force that Dr. Prakash talked about in terms of identifying what barriers were in place to getting care to patients in their own community and how we could overcome these barriers.  And really, the concept of this program is to enable patients to receive care in their own community through what's described as a hub-and-spoke care delivery model. This is an established method for extending access to cancer care in remote rural areas. In fact, I think, as Dr. Sabesan talked about, I think much of the published work in this area has actually come out of Australia. So again, kudos again to that health system in terms of taking the initiative on these things.  And the initiative that we were talking about aims again to keep patients in their own community for as much of their cancer care as feasible, not to rely on that long drive to our regional site to get care. We understand this will require education and training of primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, and nurses at what we would refer to as the spoke site. And specifically, this needs to focus on education regarding how to properly administer infusion services and also how do we provide adequate supportive care for the cancer patients.  We do appreciate that those providers at that distant site, we can never really expect them to have full knowledge to appreciate what treatment cancer patients will need at any given point in time. But that really is where the expertise of the oncologist comes in. And oversight from the hub site will be provided by oncologists both by telehealth and supplemented, by regularly scheduled onsite visits by the oncologist to ensure just a seamless integration of care at both the hub and the spoke site and also to ensure the shared culture of cancer care between those two sites.  So that is the intent of the pilot that we're setting up. As we achieve function of that site, we will be doing quality measures to ensure that the care that's being administered at the spoke is really equivalent to what they would be receiving at the hub. So hopefully this will become a model for how we can deliver care to more remote rural areas in this country. I'd like to give Dr. Sabesan and Dr. Prakash an opportunity to make further comments regarding that model and any suggestions they may have; I'm willing to take in terms of how we can achieve this end. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah. Thank you, Jack. And again, kudos to you for being so passionate about taking care of patients in rural areas with their cancer care. But I think you highlighted the most important thing: we've got to be passionate, we've got to care, we have to do everything possible, find solutions. There are many challenges in this realm. So the hub-and-spoke model, that's very helpful, but again, we may need more multi-hub models or regional hubs, so to say on that. Education, keep developing the workforce, retain the workforce that we have, provide access to research, promote telehealth as much as possible. I think these are all pieces to the puzzle. Keep doing advocacy and just work and hopefully not get burnt out. So yeah, it's a work in progress, but again, that's why I'm doing this because I'm passionate about this, and thank you so much for having me as a part of this conversation. Dr. Jack Hensold: Well, thank you for participating. Sabe, any comments? Dr. Sabe Sabesan: Yeah, thank you. I really enjoyed being part of this conversation and I think it looks like it's almost good to have a community of international rural practice like this so that we can share and implement within our sector. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how your pilot project evolves, Jack, and how that can become a model for the whole of the country. Good luck to you. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you very much for that. And again, just a comment about the international working on this. We do have someone from Romania on our current task force. There's a group there that's very interested in providing kind of hub-and-spoke model care. So these are topics that I think are really getting on everyone's radar internationally. Again, I think the more buy-in we get internationally as well as nationally, the more wind we will have at our backs in making some improvements in this. Thank you, Dr. Prakash, for your insight into this topic and also to Professor Sabesan for his perspective from his practice in Australia. I'm Dr. Hensold and I would like to thank all of our listeners of Cancer Topics and ASCO Education Podcast. This is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to hear on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

There was time during the early 70's when the field of oncology began to take hold where the singular focus was to extend the patient's life. In this ASCO Education podcast, our guest was one of the first to challenge that notion and rethink methods that focused the patient's QUALITY of life. Dr. Patricia Ganz joins us to describe her transition from cardiology to oncology (6:00), the moment she went beyond treating the disease and began thinking about treating the WHOLE patient (10:06) and the joy of the increasing numbers of patients who survive cancer (21:47).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Patricia Ganz: Leadership - Intrinsic LifeSciences  Stock and Other Ownership Interests - xenon pharma,  Intrinsic LifeSciences, Silarus Therapeutics, Disc Medicine, Teva,  Novartis, Merck. Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories Consulting or Advisory Role - Global Blood Therapeutics, GSK, Ionis, akebia, Rockwell Medical Technologies, Disc Medicine, InformedDNA, Blue Note Therapeutics, Grail Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property - related to iron metabolism and the anemia of chronic disease, Up-to-Date royalties for section editor on survivorship Resources If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.   Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of the podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting and inspirational people and topics in and outside the world of oncology. Pat Loehrer: The field of oncology is relatively new. The first person treated with chemotherapy was in the 1940s. Medical oncology was just recognized as a specialty during the 1970s. And while cancer was considered by most people to be a death sentence, a steady growth of researchers sought to find cures. And they did for many cancers. But sometimes these treatments came at a cost. Our next guest challenged the notion that the singular focus of oncology is to extend the patient's duration of life. She asked whether an oncologist should also focus on addressing the patient's quality of life.  Dave Johnson: The doctor asking that question went to UCLA Medical School, initially planning to study cardiology. However, a chance encounter with a young, dynamic oncologist who had started a clinical cancer ward sparked her interest in the nascent field of oncology. She witnessed advances in cancer treatment that seemingly took it from that inevitable death sentence to a potentially curable disease. She also recognized early on that when it came to cancer, a doctor must take care of the whole patient and not just the disease.  From that point forward, our guest has had a storied career and an incredible impact on the world of cancer care. When initially offered a position at the West LA VA Medical Center, she saw it as an opportunity to advance the field of palliative care for patients with cancer. This proved to be one of her first opportunities to develop a program that incorporated a focus on quality of life into the management of cancer. Her work also focused on mental, dietary, physical, and emotional services to the long-term survivors of cancer.  That career path has led to many accomplishments and numerous accolades for our guest. She is a founding member of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, served as the 2004 Co-chair of ASCO's Survivorship Task Force, and currently directs UCLA's Cancer Survivorship Center of Excellence, funded in part from a grant from Livestrong. Our guest is Dr. Patricia Ganz. Dr. Patricia Ganz: It's great to be with both of you today. Dave Johnson: We always like to ask our guests a little about their background, where they grew up, a little about their family. Dr. Patricia Ganz: Yes. I grew up in the city of Beverly Hills where my parents moved when I was about five years old because of the educational system. Unlike parts of the East Coast, we didn't have very many private schools in Los Angeles, and so public education was very good in California at that time. So I had a good launch and had a wonderful opportunity that many people didn't have at that time to grow up in a comfortable setting. Dave Johnson: Tell us about your mom. I understand she was a businesswoman, correct? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Yes, actually, my parents got married when my mom was 19 and my dad was 21. He was in medical school at the University of Michigan. His father and mother weren't too happy with him getting married before he could support a wife. But she worked in a family business in the wholesale produce business in Detroit. One of six children, she was very involved with her family in the business. And they were married, and then World War II started, my father was a physician in the military, so she worked in the family business during the war. After finally having children and growing up and being in Beverly Hills, she sat back and was a homemaker, but she was always a bit restless and was always looking for something to do. So wound up several years later, when I was in my early teens, starting a business with one of my uncles, an automobile parts business. They ultimately sold it out to a big company that bought it out.  Pat Loehrer: Where did your father serve in World War II? Dr. Patricia Ganz: He was actually D-Day Plus 21. He was in Wales during the war. They had to be stationed and moved down into the south before he was deployed. I have my parents' correspondence and letters from the war. He liberated some of the camps. Actually, as I have learned about the trauma of cancer and post-traumatic stress that happens in so many people, our military veterans, most recently, I think he had post-traumatic stress. He didn't talk very much about it, but I think liberating the camps, being overseas during that time, as it was for that silent generation, was very profound in terms of their activities.   He wound up practicing medicine, and Los Angeles had a practice in industrial medicine, and it was a comfortable life. He would work early in the morning till maybe three or four in the afternoon and then go to the gym, there were moonlighting physicians who worked in the practice. But I kind of saw an easy kind of medicine, and he was always very encouraging and wanted me to go into medicine -- that I could be an ophthalmologist or a radiologist, good job for a woman. But I didn't really see the tough life of some of the internists and other people who were really working more 24/7, taking care of patients in the way medicine used to be practiced. Dave Johnson: Yeah. So you were interested in, early in your career, in cardiology. Could you tell us about that, and then a little bit more about the transition to oncology?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: I went away to college, I went to Harvard Radcliffe and I came home during the summers. And was interested in doing something during the summer so I actually in a pediatric cardiology research laboratory as a volunteer at UCLA for a couple of summers between my freshman and sophomore year then my sophomore and junior year. And then I actually got a California Heart Association Fellowship between my junior and senior year in college.  And this pediatric cardiology lab was very interesting. They were starting to give ketamine, it had an identification number, it wasn't called ketamine. But they were giving it to children in the cardiac cath lab and then were very worried about whether it would interfere with measuring the pressures in the heart. So we had intact dogs that had catheters implanted in the heart, and the drug would be given to the animals and we would then measure their pressures in the heart.  That cardiology experience in 1970, the summer between my first and second year of medical school, the Swan-Ganz catheter was being tested. I worked at Cedars that summer and was watching them do the various studies to show the value of the catheter. And so by the time I was kind of finishing up medical school, I'd already invested all this time as an undergraduate. And then a little bit when I was in medical school and I kind of understood the physiology of the heart, very exciting. So that's kind of where I was headed until we started my internship. And I don't know if any of you remembered Marty Cline, but he was the oncologist who moved from UCSF to Los Angeles to start our hem-onc division. And very exciting, a wonderful bedside teacher.   And so all of a sudden, I've never been exposed to oncology and this was very interesting. But at the same time, I was rotating through the CCU, and in came two full-arrest patients, one of whom was a campus cop who was very obese, had arrested at his desk in the police station. And we didn't have emergency vehicles to help people get on campus at that time. This was 1973 or 1974, something like that. And he came in full arrest, vegetable. And then another man had been going out of his apartment to walk his dog and go downstairs, and then all of a sudden his wife saw him out on the street being resuscitated by people. And he came in also in full arrest.   So those two experiences, having to deal with those patients, not being able to kind of comfort the families, to do anything about it. As well as taking care of patients in my old clinic who had very bad vascular disease. One man, extremely depressed with claudication and angina, all of a sudden made me feel, “Well, you know what? I'm not sure I really want to be a cardiologist. I'm not sure I like the acute arrest that I had to deal with and the families. And also, the fact that people were depressed and you couldn't really talk to them about how serious their disease was.” Whereas I had patients with advanced cancer who came in, who had equally difficult prognoses, but because of the way people understood cancer, you could really talk about the problems that they would be facing and the end-of-life concerns that they would have.  So it was all of those things together that made me say, “Hmm.” And then also, Pat, you'll appreciate this, being from Indiana, we were giving phase II platinum to advanced testicular cancer patients, and it was miraculous. And so I thought, “Oh my gosh, in my lifetime, maybe cancer is going to be cured! Heart disease, well, that's not going to happen.” So that was really the turning point.   Pat Loehrer: When many of us started, we were just hoping that we could get patients to live a little bit longer and improve the response rate. But you took a different tack. You really looked at treating the whole patient, not just the disease. That was really a novel approach at the time. What influenced you to take that step forward? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Well, it was actually my starting– it was thought to be in a hospice ward. It would turn out it was a Sepulveda VA, not the West LA VA, but in any case, we have two VAs that are affiliated with UCLA. And it was an intermediate care ward, and there was an idea that we would in fact put our cancer patients there who had to have inpatient chemotherapy so they wouldn't be in the acute setting as well as patients who needed to travel for radiation. Actually, the West LA VA had a hospice demonstration project. This is 1978. It's really the beginning of the hospice movement in England, then in Canada, Balfour Mount at Montreal and McGill was doing this. And so I was very much influenced by, number one, most of our patients didn't live very long. And if you were at a VA Hospital, as I was at that time, you were treating patients with advanced lung cancer, advanced colon cancer, advanced prostate cancer, other GI malignancies, and lung cancer, of course. So it was really the rare patient who you would treat for curative intent.  In fact, small cell lung cancer was so exciting to be treating in a particularly limited small cell. Again, I had a lot of people who survived. We gave them chemo, radiation, whole brain radiation, etc. So that was exciting. This was before cisplatin and others were used in the treatment of lung cancer. But really, as I began to develop this ward, which I kind of thought, “Well, why should we wait just to give all the goodies to somebody in the last few weeks of life here? I'm treating some patients for cure, they're getting radiation. Some of them are getting radiation and chemo for palliation.” But it was a mixed cancer ward. And it was wonderful because I had a team that would make rounds with me every week: a pharmacist, a physiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, a dietitian. This was in 1978 or ‘79, and the nurses were wonderful. They were really available to the patients. It wasn't a busy acute ward. If they were in pain, they would get their medication as soon as possible. I gave methadone. It was before the days of some of the newer medications, but it was long-acting. I learned how to give that. We gave Dilaudid in between if necessary. And then we had Brompton solution, that was before there was really oral morphine.  And so the idea was all of these kinds of services should really be available to patients from the time of diagnosis until death. We never knew who was going to be leaving us the next few days or who was going to be living longer and receiving curative intent. We had support groups for the patients and their families. It was a wonderful infrastructure, something that I didn't actually have at UCLA, so it was a real luxury. And if you know the VA system, the rehabilitation services are wonderful. They had dental services for patients. We had mostly World War II veterans, some Korean, and for many of these individuals, they had worked and lived a good life, and then they were going to retire and then they got cancer. So this was kind of the sadness. And it was a suburban VA, so we had a lot of patients who were in the San Fernando Valley, had a lot of family support, and it was a wonderful opportunity for me to learn how to do good quality care for patients along the continuum.  Dave Johnson: How did you assemble this team? Or was it in place in part when you arrived, or what? Nobody was thinking about this multidisciplinary approach?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: I just designed it because these were kind of the elements that were in a hospice kind of program. And I actually worked with the visiting nurses and I was part of their boards and so forth. And UCLA didn't have any kind of hospice or palliative care program at that time. But because the VA infrastructure had these staff already, I didn't have to hire them, you didn't have to bill for anything. They just became part of the team. Plus there was a psychiatrist who I ultimately began doing research with. He hired a psychologist for the research project. And so there was kind of this infrastructure of interest in providing good supportive care to cancer patients. A wonderful social worker, a wonderful psychologist, and they all saw this patient population as very needy, deserving, and they were glad to be part of a team.  We didn't call it a hospice, we called it a palliative care unit. These were just regular staff members who, as part of their job, their mission was to serve that patient population and be available. I had never been exposed to a physiatrist before. I trained at UCLA, trained and did my residency and fellowship. We didn't have physiatry. For whatever reason, our former deans never thought it was an important physical medicine, it wasn't, and still isn't, part of our system. Pat Loehrer: Many decisions we make in terms of our careers are based on singular people. Your dad, maybe, suggesting going into medicine, but was there a patient that clicked with you that said, "Listen, I want to take this different direction?" Or was it just a collection of patients that you were seeing at the VA? Is there one that you can reflect back on? Dr. Patricia Ganz: I don't know if you all remember, but there was something called Consultation Liaison Psychiatry where, in that time, the psychiatrist really felt that they had to see medical patients because there were psychological and sometimes psychiatric problems that occurred on the medical ward, such as delirium. That was very common with patients who were very sick and very toxic, which was again due to the medical condition affecting the brain. And so I was exposed to these psychiatrists who were very behaviorally oriented when I was a resident and a fellow, and they often attended our team meetings in oncology on our service, they were on the transplant service, all those kinds of things. So they were kind of like right by our side.  And when I went to the VA, the psychiatry service there also had a couple of really excellent psychiatrists who, again, were more behaviorally focused. Again, you have to really remember, bless her heart, Jimmie Holland was wonderful as a psychiatrist. She and Barrie Cassileth were the kind of early people we would see at our meetings who were kind of on the leading edge of psychosocial oncology, but particularly, Jimmie was more in a psychiatric mode, and there was a lot of focus on coping. But the people that I began to work with were more behaviorally focused, and they were kind of interested in the impact of the disease and the treatment on the patient's life and, backwards, how could managing those kinds of problems affect the well-being of the patient. And this one psychiatrist, Richard Heinrich, had gotten money from the VA, had written a grant to do an intervention study with the oncology patients who I was serving to do a group intervention for the patients and their families. But, in order to even get this grant going, he hired a project manager who was a psychologist, a fresh graduate whose name was Anne Coscarelli, and her name was Cindie Schag at that time. But she said, "I don't know much about cancer. I've got to interview patients. I've got to understand what's going on." And they really, really showed me that, by talking to the patient, by understanding what they were experiencing, they could get a better handle on what they were dealing with and then, potentially, do interventions. So we have a wonderful paper if you want to look it up. It's called the “Karnofsky Performance Status Revisited.” It's in the second issue of JCO, which we published; I think it was 1984.  Dave Johnson: In the early 90s, you relocated back to UCLA. Why would you leave what sounds like the perfect situation to go back to a site that didn't have it? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Okay, over that 13 years that I was at the VA, I became Chief of the Division of Hem-Onc. We were actually combined with a county hospital. It was a wonderful training program, it was a wonderful patient population at both places. And we think that there are troubles in financing health care now, well, there were lots of problems then. Medicaid came and went. We had Reagan as our governor, then he became president, and there were a lot of problems with people being cared for. So it was great to be at the VA in the county, and I always felt privileged. I always had a practice at UCLA, which was a half-day practice, so I continued there, and I just felt great that I could practice the same wherever I was, whether it was in a public system, veteran system, or in the private system.   But what happened was, I took a sabbatical in Switzerland, '88 to '89. I worked with the Swiss International Breast Cancer Consortium group there, but it was really a time for me to take off and really learn about quality of life assessment, measurement, and so forth. When I came back, I basically said, "I want to make a difference. I want to do something at a bigger arena." If I just continue working where I am, it's kind of a midlife crisis. I was in my early 40s, and my office was in the San Fernando Valley at the VA, but my home was in West Los Angeles. One day I was in UCLA, one day I was at the VA, one day I was at the county, it was like, "Can I practice like this the next 20 years? I don't know that I can do this. And I really want to have some bigger impact.” So I went to Ellen Gritz who was my predecessor in my current position, and I was doing my NCI-funded research at UCLA still, and I said, “Ellen, I really would like to be able to do research full time. I really want to make a difference. Is there anything available? Do you know of anything?" And she said, "Well, you know, we're actually recruiting for a position that's joint between the School of Public Health and the Cancer Center. And oh my goodness, maybe I can compete for that, so that's what I did. And it was in what was then the department called Health Services, it's now called Health Policy and Management. I applied, I was competing against another person who I won't name, but I got the position and made that move.  But again, it was quite a transition because I had never done anything in public health, even though UCLA had a school of public health that was right adjacent to the medical school. I had had interactions with the former dean, Lester Breslow, who I actually took an elective with when I was a first-year medical student on Community Medicine. So it kind of had some inklings that, of what I was interested in. I had actually attendings in my medical clinic, Bob Brook, a very famous health policy researcher, Sheldon Greenfield. So I'd been exposed to a lot of these people and I kind of had the instinctive fundamentals, if you will, of that kind of research, but hadn't really been trained in it. And so it was a great opportunity for me to take that job and really learn a lot and teach with that.  And then took, part of my time was in the cancer center with funding from the core grant. And then, within a year of my taking this position, Ellen left and went to MD Anderson, so all of a sudden I became director of that whole population science research group. And it was in the early ‘90s, had to scramble to get funding, extramural funding. Everybody said to me, "How could you leave a nearly full-time position at the VA for a soft money position?" But, nevertheless, it worked out. And it was an exciting time to be able to go into a new career and really do things that were not only going to be in front and center beneficial to patients, but to a much larger group of patients and people around the world.  Pat Loehrer: Of all the work that you have done, what one or two things are you most proud of in terms of this field? Dr. Patricia Ganz: Recognizing the large number of people who are surviving cancer. And I think today we even have a more exciting part of that. I mean, clearly, many people are living long-term disease-free with and without sequelae of the disease. But we also have this new group of survivors who are living on chronic therapy. And I think the CML patients are kind of the poster children for this, being on imatinib or other newer, targeted agents over time, living with cancer under control, but not necessarily completely gone. And then melanoma with the immunotherapy, lung cancer, all of these diseases now being converted to ones that were really fatal, that are now enjoying long-term treatment.   But along with that, we all know, is the financial toxicity, the burdens, and even the ongoing symptoms that patients have. So the fact that we all call people survivors and think about people from the time of diagnosis as potentially being survivors, I think was very important. And I would say that, from the clinical side, that's been very important to me. But all of the work that I was able to do with the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine, the 2013 report that we wrote on was a revisit of Joe Simone's quality of care report, and to me was actually a very pivotal report. Because in 2013, it looked like our health care system was in crisis and the delivery of care. We're now actually doing a National Cancer Policy Forum ten-year follow-up of that report, and many of the things that we recommended, surprisingly, have been implemented and are working on. But the healthcare context now is so much more complicated.  Again, with the many diseases now becoming rare diseases, the cost of drugs, the huge disparities, even though we have access through the Affordable Care Act and so forth, there's still huge disparities in who gets care and treatment. And so we have so many challenges. So for me, being able to engage in the policy arena and have some impact, I think has been also very important to me. Dave Johnson: 20 years ago, the topic of survivorship was not that common within ASCO, and you led a 2004 task force to really strengthen that involvement by that organization, and you also were a founding member of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. I wonder if you might reflect on those two activities for us for a moment. Dr. Patricia Ganz: In 1986, Fitzhugh Mullen, who in 1985 had written a really interesting special article for the New England Journal called "Seasons of Survivorship" - he was a young physician when he was found to have a mediastinal germ cell tumor and got very intensive chemotherapy and radiation therapy and survived that, but realized that there was no place in the healthcare system where he could turn to to get his questions answered, nor get the kind of medical care that was needed, and really wrote this very important article. He then, being somebody who was also kind of policy-oriented and wanting to change the world, and I would say this was a group of us who, I think went to college during the Vietnam era - so did Fitz - and we were all kind of restless, trying to see how we could make a difference in the world and where it was going.   And so he had this vision that he was going to almost develop an army of survivors around the country who were going to stand up and have their voices heard about what was going on. Of course, most people didn't even know they were a survivor. They had cancer treatment, but they didn't think about themselves as a survivor. And so he decided to get some people together in Albuquerque, New Mexico, through a support group that he had worked with when he was in the Indian Health Service in New Mexico. And there were various people from the American Cancer Society, from other support organizations, social workers, and a couple of us who are physicians who came to this meeting, some Hodgkin survivors who had been treated at Stanford and were now, including a lawyer, who were starting to do long term late effects work. And we gathered together, and it was a day and a half, really, just kind of trying to figure out how could a movement or anything get oriented to try and help patients move forward.  So that's how this was founded. And they passed the hat. I put in a check for $100, and that was probably a lot of money at that time, but I thought, well, this is a good investment. I'll help this organization get started. And that was the start. And they kind of ran it out of Living Beyond Cancer in Albuquerque for a few years. But then Fitz, who was in the Washington, DC. area decided they weren't going to be able to get organizations all over the country organized to do this, and they were going to have to do some lobbying. So Ellen Stovall, who was a Hodgkins survivor living in the Washington area, beginning to do policy work in this area, then became the executive director and took the organization forward for many years and championed this, got the Office of Cancer Survivors established at the NCI in the 1990s, and really did a lot of other wonderful work, including a lot of the work at the Institute of Medicine. She was very involved with the first Quality of Care report and then ultimately the survivorship report, the Lost and Transition report in 2005, 2006, I was on that committee. So that was really how things were evolving.  And by that time, I was also on the ASCO board, 2003 to 2006. And so all of these things were kind of coming together. We had 10 million survivors. That was kind of an important note and a lot of diseases now - lymphoma, breast cancer, multi-agent therapy had certain benefits, but obviously toxicities. We lived through the horrible time of high-dose chemotherapy and transplant for breast cancer in the ‘90s, which was a problem, but we saw a lot of toxicities after that. And so there were people living after cancer who now had sequelae, and the children obviously had been leading the way in terms of the large number of childhood cancer survivors. So this was this idea that the children were kind of the canary in the coal mine. We saw them living 20, 30 years later after their cancer diagnosis, and we were now beginning to see adults living 10, 15, 20 years later, and we needed to think about these long-term and late effects for them as well. Dave Johnson: I'm glad you mentioned Fitz's article in the New England Journal that still resonates today, and if listeners have not read it, "Seasons of Survivorship" is a worthwhile five-minute read.  What do you think the most pressing issues and challenges in cancer survivorship care today?  Dr. Patricia Ganz: Many people are cured with very little impact. You can think of somebody with T1 breast cancer maybe needing endocrine therapy for five years, and lumpectomy radiation. That person's probably not going to have a lot that they're going to be worried about. But if they're a young breast cancer patient, say they're 35 or 40, you're going to get five years of ovarian suppression therapy. You're going to be put into acute menopause. You're going to lose bone density. You're going to have cardiac risk acceleration. You may have cognitive changes. You may have also problems with cognitive decline later. I mean, all of these things, the more intense treatments are associated, what we're really thinking about is accelerated aging. And so a lot of what I've been studying the last 20-25 years in terms of fatigue and cognitive difficulties are related to neuroinflammation and what happens when somebody has intensive systemic therapy and that accelerated process that's, again, not everyone, but small numbers of patients, could be 10-15-20%. So I worry a lot about the young patients. So I've been very focused on the young adult population who are treated intensively for lymphoma, leukemia, and breast. And that's, I think, something that we need to be looking out for.  The other thing is with the newer therapies, whether it's immunotherapy or some of the targeted therapies, we just don't know what the late effects are going to be. Where we're very schooled now in what the late effects of radiation, chemo, and surgery could be for patients, we just don't know. And another wonderful part of my career has been to be able to do quality-of-life studies within the Clinical Trials Network. I've been affiliated with NSABP, I was SWOG previously, but NSABP is now NRG Oncology doing patient-reported outcomes and looking at long-term outcomes in clinical trials. And I think we're going to need this for all of these new agents because we have no idea what the long-term toxicities are going to be. And even though it's amazing to have people surviving where they wouldn't have been, we don't know what the off-target long-term effects might be. So that's a real challenge right now for survivorship.  And the primary care doctors who we would want to really be there to orchestrate the coordinated care for patients to specialists, they are a vanishing breed. You could read the New England Journal that I just read about the challenges of the primary care physician right now and the overfilled inbox and low level of esteem that they're given in health systems. Where are we going to take care of people who really shouldn't be still seeing the oncologist? The oncologist is going to be overburdened with new patients because of the aging of the population and the many new diagnoses. So this is our new crisis, and that's why I'm very interested in what we're going to be looking at in terms of a ten-year follow-up report to the 2013 IOM report. Dave Johnson: The industry-based trials now are actually looking at longer-term treatment. And the trials in which interest is cancer, we cut it down from two years of therapy down to nine weeks of therapy, looking at minimizing therapy. Those are difficult trials to do in this climate today, whereas the industry would just as soon have patients on for three to five years worth of therapy as opposed to three to five months. Talk a little about those pressures and what we should be doing as a society to investigate those kinds of therapies and minimizing treatments. Dr. Patricia Ganz: Minimizing treatments, this is the place where the government has to be, because we will not be able to do these de-escalation studies. Otherwise, there will be countries like the UK, they will be able to do these studies, or other countries that have national health systems where they have a dual purpose, if you will, in terms of both financing health care and also doing good science. But I think, as I've seen it, we have a couple of de-escalation trials for breast cancer now in NRG Oncology, which is, again, I think, the role that the NCTN needs to be playing. But it's difficult for patients. We all know that patients come in several breeds, ones who want everything, even if there's a 1% difference in benefit, and others who, “Gee, only 1 out of 100 are going to benefit? I don't want that.” I think that's also the challenge. And people don't want to be denied things, but it's terrible to watch people go through very prolonged treatments when we don't know that they really need it for so long.  Dave Johnson: Pat and I both like to read. I'm wondering if there's something you've read recently that you could recommend to us. Dr. Patricia Ganz: It's called A Gentleman in Moscow by Amor Towles. I do like to read historical fiction. This one is about a count at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution who then gets imprisoned in a hotel in Moscow and how constrained his life becomes, but how enriched it is and follows him over really a 50-year period of time and what was happening in the Soviet Union during that time. And of course, with the war in Ukraine going on, very interesting. Of course, I knew the history, but when you see it through the drama of a personal story, which is fictional, obviously it was so interesting.   My husband escaped from Czechoslovakia. He left in '66, so I had exposure to his family and what it was like for them living under communism. So a lot of that was interesting to me as well.  Dave Johnson: Thank you for joining us. It's been a wonderful interview and you're to be congratulated on your accomplishments and the influence you've had on the oncology world.  We also want to thank our listeners of Oncology, Etc., and ASCO Educational Podcast where we will talk about oncology, medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, by all means, email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other ASCO educational content, please visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Providing high-quality cancer care to patients is the goal for any oncologist, yet there are many places across the globe that face multiple hurdles in achieving that goal. In this ASCO Education podcast we explore how one group is making a positive impact in the state of Surawak in Malaysia via the efforts of ASCO's International Cancer Corp Program (ICC).  Dr. Roselle de Guzman, past chair of the Asia Pacific Regional Council of ASCO, Dr Voon Pei Jaye medical oncologist and onsite director of the ICC Program at Sarawak and Dr. Evangelia D. Razis medical oncologist focused on neuro-oncology from Athens, Greece and ASCO volunteer of the ICC Malaysia Program describe the benefits of implementing the efforts of Project ECHO (Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes) (3:38), the challenges in providing quality cancer care in Sarawak (8:31) and details on how to volunteer for the ICC program (19:45).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Roselle de Guzman:  Honoraria - Roche Oncology (Philippines); AstraZeneca; Merck Serono, MSD Oncology Recipient, Boehringer Ingelheim, Zuellig Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role - Roche Recipient, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Zuellig Pharma (ZP) Therapeutics, Eisai Recipient, MSD Oncology Research Funding - Centus Biotherapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses - Hospira (Philippines), Roche (Philippines), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Dr. Evangelia D. Razis: Honoraria Company - Servier pharmaceuticals. ESMO Research Funding – Tesaro, IQvia, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, PPD Global, MSD Travel, Accommodations, Expenses - Genesis Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Pfizer, Karyo Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Research Funding - Novartis Recipient, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viracta Therapeutics Inc,  ROCHE, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson Resources  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.  Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Providing high-quality cancer care to patients is the goal for any oncologist, yet there are many places across the globe that face multiple hurdles in achieving that goal. One such location has limited trained personnel, financial constraints, geographical challenges, and limited access to healthcare service in rural areas. The location, the state of Sarawak, located in the eastern part of Malaysia. The population is almost evenly split between urban and rural areas, which are the most dispersed in Malaysia.  The major challenge in Sarawak is the inadequate connectivity in the rural area and limited access to healthcare service. To address these issues, in 2020, a collaboration was formed between Sarawak General Hospital, University of Malaysia Sarawak and ASCO through ASCO's International Cancer Corp Program, or ICC for short. The ICC program is focused on three basic goals: incorporating a multidisciplinary approach into cancer care, integration of palliative care into oncology care, and quality improvement through ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, or COPI program. This podcast will spotlight all the planning, activities, and results thus far of the ASCO ICC program in Malaysia. Hello, I'm Dr. Roselle de Guzman, past chair of the Asia Pacific Regional Council of ASCO. I am pleased to spotlight one of ASCO's collaborations with a lower-resource country to improve the quality of cancer care through a multifaceted approach. This year, we are focusing on Malaysia, where, through the ICC program, ASCO has been providing training in multidisciplinary care, palliative care, and quality measurement. Joining us later in the podcast will be medical oncologist Dr. Voon Pei Jye, who serves as the Onsite Coordinator for the ICC program at Sarawak.   First, we will speak to an ASCO volunteer of the ICC Malaysia Program, a medical oncologist focused on neuro-oncology, Dr. Evangelia Razis from Athens, Greece.  Welcome, Dr. Razis.  Dr. Evangelia Razis: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: First of all, Dr. Razis, what made you want to volunteer for the ICC Malaysia program, and what has been the most rewarding aspect of this service for you? Dr. Evangelia Razis: So, I've been actually collaborating with ICC for many years through ASCO and other programs as well, such as Honduras, and I find volunteering an extremely rewarding experience because you share and interact with colleagues from all over the world, you offer to those less fortunate, and you actually learn a lot through this process as well. So, volunteering is a very rewarding process for me, and I've been involved in it for many years. Plus, the opportunity to do something in neuro-oncology, which is very close to my heart, is very important, because this is a new field. I feel it needs to be exposed in all countries because it has many intricacies.  Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Well, that's really rewarding and must be really fulfilling work for you, Dr. Razis.   Dr. Razis, you also serve as a lead facilitator of the Project ECHO Neuro-Oncology Mock Tumor Board series, which delivers monthly online training to physicians from Malaysia. Can you tell us more about this project? What are mock tumor boards? Dr. Evangelia Razis: So, Project ECHO, the word stands for Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes, and it's a project that has attempted to be near community healthcare delivered in low and middle-income countries through virtual media to support the healthcare in these areas. And in this particular effort, we are holding a neuro-oncology tumor board once a month since September with the Malaysia team. It's mock because we don't actually deliver specific patient advice for the purpose of patient care. We actually do it for educational purposes. So, we present cases and then discuss a topic.   The program has been set up for several months now by the Malaysia team based on their needs, which neuro-oncology topics they want to highlight. And we have a once a month, one-and-a-half-hour session, whereby cases are presented, and then an invited speaker from several places around the world, as I'll tell you in a minute, highlights this topic and then discusses the cases and discusses the questions that the group from Malaysia has.  And not only have we been able to be joined very regularly by the Sarawak team, but other parts of Malaysia have joined in, other centers in Malaysia have joined in different occasions. Now, the speakers have been experts from Europe and the United States based on their expertise in particular neuro-oncology topics.  Dr. Roselle De Guzman: So, Project ECHO is one of those innovative ways of delivering healthcare to extraordinarily challenging environments, those which are extremely remote or under-resourced areas. So to your knowledge, Dr. Razis, what improvements have been made since the implementation of Project ECHO? Dr. Evangelia Razis: Over the last nine months, I have noticed more insightful questions that show that some understanding of the standard neuro-oncology way of thinking, if you will, has come through to the colleagues that are joining us, though I must say that they were very knowledgeable from the beginning. I also hope that certain intricacies of neuro-oncology, such as, for example, the way to read scans and evaluate the fact that there may be pseudo progression or pseudoresponse, the way to integrate molecular parameters into the decision-making process, has now become part of the way they think about patients. And ultimately, the most important aspect has been the multidisciplinary approach to neuro-oncology and the constant use of all specialties to make a decision. Surgery, radiotherapy, radiology, pathology, all of these specialists need to come together to produce an appropriate decision for the patient. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: So one thing that's interesting as well is in 2013, Dr. Razis, your institution, HYGEIA Hospital in Athens, Greece, was one of the first outside the United States to join the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or COPI program of ASCO. And your program was also the one to be accredited. So, Sarawak General Hospital in Malaysia is collaborating with ASCO as well for the COPI program that focuses on quality improvement. So, based on your experience, what benefits does the COPI program bring to an institution? Dr. Evangelia Razis: So, COPI, in fact, is an extremely useful way to streamline one's work and increase patient safety and patient satisfaction. I would also say that it helps reduce waste of resources, which is particularly important in resource-limited settings. And we do have a COPI version that is for limited resource settings. It's amazing, but just doing one's work lege artis does result not only in better outcomes but less waste. And that I think is extremely important for Sarawak. So, I think they will find it very useful to be streamlining their work through COPI. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Thank you, Dr. Razis, for sharing your experience, your expertise, and your insights. Now, at this point, I would also like to introduce medical oncologist Dr. Pei Jye Voon, who serves as the Onsite Coordinator for the ICC program at Sarawak.  Dr. Voon, Welcome. Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Thank you so much.   Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Dr. Voon, can you describe what cancer care was like in this area of Malaysia for the past few years and what are the main challenges in providing quality cancer care? Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Yes, of course. So first of all, I would like to give a brief introduction of Sarawak, which is situated at the Borneo island of Malaysia and is the largest state in Malaysia with a very large land area populated by only 2.9 million people, meaning it is very sparsely populated. And for information, newly diagnosed cancer cases in our state is about 2300 cases a year, and the common cancer include breast cancer, followed by colorectal and lung cancer, as well as a cancer that is peculiar to our setting here: nasopharyngeal cancer.   Half of our 2.9 million population, as mentioned before, are residing outside the urban area, which causes the issue of accessibility of health care, particularly good cancer care, for this rural population. It has always been a great challenge as we have only one public comprehensive cancer center, and thus inequity of access to cancer care is one of the major hurdles in providing good quality cancer care in our state here. In addition, inadequate formally trained, for example, oncologists and palliative care physicians, as well as other healthcare personnel, like oncology nurses, perioperative nurses, which has also negatively impacted the quality of care that we are providing here.   Furthermore, limited availability of good, top-notch cancer infrastructures, especially at the district hospitals outside our capital city of Kuching, also poses a great challenge to us in developing good quality cancer care across the whole state. Moreover, similar to many parts of the world, the ever-increasing cost of cancer treatment, especially on the expensive new anti-cancer drugs, is another pressing issue for us as well.  In summary, I can say that inequity of access due to the geographical barrier, lack of human resources, inadequate infrastructure, and also the ever-increasing cost of cancer, are the major challenges that we are facing here in Sarawak.  Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Thank you, Dr. Voon. I'm sure the situation in Sarawak resonates with other countries, low- and middle-income countries. Of course, there are truly challenges, but of course, with the challenges come opportunities. So what benefits or changes have taken place through this collaborative ICC program? Dr. Pei Jye Voon: I have to say that participating in the ASCO ICC program is one of the greatest things that has happened to our radiotherapy oncology and palliative care department at Sarawak General Hospital. We have gained tremendously, definitely from that. And for instance, we have been actively participating in a highly personalized palliative care education program which is one of the highlights of this collaboration. Various projects have been successfully conducted, including the ASCO Palliative Care e-Course course, which subsequently led to the Train the Trainer's program. This program benefited not only the Sarawak team, but also healthcare providers across Malaysia as well. And this aspect of human development in palliative care was further consolidated with the in-person training by Dr. Frank Ferris as well as Dr Shannon Moore in November last year when they came to visit us physically. We are very grateful for that.  And in addition to enhancing palliative care, another very interesting project that is actively ongoing is the project ECHO Neuro-oncology Tumor Board Series, which delivers online monthly training to physicians across Malaysia on neuro-oncology care. This was discussed by Dr. Razis earlier on in the podcast, so I'm not going to elaborate at length here. But essentially, the idea of this project was conceived initially in view of the gap that we noted in our neuro-oncology management in our hospital, as compared to those of common cancers that we are actually treating. So through the diverse lectures and many case discussions of the recent in-person visit by the ASCO team that we saw, the management of our neuro-oncology cases has definitely been enhanced and we are looking forward to Dr. Razis coming to visit us physically as well.   At the same time, we are also looking forward to the incoming multidisciplinary board project under the ASCO ICC program on breast cancer management in August this year. I believe that Dr. Guzman is going to come to visit us, and we are looking very much forward for this as well. And at the same time, this exciting project is under active planning now. Furthermore, we are also eagerly awaiting the improvement of quality cancer care programs using evidence-based quality measures via the COPI project in the near future. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: Dr. Voon, it seems there is a lot of things happening with Sarawak General Hospital, and we know that there are so many patients globally that do not get the comforts and benefits of palliative care program. You have mentioned palliative care program. Has the ICC Sarawak program made a difference in patient quality of life thus far?  Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Again, the answer is yes. Definitely yes. So the ASCO Sarawak Palliative Care program has definitely made a great difference in the patient's quality of life. This collaborative work between SarGenHospital, our university, UNIMAS, and ASCO has been in its third year. And many important palliative care milestones in Sarawak have been accomplished. This specially designed program—I would say that this is a specially design program that fits us, that fits our needs—has been mentioned before and includes the ASCO e-course, Train the Trainer program, the mentorship program through the International Development and Education Awards through the Conquer Cancer Foundation, and last but not least is the translation of the ASCO Palliative Care Interdisciplinary Curriculum Resources to our national language to reduce the language barrier in training and education for our people here.   All these innovative programs have provided a fundamental framework of palliative care  education that is invaluable in equipping our oncologists as well as oncology trainees with the necessary knowledge and skill set to better identify and also meet the palliative care needs amongst our patients. It also ensures a more competent and timely palliative care provision at a general level by the oncology team of our hospital. I think that is extremely important. And it enables the team to incorporate the best palliative care management early in the course of the disease. We call this early introduction through palliative care in our hospital. And in some ways, actually, the ASCO collaboration has enhanced the teamwork and helped the oncology team to recognize our own limitations while providing general palliative care, thereby encouraging the timely palliative care referral whenever appropriate to ensure that patients with more complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs have the necessary input and support from our palliative care team throughout the course of their illnesses.  Dr. Roselle De Guzman: So we have been discussing important points on the ICC program focusing on multidisciplinary cancer care management, palliative care program, and the COPI program. What do you think are other solutions? Are there others that exist to overcome hurdles to provide quality cancer care to people in Malaysia? Dr. Voon? Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Yes. Definitely yes as we have discussed in our conversation. So besides the ASCO ICC program, various existing and some projects which are in planning now to overcome hurdles to provide quality care to the people in Sarawak have been implemented or are currently in a very active planning phase. So in terms of inequity of access to good cancer care due to the geographical barrier, we have actually undertaken decentralization efforts of cancer care here in Sarawak. One of the actual efforts around initiatives is to host our senior long-term oncology liaison medical officers with adequate oncology experience to other district hospitals in Sarawak so that better cancer care could be delivered to patients closer to their homes. This was also consolidated with our regular visiting oncologists to these district hospitals as part of decentralization efforts as well. There is also a nursing training program for systemic treatment administration being conducted since last year in all major district hospitals, with the aim of credentialing all our nurses in the state managing cancer care patients with this essential nursing skill of administering systemic therapy in their own hospital.   In addition to that, weekly oncology and palliative care continuous medical education program across the state has been conducted since the fourth quarter of last year, to disseminate oncology knowledge rapidly to healthcare providers, especially those outside our capital city, who have inadequate exposure in oncology care. And upgrading of our cancer care infrastructure has also been actively planned and we are actually looking forward to a new comprehensive cancer center in our city in the next few years.   Besides that, our center is also robustly developing our clinical trial capacity in the hope that we can provide additional treatment options to our patients who have limited optional treatment due to cost constraints. In summary, I can say that various initiatives have been implemented to enhance the cancer care in Sarawak, and one thing for sure is the ASCO ICC program has been facilitating all this positive development. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: So many things are happening, so many things are being done. And with all your efforts, knowledge, and expertise, of course, nothing is impossible. And it's always helpful if you have a very dedicated and committed team, right? Dr. Pei Jye Voon: Yeah, definitely. We have a very dedicated team, that's for sure. Dr. Roselle De Guzman: So Dr. Voon, thank you for being with us today and for your onsite coordination of the program. And Dr. Evangelia Razis, thank you for volunteering your time and insights to the ICC program and to our podcast.  Malaysia is not the only location that the ICC program has been implemented in. There are currently nine sites in Asia, Africa, and South America currently accepting volunteers. Now I would like to give a brief information for volunteers wanting to participate. ASCO pairs eligible oncology professionals with a medical center whose needs match the expertise of the volunteer. Volunteers must be appropriately trained and credentialed medical professionals who specialize in oncology. This includes physicians specializing in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, laboratory professionals, and nurses. Final-year oncology fellows may also participate if paired with an experienced volunteer. Volunteers spend one to four weeks on site. During that time, they teach and train staff, residents, and students, and gain insight into cancer management needs and challenges at that institution. As an added benefit, the program enables volunteers to form long-term supportive relationships with clinicians in participating countries. If you are interested in volunteering for the ASCO ICC program, please go to volunteer.asco.org - that's volunteer.asco.org - to apply. I'm Dr. Roselle De Guzman, past Chair of Asia Pacific Regional Council of ASCO.   Thank you for listening to this ASCO Education Podcast. The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncology well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you would like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Increasing diversity in the field of oncology is an ongoing task. Our next guest has made it her mission to increase those ranks as well as becoming the first African American woman to be a Brigadier General in the US Air Force. Dr. Edith Mitchell describes her early years growing up in rural Tennessee (2:52), the motivation for joining the Air Force in the 70's (7:33) and strategizing to increase ethnic diversity in medicine and oncology (16:53). Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Edith Mitchell: Leadership – Corvus; Honoraria - Sanofi, Exelixis; Consulting or Advisory Role Company - Genentech, Novartis, Merck, Bristol Myers Squib; Speakers' Bureau – Ipsen; Research Funding Company - Genentech, Sanofi  Resources (related podcasts, courses or articles) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.   Pat Loehrer:  Welcome to Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of the podcast is to introduce our listeners to interesting and inspirational people and topics in and outside the world of oncology. Pat Loehrer: Imagine knowing in your heart what you wanted to be in life. It usually takes people decades to figure that out, but our next guest knew at age three that she wanted to be a doctor and, later in high school, to be an oncologist. She's achieved much in her lifetime and has incorporated the "pay it forward" by mentoring many others. Dave Johnson: Our guest today is Dr. Edith Mitchell. I first met Edith over 40 years ago when we were both starting out our careers as junior faculty. She grew up in rural Tennessee, and as Pat mentioned, remarkably, she chose a career in oncology at a very early age in high school, despite the fact that oncology was barely a specialty at that time and the lack of role models, particularly role models of color, and women in particular. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry with distinction from Tennessee State University and a medical degree from the Medical College of Virginia and Richmond.   In 1973, while still attending medical school, Edith joined the Air Force, receiving a commission through the Health Profession Scholarship Program, and eventually rose to the rank of Brigadier General. She completed a residency in internal medicine at Meharry Medical College in Nashville and a fellowship at Medical Oncology at Georgetown University. Her research interests are broad and involve new drug evaluation, development of new therapeutic regimens, combined modality therapy strategies, patient selection criteria, and supportive care for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies.  She is the leader of the GI oncology program at Jefferson Medical College, Director of the Center to Eliminate Cancer Disparities, and Enterprise Vice President for Cancer Disparities at Jefferson's Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. She's held a number of leadership positions, including those in ASCO, and she's a former president of the National Medical Association. I could go on forever. So, Edith, welcome, and thanks for joining us on Oncology, Etc.  Dr. Edith Mitchell: And thank you so much for the invitation, Dave and Pat, it is a pleasure.  Dave Johnson: You grew up on a farm, as I recall, in Tennessee. Perhaps you could tell us a little about your early life.  Dr. Edith Mitchell: I grew up on a farm that my great grandfather's mother received about 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation was made. I was the fifth child in my family. My parents were working, my older siblings were in school, so my great-grandparents were my babysitters, so I spent a lot of time with them. He was 89 at the time, became ill, and I overheard family members and neighbors say that they couldn't take him to the hospital because Blacks were not treated properly in the hospital, so they were going to take care of him at home. A physician made a house call. When he left, I told my great-grandfather, “Pa, when I grow up, I'll be a doctor just like Dr. Logan and I'll make sure you get good health care.”  So, at three years, I decided I would become a doctor and I would make sure that Blacks received good health care. My work in disparity started when I was three. So, after my sophomore year in high school, there was a National Science Foundation program in Memphis at LeMoyne-Owen College. So, I applied and was accepted. And part of the time in Memphis that year, we were given opportunities to go to St. Jude. So my time at St. Jude made the decision that I would become an oncologist. I became really fascinated by cancers and in pathology, use of the microscope, and how cancers were all different, how they varied from the normal tissue for areas such as the colon or the stomach or the pancreas. Dave Johnson: It's amazing that that early in your life you made that kind of decision.  Can I back up just one moment? I want to ask you briefly about the doctor that visited your great-grandfather, Dr. Logan.  Dr. Edith Mitchell: Dr. Logan was a family physician, African American, and he had a great interest in Blacks being healthy. In fact, when the polio vaccine was made public, Blacks could only go one day per week because you couldn't go the times when whites were there. Dr. Logan obtained the vaccine and he would line the children up at his office. He gave me my first polio vaccine. He was a very handsome man. And, you know, Dave, I found out later that the medical school that he attended in Memphis was one of the ones closed as a result of the 1910 Flexner Report. So he had to go to Meharry in Nashville and take other courses to maintain his license to practice medicine.  Pat Loehrer: Were you the first one to go into medicine? Tell me about that background and how your family influenced you personally.  Dr. Edith Mitchell: Neither of my parents finished 8th grade, but they were very smart. They pushed their seven children to do well. They provided educational materials in our home and encouraged us to work and to take advantage of opportunities. Dave Johnson: Let's move forward a little bit. I thought I knew a lot about you, Edith, but I didn't realize that you were a Brigadier General. What was the motivation for joining the service in the ‘70s when you were at med school? Was it scholarship funding, or was there just patriotic zeal or a little of both? Dr. Edith Mitchell: My main objective was, for financial reasons - a scholarship covering all expenses of medical school, plus a monthly stipend. When I was in medical school, one of my laboratory instructors told me about this new scholarship program, and I said, "Okay, I just want to graduate from medical school." So he says, "Well, I know people in the surgeon general's office. I'll have them send you the information." He did, and I looked at it and didn't remember David, that my husband filled out the application. After my neurosciences final exam, I came home, and he says, "Your commission came in the mail today." So I said, "Okay." He says, "Well, I can swear you in. We can't do it at home because you have to have a witness. You take a nap, and then we're going out to job control, which was where all the aircraft controlled, the control room." We went there. We've got a picture of the swearing-in, and we then went to the officers club. It was Friday, and there were lots of people in his group from the Air Force Academy, from Citadel, Virginia Tech, and others. And they were all talking. "Yeah, Edith got a mail-order commission.”  So I owed the Air Force two years, and I practiced at Andrews Air Force Base, which was the presidential squadron. You hear the president always leaving Andrews Air Force Base. So I think I was 29 maybe, but I was young, and here I was taking care of senators and other important people in government, and these are people I'd only seen on TV before. So I had a really good experience. I received many accolades, but also many letters from people for whom I cared for. And I was therefore invited to stay on in the Air Force, either go to Walter Reed or to San Antonio. I said, "No, I'm going to Georgetown." So one of the VIPs, if I mentioned his name, you would know, said and wrote a letter for me that the Air Force should give me whatever I wanted and whatever I needed to continue in the Air Force. So I received my Air Force pay while I was a fellow at Georgetown.  So I stayed on. I got promoted early and engaged in Air Force work. I loved it, and I did well in that atmosphere and stayed on. After my second child was born, I decided I could not continue active duty and take care of two kids. So I left the Air Force, went to the University of Missouri, and someone called me one day and said, "You know, I hear you are at the University of Missouri now. Would you consider joining the National Guard?" I went, “ Joining the National Guard? Why would the National Guard want an oncologist?” And the information was, the Air National Guard wants good doctors, and you've got a great record. They invited me to St. Louis to just see the National Guard squadron there. I filled out the application while I was there and in a few days was appointed to the National Guard.  So after being there for a few years, I was discussing with one of the higher-ranking people in the National Guard who was in Washington, but visiting St. Louis. He said to me, "You know, you've done great work." He had gone through my record, and he said, "And you know, you're one of the people being considered to be in a group for promotion. Promotion at that time meant that it was a higher rank." So he said, "There's one thing you don't have in your records, however, and other competitors in your group have." I said, "What's that?" “You haven't been to flight school.” I said, "Okay." He said, "And everybody who is going to be competing with you will have gone to flight school, and having a flight record will be an important part."  So I was in my 40s. My oldest child was 14. I went to flight school and I got my certification, and obviously, I got promoted. And I am the first woman doctor to become a General in the history of the Air Force. And it was really interesting. I'm a Brigadier General. I'm invited to give a talk someplace, and there were lots of people there. So the person introducing me said, "And she is the first African American woman to become a General in the history of the United States Air Force." So I get up to speak and I thank him for this introduction. And I said, "Yes, I was the first Black woman physician to become a General. I said, but, you know, my ancestry says that I'm 30% something white. So I guess I was the first white woman, too." There was a big roar. But I loved every opportunity, and I worked hard at every opportunity.  So when I was in the active duty Air Force, I was chief of the cancer center at Travis Air Force Base. So I made my application for research with the Northern California Oncology group, got, they said, one of the highest ratings of the applicants at that time. And I received a phone call from Air Force administration saying “Congratulations, but the Air Force cannot accept this funding from the National Cancer Institute.” There is a law saying you can't transfer money from one area of the government to the other, as they called it, a "gift," but it was a grant. So I call Phil Schein and I tell him about the situation. And he already knew that I had received a top report, and he knew that I had the grant before I knew. So he says, "Well, let's see what we can do.”  Now, remember, Vince DeVita was the NCI Chair at that time and Dr. Rosenberg. At every ASCO meeting Phil, Vince, and Dr. Rosenberg would get together and they would bring their fellows. And Bill said, “Let me see what I can do.'" So somebody at NCI made some things happen. And I got this call from Saul Rosenberg. "Edith, congratulations." So I said, "Well, thank you, but I didn't expect a phone call from you." And he says, "Well, there have been some changes. Your grant, the face sheet has been changed." I said, "Oh.”  Pat Loehrer: Your husband again. Dr. Edith Mitchell: I can't say who or what, but it had Stanford on it. So my grant went to Stanford. I'm sure they appreciated the kick you get. But Dr. Rosenberg said, "Your grant is now Stanford. We're setting up an account for you at Stanford, and the funding goes to Stanford.” So I had people working for me at the Air Force Cancer Center who were Stanford employees. Dave Johnson: Edith, there are still too few African American and particularly African American men in medicine. What's your perspective on that?  Dr. Edith Mitchell: I think that many people are not given opportunities, and I've been concerned about Blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities not entering medicine, and particularly regarding oncology. So fewer than 5% of all practicing physicians in this country identify as Black. Little more than 5% identify as Hispanic. And I've been trying to do something about that. So ECOG-ACRIN has been very good about allowing me, and I set up with others, but I was the lead, a program for individuals - they could either be medical students, residents, fellows, or early faculty - to attend ECOG-ACRIN. And as a result of that program, we identified 12 individuals for each of the two ECOG-ACRIN annual meetings. We bring people in, and that has been a success. There's one person I introduced when she was a resident, she then did a fellowship in oncology, and it is now in her first year as faculty. And we have students mainly from Tennessee State. I do maintain very close relationships with Tennessee State, and I have the first Tennessee State student who has just been admitted to medical school at Jefferson. So trying to work with them.  As a result of my work with the National Medical Association and the International Myeloma Foundation, we have a group of medical students that have been mentored for oncology. Whether they will become oncologists, I don't know, but they all 12 are doing well in medical school, and with some anticipation they might select oncology as their area of specialty. We set them up with an individual mentor, various oncologists around the country, and they have conducted research with their mentor.  So I'm doing things that I think will be helpful to individuals. And I think we're not giving Blacks enough opportunities. Even in entering medical school, the number of Blacks entering most majority medical schools is still very low. Somewhere nine or ten students per year, Blacks entering medical schools. And also there has been a study conducted by the ACGME, which is the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, looking at graduate studies in oncology. Do you know that most of the oncologists have been trained at a few medical schools? And there are, I think it was 109 programs did not have a single minority student in the fellowship program. And that's terrible. I think that all fellowship programs should have some racial or ethnic fellows in their programs. Dave Johnson: Yeah. One of the disturbing statistics that I've read from the AAMC is that the number of African American men applying to medical school in 2023 and 2022 is actually less than the number that applied in the ‘70s. It's puzzling to me why we've not been able to attract young men into the medical profession, and perhaps it's because there's a sense of not being wanted or encouraged into the profession. More African American women are applying, but even that number is small, at least in terms of the increase in what we've seen. Pat Loehrer: Edith. You're also the Associate Director of Diversity Affairs at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. What does the recent Supreme Court decision against Harvard in terms of admissions policy, how are you viewing that now at Jefferson? Dr. Edith Mitchell: So I think that the Supreme Court decision certainly was disappointing, but it is what it is, and we've got to deal with it. That is the Supreme Court. So my suggestion and what I am telling students that they have to do, you do have the essay. So when I applied to medical school, I did not talk about Dr. Logan, my growing up on the farm, or my parents not finishing 8th grade. But if I were applying to medical school now, I would use all of that background to include in my essay. And the Supreme Court didn't say that you couldn't include that information in your essay. It said the schools could not use your racial background as a part of the equation, but your letter is still there, and therefore, I would include all of that in the essay, so that you do have an advantage. We've just got to be able to do what we've got to do, not put the university or the medical school at risk because of the Supreme Court decision. But there's nothing in that decision that says you can't include that information in your letter. Dave Johnson: I have one question. What career advice would you offer your younger self? If you could speak to your 30-year-old self based on your knowledge, experience, what career advice would you give yourself? Dr. Edith Mitchell: So the one thing that I did not do when I was about 30 years old and I'm not sure I even knew about it, I think I could have done more in health policy, and the one thing that I have not done is become a White House fellow. And that's usually early in your career plan. But I think my research would have suffered had I done that. And I still say I don't know that I made bad choices. Dave Johnson: No, you didn't make bad choices. Knowing you, you could have been a White House fellow and done everything else you did. Pat Loehrer: And your husband did not make a bad choice either. Dave Johnson: Evidently not. Pat Loehrer: Edith, thank you so much for joining us. You've had such an incredible life, and it's so rich, and we deeply appreciate your spending time with us.  I want to also thank all our listeners of Oncology, Etc, which is an ASCO Education Podcast. This is as you know, where we talk about oncology medicine and everything else. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this episode of ASCO Educational podcasts, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. Part One involved a 72-year old man with high-risk, localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease. Today's scenario focuses on de novo metastatic prostate cancer. Our guests are Dr. Kriti Mittal (UMass Chan Medical School) and Dr. Jorge Garcia (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). Together they present the patient scenario (1:13), going beyond the one-size-fits-all approach (4:54), and thinking about the patient as a whole (13:39). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Kriti Mittal:  Honoraria – IntrinsiQ; Targeted Oncology; Medpage; Aptitude Health; Cardinal Health  Consulting or Advisory Role – Bayer; Aveo; Dendreon; Myovant; Fletcher; Curio Science; AVEO; Janssen; Dedham Group  Research Funding - Pfizer Dr. Jorge Garcia:  Honoraria - MJH Associates: Aptitude Health; Janssen Consulting or Advisor – Eisai; Targeted Oncology Research Funding – Merck; Pfizer; Orion Pharma GmbH; Janssen Oncology;  Genentech/Roche; Lilly  Other Relationship - FDA Resources  ASCO Article: Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 ASCO Course: How Do I Integrate Metastasis-directed Therapy in Patients with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer? (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Hello and welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. In a previous episode, we explored the clinical scenario of localized prostate cancer progressing to metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. Today, our focus will be on de novo metastatic prostate cancer. My name is Kriti Mittal and I am the Medical Director of GU Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. I am delighted to co-host today's discussion with my colleague, Dr. Jorge Garcia.  Dr. Garcia is a Professor of Medicine and Urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is also the George and Edith Richmond Distinguished Scientist Chair and the current Chair of the Solid Tumor Oncology Division at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center.  Here are the details of the patient case we will be exploring: The patient also notes intermittent difficulty in emptying his bladder with poor stream for the last six months. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrates enlarged prostate gland with bladder distension, pathologically enlarged internal and external iliac lymph nodes, and multiple osteolytic lesions in the lumbar sacral, spine, and pelvic bones. A CT chest also reveals supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and sclerotic foci in three ribs. So this patient meets the criteria for high-volume disease and also has axial and appendicular lesions.  The patient was admitted for further evaluation. A bone scan confirmed uptake in multiple areas identified on the CT, and a PSA was found to be greater than 1500. Biopsy of a pelvic lymph node confirmed the diagnosis of prostate cancer. This patient is somewhat different from the first case we presented in terms of timing of presentation; this patient presents with de novo metastatic high-volume disease, in contrast to the first patient who then became metastatic after undergoing treatment for high-risk localized disease.  Would you consider these two cases different for the purposes of dosing docetaxel therapy when you offer upfront triplet therapy combinations?  Dr. Jorge Garcia: That's a great question. I actually do not. The natural history of someone with localized disease receiving local definitive therapy progressing over time is different than someone walking in with de novo metastatic disease. But now, with the challenges that we have seen with prostate cancer screening, maybe even COVID, to be honest with you, in North America, with the late care and access to testing, we do see quite a bit of patients actually walking in the office with de novo metastatic disease. So, to me, what defines the need for this patient to get chemotherapy is the volume of his disease, the symptoms of his disease – to be honest with you – and the fact that, number one, he is clinically impaired. He has symptomatic disease, and he does have a fair amount of disease, even though he may not have visceral metastasis. Then his diseases give him significant pain.  Oral agents are very good for pain control. I'm not disputing the fact that that is something that actually these agents can do. But I also believe I'm senior enough and old enough to remember that chemotherapy, when it works, can actually really alleviate pain quite drastically. So for me, I think that the way that I would probably counsel this patient is to say, "Listen, we can give you ADT plus an oral agent, but I really believe your symptomatic progression really talks about the importance of rapid control of your disease.” And based upon the charted data from the United States, and equally important, PEACE-1, which is the French version of ADT, followed by abiraterone, if you will, and certainly ARASENS is the standard of care for me for a patient like this will be triple therapy with ADT and docetaxel.  What I think is important for us to remember is that, in ARASENS, it was triple therapy together. I am worried sometimes about the fatigue that patients can have during the first six cycles of docetaxel. So oftentimes, I tell them if they're super fit, I may just do triple therapy up front, but if they I think they're going to struggle, what I tell them is, "Hey, we're going to put you on ADT chemotherapy. Right after you're about to complete chemo, we'll actually add on the darolutamide." So I do it in a sequence, and I think that's part of the data; we just still don't know if it should be given three at front or ADT chemo, followed by immediately, followed by an ARI. So I love to hear if that's how you practice or you perhaps have a different thought process. Dr. Kriti Mittal: So I usually start the process of prior authorization for darolutamide the day I meet them for the first time. I think getting access to giving docetaxel at the infusion center is usually much faster than the few weeks it takes for the prior authorization team to get copay assistance for darolutamide. So, in general, most of my patients start that darolutamide either with cycle two or, depending on their frailty, I do tend to start a few cycles in like you suggested. I've had a few patients that I've used the layered-in approach, completing six cycles of chemotherapy first and then layering in with darolutamide.  I think conceptually the role of intensifying treatment with an androgen receptor inhibitor is not just to get a response. We know ADT will get us a PSA response. I think the role of an androgen receptor inhibitor is to prevent the development of resistance. So, delaying the development of resistance will be pertinent to whether we started with cycle one, cycle six, or after. So, we really have to make decisions looking at the patient in front of us, looking at their ECOG performance status, their comorbidities, and frailty, and we cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach.  Dr. Jorge Garcia: Yeah, I like that and I concur with that. Thank you for that discussion. I think that you may recall some of our discussions in different venues. When I counsel patients, I tell the patients that really the goal of their care is on the concept of the three Ps, P as in Peter. The first P is we want to prolong your life. That's the hallmark of this regimen, the hallmark of the data that we have. That's the goal, the primary goal of these three indications is survival improvement. So we want to prolong your life so you don't die anytime soon from prostate cancer.  The second P, as in Peter, is to prevent, and the question is preventing what? We want to prevent your cancer from growing, from growing clinically, from growing radiographically, and from growing serologically, which is PSA and blood work. Now, you and I know and the audience probably realize that the natural history of prostate cancer is such that traditionally your PSA will rise first. There is a lead time bias between the rise and the scan changes and another gap in time between scans and symptoms. So it's often not the case when we see symptomatic disease preceding scans or PSAs, but sometimes in this case, it's at the same time. So that is the number one. And as you indicated, it's prevention of resistance as well, which obviously we can delay rPFS, which is a composite endpoint of radiographic progression, symptomatic progression, and death of any cause.  But the third P is I called it the P and M, which is protecting and maintaining, and that is we want to protect your quality of life while we treat you. And we want to maintain your quality of life while we treat you. So to me, it's critically important that in addition of aiming for an efficacy endpoint, we don't lose sight of the importance of quality of life and the protection of that patient in front of us. Because, undoubtedly, where you get chemo or where you get an oral agent, anything that we offer our patients has the potential of causing harm. And I think it is a balance between that benefit and side effect profile that is so critically important for us to elucidate and review with the patient.  And as you know, with the charted data, Dr. Alicia Morgans now at Dana-Farber, published a very elegant paper in JCO looking at the impact of docetaxel-based chemotherapy as part of the charted data in the North American trial and into quality of life. And we clearly define that your quality of life may go down a bit in the first few months of therapy, predictably because you're getting chemotherapy. But at the end of the six months, nine months, and certainly at the end of a year mark, the quality of life data for those who receive ADT and chemotherapy was far better than those who actually got ADT alone.  Now, if you look at the quality of data for RSNs, a similar pattern will appear that although chemotherapy is tied to misconceptions of significant toxicity, in our hands, in good hands, and I think our community of oncology in North America are pretty familiar with the side effects and how to manage and minimize side effects on chemotherapy, I think it still requires a balance and a thoughtful discussion to make sure that we're not moving forward chasing a PSA reduction at the expense of the quality of life of the patient. So I think orchestrating that together with the patient as a team is critically important as well.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Thank you, Dr. Garcia. Moving on to the next concept we'd like to discuss in today's podcast the role of PARP inhibitors. Case Two was treated with androgen deprivation docetaxel and darolutamide. Consistent with current guidelines, the patient was also referred to germline testing and was found to be BRCA 2-positive. The patient's disease remained stable for 24 months, at which time he demonstrated disease progression, radiographically and clinically, and his disease was termed castration-resistant. There has been a lot published in the last few years regarding the role of PARP inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC.  The PROfound trial led to the approval of olaparib in patients with deleterious mutations in HRR genes for those who had been treated previously with AR-directed therapy. The TRITON2 trial led to the approval of rucaparib in the same month for mCRPC patients with BRCA mutation for those patients who had previously been treated with AR inhibitors and taxine-based chemotherapy. More recently, we saw data from the TRITON3 trial exploring the role of rucaparib versus physicians' choice of docetaxel versus AR-inhibitor therapy in the mCRPC space for patients harboring BRCA 1, BRCA 2, or ATM mutation. Based on these data, it would be very tempting to offer a PARP inhibitor to the patient in case two. While regulatory authorities are still reviewing those data for approval, how would you consider treating this newly castrate-resistant patient in the frontline setting? Would you consider a PARP inhibitor in the frontline treatment of mCRPC in this patient with a BRCA 2 mutation? Dr. Jorge Garcia: So that's a loaded question, to be honest with you. We have compelling data, but controversial data, as you know as well. So I think that since we have a genomic profile on this patient and we know he had high volume disease, then the first thought to me is not a genetic or a genomic question or a sequence. It's actually a clinical question, to be honest with you. And that is: How are you progressing? Because I think that if you're progressing serologically, you and I may think of that patient differently. If you're progressing radiographically with alone plus minus PSA production but no symptoms, you may also tilt your scale into this life-prolonging agents in a different way. Whereas if you have true symptomatic disease, knowing what you know, prior therapy, CrPC with a BRCA 2 alteration, then you may actually go for something different.   So if it's a rising PSA, if it is radiographic, but the patient is stable clinically, is not basically compromised by symptomatic disease, I do feel that a PARP inhibitor as a single agent would be a very reasonable choice. In this case, you can use, obviously, rucaparib. You can use olaparib. I don't have a vested interest in either/or. I think either/or is fine. The subtleties and side effects, as you know, the olaparib data was probably the data that you and I probably are more accustomed to, used to the most just by virtue of how the agents got registered in the United States. But either/or, I think a PARP inhibitor would be a reasonable approach.   I think the question perhaps, and I pitch that back to you, is what are you looking for with a PARP inhibitor? Because, as you know, all DNA repair deficiencies are not biologically the same. They do not respond the same way to PARP inhibitors. And even BRCA 2, where we think it's monoallelic or biallelic, may have subtleties in how those patients respond to PARP therapy. But the answer is yes, obviously, you have a biomarker, the patient has it, you can use it. I think the question is, how are you going to follow the patient? And what is going to be the endpoint that you're going to pay attention to in this case to find that the patient has a benefit or not granted, that could be PSA driven, but I think that perhaps I'm pushing you to think beyond PSA.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: I agree, Dr. Garcia. I think we need to think about the patient as a whole. PSA-based changes in treatment are not generally part of our practice. I think evaluating the patient for symptoms and also thinking about the sites of progression, sites of disease they've had in the past, preventing development of cord compression, because some of these patients progress very rapidly and present with cord compression at the time of progression. Those are the things we are trying to predict and prevent. I think in a patient with BRCA 2 mutation, in this situation, I would feel compelled to offer rucaparib, given that even in the intention-to-treat analysis, the hazard ratio was 0.6 in terms of median progression-free survival. I think what was quite impressive was the subset analysis comparing rucaparib versus docetaxel. And that was something surprising. And I think we'll have to wait for long-term outcomes. But certainly, for a BRACA 2-mutated patient, this could be a reasonable consideration provided the drug is available and approved.  Dr. Jorge Garcia: As you know, the three most common DNA repair deficiencies that we see are BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. BRCA2 is probably the one that we see the most. But we also recognize that with the limited data we have for ATMs, that patients with an ATM abnormality do not tend to benefit the most. And then yet we have also another series of DNA repair deficiencies, deficiencies, PALB2, CHEK2, CDK12 and so forth. And yet we have some exquisite responses to some of those patients.   So I can tell you that I have a patient of mine who had an ATM mutation, a germline ATM mutation, and I predicted that initially that the likelihood of benefit to a PARP inhibitor would be low. He was placed on a PARP inhibitor and surprise, surprise, he was on a PARP inhibitor for almost a couple of years. What I want to convey to the audience is that if you have the appropriate biomarker, you certainly should consider a PARP inhibitor in this scenario.   I think the bigger question is also understanding that not every DNA repair would benefit the same way. So being very thoughtful and very structured as to how you're going to manage the patient, it cannot be PSA only, the patient has to be followed radiographically and clinically because I would argue that if this patient had just a serologic progression, I would put the patient on a PARP inhibitor and the PSA kinetics change north, but slowly, what is the urgency of you switching the patient to something else?   And also the misconception that if you look at PROfound, that olaparib for that matter has to always be given after docetaxel. That's not the case. The makeup of PROfound is different than this patient, obviously, because this patient got triple therapy upfront, whereas most patients on the PROfound were CRPC who receive chemotherapy in the CRPC space. But yet undoubtedly, I think that your case illustrates the importance of next-generation sequencing and the importance of understanding the access to two oral PARP inhibitors that are super solid.  I think that perhaps the bigger question is going to be should you do a PARP inhibitor alone or should we use a combination of a PARP inhibitor plus an oral agent, such as in this case, maybe abiraterone acetate plus olaparib. Or maybe even thinking of TALAPRO, maybe enza plus a PARP inhibitor. So I don't know where you sit on those thoughts, Doctor-. Dr. Kriti Mittal: I change toxicity considerations, temper my enthusiasm for offering PARP inhibitors in combination with AR inhibitors or abiraterone at this time. I think I would certainly consider monotherapy with rucaparib for a patient in this situation. I am not entirely convinced that putting a patient through dual treatment in the mCRPC setting in the frontline, I don't think we are there yet. Dr. Jorge Garcia: There are two very important trials that are looking at the combination of an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor plus olaparib in this context, and one is PROpel and the other one is MAGNITUDE. And both trials have very different results in many ways because they look at patients with a biomarker, meaning DNA repair, and patients without the biomarker. And I think the bigger question is, should this patient who was an abiraterone– Let's say this patient hypothetically was on a PEACE-1-like style. So the patient got ADT or triple therapy but was an abiraterone or an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor instead of chemotherapy. And the patient was progressing slowly on abiraterone, you knew that the patient had a DNA repair deficiency. How comfortable with the PROpel and MAGNITUDE data would you and I feel to add on or layer, if you allow me to express it like that, a PARP inhibitor into this regime? Dr. Kriti Mittal: My personal interpretation of the currently available data is that at this point, combination therapy is not something I would use in my clinical practice. I think there are two camps in the GU oncology community of how people interpret the PROpel, MAGNITUDE, TRITON, and TALAPRO data in full. I think each of these trials had very different patient populations. I think in a biomarker unselected population, I would certainly not advocate for combination therapy. But even in the biomarker-selected population, I think how the biomarkers were tested and how the populations were defined may not always match what we are doing in clinical practice. And so I would, at this time, advocate for monotherapy over combination therapy. Dr. Jorge Garcia: I'm sure the audience will have probably read or heard about PROpel and MAGNITUDE and the data in patients without a biomarker positivity disease. So I'd love to hear your thoughts as to if you had no biomarker. By that I mean if you had a patient with CRPC, with metastatic CRPC without a DNA repair deficiency, would you consider using an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor together based upon the potential synergistic of additive benefits and some of the data to suggest that you can delay rPFS when you combine therapy, but in the absence of biomarker positivity. Dr. Kriti Mittal: In the absence of biomarker positivity, I think the preclinical data are stronger than the clinical results we are seeing in trials. So while I think we should continue researching further into this because there certainly is preclinical rationale, looking at the clinical outcomes from these several trials, I would not offer PARP inhibitor to an unselected patient. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Great. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Moving on to second-line treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer. I think talking of access issues and talking about the current treatment paradigms in the United States, there is still not widespread availability of lutetium. The listeners would love to hear your thoughts, Dr. Garcia, on practical management tips, safety issues, and the multidisciplinary nature of the management of lutetium therapy.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: So I think the challenges with lutetium are multiple. Number one is the correct identification of the patient, the ideal patient for lutetium. Secondly is who manages the patient and as you indicated, the importance of a team approach in that. Thirdly is how do we follow that patient during therapy? So it's beyond the technical aspects of who infuses the patient. Fourthly is what are the true goals of lutetium for that patient population and the side effects that those patients may embark on that some people may not be fully aware of and creates complexity. And lastly, perhaps, is how the movement, how we develop lutetium in CRPC and how we're going to move lutetium or have started to move lutetium and alike, meaning radiopharmaceuticals, radioligand-based therapies outside lutetium opinion and others as you know, earlier into the natural history of prostate cancer, maybe even in the locally advanced disease in combination with radiation or for patients with N1 positive disease. So it's a lot of movement in that space. I think that this is just the beginning of radiopharmaceutical entering diagnostics. But let me just address this succinctly, if I may. Number one, you do need a PET PSMA in order for you to select the patient because we're talking about a potential biomarker. But this is what I call an imaging biomarker. If you see it, you treat it.  So the standard of care right now for lutetium is very simple: you need to have men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Two, you need to have failed a prior oral agent, in this case, a novel hormonal agent, independent of which agent you have seen, independent of the timing when you have seen an oral agent at the front, the middle, the end. And lastly, you have to have progress through chemotherapy. Yet again, it depends on when you see chemo.  So if you have someone who has high volume metastatic disease from the beginning, de novo disease, and you got ADT, daro, and docetaxel, and the patient progresses, that patient can go on. If that patient has a positive PSMA PET, that patient can go on to get lutetium. Similarly, if you have someone who got ADT alone in the adjuvant space for radiation therapy, progress, got an oral agent, progress, got a PARP or not, or got docetaxel, that patient could also be a candidate for lutetium. It's dependent on how you run the patient through therapy.  Secondly is who gives lutetium? So I do believe, and I may be biased, I certainly believe in the importance of a team approach with radiation oncology and nuclear medicine. But the reality of it is, I believe these patients are so advanced in their stage of their disease, then the idea of quarterback, in my personal opinion, resides in medical oncology. And I think the bigger question is going to be if nuclear medicine at your given institution is going to be delivering lutetium, or is it going to be radiation oncology? And I think, as you know, in places in America, it's RadOnC, in other places is NucMed, in our institution right now it is NucMed. Having said that, I do predict that for those places where nuclear medicine is heavily involved in delivering lutetium or partnering with MedOnc to deliver lutetium, radiation oncology in the future will have a bigger role as well because we are moving lutetium earlier in settings where radiation oncology is commonly used, such as high-risk prostate cancer patients, or even in the salvage setting, or even in patients with metastatic disease, where we want to combine radiation and lutetium, which are part of clinical trials as we think through for the future. But either/or, I think the quarterback should be really MedOnc in this case.  Thirdly is how do we do it? So clearly, at least in my practice, and I think it's probably standard across the United States, MedOnc will see the patient, determine viability and feasibility of therapy, determine who's the ideal candidate, discusses the pros and the cons, and then works along with RadOnc or NucMed to start the process. As you know, it is once every six weeks. So here in my practice, we will see the patient every time before treatment. Sometimes we see them the day off, sometimes we see them a few days before. Patients will get blood work. Specifically, we're interested in seeing everything CMPs, but certainly blood counts, red cell counts, platelets, and white cell counts, just to make sure that patients do not start with impaired bone marrow that can increase the risk for myelosuppression and therefore significant challenges with side effects, hematologic side effects, specifically. And we do that.   Sometimes we see them, sometimes our nurse practitioners would do so. And then the patient will basically follow through and complete up to six cycles of treatments. Six times six, that's actually 36 weeks or so. That's a long time on therapy for those who can get six cycles. I think the question becomes how do you follow those patients? And if we pay attention to the VISION data, as you know, those patients were actually followed serially quite closely on trial every eight weeks for the first 24 weeks, and then they stretch the scans out. But the scans that we're using in the trial are conventional imaging.  And I think the bigger question that you and I will have is if we get a PET PSMA to use to make that decision to get on lutetium PSMA, should I go back and use a CT or so to stage the patient? I think we're moving more toward PET follow-up, but we also don't know fully the impact of lutetium PSMA on PSMA metabolically during treatment. I think that we all recognize anecdotally and at least with some of the emerging data and we have the SUV may change, that PSA reductions also appear to be important as to define who is likely to benefit or not. But those are questions that remain to be seen, to be honest with you. We follow the patients serologically, clinically, and radiographically. And at least in my group, we tend to do PSMA PETs in between therapy to ascertain the impact of therapy in radiographic and also metabolic changes. And lastly is how we manage side effects. So I think that I'm pretty OCD about these patients because I have seen in my practice patients having outstanding responses to therapy but unfortunately become transfusion dependent, either transiently or permanently, just by virtue of side effects. And I think the importance of understanding the most common side effects of lutetium, in this case fatigue, myelosuppression, xerostomia, are really, really important. And that is the importance of having a multi-team effort approach so everybody is fully aware of the baseline characteristics of that patient or how the patient is enduring therapy and how the therapy is impacting the quality of life and impacting bone marrow production for those patients.  I think I remind the audience that the vast majority of our patients do have bone metastases. In fact, in the VISION trial it was around what, over 85, 90% of patients are so with bone metastases. So their marrow has already been impacted not only by disease but equally importantly by the prior chemotherapy that they may have seen. And some of the patients that we have in the first bubble effect is they have seen probably docetaxel, some may even have seen dual therapy with cabazitaxel as a second-line chemotherapy. So I think the understanding as to how you manage the side effects is critically important for our patients as well.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Those are very relevant, practical life issues. Thank you Dr. Garcia for a terrific discussion on the application of recent advances in prostate cancer to clinical practice. [28:54] The ASCO Education podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologists' well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Thank you, Kriti. It's great to see you and thanks again to ASCO for the amazing opportunity to be here with you guys today. I hope the audience can see the benefit of understanding how the many changes we have seen have impacted our patients in a positive way. So thank you again for the opportunity. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Thank you, Dr. Garcia, and thank you so much to the ASCO team for inviting me. This was a great experience.  Thank you Dr. Garcia for sharing your perspective on incorporating recent research advances into the management of patients with de novo metastatic prostate cancer. The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologists' well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

There are many treatments available for cancer  but how do you make csre delivery equitable? Given the various types of cancers how can you allocate the right resources to create equal outcomes? Dr. Lori Pierce has made equity a primary focus of her career. She describes how physics and radiology inspired her to be an engineer (6:06), and the moment she decided to transition from engineer to oncologist (12;54) and achieving the position of Vice-provost at the University of Michigan (23:01). Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Lori Pierce:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests Company - PFS Genomics;  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company - UpToDate, PFS Genomics; Uncompensated Relationships - Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exact Sciences Resources  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.   Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: Hi, I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. I'm a Medical Oncologist. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of the program is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology; hence the ‘et cetera' in our name. Pat, we've got a great guest today. And we've got a great guest today. Pat Loehrer: Our next guest was able to do this despite living at a time when in the United States, certain groups of people faced tremendous barriers to achieve even the basic hint of equality. Our next guest is Lori Pierce. Dr. Pierce attended Duke University School of Medicine and completed a radiation oncology residency and chief residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. She was then appointed as a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, from 1990 to 1992. And in 1992, she joined the faculty at the University of Michigan, where she currently is a professor with tenure in Radiation Oncology.  Since coming to Michigan, she has served as Residency Director and Clinical Director in the Department of Radiation Oncology. In August of 2005, she was appointed by the University Board of Regents to be the Vice-Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs, a position she still holds. In 2020, she was ASCO President, and while she ascended to the ASCO Presidency, that year COVID descended upon the Earth, and we may hear some stories about that. She's dedicated her career to the treatment of breast cancer patients. She's published over 200 manuscripts and book chapters and has received numerous teaching awards from the University of Michigan, multiple national organizations, and many national awards.  Dr. Pierce, thank you so much for joining us today.  Dr. Lori Pierce: I am so happy to join you both today. What an incredibly nice introduction. Thank you so much.  Pat Loehrer: You were born and raised in Washington, DC. And the family eventually moved to Philadelphia when I think you were in junior high school. Can you paint a picture of what schooling was like for you growing up? Dr. Lori Pierce: Well, schooling, education was just so important to my family and myself. And so, as you said, I was born and raised in DC. Moved to Philadelphia when I was just entering high school. And my parents, who are just the best people on the planet, didn't have an opportunity to go to college. At that point, a lot of people of color didn't really have that opportunity. So education was so important in my family. So if you think about the important issues in my life, there was our faith, our family, and education. And so my sister, who is four years older, she went to college first. After about two years, I transferred and actually graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, and I did that. It was my idea.  My parents at that point were living in Philadelphia. My mother was working at Penn, and so I would have free tuition if I went to Penn. And Penn is a great place as is Brown. My parents didn't ask me to transfer, but I did. And I received, obviously, an excellent education at both institutions. I majored in biomedical engineering and I minored in chemical engineering and was pre-med. I had to be strategic in how I was going to pay for my education because my parents and they took out loans, they covered everything, almost everything. My sister and I had some loans, but they took out most of the loans.  But they always had an agreement. And the agreement was that both my sister and I would have our college education covered by them. But anything in the graduate arena, we had to cover. So I had to be kind of strategic about that. So I actually applied to medical school and, as you know, got in, and deferred my admission so I could work and earn some money so I could pay for medical school. And I tell you, I did that specifically for the reason, for financial issues. But now this kind of thing is called a gap year. And in retrospect, it was the smartest thing I could have ever done because I took some time away, and during that time away, it made me even more motivated to apply my full attention to medicine.  And so education was very important. But I think sometimes you have to kind of step away to then regain the commitment that you need to move forward. And so by the time I started Duke, I was more than ready to be in medical school. Pat Loehrer: I know we talk about underrepresented minorities. I was a mechanical engineer at Purdue. And I can tell you, I don't think there was a single woman in engineering in most of my classes. There were just a few. So to be a woman in engineering is extraordinarily unique. So tell me a little bit about that decision-making and how you got into that. It may have been different in 10 or 15 years later, but were there a lot of women in engineering? Dr. Lori Pierce: No, not at all. And while there may have been two or three in biomedical engineering, there were hardly any in chemical engineering, and as you said, very few in mechanical engineering. So no. But I always was interested in physics. I liked those kinds of things, and hence I went into radiation oncology. It was a perfect blend of my studies and my interest. But no, I often was the only woman, or maybe one of two or three women in my classes, and I was certainly the only person of color in my classes. It taught you things though. It taught you to be comfortable being in that position and to know that you could do it just like anyone else could, and to know that probably a lot of eyes were on you to succeed. Some of that was self-imposed, but some of that was real. But I think learning those lessons then certainly came in handy when I went into medicine because while there are more women in medicine, especially now, compared to what it was when I came through, still, at that point, we were in the minority. And there were very few people of color in medical school where I went to. I was at Duke, and very few people there. You learned lessons early on, right?  Dave Johnson: Where did this interest in engineering originate? Dr. Lori Pierce: So it was really more of physics and radiology. So I, as a kid was a really thin kid, and I broke a couple of bones, and I ended up going to get X-rays. And I was fascinated by the X-rays. I was fascinated by this physics. I was fascinated by how you could push this button and these images would appear and I could see my broken bone. So that was really where it came from.  So I was pre-med. I did a lot of my pre-med work at Brown, and during the summers I was working in an industry. I was actually in Scott Paper Products industry outside of Philadelphia. And a couple of the other people there who I worked with closely were engineers. And I was just fascinated by it and seemed to be a good way of moving forward my own interest in the physics and the machinery and how it all worked. So I actually switched into engineering. So I switched from Brown to Penn. And being an engineer, it was a great way to make a good living for a year and a half. And I think as an engineer, and Pat, you can probably attest to this, you think in a certain way; you become very methodical in how you approach things. And while I'm sure there are a lot of other disciplines that will give you a similar type of approach, engineering really does—you're very objective in how you make decisions, and I think that serves well. And then, as I said, going into radiation oncology it was just a match made in heaven, so it all worked out great, I think. Pat Loehrer: I think I read that your sister was also into math, is that right?  Dr. Lori Pierce: My sister's a systems engineer with IBM. Incredibly gifted. Pat Loehrer: Yeah. Tell me about your parents. How did they guide you? What were your role models in terms of both you and your sister, in terms of math, physics, engineering? Dr. Lori Pierce: I already said my parents were incredibly hardworking and good people. They both had high school graduation education. My mother went straight through, but my father had to get an equivalency for his high school diploma because he was born and raised in North Carolina, had to work on the farm, and didn't get a chance to stay in school. But he got the equivalency of his high school degree.  It was interesting, my dad was just incredibly gifted for math. My father was just amazing in math. And my father and I always hung out. He was like my best friend and so I think my emphasis on math in part came from my dad. And I'll say that both my parents didn't, weren't able to get a college education, but they were two of the smartest people I ever knew. My father and my mother, but I just hang out more with my dad, had amazing common sense and whipsmart math. I'm sure that a lot of where I ended up is because of my dad.  Dave Johnson: You mentioned that you had family in North Carolina. I remember reading that you were influenced by some of the people you met in North Carolina with respect to your medical career. Can you tell us a little bit about that? I think a Dr. Weaver, was it?  Dr. Lori Pierce: That's right. Doc Weaver. That's right. So I used to spend a lot of my summers in North Carolina with my father's family. And Dr. Weaver was an African American family medicine doctor who took care of the vast majority of people of color in the town of where my father's family is from. Whenever anyone had issues and needed medical care, he came to the house. He was the doctor for people of color. I sat back- and take it in a lot when you're young - people never really know how much you're listening and seeing, but you take in a lot. And you see just how revered he was, and he should have been, because he was largely the face of medicine that a large part of that town saw. And that stuck with me. A couple of times, I went with him when he would see patients. Without a doubt, this factored into my wanting to go into medicine. I think that coupled with my interest in those x-rays and the physics of the x-rays, I think that's how it all came together, but Doc Weaver. Pat Loehrer: So you mentioned you did a gap year, which was somewhat unusual at that point. I did a gap year as well for the exact same reason - I wanted to not incur a lot of debt or at least try to defer the debt as much as possible. What did you do in your gap year, and how did that impact your medical training or did it?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It definitely did. My gap year was actually 18 months. I moved to Austin, Texas, and I worked in Round Rock, Texas, that was at a time when Round Rock was just a sleepy little town just north of Austin. I haven't been back since. I know Dell computers is now there and now it's almost you can't see a difference between Austin and ROund rock, but that was not the way it was on those days. And I worked in Round Rock because McNeil Consumer Products was there.  I worked at McNeil Consumer Products, they make Tylenol. I was the second-shift Glatt supervisor for Tylenol. So Glatt is the machine that mixes up all of the ingredients for Tylenol and it was something that I knew going in that it was only going to be short-lived so I could probably live almost anywhere. And I thought, okay, I'd been on the east coast all my life, let me see what the rest of, another part of the country is like.  It was an amazing experience. To go from Brown to the University of Pennsylvania, DC, and Philadelphia, to Round Rock, Texas. In retrospect, I couldn't have picked a better place. I mean I soaked up a little local color, went to some things that the Texans do, and rodeo, that kind of thing. But more importantly, I met people who I would've never met on the east coast. These were people who largely had not been outside of the Austin area. One person said she'd never seen a black person before. That kind of surprised me.  So it was a swath of America that I had not been exposed to. It was not easy. But in the end, it was the best thing, because you realize, people are people. And while you might be put off at first because they're put off with you and you put off with them, at the end of the day, it was a great experience of getting to know people who can further enrich your life. And I think that has helped me in medicine in terms of interacting with patients no matter where they're from, no matter what their background, what their financial situation is, people are people.     I was on my own. I was truly on my own. And that gap year was invaluable far more than helping me pay off medical school loans.  Pat Loehrer: You've focused into radiology and obviously there's diagnostic radiology and therapeutic radiology. How did you end up choosing the career that you eventually championed so well?  Dr. Lori Pierce: At the time I went to medical school at Duke, at Duke, radiation oncology was a division of radiology so they had not separated yet. While I was at Duke, they recruited in their first chair of radiation oncology into separation. So long story short, when you're at Duke in medical school, your third year is all research. You could go into a lab and do research. And so when I met with my radiology advisor and looked at the list of options of projects I could sign on to, the one that happened to be most interesting was being done by a radiation oncology researcher in radiology. And I thought, well, it looks interesting, but I don't want to do that because I want to go in radiology so I need to have a radiology project. And my advisor said, “No, it's okay. Radiology programs, they'll take radiation experiments. You can still use that and apply to radiology.” So I said “Okay, that looks really interesting.” So I opted to go with that choice and it was during that year that radiation oncology separated. A chair came in, Dr. Lenny Prosnitz from Yale, and he said, “Why don't you just come down and see what it is that we do?” So when my experiments were set up, I would run down into the basement because we're always in the basement, and I would follow him around and I just loved it because it gave me the physics that I wanted, I got really interested in cancer biology. And I think with my personality, I work well with patients. I love patients. That patient interaction is when I'm at my best. And I wouldn't have had that in radiology. With all due respect, radiology is so important, but you have to do what you gravitate toward, and those interactions when I was following him around with patients. So I never looked back, I changed at that point and decided to go into radiation technology.   So I was at Penn for residency and chief residency. When I was getting ready to leave to go to the NCI, the person, Barbara Fowble, who was a well-known breast radiation oncologist, took a sabbatical and asked if would I stay the year she was taking sabbatical to run the breast service. So I deferred going to the NCI to stay at Penn for an additional year as an attending and then went to the NCI when she came back from her sabbatical. I worked with Eli when I got to the NCI.  Pat Loehrer: And Norm Coleman, too? Dr. Lori Pierce: And Norm from a distance. He's great. He came in for comedic relief. It was in a while, but he and Eli and Tom Delaney. It was a great time to be at the NCI. It was shortly after that, about a year or so into that when things started changing, Eli left to go to UT Southwestern. But it was a great time to be at the NCI. Dave Johnson: So you've worked with some of the giants of radiation oncology for sure?  Dr. Lori Pierce: I did. And the NCI was known as the places where the giants launched. So the Allen Lichters, the Joel Teppers. I mean, I could go through a list. They all had worked with Eli, and Allen was no longer there. Allen had already gone to the University of Michigan. He subsequently recruited me to Michigan. But the radiation oncology branch, the Marc Lippmans of the world, it was a magic time. Even though some of them weren't there, their footprint, their stamp was on the program, and it was really good. And working with Eli was just great. Dave Johnson: So is that where you're working with Barbara where your interest in breast cancer or was it that you mentioned you had an interest in the biology? Where did that interest in breast cancer originate?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It came from working with Barbara. So it was a combination. Barbara, who is one of the most amazing people to this day, that I've ever worked with, her command of the data, her synthesis of the data, her interaction with patients. Most people don't appreciate of just how great a clinician Barbara Fowble was. And so it was admiration for that. So she was a part of it, but John Glick was the other part.  So John, of course, who everyone knows, the giant in the field, and I think at the time, not sure if when I was a resident, he was the president of ASCO. Even if he wasn't the president at that point, he was certainly highly integrated with ASCO, and he kind of took me under his wing. I'm not sure why, but I was very interested in breast cancer. So he would like bring me over to the Med On clinic and teach me more about chemotherapy. So I had John and I had Barbara, and then also the mammography group was very supportive of me. I would come in literally on weekends and meet with the head of mammography, who would test me on mammograms, reading mammograms. So it was just a very supportive environment. And certainly, breast cancer was the area that I wanted to focus on. It was a great group to train under. Pat Loehrer: Dave and I had the opportunity a short time ago to interview John Glick. And as you're talking, one of the wonderful things about our field of oncology is how it's a close-knit network and there's so much mentoring. And John took both Dave and I underneath his wings, and he had no really rationale for doing that. But Eli, I mean, there are so many wonderful people that we've had the opportunity of meeting. And you yourself have mentored so many other people in another generation. It's hard to explain to people outside of oncology about how special this field is, I think. Dr. Lori Pierce: It absolutely is. And it's an honor for me to serve as a mentor because once you're a mentor, you always mentor. I mean, John, I'll run things by John to this day. Once you develop that closeness and you know them and they know you, you savor that, it never goes away. Dave Johnson: What would you tell a junior faculty or fellow are the characteristics of a great leader? What do you think makes for great leadership?  Dr. Lori Pierce: That's a great question. First and foremost, you listen. You need to listen and understand what your mentee, what it is they're seeking, what it is that they want to study, where they feel they are somewhat inadequate, and they want to improve. What is it that they want to accomplish with that relationship? Because as you and Pat both know, mentors come in all shapes and sizes. Mentors come in all locations. You may have someone who is at your institution where they're coming to you to help to shepherd through your institution and the policies and understand the practice of your institution. You may have those that are mentoring you from afar, or perhaps in addition to content, but also getting a sense of what the outside environment is like. So I think first rule of mentorship is to really understand why that mentee has sought you out and whether you are the right person to fill that void, whatever void that they think that they have.  I think another part of mentorship is making the time for that individual. We're all very busy people. Most people aren't looking at you to mentor them two hours a day. They are going to be very judicious in what they ask, and you should make sure that what they need, you can accommodate that, and if you can't, perhaps arrange for someone else who can. But in most cases, there's a lot that we all can do for people who approach us.  And then I think really understanding, kind of putting yourself in their position, where are they in their trajectory toward greatness, and how can you work with that. And I think most of us have a lot that we can share, and a lot of times we may be sharing things, we don't even realize that what we're saying is impactful to those individuals. But I really think it's starting out by listening and being honored that you are actually asked to be a mentor. Dave Johnson: You've also received numerous teaching awards. You obviously have a gift for that. Tell us, what's the secret to being a good teacher? What are the characteristics of a really great teacher, different than mentoring? Dr. Lori Pierce: Yeah. You have straightforward conversations with your residents and your fellows. I'll give you an example. We have teaching conferences. And teaching conferences have evolved over the years. I've been at Michigan for a long time, since ‘92. And in the old days, the morning conference, you discussed the literature and you had a discussion, and now it's evolved to slides. The residents give the slides and I'm old school. I like to go back to the old school. Some people call that the Socratic method. I think the Socratic method has gotten a bad rap because you can do the Socratic method in not a threatening way, and you can ask questions to residents and expect for them to give an answer. And it was interesting, long story short, when I few years into becoming Vice-Provost here, I'm not able to come to morning conferences very often. And I got a knock on my door here in the cancer center, and I opened up and it was the three chief residents. And I said, “Okay. Hi. Come in. What can I do for you?” And so all male, and they said, essentially, “We miss you. Our residents, we all prepare more for your conferences than anyone else. And even though you ask us questions, we don't feel threatened by your questions. We want that type of style of learning.” And I was bowled over by that because I'm just a simple person, and I don't beat around the bush. I ask questions because these are the kind of questions that you have to know when you manage patients. These are the kind of questions that you have to know when you're in a tumor board and you interact with medical oncologists and surgical oncologists. You have to know the literature, and you have to be able to state it in a clear way that, obviously, physicians get it, but patients get it, and you have to be aware of your audience.   And so that little vignette of when those three knocked at my door told me that, clearly, going back to the basics and just asking questions is well received.  Pat Loehrer: I'm thinking about your parents who did not go to college, and here you are now a Vice-Provost at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. It's got to be, if you reflect on that really cool. Tell us a little bit about that journey and what it takes. Or was that accidental journey or was this a purposeful journey of leadership that you wanted to go to?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It was absolutely not purposeful, for sure. So I can thank my dear Dr. Lichter for that. So, Allen Lichter, after he was chair of radiation oncology, as you probably know became the dean of the medical school. Well, Allen, who had brought me to Michigan, got to know me pretty well. And so, when he became dean, Allen's so strategic. He realized that it would be important to have someone from the medical school to work in the provost's office because the medical school is the largest school on campus, and we're the different ones. We approach life somewhat differently.   And so to have that perspective in the provost's office would be very helpful. So he came to me and said, “Would you be interested in doing it?” I didn't know what a provost was. I'd heard about it when I was at Brown, but I was like, “No, I'm not interested.” And he said, “Well, just go and talk with them. Meet with the provost of Central Campus and just see.” So I went and decided not to do it. But they did ask, would you just be a special counselor to the provost? If we have questions, we can call on you. So I said, sure. So I did that for a year, and then by the end of the year, had a much better awareness, understanding of what they did in that office, and a much better understanding of who they were, and they me. So I said, “Okay, if I decide to do this, I want it so that you can fire me at any time, and I can fire you at any time, but I'm never giving up my day job in terms of seeing patients. This is always my night and weekend job.” And so that's how we did it.  And so I've been doing it now for a long time—since 2005, 2006. The reason I've done it so long is we do work with amazing people across campus. We have 19 schools and colleges, and I now am the Vice-Provost for Faculty Affairs for the Health Science Schools. And it allows you to not only look at the university as a whole—we tend to have silos, we tend to live in silos. And when you're the Vice-Provost, you can look beyond those silos and you can bring together people and schools for common threads of work. If I see the nursing school is focusing on certain aspects of cancer treatment XYZ, I can bring together people from the medical school, I can bring together the school of public health and put some funding to it to give them seed funds, to then synthesize something which hopefully will then translate into a larger grant.  So it is very rewarding in that regard. You oversee promotions, the hiring, and promotions of the faculty, and it further opens your eyes to what can be. And so much of what we do, obviously, in cancer is multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary. We're not just radiation oncology, medical oncology surgeons. So much of what we do in medicine, we interact with public health, we interact with dentistry, we interact with the other health science schools. It has been a very interesting ride in terms of what can happen when you bring like-minded people from different disciplines and you concentrate on a certain topic. And we've started some seed funding. We've had efforts where it really has grown into very significant NIH funding.  Pat Loehrer: What are you most proud of as a Vice-Provost or your leadership at the university that we wouldn't know about necessarily? Dr. Lori Pierce: Two things. One, I was one of the key worker bees in changing our policy for time to tenure. We used to have an eight-year tenure clock. And in medicine, we need longer. It's more difficult to get funding, it's more difficult to manage all of the missions that we do and still end up right where you want to be. And so we now have a tenure clock. And so I helped to make that possible.  In more recent years, probably the jewel for my provost time is getting maternity leave and parental leave. Many academic institutions don't have maternity leave. Women have to take sick leave. I'm sorry, being pregnant is not sick. That's not a sickness. If you're a dad, you want to have time for bonding, you want to have time to be there when your child is born or adopted. And so I and two other people established a policy of maternity leave and parental leave that was wildly accepted. The leadership of the university could not agree more readily. And now we have a very robust policy, and this is not just for faculty, it's for staff. And I get people who thank me all the time, whether they're staff or faculty, especially the dads, for giving them the time to be with their child. So that's an easy question to answer. I think that has been a change that has been received positively throughout.   And even if it's a case where when a person is gone for their parental leave or maternity leave, other people have to step up to cover for them. But people don't complain because everyone knows that that is the way it should be and that people should be given that time. So it's been one of those win-wins. You don't get win-wins very often, and that's been a win-win. Dave Johnson: Kudos to you and your colleagues for pushing that through and making that happen. That's got to be a huge recruitment advantage for Michigan.  Dr. Lori Pierce: It absolutely is. And this is something where industry has done a long time ago. But academia, we have been much slower to adopt those family-friendly policies. And obviously, we are well compensated in our careers. People don't leave usually for the money. It's usually the other pieces. And it's pieces like this where people are recognized and rewarded for being a whole person. And that isn't just bringing in grants, it's also respecting their family lives and their family time. Dave Johnson: For sure. That was certainly my experience serving as chairman of a department. The things that prompted departure, there were some academic issues, of course, but the main ones were personal. And oftentimes it was family-related, particularly amongst our female faculty, but increasingly so amongst the male faculty as well. Dr. Lori Pierce: I agree on both counts. That's exactly right. And it's great to see that men want to be present for their children. Having a woman be able to take maternity leave is great, but having a man to take that parental leave is great as well. Dave Johnson: For sure. So let's pivot over to ASCO. ASCO is a huge professional organization, largely, but certainly not solely comprised of medical oncologists. You're one of the few radiation oncologists to lead that organization. What was that experience like? Dr. Lori Pierce: Being President of ASCO is without a doubt the highest point of my professional career. ASCO has always been a place where I felt at home. I always felt that ASCO wanted everyone under the tent. So yes, I know it's primarily medical oncology, but ASCO brings everyone together because in order to move the needle in cancer, we all contribute to improved outcomes.   So then fast forward to becoming president. I never, ever thought I would be president of ASCO. It wasn't like something I was like, “Oh, I have to be President of ASCO.” No, I just wanted to be active in ASCO and do the right thing. And so you hear you've been nominated and you're very honored, but you're never going to be president, and you find out that you've been voted president. And my time was an unusual time because it was right in the midst of COVID. And so 2021 was completely consumed with COVID. So my predecessor, Skip Burris, he had a normal year up until about March of 2020, and that's when the world shut down. So of course, that was the first ASCO meeting that was virtual.   Then my year came and from start to finish, I often tell people, I hope I will be the only president in ASCO history to say that they'd never had an in-person meeting for the entire time that they were president. All my meetings, every single meeting, were via Zoom. Yeah, you're a little disappointed by that, but in some ways, it worked to my advantage because, long story short, when I was voted president and you pick a theme, this was long before COVID; long before we knew the world was going to change, and I wanted to have an equity theme, but I worried that it wouldn't resonate with people. So I said, “Okay, I'm going to do this and just hope that it works well with the membership.” Well, then you fast forward, and the world changes. You have COVID and you have all these senseless murders that are on TV every night. And so even those who perhaps had their head in the sand before, they got it during COVID: there are so many inequities, and that ended up being, I think, the right theme for that time. And not being able to meet people because of COVID—yes, I missed it, but it was the reason that we missed it because of COVID and the inequities that were borne out during COVID—that really hit home that equity needs to be first and foremost in everyone's mind.  So it's a long answer to your very short question. It was an amazing time. I think the organization has gotten stronger because of it. So much of work with ASCO was in equity before, but ASCO really upped its game, and equity is now one of those topics that is ingrained in every aspect of the organization, and that is what you have to have to truly affect change. I remember when I was president-elect, you go through all these interviews, these people want to interview you, and one question they ask or post is what do you want your legacy to be as president? And I was like, you can't make a legacy in a year with an orientation like ASCO. You make a legacy in a year if you have a lousy organization that you can actually make a huge difference in one year. So what you aspire to do is take a great organization and make it even better during your time as president. I think we did that. The world is inequitable. We get so many issues here and there and it all ends up with delivering inequitable care that those who have, can get the care and those who don't have it, cannot. And so I think the biggest challenge is to be able to bring the people to the table who can really make a difference and act on what needs to be done to improve equity in care. Dave Johnson: Pat has devoted a significant portion of his career to the whole issue of equity and I'm sure would agree with you. Pat Loehrer: I want to close with this thought, if you will. Dave or I usually just talk about our books that we've read. And one of the books that I mentioned that I just got through reading is entitled The Things We Make. It's by a chemical engineer and biomedical engineer from the University of Illinois, Bill Hammack. And the whole purpose of the book is really kind of defining the differences between science and engineering. He defines engineering as solving problems using rules of thumb that can cause the best change in a poorly understood situation using available resources.  And he says, in a really tangible way, the scientific method creates knowledge while the engineering method creates solutions. Much of what we do in oncology really is really more engineering than it is science. We're trying to create solutions. He went on to talk about this and it ties into the last comment. He talks about the various technological explosions, eras that have great change occurred when science took a step forward and provided better rules of thumb for the engineers. So there was the Bronze Age and the quantum physics age and even the digital age. I would love for us to come up with the health equity age for which we could work together, taking the advances of science, but using these methods of engineering to make things better with the available resources that we have. And I think if we can do that, I think this would be something that I think we can all be very proud of. Dr. Lori Pierce: What an amazing summary of that book. And first of all, what amazing work that you have done, and I'm not just saying that—you are walking the walk and talking the talk. And to your point, Dave, of what is the biggest challenge for ASCO, I couldn't have answered it better than what Pat just said. That is it. That's it. That's it. ASCO can do it, but we can't do it alone. ASCO can't do it. Health can't do it alone. This is all hands on deck and it's bringing the other parts of society to the table so that we all understand the enormity of the problem and we have an action plan. Pat Loehrer: Is there a book you're reading, Lori, that you want to share? Dr. Lori Pierce: There is. I'm reading a book now called In Shock. It's by Rana Awdish, I don't know if you heard of it. I haven't gotten to the end of it, but just briefly, I met her because she's an ICU Doc at Henry Ford in Detroit and she gave the medical school graduation speech at our graduation a couple of weeks ago. So, in advance of her coming, I wanted to read through her book. It's an autobiography.  In a nutshell, she had a just horrendous experience, essentially almost died when she was seven months pregnant as a fellow. And she basically bled out and I think it was related to a benign tumor in her liver, which is probably hormonally affected by her pregnancy. And she had sepsis, DIC, liver failure, adrenal failure. So, it goes through what it's like to be on the other side and to be in her own hospital. She wanted to go to her own hospital. She was in ICU in the place that she wasn't attending.  Her experience though, as a book, really ends up talking about the hope of medicine because now she's thriving. She's well, she and her husband, she lost the pregnancy, then she and her husband now have a child. She's back to being an ICU attending, and she gave her medical school graduation speech two weeks ago. But in that book, you are reminded of the pitfalls in medicine. You're reminded that we as providers often forget that the patient is sitting right there, and she talks about situations where when she's on the vent, someone saying she's sitting right there, “She's circling the drain.” “She's trying to die on us.” “Your kidneys aren't cooperating.” And one resident who came in eating food and took out his back pocket said, “Oh, I'm sorry, I just had a really bad night last night.” She's dying. It's just yet another reminder that we are in this honorable profession. We have the honor of taking care of patients, and we always need to make sure that we respect every patient that we interact with. And so, it's a very interesting book.  Also, there's another book that I read that's probably been out 15, 20 years, it's called The Art of Racing in the Rain. Do either of you know that? It was a New York bestseller. My husband bought this years ago, it was in our library in the house, and I happened to pull it out. It's about a dog. So, I'm a dog person. I've always had dogs. I love dogs with a passion. And this is a book written in the voice of the dog. It's about this dog named Enzo. And it's humorous, but it's also very emotional in places because it talks about what he does to help his owner, who's a wonderful man, and the wife who ends up dying of a brain tumor. As an oncologist, you could see symptoms, and you knew where that was going, and their daughter, and the things that a dog can do to uplift a human. And even when you're at your lowest point and you're about to give up, and the owner goes through just the most horrible, horrible experiences, and you realize that all of a sudden, something very small can make you then take notice of what is really important to you and can turn the tide. This is a great read. It's a quick read. I highly recommend it. It's called The Art of Racing in the Rain by Garth Stein. It really is an inspiring story about human resilience. It's a great book.  Pat Loehrer: Lori, thank you so much for taking time from your incredibly busy schedule to spend a few minutes with Pat and me. We really enjoyed it. And I also want to thank the listeners to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Educational podcast, where we will talk about oncology medicine and beyond. So, if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like for us to interview, by all means, email us at education@asco.org.  To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational ASCO content, visit education.asco.org. Thanks again.  And before we go, I have a question for you, Pat. How many ants does it take to fill an apartment?  Pat Loehrer: I have to cry uncle on this. Dave Johnson: Ten, tenants. Pat Loehrer: Tenants. I thought crying uncle was a pretty good response. Dave Johnson: All right. Thank you, Lori. That was wonderful. Pat Loehrer: Thanks, Lori. It's terrific.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

People who live in major cities in the US and abroad tend to benefit from better cancer care due to having access to more doctors, facilities and equipment. In contrast, those who live in rural areas face many challenges accessing consistent and quality care.  In Part One of this ASCO Education Podcast Dr. Jack Hensold, a hematologist/oncologist in Bozeman, Montana and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force, Dr. Chris Prakash, Medical Oncologist in Paris, Texas and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Townsville, Australia and the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia will examine the realties practicing oncology in rural areas.  They discuss the difficulties of having to travel long distances for treatment (5:30), the effectiveness of telehealth (8:07) and solutions to recruiting a supportive care workforce in rural areas  and facilitating access to imaging facilities and specialized treatment (18:12). Speaker Disclosures Sabe Sabesan: Speakers Bureau - Merck Sucharu Prakash: Speakers Bureau - Myriad Genetics   Jack Hensold:  Consulting or Advisory Role Company - Vibliome Therapeutics Resources  Policy Recommendations for Improving Rural Cancer Services in the United States  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Hello and welcome to this two-part episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today we will explore some real-time and real-world issues that oncologists face while practicing in rural areas in the US and abroad. Cities tend to benefit from having more doctors, facilities, and equipment to address the health needs of the population. In contrast, people who live in rural areas – estimated to be about 25% of the US population – face various challenges to obtaining consistent health care, including scarce medical personnel and infrastructure. Transportation of that care may involve considerable time and financial expense.  I'm Dr. Jack Hensold, the Hematologist/Oncologist in Bozeman, Montana, and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force. I also serve as Medical Director of Regional Outreach at Bozeman Health. Joining me is Chris Prakash, Oncologist and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology. Chris is also the Director of Quality Services for the statewide group and leads Texas Oncologist's Precision Medicine Initiative.  Also joining me is Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in regional Australia. He is the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and Clinical Director of the Australian Teledyne Health Program, led by the Queensland State Department of Health. Professor Sabesan is an internationally recognized expert in the area of tele-oncology. He has developed and evaluated various oncology models to deliver cancer care closer to home.  Providing healthcare is a very involved career, more so in rural areas. Dr. Prakash, you finished your oncology training in Detroit, yet you practice primarily in rural Texas. Can you detail the factors that led to your decision in practicing oncology in a rural setting?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Thank you, Jack, for having me as part of this podcast. I finished my fellowship at Wayne State in Detroit, Michigan, and we were looking for a place to raise our kids and family and to find a good practice for myself. My daughter was two years old at that time. We were looking for a quiet, safe place with a laidback lifestyle, but at the same time a dynamic oncology practice. That's how I found East Texas, which is primarily a rural area. The small community here, good schools, and nice, accepting people really appealed to us. So we decided to give it a chance. We are still here almost 23 years later. My daughter has grown up and is in medical school. My son, who was born in Paris, Texas, is planning to go to med school next year.  Over the last couple of decades, I've found that practicing oncology in a rural setting is indeed very rewarding. You can make a difference in people's lives here. People are simple. They have faith and respect and follow doctors' advice. Practicing here, I've had a real chance to make a difference in not only people's lives but also in the overall healthcare system and in health policy. As you know, Jack, about 18% to 20% of the population lives in rural areas in the US. But only 3% of oncologists are available to provide care for them. So I'm not only fulfilling a need but also satisfying a desire to contribute.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Chris, could you clarify the nature of your practice? Are you a solo oncologist within a much larger group spread out over the state, or is there more than one oncologist on your site? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, so I'm part of Texas Oncology, which is a statewide large group with multiple sites of service. In my location, there are three medical oncologists and one radiation oncologist. So we serve the catchment area of Northeast Texas and Southeast Oklahoma. But within Texas Oncology, we have locations spread out all over the state. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you for that clarity. Professor Sabesan, you started in Sri Lanka and are now in a rural area of Australia. How did that happen?  Professor Sabe Sabesan: I grew up in northern Sri Lanka in a village but moved to Australia because of the war in Sri Lanka in ‘90. So I did my med school in Adelaide, Australia. During my med school, we had to do a lot of rural clinical placements. And also as a result of that, I did my internship in a central Australian town called Alice Springs. Throughout that journey, I saw firsthand the difficulties these communities face in accessing healthcare, basic healthcare. So when I finished my training in medical oncology, I was looking for a place where I could contribute to minimizing these difficulties, but also taking an academic angle to this. So I chose a regional center called Townsville in North Queensland as our home that actually serves a large rural and indigenous population, but also it is an academic hub for rural medicine. So it kind of served my clinical and academic needs, and we've been there last 20 years now. Dr. Jack Hensold: A significant hurdle for patients in rural areas is transportation. Patients sometimes travel an entire day or stay overnight near the clinic, where they will be examined or treated. What resources have been developed to assist with transportation to help patients come back for test results, appointments, and treatments? Chris?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Transportation, that's a big hurdle for many patients across the country, but mainly for the rural population. So, as I just said, my practice is in Paris, Texas, but the draw is about a quarter of a million. So patients come to see us here to receive their medical care from all over Northeast Texas as well as Southeast Oklahoma, and there is no public transportation in many of these areas. The average time to commute for many of my patients is in excess of an hour and a half each way. Patients do travel sometimes an entire day. They sometimes have to stay overnight to receive their treatments the next day.  I recall a patient with tonsillar cancer last year who was receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiation. So he lived almost three hours away. This was too cost prohibitive for him to travel back and forth on a daily basis for radiation therapy. So what he did was set up his camper right behind the cancer center, which certainly made it a lot easier for him to get his treatments that way. I would not recommend that as a routine practice for everybody, but it did work out for him   Close by there is a community of Choctaw Indians here in Southeast Oklahoma also, and they do have some options for transportation for just their citizens. And locally, some local church groups and volunteer organizations provide assistance with transportation for some patients as well. But that is a problem. Transportation is a big access issue for my population. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. And just to make a comment, there's actually a fair amount of literature regarding what we refer to as financial toxicity associated with the need to travel. Sabe, do you have some transportation problems in your area? I would assume… Professor Sabe Sabesan: This is similar to what Chris and you are describing, Jack. Our area is 2000 by 1000 kilometers with about 650,000 population. There are scattered rural hospitals, but really there's no consistent public transport. But the government does pay for transport and accommodation. I heard that it doesn't fully cover it. But one of the disappointing things is that if you're traveling for clinical trials, that subsidy is not there for them. So that's probably one of the reasons why the governments have gone for the telehealth investment.   Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. Telehealth is a critical tool for providing healthcare in many areas, including rural areas. How do you manage the health literacy problems of ethnically, educationally, and socioeconomically diverse populations using telehealth? Chris? Dr. Chris Prakash: Telehealth has been around for a long time, but during the pandemic, that's when we needed to keep our patients safe and away in their homes and still continue to give healthcare to them. So we conducted many visits through telemedicine at that time. Telehealth is especially used for many patients in rural areas because they have problems with access. But there are many challenges. As you know there is a broadband divide in the US. About 1 in 4 Americans do not have a good broadband connection so it is very difficult for them to perform a video telehealth visit. Audio works out okay a lot of times, but to do a good video telehealth visit, that's a difficulty.   Also, as you know, many of the flexibilities that we were afforded during the pandemic regarding telemedicine, they are slowly going away. So that's making telemedicine even more difficult to do. But telemedicine is a boon for many of the patients who live in rural areas. I remember just the other day I saw an elderly couple, the man had just been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. In the room, he requested that his children join the conversation via FaceTime on his phone so that they can listen in to what I had to say and what I had to tell them. This was indeed very helpful for them. I was able to explain to the patient, his wife, as well as his children who joined via FaceTime about the diagnosis, which was new, the treatment plan, expectations moving forward, and all of that.   So even though this was not a true televisit, it really demonstrates how technology can help us deliver good communication and good oncology care in many situations. But still, I would say that for many patients, telemedicine is not ideal. It's especially true given the devastating diagnosis of cancer. Patients want to see their doctors face-to-face. As a doctor, I want to examine them. And also, body language is very important. It is important for my patients to trust me as a physician, and that's hard to do sometimes via video chat.  So right now my nurse practitioners do a lot of chemo teaching through telemedicine. Now that is really helpful for them because this can be done over multiple teaching sessions, it makes it a lot easier for the patient. Because rather than coming into the clinic for all these visits, they can learn from the comfort of their homes before they really start the toxic chemotherapy.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Chris, thank you for that. I think that you make a very valid point and one that I've made, which is that telehealth is a great tool for overcoming geographic barriers in rural areas. But I think we just simply have to accept the fact that it's not as good as a face-to-face visit. So how we blend the use of telehealth with face-to-face visits I think is going to be a challenge moving forward. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I totally agree. I think toxicity management is great. I mean, it's a great tool to call and see how patients are doing after treatment. But that initial visit, there's something to be said about establishing a rapport and faith and trust in your doctor when you're treating cancer. Dr. Jack Hensold: I completely agree. Sabe, you sound like you're one of the experts in Australia regarding telehealth. I wonder if you have some comments about your experience. Professor Sabe Sabesan: Yeah, I would say it's an evolving experience which has evolved over 15 years. So in terms of the health literacy needs, my observation is actually the same whether it's in person or in telehealth. What we observed is that we just need to tailor to the patient's needs. When we first developed the telemedicine, we had the same issues, developing rapport and seeing first consultations in person. But what we did, we started doing a lot of shared care models and tele supervision models with rural facilities rather than directly into homes. So what that meant, we had patients' families can attend, especially the primary care physicians, and the rural nurses were able to sit in with the patients. So that means if there were any communication issues or any translation aspects, language-wise or explaining medical lingo, there was a system in place in the rural sector that is close to home that was provided by the primary care physicians and the families.  And also then from that experience, we did some research and the patients actually said they were happy to continue initial consultations on the telehealth consultation, provided there were families involved, the primary care physicians were in there, and also the aboriginal health workers. So for some regions now we do the initial consultation purely on telehealth because what also what telehealth does for the first consultation, if we need to then bring them to our center, then we would be able to coordinate the whole trip rather than coming back and forth. So that's actually probably the difference in a couple of the larger centers. But the other main benefit I actually found for indigenous patients is that we can involve the whole family in the patient care and normally that means they are able to ensure compliance and compliance with clinic visits. So it's been evolving but really it is what our models, some of them are tele-oncology replacing face-to-face, some of them are hybrid, some of them are treatment-related. So it's really based on the needs of that little communities. That's what we've been doing. Dr. Chris Prakash: If I can ask you a question Sabe, on that, do you experience barriers to practice across state boundaries in Australia? Because I know in the US that's a big issue, that's a hurdle. Licensing is an issue across state boundaries and also broadband issue because a lot of my patients, they simply don't have the broadband width to get on a video chat. Do you experience that in Australia as well? Professor Sabe Sabesan: So we definitely have the broadband divide in Australia, but luckily the state governments have actually invested heavily on fiber. So all the health facilities, whether they are small or large, they are all connected on fiber. So if you do video calls or telehealth within that system, it is pretty good. But as soon as you go outside to a primary care facility that is not part of a state facility or home, you run into trouble with broadband. But in terms of the state boundaries, I think it is a bit loose. I don't know whether there's actually a strict monitoring of the systems, but because the whole Australian system is funded by Medicare, it really doesn't matter where the patient lives as long as you bill the patient based on the consultation. Dr. Jack Hensold: And I'd like to just respond to something you said, Sabe, too, which is the involvement of primary care doctors and local healthcare workers in the care of patients, is something I will return to later in this conversation. But I think it's important that we consider when we're keeping patients out of our larger centers and treating them in their own home areas, that we are relying on supportive care by those primary care providers. Any other comments regarding the telehealth issue?   Professor Sabe Sabesan: In terms of the primary care shared care models and collaborations, that is actually one of the important aspects of telehealth because we have in the rural sector, the turnover of the staff is pretty high. So then what happens if we want to provide consistent medical service on telehealth? Something needs to be consistent so we become the consistent aspect of the partnership. So then that gives us bit more safety that there's a shared care model, but also what we found now that in terms of educating on oncology topics, the shared care models actually give you an opportunity for case-based discussion. I think there is a benefit for workforce development as well, as well as connecting the rural workforce with a network of workforce. Dr. Chris Prakash: Involving primary care physicians in the total care of the patient is vital, especially in rural areas because they really depend upon their PCPs and often these are APPs providing their primary care. You've got to manage their diabetes and hypertension and go through all their medications, antiemetics pain medications, work with the local pharmacy. There are so many issues that go into treating a patient with cancer and as an oncologist sitting 100 miles away, I'm not going to be able to take care of every detailed aspect of their care. So what I do is involve their primary physician from the very beginning. So when the patient first comes to me, it could be via telemedicine or not, I'm calling them back and saying, “Hey, I saw so and so. This is my diagnosis, this is my plan. I'm going to do all the treatments here at my center. But whatever's possible you can do locally, I would appreciate that.” If there's labs that can be drawn, imaging that can be done locally, any testing that can be done locally, patients really value that because they don't want to travel 2 hours just for a CT scan if they can avoid it. That's my practice.   Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. You mentioned something that we're going to touch on next, which is that in rural areas it is often difficult to access labs, imaging facilities, and other specialized treatments, certainly CAR T therapy and other highly technical therapies. There are other services that may be limited in a rural area such as mental health, fertility preservation, palliative care, access to social workers. Do you have solutions to address that really supportive care and those needs? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think, Jack, you touched on a very, very critical challenge right now. It's a workforce issue. It's very hard to hire and keep good support staff not only in rural areas but all over the country right now. So you mentioned social workers, nurses, nutrition specialists, mental health providers, even fertility services. They're very hard to find in rural areas. There's a big workforce problem, right, all over the country. But the pandemic really exacerbated that. I mean, it's hard to find good staff anywhere and there's no easy solution to fix this problem. So what we need to look for is maybe provide incentives such as loan forgiveness programs or tuition payment programs, or repayment. Really anything that keeps professionals in rural settings. And we need to find people who like working in these areas because that's a very difficult problem as well.  And as you know, many specialized treatments, stem cell transplants, CAR T cell therapy, specialized neurosurgeries or cardiothoracic surgeries, or many oncologic surgeries, they can only be done at big tertiary centers in big cities often. So patients have got to travel a few hours to go there. So what we can do to make it easier on them is provide the first consultations with those specialists via telemedicine. And if they're thought to be good candidates for the procedures, then they can make a trip that's necessary to the city, let's say. But also you mentioned consistency, that is the key. It's very important to be consistent if you want to provide quality cancer care. It could be imaging, it could be diagnostics, molecular testing, or any kind of therapy that you deliver. They should all be consistent no matter where a patient is being treated. So that brings into question provider education. Many oncologists in rural areas, they're generalists, they treat all cancers. They do not specialize in one area. It's really hard to keep up with all the latest information that's coming out. So it's important that we provide all educational tools possible to keep them up to date.  I just moderated a meeting called Oncology Congress. So this is geared towards cancer care providers in rural areas. It's a free CME webcast, various topics on cancer, excellent faculty, and the main thing is that the discussion is geared towards improving multidisciplinary care in those rural settings. So I think another thing that we could think of as a solution to this problem is virtual tumor boards. I mean, they're very helpful where somebody can get on and get an opinion regarding a difficult case. But I think most helpful is if you have a network of doctors or specialists that you can rely on, you can call somebody, a quick consult or say, “Hey, I have a problem, a challenging case, what would you recommend?” Because sometimes we just don't have time to wait for that tumor board or wait for an official consultation. So, yeah, it's a difficult challenge. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes. And again, a point that you made that I'd like to respond to is the virtual tumor boards and basically shared education with maybe a larger group. As we've kind of in Montana looked at a development of hub and spoke models, we've realized it may make sense to consider a hub and spoke communicating with a spoke and hub. In other words, a larger center with what becomes the hub for a smaller community, and then that reaches out. So there's a series of educational connections that need to be made. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think you almost need multiple hubs. One central big hub in this day and age is probably not going to help solve that problem. So you got to have a big hub and then maybe a series of regional hubs where patients can easily access and doctors can access information. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, I think that's absolutely correct. The education piece, too, is, I think, something that keeps oncology practitioners out of smaller communities where they may be practicing by themselves. Because it's difficult, as you know, as an oncologist, to feel like you're staying current with everything you need to stay up to date with, and therefore practicing in a larger group where you can turn to someone else for some immediate education.  Dr. Chris Prakash: That's very true. And if you really look at what these CME programs or educational programs are geared to, none of them are geared towards rural practice. They talk about big clinical trials. And those populations are really not my patient population, for sure. So you really need a program where people who know rural medicine, who have experienced it firsthand, like you, me, and Sabe, and say, “Okay, this is what really happens. You cannot give CAR T therapy to every Lymphoma that walks in.” I think those are the kind of educations we are talking about. There's so many educational programs that are available, but not many for rural practitioners. Dr. Jack Hensold: Right. And it does speak to whether or not we need to be thinking about developing some type of education that's easily accessible to those very busy practitioners who may be a solo practitioner with no one around for hundreds of miles, I guess.  Dr. Chris Prakash: And not to throw in a plug for my conference, but the Oncology Congress that I do twice a year, that's the sole purpose. We will have faculty from big centers. But I make sure that the conversation moves towards rural settings where we do not have all the latest technologies and the therapies available. And we had a really good turnout this past weekend, so I'm happy to share information if anybody's interested.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, that would be great. Again, I think this conversation has been terrific because I've really become focused on the issue of the inadequate education we have not only for our oncologists who are out in practice in smaller areas but also for the primary care providers who need a better understanding of what's required for supportive care of oncology patients. And there's very limited material that focuses on that as well.  Dr. Chris Prakash: Totally agree. Just one last point I want to make is with the checkpoint inhibitors. That's a perfect example. Many of these toxicities are multi-organ, and the patients in the community, the docs in the community sometimes are not aware of the skin rash or lung symptoms, or pneumonia is really related to the therapy. So very important to involve the whole team in their care. Dr. Jack Hensold: Completely agree. Sabe, what about your experience in this regard? Professor Sabe Sabesan: Exactly the similar experience Chris has been describing. Another group of rural people, there are actually smaller rural communities. Sometimes they are like 500 or 1000 population maximum. So those kinds of places, they completely miss out because they are too small even for standard general medicine specialties. What we've been observing over time or focusing on is really how do we build those capabilities at rural sites because if they keep doing the same stuff, then they are not going to grow or build. So what we've been doing is let's build some rural capabilities and let's also focus on expanding the scope of practice. So to do that, we actually have to start shifting specialist services like chemotherapy administration or rheumatology infusions back to those smaller towns. And then we have to utilize tele-supervision and share care models with allied health and the rural health workforce. So when that happens, we need more staff because there are more activities happening.  And what we found in the western Queensland town of Mount Isa before 2007, maybe a few chemotherapy patients had to travel for everything. Over time we shifted all the chemotherapy and biotherapy to that 20,000 population town. That meant that over that ten years they had more resources from the government, more staff like registrars and residents, and also needed infrastructure. So that gave us some confidence that maybe we have to leverage the telemedicine technologies to build rural systems, not just seeing patients.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you Dr. Prakash, for your insight into this topic and also to Professor Sabesan for his perspective from his practice in Australia. In part two of this podcast, we will explore how the difference between American and Australian healthcare systems impact care for rural patients, the need for advocacy from doctors in a pilot project in Montana I'm working on with ASCO.  I'm Dr. Hensold and I would like to thank all of our listeners of the Cancer Topics ASCO Education Podcast. This is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to hear on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.        

Age is a main factor when determining cancer care. In this ASCO Education podcast we speak to one of the top leaders in treatment for older patients who has also credited mentorship as a foundation for his career. Dr. Hyman Muss describes his childhood in Brooklyn, serving as a general physician for troops in Vietnam (6:18), the doctor who influenced his choice of hematology and oncology (7:48) and creating one of the first geriatric oncology fellowships in in the country (21:58).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Hyman Muss: None More Podcasts with Oncology Leaders  Oncology, Etc. – Devising Medical Standards and Training Master Clinicians with Dr. John Glick Oncology, Etc. – Rediscovering the Joy in Medicine with Dr. Deborah Schrag (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Richard Pazdur (Part 1) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson of Medical Oncology at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting and inspirational people and topics in and outside the world of Oncology. We have an inspirational guest today. Pat?  Pat Loehrer: If you ask anyone who's achieved any level of success and how they've achieved it, most likely they'll mention a number of people who've influenced them along the way. Quite often, these people reflect on their mentors, and after a certain time of accomplishment and reflection, they begin to mentor others. This is very much what our next guest has done. Dr. Hyman Muss has been a mentor to me and to Dave, and he's one of the most outstanding, wonderful people in the world, and we're so excited to have him today.   Dr. Hyman Muss served in the US Army in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. He's an experienced Clinician Scientist, the Mary Jones Hudson Distinguished Professor of Geriatric Oncology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and the Director of Geriatric Oncology Program at the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Program. His interest in education and research is focused on cancer and older patients, and he is internationally recognized in this area. He's been the co-chair of the Alliance Committee on Cancer and Older Adults and won the BJ Kennedy Award from ASCO in Geriatric Care. His particular interest in research expertise is in the care of breast cancer patients, with a focus on the management of women who are of older ages. He's had a major interest in breast cancer survivorship and long-term toxicity of treatment and also served as the co-chair of the Breast Committee for the Alliance Group. He serves as a mentor for medical students, medical residents, junior faculty, and more recently, his Geriatric Oncology fellows. He served on the Board of Directors of the ASCO Foundation and on the ABIM, the American Board of Internal Medicine, where both Dave and I were privileged to work with him and witness his leadership and his deep breadth of knowledge.  Dr. Muss, thanks for joining us today. Dr. Hyman Muss: What a pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me. My mother would have loved the introduction.  Pat Loehrer: Well, speaking of that, tell us a little bit. You grew up in Brooklyn, so tell us a little bit about your parents. Your father was a dentist, I think, and your uncle was a general practitioner. So give us a little bit of the early life of Hy Muss. Dr. Hyman Muss: So I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I was born and bred there. I went to Brooklyn Technical High School. I almost went to Brooklyn College, but I came back and went to Downstate Medical Center, which was just terrific. My tuition was $600 a year, but that's another story. My parents lived in the same neighborhood. My dad was a dentist, so we knew all the people. My uncle was the GP. You came into their office, sat down, and they saw you anytime, day or night, almost 24/7, something we're probably not going back to, but they had a profound influence on me. My uncle, as a GP, used to take me on house calls in Brooklyn when they were done, and he had an old Buick with MD plates. And I would go into these families, and they loved him, and they would give me ice cream and things. Maybe that's what made me a doctor. But it was a terrific and indelible experience. I had terrific parents. In those days, doctors and medical people usually lived in the same neighborhoods as their patients, so they really knew their people well. It was a terrific upbringing. I got to love medicine and have never had a look back. Dave Johnson: So your inspiration for a career in medicine obviously started at home. Tell us more about your formal education. You mentioned your high school education. What about college? And shortly thereafter?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Yeah, well, I went to Lafayette College. I was not the best high school student, but I had good college board scores or whatever they called them then. And I went to Lafayette and I thought I was going to be a chemist, a chemistry major. But I took enough premed courses and I spent a summer in a lab building cyclic ketones. And everybody was outside sitting on the lawn of the campus. And I was in there with all these distillation apparatus, and I said, “I don't think I can do this the rest of my life.” So I applied to medical school, and I got into several medical schools. But my father at that time was dying of metastatic bladder cancer. He had been a heavy smoker, and he was still working as a dentist. He worked until the day he unfortunately died. But I got into Downstate. We lived in Brooklyn, and my uncle, the GP, said, "Hy, you need to come home and help take care of your dad." I'm an only child, so I did. And I had a wonderful experience at Downstate.   Several years ago, I was listening to NPR and heard that one of my professors had won the Nobel Prize. Dr. Furchgott in physiology, one would have never thought. And I had a wonderful education and subsequently got into what was then Peter Bent Brigham in Boston, did my internship and residency there, joined the army and medical school, so I wasn't drafted, it was a program then. And then after first year of residency, I went to Vietnam, worked with an artillery battalion, a mystical experience, but no regrets. And then subsequently came back and did hematology and oncology at Brigham and at what was then the Jimmy Fund and Sidney Farber Cancer Center. And Tom Frei had just come. And I did hematology with a guy named Bill Moloney in Boston at Harvard. I'll tell you, a wonderful man. He was like a surrogate father. My dad had died by then, and I just feel I've had every opportunity to have a wonderful education and terrific mentors along the way. Dave Johnson: So we want to ask you about both of those gentlemen, but I would like to just, if I may, drop back to your experience in Vietnam. What was that like?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, I was 27 years old and I was put as the doctor for 500 men in artillery. My job was to take care of the general health of the troops. Fortunately, we didn't have many casualties. It wasn't a front war like my uncle, who was a GP actually in World War II, landed in Normandy about a week later and went all through World War II as a doctor. But Vietnam was an unusual war, there wasn't really a front. So my experience was I would go out to fire bases, which were units of about 100 men in the jungle, go out three days in a week in a helicopter, do sick call, check people. I dealt with really alcohol problems, unfortunately, a lot of drug problems. You had young people with really not a lot to do during the day, nothing much to do, and no real goal of being there. I did that for a while, and actually, the reason I got the Bronze Star was because I set up– It was nothing like standing in front of a machine gun. I'm not that kind of brave guy, but I set up a drug amnesty program so I got a lot of support from our regular field people to do this, so we didn't have to keep sending kids home with dishonorable discharges. And I learned a lot. I think we were reasonably successful. I learned a lot about artillery. I think overall it was a great experience in my life. Dave Johnson: Tell us how your interest in hematology and oncology originated. Where did that come from?  Dr. Hyman Muss: When I was an intern at the Brigham, Dr. Moloney was a very famous Harvard professor. He had studied war casualties after Hiroshima, he was one of the people that found the Philadelphia chromosome in CML. He was a guy that rounded on every single one of his leukemia patients every day. So I was an intern. So in those days I would go and see all the hematology people rounding because all the acute leukemia patients and all the serious cancer patients were right on the floors, right on the wards. We had 17-bed wards, and then we had some private rooms. And he loved what he did. And before I left for Vietnam, we didn't have Ara C and daunomycin. So every leukemia patient I saw died. This is '68 to '70. Yet we tried all these different regimens. Occasionally you got someone who did well for six months, a year. But his bedside manner was absolutely wonderful to me. He knew all the patients. He'd ask them about where they lived in Boston. His humanism was terrific, and yet I loved the diseases he treated. The stakes were high. We didn't have good treatment, and I decided that that's probably what I want to do.   So when I was in Vietnam, I applied and got back in the Hematology Fellowship and came back and did that. I saw Ara C and daunomycin. I gave the chemotherapy to them, and he'd say, "Go up and treat Harry Smith with Ara C and daunomycin." I had the syringes in my pocket, guys. Forget about hoods and mixing. And I'd go up and treat them and the marrow would be gone within four or five days. I did a bone marrow. They published their regimen in the New England Journal called COD, C-O-D because they also gave vincristine. So it was cytarabine, vincristine, and daunomycin, the COD regimen. It fit Boston. And I saw it was like the emergence of cisplatin after Larry Einhorn. You saw people that never survived going into remission and I saw some remissions in AML and it cemented it.  About my second year of residency, we had a child. I was running out of money. I was being paid $6,000 a year and I had the GI Bill. I went into Dr. Moloney and he talked with Dr. Franny Moore, who was head of surgery at the Brigham, and they made me the Sidney Farber Research Fellow, doubled my salary and I had to go to the Jimmy Fund and see cancer patients. And it so happened that was when Tom Frei came to Dana-Farber. And so I started rounding with Dr. Frei and seeing those patients. And I think the first day I walked in, I knew I wanted to do more than just leukemia because I saw groups of patients with every disease. We treated everybody with CMFEP, it didn't matter what cancer they had. And I just loved it and said, "My God, there's so much we can learn. What a great career." And so that got me into the oncology portion.   And then I was offered to stay at Harvard. They were going to make me an assistant professor, but they wanted me to do lab work. And I knew my personality, it just wasn't for me. I worked with a lovely guy named Frank Bunn, one of the world's great hem guys in his lab, and he's still a close friend in his 80s. And he told me one day, he said, "Hy, I don't think the lab is for you." And he actually helped me get my first job at Wake Forest University, which turned out to be wonderful. So that's how I ended up with my circuitous in HemOnc. And it's really from great mentors, it's from Bill Moloney, it's from Tom Frei, Dave Rosenthal, tons of wonderful people along the way that not only taught me a lot, but they seemed to love what they do, which is a gift in life to love what you do and love the people you're doing it with. They instilled that in me. Pat Loehrer: From there you went to Wake Forest and there's a couple of colleagues down there, I believe, that inspired you, Charlie Spurr and Bill Hazzard, who was the founding founder of geriatrics. Tell us about that experience and how'd that shape your life.  Dr. Hyman Muss: I was looking for a clinical job and I looked at Rochester, and I got snowed in one night in Wake Forest, and I said, “Where's the contract?” And I signed it. And my mother, who was living in New York City, didn't know where North Carolina was. My mother was from a family, was born over a candy store in Greenwich Village, and said, “Where are you going?” And then I showed her where it was, and she says, “They're going to kill you down there.” And it turned out to be one of the best decisions of my life. My wife Loretta, who both of you know so well, we got out of our VW with our dog and our daughter when we moved here, and VW bug, by the way, not a van, and she cried. It turned out it was one of the best opportunities.  Charlie Spurr was an iconic oncology leader. He actually did some of the early work on nitrogen mustard in Chicago during the war, the first chemotherapy drug. He was a terrific leader. He had patients programmed in on those IBM punch cards. He had little cards for the protocols, CMFEP, CMF, AC on little laminated index cards. I learned so much from him, and he was to me, great leaders and great mentors morph from things they do themselves to teaching other people, and whose brains have the ability of having the same dopamine shot when you see one of your fellows or young faculty present a wonderful study as you do. And your brain isn't saying, “I wish I was up there.” It's saying, “Isn't this so cool that this young man or woman or fellow or medical student is doing such a wonderful job?” And I had something to do with providing the soil for this seed to grow. That's the kind of guy he was. And so it was wonderful there.  And as I moved on, we got a new Chief of Medicine, Bill Hazzard. And I still hear from Bill on rare occasions, but Bill was one of the first geriatricians in the United States. He wrote the textbook, and his wish was that all the faculty and all the specialties get involved in a geriatric project. And so I had all those little index cards, and I looked and saw how many older people with metastatic breast cancer we'd given chemotherapy to. And these were little protocols, nothing like the protocols today, no 50-page consent forms, 50 pages of where your data is stored. They were like, here's the treatment, here's the dose mods. And I looked at those 70 patients with one of our residents, Kathy Christman, she may be retired now, but in any event, we wrote a paper and showed the old people did as well as the young with breast cancer. And we published it in JAMA. And it's one of the few papers in my career, I got no reviewers. They accepted the paper. I got no reviewers. So because I'm from Brooklyn, and my English is not what it should be, I had my friends read it to just make sure I didn't say anything egregious. But it got published and the next thing I know, my friends in medical oncology in the state were calling me. They said, “I got a 75-year-old woman here.” I'm saying, “Guys, I just wrote this paper. I really don't know anything about older people.” But slowly, with Bill Hazzard and others, I got more and more interested. I started reading about Geriatrics and I ended up making it a focal point of my career. It was kind of happenstance. And Bill was a wonderful mentor.  And then as I subsequently moved on, I worked with terrific people like Harvey Cohen, Lodovico Balducci, and Martine Extermann, all of them heavily involved with ASCO over the years as well, and B.J. Kennedy. They were wonderful to work with. And BJ was inspirational because BJ would get up at an ASCO meeting and he'd say when he saw the age cut off, he'd say, “How come you didn't let old people on that study? There'd be 1000 people in the audience.” And so he really was a great mentor. And I had the bittersweet opportunity of writing his obit for JCO years ago and kept up with his family a few years, but he was a wonderful man. Dave Johnson: I'm just reflecting on the fact that today, patient registries are sort of mainstream, but certainly in the ‘70s, ‘80s, even into the ‘90s, having a list of patients with a particular disorder seemed almost novel in many respects. And to have that was a godsend.  Dr. Hyman Muss: It was a godsend. I still remember those little file cards. And he called it the Oncology Research Center and it was a godsend. And you've got to remember, this is like ‘74, ‘75, it's a long time ago. Dave Johnson: So many of our listeners may not be as familiar with Wake Forest as they are with Duke and North Carolina, the other medical schools located there. But you were at right at a point where I mean, it was one of the top oncology programs in the country at that time. Still is, I don't mean to diminish it, but there was a who's who of people there at the time. And you were also involved in creating, I think, one of the first cooperative groups of sorts. It was the Piedmont Oncology Group. Tell us about that.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Oh, yeah, well, that brings back memories. So the NCI at that time wanted to get more, I think, rural and other smaller places involved in research. And they put out an RFA to form like regional cooperative groups. And we formed the Piedmont Oncology Association, the POA. We actually did well for a few years. We wrote some really good studies. We got one or two New England Journal articles. I worked with all the people, mainly in the community, community docs who would go on, and put people on the protocol. I mean, I looked at all the X-rays and scans in a lot of these patients myself as part of the studies we did. And it turned out to be a wonderful organization and it's still run today by Bayard Powell, who is one of our terrific fellows who's the head of Oncology at Wake Forest.  But after a while, we just couldn't compete with CALGB, of which I was a member of also, and ECOG and SWOG, even North Central Group, which was kind of formed in a similar venue, eventually merged. So we did a wonderful job for a while but the truth is we just didn't have the manpower to write studies for every disease site. So eventually we kind of petered out as a clinical trials group. But it's been maintained for educational programs and it's really served as a good resource for a lot of good education for the community oncologists who give most of the care in this country in the state. So it's been good. I think Pat kind of exceeded us with HOG, the Hoosier Oncology Group, which was in a similar vein. But it was a great experience and it was all Dr. Spurr, who thought of doing this and built it.  Dave Johnson: Certainly, it was inspirational in many people in and outside of Wake Forest. So with such an idyllic life, what in the world possessed you to move north to Vermont?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, you get this urgent life. You want to be a leader, you want to be a chief. Now, I tell younger people, if they love what they do, don't do it. So I got a wonderful opportunity at the University of Vermont to go up there and be Head of HemOnc. Chief of Medicine was a terrific guy, Burt Sobel. The university at that time, at one time it had a wonderful Oncology program. It had a federally funded cancer center with Irwin Krakoff and Jerry Yates, two other iconic guys. I don't know what the politics were but it had lost a tremendous amount of faculty, especially its clinical faculty, and they needed to rebuild it. And I went up and I thought, “Well, I'm in my 50s. This is going to be a great opportunity. If I don't do it now, I may never get the chance.” So I went up there and actually, it was a great opportunity. We hired terrific people. We got CALGB and we participated. We had actually a very good accrual for a small place and we had a very small but very effective cancer center. So it turned out to be a really good experience.  I worked with wonderful people. I recruited some wonderful people. But over time, the issues of the business of medicine, all the issues that happened, I'm saying I'm kind of losing my focus on clinical care and clinical trials, which I love to do. I don't need to tell either of you. I mean, Dave, you've been chief and department chair and Pat has run cancer centers. After a while, the administrative tasks just were so overwhelming and I didn't enjoy them, that I said, “I've got to get back in some type of more clinical focus.” And that's when I decided to look around and fortunately found what's turned out to be a dream job at UNC.  But it was a time of life. Maybe my ego got in the way of my logic. I don't regret it. I met and I think we rebuilt a wonderful clinical program. But you realize some of the resources of big places with-  we never had the research infrastructure to hire a lot of people and get big programs going on and great translational programs, just didn't have the funding. But it was great, and I have no regrets. And I learned how to tolerate the cold weather. And I have a lovely daughter, Sarah, who still lives up there. So we get back occasionally. And I've kept up with a lot of the people there. There are some wonderful people at UVM.  Pat Loehrer: From there, though, you were pulled down to North Carolina, where you've, again, built an incredible breast program there is outstanding. But you've created a Geriatric Oncology program, one of the first geriatric fellowships in oncology in the country. So tell us a little bit about that and what you feel may be your legacy is there at North Carolina.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, I had the opportunity over the years when I was at Wake, really, I got to know Shelley Earp, who's our cancer center director. I think maybe you were close to him, Pat. The longest surviving cancer center director on the planet, or among them. And we were good friends. And North Carolina's legislature actually gave the University of North Carolina substantial funding to improve cancer care in North Carolina, not just research. And so I had talked with Shelley about maybe moving, and because of the generosity of the state, really, he was able to really get me going, start a Geriatric Oncology program. And what I wanted to do was develop trials. As Dave says, I built a registry in 2009 here for older cancer patients using geriatric assessment. I have 2000 patients, which has been a resource for all types of faculty and fellows, and students to write papers. But I was able, with the support, to do things like this right from the get-go. And plus, I joined probably one of the best breast groups on the planet with Lisa Carey and Chuck Perou, and Larry, terrific people, Claire Dees. I had great luck in doing this, so I was able to really focus, get great support from my colleagues to build studies focusing on older people.  And then I had the great fortune of meeting Ned Sharpless, our prior NCI director. And Ned is one of the world's great aging biologists. And I don't mean aging as an adjective, he's really been a master on why we age, the biology of aging, cell senescence. So Ned taught me all about cell senescence and the mechanisms, especially the gene expression p16, which is like our own CDK inhibitor. And so I was able to start using his lab, collect samples, treat people with chemotherapy, follow them off with geriatric assessment. It was a great opportunity to do that here, and we got a lot of studies going and we showed what the pediatricians have known for years, that chemotherapy dramatically ages people, not just children, but adults. But it also allowed me to work with my colleagues in lymphoma and lung cancer to do little studies along the way.  And we eventually then built a T32 program. We got a T32, which we're kind of completing now our first five years to train oncology specialists in geriatrics. So the way we do it is they can be surgical oncologists, GU, we had a GYN oncologist, medical. With their HemOnc training, they do a year where they work with the geriatricians, so they go on geriatric inpatient service for a month and they really learn about older people. And part of it is a project. So we've been able to build that and develop a lot of programs with that. And I should say we've been very successful with mentorship and with ASCO support for things like YIAs, the late and great Arti Hurria, who absolutely an amazing woman. Some of her legacy at ASCO, the YIAs, and things. We've been successful in applying for some. So we've been able to build a whole spectrum of med and hematologists. We have an interest in Myeloma and AML focusing on older people. We've been able to build a whole team approach, including translational projects related to older people. And it's just been a great opportunity, and hopefully, my legacy here will be, too, and I'm working on it.  We have a wonderful guy, Bill Wood, who is very effective and has built this incredible coaching program to continue this legacy. Like many of us in this field, we are bothered because we all know the stats, we all know that first slide of the demographics of cancer, and yet it's been very hard in our culture to provide a lot of the services and build the clinical trials we need to best care for older people. It's still a major problem in this country. So as I cut back on my clinical care, I'm going to still advocate to try to improve the care of older people. Do geriatric assessment, build it into your clinical programs, get your hospitals to support you, convince them, build business plans, et cetera. And hopefully, that'll be my ultimate legacy, that we've made greater awareness of the older people, other than the usual stats, and we're really trying to care for them in a much more global sense, in a much more holistic sense than we've done. I hope we'll be successful. It's a slow haul, but we've got lots of great young people coming up through the pipelines, ASCO has been a great player in this. Many of you know people like Supriya Mohile and William Dale, Heidi Klepin, people, the next generation that's going to keep building this. So I hope the legacy will be that we get more buy-in, more interest, more trained people in other oncology-related subspecialties RadOnc, SurgOnc that will really focus on the care of older people. Dave Johnson: I don't think there's any doubt that that will be a part of your legacy Hy, but I think your legacy will be much broader than the world of geriatric oncology. Your mentorship leadership, your clinical skills, your educational capabilities, all of that will certainly last for many, many years in the future.  Well, I don't want to bring up a touchy topic, but you yourself are geriatric and we're wondering what your plans are for your semi-retirement. I recognize you're not retiring, but what do you like to do outside of medicine? Dr. Hyman Muss: I'll tell everybody who's interested in hearing this. On Tuesday, I had my 80th birthday.  Dave Johnson: Congratulations.  Dr. Hyman Muss: And I think I'm one of the most blessed guys. I'm pretty healthy. I married up -  my wife Loretta, who both of you, Pat Loehrer and Dave Johnson, know well.  Dave Johnson: Yeah, you definitely married up.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Yes. It's really carried me most of my life. She's great and so she flew up our three kids and we celebrated and I'm very fortunate. I have the enthusiasm and strength to do more clinical medicine. But I think the time has come for me to cut back my clinical medicine, so I'm going to do that in June. The hardest thing I've done is say goodbye to so many of my patients here.  We've been blessed. We have a lovely family. We're pretty close. I'm never bored, probably you two know well, I love to do things like fishing, outdoor stuff. I've really gotten into woodworking, so I'm not going to be bored. But there will be a small piece out of me when I walk out of that clinic in June. I know that and my two close psychiatry friends think it's going to really be a hard fall, but I don't think so. I still have some grants. In fact, I'm working with a fellow in City of Hope, Mina Sedrak, who's been very involved in ASCO, too. We are hoping to get an R01 looking at senolytic drugs that may prevent aging, and exercise in older women with breast cancer to see if we can reverse the trends of chemo. So my brain is still on that stuff, but the clinical care is going to be tough.  I had a note and for some reason, we talked about so many things. I wanted to mention that one of my great opportunities was joining the CALGB and then the Alliance and getting the support of Dr. Schilsky, Rich Schilsky, who's been one of the icons of ASCO to build cancer in the elderly working group with Dr. Harvey Cohen at Duke. And Harvey is one of the world's great geriatricians. And using that to get studies done, to incorporate studies with Arti Hurria on geriatric assessment, and really have it as a place where a lot of younger investigators could get started on a career in geriatric oncology. And that was really a great opportunity. It was kept on by Dr. Bertagnolli, who now is our NCI director, and I think was really the first group to really give good support for this. Dave Johnson: So we want to thank you very much for being our guest today.  We also want to thank our listeners of Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Educational Podcast where we talk about oncology medicine and much more. So if any of our listeners have an idea or a guest they would like for us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit ASCO's website at education.asco.org.   Thanks again for being our guest, Hy.  Dr. Hyman Muss: My pleasure. Thank you so much. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

To stay up to date with new treatments and standards of care medical oncologists in the United States are required to take the ABIM Maintenance of Certification exam, a ten-hour test, every ten years. This ASCO education podcast focuses on the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment. An alternative test that offers more flexibility in medical certification.     Our guests are Dr. Suresh Nair Physician-in-Chief of Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Chair of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board and Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago and member of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board.   Speaker Disclosures  Dr. Suresh Nair:   Research Funding - Bristol-Myers Squibb Recipient; Merck; Nektar Therapeutics; Mirati Therapeutics; Strata Oncology   Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike:   Consulting / Advisory Role – Abbvie; Impact Biomedicines; Celgene Recipient; Novartis; BMS; Taiho; CTI Biopharma; Threadwell therapeutics; Blueprint Medicines; SERVIER; Kymera; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene  Research Funding - Celgene; Incyte; Astex Pharmaceuticals; NS Pharma; Abbvie; Janssen Oncology; Oncothyrapy; Agios; AstraZeneca; CTI BioPharma Corp Recipient; Kartos; Aprea AB; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo; Loxo; Novartis  Resources  To find out more about the ABIM LKA, go to https://www.abim.org/lka/  For a video walk-through, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0-qaUQmQXc  Sign in to the ABIM Physician Portal to sign up for LKA by June 30, 2023: https://portal.abim.org/   To find out more about how ASCO supports physicians engaged in ABIM MOC, go to https://old-prod.asco.org/meetings-education/continuing-education-moc  If you are interested in joining the ABIM Item Writing Task Force for Medical Oncology, find out more and submit your application at: https://www.abim.org/about/boards-and-committees/openings/medonc-iwtf-physician/  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.  Dr. Suresh Nair: The medical profession is one where new treatments and standards of care are being discovered and applied frequently, especially in oncology. Staying up to date with such practices allows the physician to provide the highest quality of care. How is this accomplished? By taking part in the Maintenance of Certification, or MOC. The traditional MOC assessment takes about 10 hours to complete and gives you ten years to be reported as certified before your next assessment is due. But given today's world where new treatments and standards of care are advancing rapidly, a more continuous assessment approach is warranted to help oncologists stay up to date.  This ASCO Education Podcast explores a new alternative to the every decade MOC exam for medical oncology. It's known as the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment or LKA. I'm Suresh Nair MD, the Physician Chief of the Lehigh Valley Topper Cancer Institute in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Chair of the American Board of Internal Medicine Medical Oncology Board. I will guide you through a general overview of the LKA, what it is, how it works, what the advantages are, and top-level need-to-know information. Joining me is my medical oncologist colleague, Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike, who's a professor of medicine and director of the Leukemia Program at the University of Chicago and serves as a fellow member of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board.  To begin, here are the essential differences between the ten-year maintenance of certification exam or MOC exam and the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment, the LKA. Both are being used to help medical professionals maintain a working knowledge of the latest treatments and standards in use in their field. The MOC is administered every ten years at specified locations, lasts about 10 hours, and the results are available after two months. The LKA is another option. It has a five-year cycle during which you answer questions on an ongoing basis and receive regular feedback on how you're performing. Dr. Odenike has taken the LKA and the MOC.  Toyosi, please describe the preparation and the actual experience of taking the traditional MOC test. How much time did you take to prepare for the exam and how did you fit that prep time into your busy schedule? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: Thank you so much, Dr. Nair. For the traditional MOC, I started preparing about six months ahead of time and it was challenging to find time to prep and to fit that into an already busy schedule. It came down to blocking out any available time, particularly on the weekends, in the few weeks leading up to the actual examination date. It was also challenging to find time to dedicate a whole day to taking the exam and traveling down to the test site to do so. Dr. Suresh Nair: Today, the LKA is another option for busy oncologists. In 2022, the American Board of Internal Medicine launched the LKA after years of working with and listening to the physician community to understand their needs. As long as you're meeting the LKA participation requirement and other MOC requirements you'll continue to be publicly reported as certified for your entire five-year LKA cycle. The LKA is designed to provide greater flexibility, more convenience, and more immediate feedback, helping physicians stay current. Dr. Odenike, what has been your experience so far with the LKA? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: So far, I have found the process far easier to navigate than the MOC. Registering for the LKA on the ABIM physician portal was very easy. There are 30 questions per quarter, and I chose to get weekly reminders of the due date, along with a link to access the portal and the LKA questions. I find this to be so convenient, I can determine when to access and complete the questions, which I have often done on block closer to the due date. You are able to do this and fit this in your schedule any way you choose, which is a big improvement on the traditional MOC. Dr. Suresh Nair: Is the LKA a big time commitment for you? 30 questions per quarter seems like a lot. How does it compare to the traditional ten-year model?  Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: There's a four-minute time limit per question. So technically, you can answer all 30 questions in one afternoon. Some physicians report doing this in two hours. Data gathered over the last year have shown that most participants answer questions in under two minutes. And how they approach it is unique to each person. Some set aside a little time each week to answer questions until they're finished. Others, like me, will do it all at once or over the course of one week near the end of the quarter. You could do one a day with your morning coffee if you wanted to. We have found the structure to be significantly more flexible than the traditional MOC.  We have a question for you, Dr. Nair. Can physicians sign up for the LKA now, even if they're not due for an assessment? Dr. Suresh Nair: You can only sign up in the year that you're due, or rather, starting in the December prior to your due year. So, physicians due for an assessment in 2023 were able to enroll starting December 1, 2022. Physicians who are recently certified or who are not due for a few more years have to wait until their due year to sign up for the LKA. Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: What is the last date to sign up for the LKA? Dr. Suresh Nair: The last day to enroll in 2023 is June 30. If you missed the enrollment date for the LKA this year, you can still opt to take the MOC exam in the fall without letting your certification lapse. MOC registration closes August 15.   Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: What happens if you don't pass after five years? Dr. Suresh Nair: If you don't pass after five years, you enter the grace period as long as you're meeting your other MOC requirements and will continue to be reported as certified during that time. You'll have one calendar year to pass the traditional MOC exam. In some ways, this is somewhat risk-free going with the LKA in that regard. Can physicians still take the MOC exam if they prefer to? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: The MOC exam is still available in spring and fall each year for most certificates, including med ONC and hematology, the LKA is just another option. Many physicians prefer to take the traditional exam or if they're certified in multiple specialties, they use both the exam and the LKA to balance their time and areas of expertise better. Some physicians take the LKA in hematology and/or medical oncology while using the exam to remain certified in internal medicine, for instance, or vice versa.  I have a question for you, Dr. Nair. Who is eligible to take the LKA? How can physicians know if they're eligible? Dr. Suresh Nair: LKA is offered in 15 specialty areas. All board-certified physicians in their assessment due year, except those in a grace period, are eligible. All physicians certified before 1990, all physicians with a lapsed certification. In fact, I had trained in both hematology and oncology 30 years ago, and I practiced medical oncology at two academic community hospital systems. I actually signed up for the LKA this past year to regain certification in hematology that had lapsed after my first 10 years, and I've had a great experience. I have finished a year of taking the test. I've gotten assessments. I see what my strong points and weak points are. I've actually ordered the ASH_SAP and I'm reading up on my weak points and I'm continuing this process. It really starts growing on you.  I'd like to thank Dr. Odenike for sharing your real-time experience in taking both the MOC and the LKA. I would like to extend an opportunity for all listeners interested in keeping their certifications through the LKA by going to the ABIM Physician portal www.abim.org. That's www.abim.org or go to the notes on the podcast page to access the link, as well as other resources. There you can keep track of assessment deadlines and progress, and it allows you to set reminders for assessments, points, and payments.  I want to thank all of you for listening to this ASCO Education Podcast. The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncology well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Thank you.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

In this episode of ASCO Educational podcasts, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. The first scenario involves a 72-year old man with high-risk, localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease.  Our guests are Dr. Kriti Mittal (UMass Chan Medical School) and Dr. Jorge Garcia (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). Together they present the patient scenario (1:12), review research evidence regarding systemic and radiation therapy for high-risk localized disease (5:45), and reflect on the importance of genetic testing and (10:57) and considerations for treatment approaches at progression to metastatic disease (16:13).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Kriti Mittal:  Honoraria – IntrinsiQ; Targeted Oncology; Medpage; Aptitude Health; Cardinal Health  Consulting or Advisory Role – Bayer; Aveo; Dendreon; Myovant; Fletcher; Curio Science; AVEO; Janssen; Dedham Group  Research Funding - Pfizer Dr. Jorge Garcia:  Honoraria - MJH Associates: Aptitude Health; Janssen Consulting or Advisor – Eisai; Targeted Oncology Research Funding – Merck; Pfizer; Orion Pharma GmbH; Janssen Oncology;  Genentech/Roche; Lilly  Other Relationship - FDA Resources  ASCO Article: Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 ASCO Course: How Do I Integrate Metastasis-directed Therapy in Patients with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer? (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Kriti Mittal: Hello and welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice, focusing on two clinical scenarios: localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease; and a case of de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer progressing to castration-resistant disease.   My name is Kriti Mittal and I am the Medical Director of GU Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. I am delighted to co-host today's discussion with my colleague, Dr. Jorge Garcia. Dr. Garcia is a Professor of Medicine and Urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is also the George and Edith Richmond Distinguished Scientist chair and the current chair of the Solid Tumor Oncology Division at University Hospital's Seidman Cancer Center. Let me begin by presenting the first patient scenario.  Case 1: A 72-year-old male was referred to urology for evaluation of hematuria. A rectal exam revealed an enlarged prostate without any nodules. A CT urogram was performed that revealed an enlarged prostate with bladder trabeculations. A cystoscopy revealed no stones or tumors in the bladder, but the prostatic urethra appeared to be abnormal looking. Transurethral resection of the prostate was performed. The pathology revealed Gleason score 4+5=9 prostate cancer, involving 90% of the submitted tissue. PSA was performed one week later and was elevated at 50. Patient declined the option of radical prostatectomy and was referred to radiation and medical oncology.   So I guess the question at this point is, Dr. Garcia, in 2023, how do you stage patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and how would you approach this case? Dr. Jorge Garcia: That's a great question and a great case, by the way, sort of what you and I in our practice will call ‘bread and butter'. Patients like this type of case that you just presented come from different places to our practice.  So either they come through urology or oftentimes they may come through radiation oncology. And certainly, it depends where you practice in the United States, at ‘X', US, they may come through medical oncology.   So I think that the first question that I have is in whatever role I'm playing in this case, where the patient has seen a urologist or a rad onc or me first, I think it's important for us in medical oncology, at least in the prostate cancer space, to talk about how do we think of their case and put those comments into context for the patient. It's very simple for you to tell a patient you can probably have surgery, radiation therapy, but at the end of the day, how do you counsel that patient as to the implications of the features of his disease is going to be really important. I use very simple examples that I relate to my patients, but really this patient is a patient that has very high-risk prostate cancer based upon the NCCN guidelines and how we actually stratify patients into what we call low-risk, intermediate-, and high-risk, and between those very low and very high risk.  So his PSA is high, very high, I would argue. His Gleason score, now, what we call group grading is high. He has high-volume disease. So the first question that I would have is, what are the choices for treatment for a patient like this? But even before you and I may talk about treatment options, we really want to understand the volume of their disease and whether or not they have localized prostate cancer with high-risk features or whether or not they have locally advanced or hopefully not metastatic disease. So back in the days prior to the FDA approval for PSMA PET imaging, we probably will have a Technetium-99 whole-body bone scan, and/or we probably will actually use CT scanning. Most people in the past, we used to do just a CT of the abdomen and pelvic region. As you know, with the movement of oral agents in the advanced setting, I think most of us will do a chest CT, abdomen and pelvic region, and certainly we also probably will have a Technetium-99 bone scan.  Now, with the utility and the use of PET imaging, I think most people like him will probably undergo PET PSMA, where you use F-18 PSMA or Gallium-68 PSMA. I think the importance depends on how you look at the approval of these two technologies. I think that PET PSMA imaging is here to stay. It's probably what most of us will use. And based upon that, we will define yet the truest stage of this patient. So right now, what we know is he has high-risk features. Hopefully, their disease is localized. We'll probably put the patient through an imaging technology. If you don't have access to a PET, then obviously CT and a bone scan will do. But if you do, the PET will actually help us define if the patient has disease outside of the prostate region, in the pelvic area, or even if they have distant metastases. Dr. Kriti Mittal: I would agree with that approach, Dr. Garcia. I think in the United States, we've been late adopters of PSMA scans. I think this patient with high-risk localized disease, if insurance allows at our institution, would get a PSMA for staging. There are still some patients where insurance companies, despite peer-to-peer evaluations, are not approving PSMAs. And in those situations, the patient would benefit from conventional CTs and a bone scan. So let's say this patient had a PSMA and was found not to have any regional or distant metastases. He decided against surgery, and he is seeing you as his medical oncologist together with radiation. What would your recommendations be?  Dr. Jorge Garcia: I think the bigger question is, do we have any data to suggest or to demonstrate that if in the absence of metastatic disease with conventional imaging or with emerging technologies such as PSMA PET, there is no evidence of distant disease, which I think you probably agree with me, that would be sort of unlikely with a patient with these features not to have some form of PSMA uptake somewhere in their body. But let's assume that indeed then the PSMA PET was negative, so we're really talking about high-risk localized prostate cancer. So I don't think we can tell a patient that radical prostatectomy would not be a standard of care. We never had a randomized trial comparing surgery against radiation therapy. This patient has already made that decision and surgery is not an option for him. If he, indeed, had elected radiotherapy, the three bigger questions that I ask myself are where are you going to aim the beam of that radiation therapy? What technology, dose, and fractionation are you going to use? And lastly, what sort of systemic therapy do you need, if any, for that matter? Where we do have some data maybe less controversial today in 2023 compared to the past? But I think the question is, do we do radiation to the prostate only or do we expand the field of that radiation to include the pelvic nodes?  Secondly, do we use IMRT? Do you use proton beam or not? Again, that's a big question that I think that opens up significant discussions. But more important, in my opinion, is the term of hypofractionation. I think the field of radiation oncology has shifted away from the old standard, five, seven weeks of radiation therapy to more hypofractionation, which in simple terms means a higher dose over a short period of time. And there was a concern in the past that when you give more radiation on a short period of time, toxicities or side effects would increase. And I think that there is plenty of data right now, very elegant data, demonstrated that hypofractionation is not worse with regards to side effects. I think most of us will be doing or supporting hypofractionation. And perhaps even to stretch that, the question now is of SBRT. Can we offer SBRT to a selected group of patients with high-risk prostate cancer? And again, those are discussions that we will naturally, I assume, in your practice, in your group, you probably also have along with radiation oncology.  Now, the bigger question, which in my mind is really not debatable today in the United States, is the need for systemic therapy. And I think we all will go back to the old data from the European EORTC data looking at the duration of androgen deprivation therapy. And I think most of us would suggest that at the very least, 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy is the standard of care for men with high-risk prostate cancer who elect to have local definitive radiation therapy as their modality of treatment. I think that whether or not it's 24 or 36, I think that the Canadian data looking at 18 months didn't hit the mark. But I think the radiation oncology community in the prostate cancer space probably has agreed that 24 months clinically is the right sort of the sweetest spot.  What I think is a bit different right now is whether or not these patients need treatment intensification. And we have now very elegant data from the British group and also from the French group, suggesting, in fact, that patients with very high-risk prostate cancer who don't have evidence of objective metastasis may, in fact, benefit from ADT plus one of the novel hormonal agents, in this case, the use of an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. So I think in my practice, what I would counsel this patient is to probably embark on radiotherapy as local definitive therapy and also to consider 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy. But I would, based upon his Gleason score of group grading, his high-volume disease in the prostate gland, and his PSA, to probably consider the use of the addition of abiraterone in that context. Dr. Kriti Mittal: That is in fact how this patient was offered treatment. The patient decided to proceed with radiation therapy with two years of androgen deprivation. And based on data from the multi-arm STAMPEDE platform, the patient met two of the following three high-risk features Gleason score >8, PSA >40, and clinical >T3 disease. He was offered two years of abiraterone therapy. Unfortunately, the patient chose to decline upfront intensification of therapy. In addition, given the diagnosis of high-risk localized prostate cancer, the patient was also referred to genetic counseling based on the current Philadelphia Consensus Conference guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in patients with high-risk localized node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, regardless of their family history. In addition, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have cribriform histology should also consider germline genetic testing.  Access to genetic counseling remains a challenge at several sites across the US, including ours. There is a growing need to educate urologists and medical oncologists to make them feel comfortable administering pretest counseling themselves and potentially ordering the test while waiting for the results and then referring patients who are found to have abnormalities for a formal genetics evaluation. In fact, the Philadelphia Consensus Conference Guideline offers a very elegant framework to help implement this workflow paradigm in clinical practice. And at our site, one of our fellows is actually using this as a research project so that patients don't have to wait months to be seen by genetics. This will have implications, as we will see later in this podcast, not only for this individual patient as we talk about the role of PARP inhibitors but also has implications for cascade testing and preventative cancer screening in the next of kin. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Dr. Mittal, I think that we cannot stress enough the importance of genetic testing for these patients. Oftentimes I think one of the challenges that our patients are facing is how they come into the system. If you come through urology, especially in the community side, what I have heard is that there are challenges trying to get to that genetic counsel. Not so much because you cannot do the test, but rather the interpretation of the testing and the downstream effect as you're describing the consequences of having a positive test and how you're going to counsel that patient. If you disregard the potential of you having an active agent based upon your genomic alteration, is the downstream of how your family may be impacted by a finding such as the DNA repair deficiency or something of that nature. So for us at major academic institutions because the flow how those patients come through us, and certainly the bigger utilization of multi-disciplinary clinics where we actually have more proximity with radiation oncology urology, and we actually maybe finesse those cases through the three teams more often than not, at least discuss them, then I think that's less likely to occur. But I think the bigger question is the timing of when we do testing and how we do it.  So there are two ways -- and I'd love to hear how you do it at your institution -- because there are two ways that I can think one can do that. The low-hanging fruit is you have tissue material from the biopsy specimen. So what you do, you actually use any of the commercial platforms to do genomic or next-generation sequencing or you can do in-house sequencing if your facility has an in-house lab that can do testing. And that only gets you to what we call ‘somatic testing', which is really epigenetic changes over time that are only found in abnormal cells. It may not tell you the entire story of that patient because you may be missing the potential of identifying a germline finding. So when you do that, did you do germline testing at the same time that you do somatic testing or did you start with one and then you send to genetic counseling and then they define who gets germline testing? Dr. Kriti Mittal: So at our site, we start with germline genetic testing. We use either blood testing or a cheek swab assay and we send the full 84-gene multigene panel. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Yeah, and I think for our audience, Dr. Mittal, that's great. I don't think you and I will be too draconian deciding which platform one uses. It's just that we want to make sure that at least you test those patients. And I think the importance of this is if you look at the New England Journal paper from many years ago, from the Pritchard data looking at the incidence of DNA repair deficiency in men with prostate cancer in North America, that was about what,  around 10% or so, take it or leave it. So if you were to look only for germline testing, you only will, in theory, capture around 10% of patients. But if you add somatic changes that are also impacting the DNA pathway, then you may add around 23%, 25% of patients. So we really are talking that if we only do one type of testing, we may be missing a significant proportion of patients who still may be candidates, maybe not for family counseling if you had a somatic change, rather than germline testing, the positivity, but if you do have somatic, then you can add into that equation the potential for that patient to embark on PARP inhibitors down the road as you stated earlier. It may not change how we think of the patient today, or the treatment for that matter. But you may allow to counsel that patient differently and may allow to sequence your treatments in a different way based upon the findings that you have. So I could not stress the importance of the NCCN guidelines and the importance of doing genetic testing for pretty much the vast majority of our patients with prostate cancer. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Going back to our patient, three years after completion of his therapy, the patient was noted to have a rising PSA. On surveillance testing, his PSA rose from 0.05 a few months prior to 12.2 at the time of his medical oncology appointment. He was also noted to have worsening low back pain. A PSMA scan was performed that was noteworthy for innumerable intensely PSMA avid osseous lesions throughout his axial and appendicular skeleton. The largest lesion involved the right acetabulum and the right ischium. Multiple additional sizable lesions were seen throughout the pelvis and spine without any evidence of pathologic fractures. So the question is, what do we do next? Dr. Jorge Garcia: The first question that I would have is, the patient completed ADT, right? So the patient did not have treatment intensification, but at the very least he got at least systemic therapy based upon the EORTC data. And therefore, one would predict that his outcome will have been improved compared to those patients who receive either no ADT or less time on ADT. But what I'm interested in understanding is his nadir PSA matters to me while he was on radiation and ADT. I would like to know if his nadir PSA was undetectable, that's one thing. If he was unable to achieve an undetectable PSA nadir, that would be a different thought process for me.   And secondly, before I can comment, I would like to know if you have access to his testosterone level. Because notably, what happens to patients like this maybe is that you will drive down testosterone while you get ADT, PSAs become undetectable. Any of us could assume that the undetectability is the result of the radiation therapy. But the true benefit of the combination of radiation and ADT in that context really comes to be seen when the patient has got off the ADT, has recovered testosterone, and only when your testosterone has normalized or is not castrated, then we'll know what happens with your serologic changes. If you rise your PSA while you recover testosterone, that is one makeup of patient. But if you rise your PSA while you have a testosterone at the castrated level, that would be a different makeup of a patient. So do we have a sense as to when the patient recovered testosterone and whether or not if his PSA rose after recovery?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: At the time his PSA rose to 12, his testosterone was 275. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, perfect. You and I would call this patient castration-naive or castration-sensitive. I know that it's semantics. A lot of people struggle with the castration-naive and castration-sensitive state. What that means really to me, castration-naive is not necessarily that you have not seen ADT before. It's just that your cancer progression is dependent on the primary fuel that is feeding prostate cancer, in this case, testosterone or dihydrotestosterone, which is the active metabolite of testosterone. So in this case, recognizing the patient had a testosterone recovery and his biochemical recurrence, which is the rising of his PSA occur when you have recovery of testosterone, makes this patient castration-sensitive. Now the PET scan demonstrates now progression of his disease. So clearly he has a serologic progression, he has radiographic progression. I assume that the patient may have no symptoms, right, from his disease?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: This patient had some low back pain at the time of this visit. So I think we can conclude he has clinical progression as well. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, so he had the triple progression, serologic, clinical, and radiographic progression. The first order of business for me would be to understand the volume of his disease and whether we use the US CHAARTED definition of high volume or low volume, or whether we use the French definition for high volume from Latitude, or whether we use STAMPEDE variation for definition, it does appear to me that this patient does have high-volume disease. Why? If you follow the French, it's a Gleason score of >8, more than three bone metastases, and the presence of visceral disease, and you need to have two out of the three. If you follow CHAARTED definition, we did not use Gleason scoring, the US definition. We only use either the presence of visceral metastases or the presence of more than four bone lesions, two of which had to be outside the appendicular skeleton. So if we were to follow either/or, this patient would be high-volume in nature.  So the standard of care for someone with metastatic disease, regardless of volume, is treatment intensification, is you suppress testosterone with androgen deprivation therapy. And in this case, I'd love to hear how you do it in Massachusetts, but here, for the most part, I would actually use a GnRH agonist-based approach, any of the agents that we have. Having said that, I think there is a role to do GnRH antagonist-based therapy. In this case, degarelix, or the oral GnRH antagonist, relugolix, is easier to get patients on a three-month injection or six-month injection with GnRH agonist than what it is on a monthly basis. But I think it's also fair for our audience to realize that there is data suggesting that perhaps degarelix can render testosterone at a lower level, meaning that you can castrate even further or have very low levels of testosterone contrary to GnRH agonist-based approaches.  And also for patients maybe like this patient that you're describing, you can minimize the flare that possibly you could get with a GnRH agonist by transiently raising the DHT before the hypothalamic-pituitary axis would shut it down. So either/or would be fine with me. Relugolix, as you know, the attraction of relugolix for us right now, based upon the HERO data, is that you may have possibly less cardiovascular side effects. My rationale not to use a lot of relugolix when I need treatment intensification is quite simple. I'm not aware, I don't know if you can mitigate or minimize that potential cardiovascular benefit by adding abiraterone or adding one of the ARIs, because ARIs and abiraterone by themselves also have cardiovascular side effects. But either/or would be fine with me. The goal of the game is to suppress your male hormone.  But very important is that regardless of volume, high or low, every patient with metastatic disease requires treatment intensification. You can do an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. You can pick an androgen receptor inhibitor such as apalutamide or enzalutamide if that's the case. The subtleties in how people feel comfortable using these agents, I think, none of us – as you know, Dr. Mittal - can comment that one oral agent is better than the other one. Independently, each of these three oral agents have randomized level 1, phase III data demonstrating survival improvement when you do treatment intensification with each respective agent. But we don't have, obviously, head-to-head data looking at this.  What I think is different right now, as you know, is the data with the ARASENS data, which was a randomized phase III trial, an international effort looking at triple therapy, and that is male hormone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy against testosterone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy plus the novel androgen receptor inhibitor known as darolutamide. This trial demonstrated an outcome survival improvement when you do triple therapy for those high-volume patients. And therefore, what I can tell you in my personal opinion and when I define a patient of mine who is in need of chemotherapy, then the standard of care in my practice will be triple therapy. So if I know you are a candidate for chemotherapy, however, I make that decision that I want you to get on docetaxel upfront. If you have high-volume features, then the standard of care would not be ADT and chemo alone, it would be ADT, chemo, and darolutamide.  What I don't know, and what we don't know, as you know, is whether or not triple therapy for a high-volume patient is better, the same, equivalent, or less than giving someone ADT plus a novel hormonal agent. That is the data that we don't have. There are some meta-analyses looking at the data, but I can tell you that at the very least, if you prefer chemo, it should be triple therapy. If you prefer an oral agent, it certainly should be either apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and/or enzalutamide. But either/or, patients do need treatment intensification, and what is perplexing to me, and I know for you as well, is that a significant proportion of our patients in North America are still not getting treatment intensification, which is really sub-optimal and sub-standard for our practice.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Thank you, Dr. Garcia, for a terrific discussion on the application of recent advances in prostate cancer to clinical practice. In an upcoming podcast, we will continue that discussion exploring management of de novo metastatic prostate cancer.   The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologists' well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

The early 1970's saw the start of the medical specialty we now know as oncology. How does one create standards and practices for patient care during that time? Dr. John Glick is a pioneer during the dawn of oncology. He says that early work involved humanity, optimism, and compassion, all of which were the foundation of his career. Dr Glick describes the clinical experiences that drove him to oncology (4:28), his rapport with patients, which was portrayed in Stewart Alsop's book Stay of Execution (9:21), and his groundbreaking work developing the medical oncology program at the University of Pennsylvania (12:22). Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. John Glick: None More Podcasts with Oncology Leaders    Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Richard Pazdur (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – HPV Vaccine Pioneer Dr. Douglas Lowy (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – Rediscovering the Joy in Medicine with Dr. Deborah Schrag (Part 1)  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page. Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO education podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology. Today's guest is someone well-known to the oncology community. Dr. John Glick is undoubtedly one of oncology's most highly respected clinicians, researchers, and mentors. I've always viewed John as the quintessential role model. I will add that for me, he proved to be a role model even before I met him, which hopefully we'll talk about a little bit later.   To attempt to summarize John's career in a paragraph or two is really impossible. Suffice it to say, he is to the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center what water is to Niagara Falls. You can't have one without the other. After completing his fellowship at NCI in Stanford, John joined the Penn faculty in 1974 as the Ann B. Young Assistant Professor. Some five decades later, he retired as the director of one of the most highly respected comprehensive cancer centers in the nation. Among his many notable accomplishments, I will comment on just a few. He established the Medical Oncology program at Penn and subsequently directed the Abramson Cancer Center from 1985 to 2006. Interestingly, he established the Penn Medicine Academy of Master Clinicians to promote clinical excellence in all subspecialties across the health system. He's been a driving force in philanthropy at Penn Medicine, culminating in his role as Vice President Associate Dean for Resource Development.  Over the past several decades, he has helped raise over half a billion dollars for Penn Med. We need you on our team, John. As a clinician scholar, John's research has helped shape standards of care for both breast cancer and lymphomas. For example, he pioneered the integration of adjuvant chemotherapy and definitive breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer. In 1985, he chaired the pivotal NCI Consensus Conference on adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. He also was a driving force in a clinical landmark study published in The New England Journal some 20 or so years ago about the role of bone marrow transplant for advanced breast cancer. Most impressive of all, in my opinion, is John's legacy as a mentor to multiple generations of medical students, residents, and fellows.   So, John, we want to thank you for joining us and welcome. Thought we might start by having you tell us a little about your early life, your family, your parents, where you grew up, and how you got into medicine. Dr. John Glick: Well, thank you for having me on the podcast, Pat and David, it's always a pleasure to be with you and with ASCO. I grew up in New York City in Manhattan. My father was a well-known dermatologist. He was my role model. And from the age of eight, I knew I wanted to be a doctor. Nothing else ever crossed my mind. But having seen my father's many interests outside of medicine, I realized from very early that there was much more to medicine than just science. And that really induced me, when I went to college, to major in the humanities, in history, art history, and I actually took the minimum number of science courses to get into medical school. That probably wouldn't work today, but it was the start of my interest in humanism, humanities, and dealing with people outside of the quantitative sciences.  Dave Johnson: So that's reflected in how we all view you, John. You're one of the most humanistic physicians that I know personally. I wonder if you could tell us about your interest in medical oncology, and in particular, as one of the pioneers in the field. I mean, there wasn't really even a specialty of medical oncology until the early 1970s. So, how in the world did you get interested in oncology and what drew you to that specialty? Dr. John Glick: Well, I had two clinical experiences that drove me into oncology. The first, when I was a third year medical student at Columbia PNS, my first clinical rotation in internal medicine, I was assigned a 20-year-old who had acute leukemia, except he was not told his diagnosis. He was told he had aplastic anemia, receiving blood and platelets, and some form of chemotherapy. And I spent a lot of time just talking to him as an individual, not just taking care of him. And we became friends. And he was then discharged, only to be readmitted about two weeks later. And in the elevator, the medical assistant had his admission sheet, and unfortunately, it was facing the patient, and it had his diagnosis, acute leukemia. So he came into the ward and he confronted me. "Why didn't you tell me I had acute leukemia?" Well, I couldn't say the attendees forbade me to do that. So I took what today we would call ‘the hit', and apologized. But it stimulated me to reflect that honesty with patients was extremely important, and that oncology was just in its infancy. We knew nothing about it. It was not considered even a specialty. I don't think we used the word "oncology."  But that inspired me to take an elective in my fourth year at PNS, at an indigent cancer hospital called the Francis Delafield Hospital. It only took care of indigent cancer patients, and there were wards, twelve patients in a ward, six on each side, and nobody would go see the patients. It was almost as if they were afraid that if they were to touch the patient, they would get cancer. And I started talking to the patients, and they were human beings, but nobody had told them their diagnosis. Nobody had told them if they were terminal. And there were a few patients who were getting a new drug at that time for multiple myeloma called melphalan, and they actually had relief of some of the symptoms, of their bone pain. But I realized that there was a huge void in medicine that I could possibly help to fill.  And that was the era of Vietnam, and so I applied to the National Cancer Institute to become a commissioned officer in the Public Health Service to avoid the draft, to be on a service with, at that time, some very notable oncologists Vince DeVita, Ed Henderson, Paul Carbone. I had read some of their papers, and I was lucky to be accepted. And I was a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute. And that was life-changing because there every patient was considered to be potentially curable. The advances at that time using MOPP for Hodgkin's disease, C-MOPP for lymphoma, some treatments for leukemia. George Canellos pioneered the use of CMF for metastatic breast cancer. It was an amazing, amazing experience. That was in 1971 to ‘73. Oncology did not become a true specialty till ‘73, but my two years at NCI were formative.  However, I realized that there was something missing in my training. Everybody was considered curable, but I had never seen a patient with metastatic colon cancer, metastatic lung cancer. The radiotherapists there did not like to teach clinical associates, and I knew that there was a place called Stanford. And Stanford had Saul Rosenberg in medical oncology for lymphomas and Henry Kaplan in radiotherapy. So, everybody was going to California, and my wife and I packed up and went to California and spent a year at Stanford, which, combined with my training at the NCI, led me to the principles that guided my career in oncology; humanity, optimism, reality, compassion, and a love for clinical trials.  I was very, very fortunate to be there at the dawn of medical oncology shortly after I decided to go to Penn, which at that time did not have a medical oncologist. In fact, I was the only medical oncologist at Penn for four years and did every consult in the hospital for four years, much to the chagrin of my wife. But I was fortunate to have great mentors in my career: Paul Carbone, Vince DeVita, Saul Rosenberg, Henry Kaplan, among many, many others. And that impressed me about the importance of mentorship because my career would never have been where it was or is without these mentors. Pat Loehrer: John, just to echo what Dave said, you've been such a tremendous mentor for us. Dave and I particularly, you took us under your wings when you didn't know who we were. We were people in the Midwest. We weren't from any place shiny, but we really appreciate that. Dave Johnson: So, John, I mentioned at the very beginning that I met you before I met you, and the way I met you was through Stewart Alsop's book, Stay of Execution. He portrayed you as an extraordinarily caring individual, and it tremendously impacted me. It was one of the reasons why I chose oncology as a specialty. I realize it's been 50 or more years ago and most of our listeners will have no idea who Stewart Alsop was. And I wonder if you might share with us a little bit of that experience interacting with someone who was particularly well-known in that time as a columnist for The New York Times.  Dr. John Glick: His brother Joe Alsop and Stu Alsop were two of the most famous columnists at that time. Joe Alsop was a hawk right-winger who lived in the Vietnam War. Stewart was charming, was a centrist Democrat, wrote the back page for Newsweek for years. He and I had very similar educational backgrounds and interests. And we functioned on two different levels—one as a physician-patient, and then we became friends. And he and his wife adopted us into the Georgetown set.  And I received a lot of criticism for socializing with a patient. But over the years, I've been able to become friends with many of my patients, and I've been able to compartmentalize their medical care from our friendship. And I use the analogy if I was a doctor in a small town and I was the only doctor,  I'd be friends with people in town, with the pastor and likely the mayor. But I have always believed that patients can become your friends if they want it and if they initiated it.   Taking care of Stewart Alsop was an amazing, amazing experience. We didn't know what he had. People initially thought he had acute leukemia. In reality, he had myelodysplastic syndrome, but that hadn't been described yet. He had a spontaneous remission, which I rarely see, probably due to interferon released from a febrile episode, all his blasts went away in his marrow. One of my children's middle name is Stewart. But professionally and personally, it was an incredible experience. It taught me the importance of being available to patients. They had my home phone number. We didn't have cell phone numbers in those days. We had beepers, but they didn't work. And from that point on, I gave my home phone number to patients, and I actually trained my children how to answer the phone. “This is Katie Glick. How can I help you? My father's not home. You need my father? Can I have your phone number? I'll find him and he'll call you back.” Patients still remember my children and their way of answering the phone. Pat Loehrer: One of the things you did do is create this medical oncology program at Penn, which has graduated some incredible fellows that have become outstanding leaders in our field. But can you reflect a little bit about the process of creating something that was never created before, like a medical oncology program? Dr. John Glick: Well, I came to Penn, my first day. Person who recruited me was on sabbatical. I asked where my office was and there was no office. There was an exam room. There was a clinic for indigent patients which we scrubbed by hand. There was another office for patients who paid. Within two months, I had abolished that. We had one– I hate to use the word clinic, people still use the word clinic today, but one office that took care of all patients, irregardless of means.   I saw every oncology consult in the hospital for four years. But I had a mentor, not only Buz Cooper, but fortunately, Jonathan Rhoads was Chairman of Surgery, and he was also Chairman of the President's Cancer panel. And what he said at Penn in surgery became the law. And then when we introduced lumpectomy for breast cancer and radiotherapy, he endorsed it immediately. All the other surgeons followed suit. I don't think there's any hospital in the country that adopted lumpectomy and radiotherapy for breast cancer as quickly. And the surgeons were instrumental in my career.  Now, I was taking care of gliomas, head and neck cancers, and it was difficult. If I had a colorectal patient, I'd call Charles Moertel at Mayo Clinic and say, “What do I do?” I was there when Larry Einhorn in 1975 presented his data on testicular cancer with the platinum. Unbelievably inspiring, transformational. It also showed the importance of single-arm studies. You didn't have to do randomized studies because the results were so outstanding. And so in my career, I did both single-arm studies, proof of principle studies, and then many randomized trials through the cooperative groups.  But the first four years were very difficult. I didn't know what the word ‘work-life balance' meant in those days. If somebody was sick, I stayed and saw them. It was difficult introducing new principles. When I first mentioned platinum after Larry's presentation, I was laughed out of the room because this was a heavy metal. When patients were dying, they died in the hospital, and I wanted to hang up morphine to assist them. The nurses reported me to the administration. I had to fight to get the vending machines for cigarettes out of the hospital. So there were a lot of victories along the way and a lot of setbacks.  It took me several years to have an oncology unit of six beds, and now I think we have 150 or 160 beds and need more. So it was an interesting and, in retrospective, a wonderful experience, but I didn't know any better. Fortunately, I had a great wife who was working at Penn and then at Medical College of Pennsylvania, and she was incredibly understanding, never complained. And I think my kids knew that on Tuesdays and Thursdays, don't bring up anything difficult with dad because he's had a really tough day in clinic. Dave Johnson: We were not in that era, but we were very close. And many of the struggles that you had were beginning to dissipate by the time we were completing our training. But it was still a challenge. I mean, all those things. I gave my own chemotherapy for the first few years I was in practice. I don't know that our colleagues today who have trained in the last, say, 10 or 15 years, actually realize that that was what we did. Most of the chemo was given in the hospital. It was not uncommon in the early days to have 20, 30, 40 inpatients that you would round on because there just wasn't an outpatient facility. But the corporate mind made a big difference, allowing us to give drugs like platinum in the outpatient arena. You span all of that era, and so you've seen the whole panoply of change that has taken place.  John, the other thing you did that has impressed me, in part because of my time as a Chair of Medicine, is you created this Academy of Master Clinicians. Can you tell us a bit about that and what was the motivation behind that?  Dr. John Glick: Ben had a strategic plan, and one of the pillars was talking about valuing clinical medicine and clinical excellence. But there was no implementation plan. It was sort of just words and left in the air. And I was no longer director of the cancer center, and I realized we had a lot of awards for research, awards for education, and no awards for clinical excellence. So I created the idea of having an academy and master clinician spend six months talking to all constituencies, chairs of various departments, directors of centers to get a buy-in. Wrote a three-page white paper for the dean, who approved it immediately. And then, as typical at Penn, I raised all the money for it. I went to one of my patients who was an executive at Blue Cross. I said I need $500,000 to start this program. And then subsequently, I raised $4 million to endow it. Today, it is the highest honor that a Penn clinician can receive.  You could be on any one of our multiple tracks. You have to see patients at least 60% of the time. You not only have to be a great doctor, you have to be a humanist. So the world's best thoracic surgeon who has a demeanor in the operating room that is not conducive to working with a nurse as a team doesn't get in. We emphasize professionalism, mentorship, citizenship, teaching, national reputation, local reputation, and clinical excellence. And so we've elected over 100 people, maybe 3% of the Penn faculty. We give an honorarium. We have monthly meetings now by Zoom. We have monthly meetings on various topics. We never have a problem getting any dean or CEO to come talk to us.  We were the first to do Penn's professionalism statement. The school subsequently adopted, and it's become the highest honor for a Penn clinician. It's very competitive. It's peer-reviewed. The dean has no influence. And we're very proud that 40% of the members of the academy are women. We have a high percentage of diversity compared to the numbers on our faculty, but you really have to be elected on merit, and some people that you might expected to be members of the academy aren't. It's one of the things I'm proudest of. It will go on in perpetuity because of the money we've raised. I think many of my accomplishments as a researcher will fade, as they typically do, but I'm very proud of the Academy, and I'm very proud of the people that I've mentored. Dave Johnson: It speaks to your values, John, and I think it's one of the reasons why you're so widely admired. Thank you for creating that. It proved to be a model for other institutions. I know that for a fact. One would think that valuing clinical care would be preeminent in medical schools, but in fact, it's often ignored. So again, I know that your colleagues at Penn appreciate your efforts in that regard.  Tell us a little about your term as ASCO president. What are you most proud about and what were your most difficult challenges? Dr. John Glick: Well, the most difficult challenge was that ASCO was in transition. I had to fire the company that ran the meeting. We had to decide that ASCO was going to hire a CEO. We hired John Durant, made a small headquarters, tiny staff, and did a lot of the work as being chief operating officer myself. It was the year that email was just getting started, and ASCO wasn't using it. So every Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00, I came into the office and my secretary wrote letters inviting people to be on the program committee or various committees. But it was a society in transition. The growth of membership was huge. The meeting sites had to be changed. We emphasized science. Some of the things that we did are still in existence today.  We formed the ASCO ACR Clinical Research Methods course. It's still given. That's one of our real highlights. We forged relationships with other societies, the National Coalition for Survivorship. We made the ASCO guidelines much more prominent. And I remember that we were going to publish the first guidelines on genetic testing for breast cancer, and the MCI went up in absolute arms, so I arranged a meeting. I was at the head of the table. On my right were Francis Collins, Richard Klausner, Bob Wittes, and a few other people. Then the ASCO people who wrote the guideline were on the left, and they didn't want us to publish it. They thought it was premature to have a guideline about genetic testing. And what I learned from that meeting is that you can agree to disagree with even the most prominent people in oncology and still maintain those relationships. But we did what's right, and we published a guideline on the JCO. There were so many wonderful things that happened at ASCO that I can hardly restate all that happened I guess 27 years later. It was exciting. ASCO was still young. There was a lot we had to do, and we could do it. You could just go ahead and do it. It was exciting. It was gratifying. It was one of the most fun years of my life. Dave Johnson: I mean, that transition from an outside company in many respects, controlling the premier activity of ASCO, its annual meeting to ASCO, taking that on, that defined ASCO, and that's what I remember most about your time as president. It was a bold move, and the hiring of John Durant was brilliant. I mean, he was such an incredible individual, and it was great that you guys were able to pull that off. Pat Loehrer: Thank you for what you've done.  You've had a number of your mentees if you will, and colleagues that have gone on to prominent positions, including, I think, at least three directors of NCI Cancer Centers. Can you just talk briefly how you would describe your mentoring style because you've been so successful? Dr. John Glick: First, there are two aspects. One is when people come to you, and then when you go to people, you sense they're in need. The key aspect of mentoring is listening. Not talking, listening. Looking for the hidden meanings behind what they're saying, not telling them what to do, presenting options, perhaps giving them clues on how to weigh those options in pros and cons, being available for follow-up. Mentoring is never a one-time exercise. Not criticizing their decisions. You may disagree with their decision, but it's their decision, especially if they've considered it. Being proud of the mentee, being proud of their accomplishments, following them over the years. And when they've gotten in trouble or failed to get the job that they wanted, always be there for them, not just in the good times, but in the times that are difficult for them professionally. I think that's one of the most important things.  Even today, I mentor three or four clinical department chairmen, and people ranging from full professors to newly appointed assistant professors. Now that I'm retired, mentoring is the one activity that I've really retained. It's extraordinarily satisfying, and I'm proud of the people that I've mentored. But it's their accomplishments, and the key aspect of mentoring is never to take credit. Dave Johnson: I'll give you credit for mentoring me, and I appreciate it. You were very instrumental at a very decisive point in my career when the old Southeast Cancer Group disbanded, and we were looking for a new cooperative group home. And you were instrumental in helping my institution come into the ECOG fold, and not just as a very junior member, but really as a player. And I'll never forget that, and we'll always appreciate that very much. Pat Loehrer: Ditto on my side, too. Dave Johnson: John, you mentioned that you're retired. What do you like to do in your "free time” if you're not mentoring? Dr. John Glick: Life is good. My daughter says I have a disease, O-L-D. My grandson says, “He's not old; he's almost 80. Look how well he's done.” “Here's $20.” I'm having fun. We are fortunate to have homes in different places. We spend the summer up in the Thousand Islands on the St. Lawrence River, spring and fall down in Charleston, then lots of time in Philadelphia. We travel. I play golf poorly. I'm getting a chance to read history again, go back to one of my great loves. I'm with my children and grandchildren more. I lost my first wife. I've been remarried for about twelve years, and I'm enjoying every moment of that. I'm not bored, but I do wake up in the morning with no anxiety, no realization that I have to herd sheep or herd cats. I have no metrics, I have no RVUs,  not behind of the EMR.  Dave Johnson: You're making it sound too good, John.  Dr. John Glick: We're having fun. And I have not been bored. I've not been down in the dumps. Each day brings a different aspect. We see a lot more of our friends. I exercise. I deal with the health problems that people get when they get older, and I have plenty of those. Seeing doctors takes a lot of time, but I'm grateful that I'm having these few years of retirement. I'm one of the people who is most fortunate to have attained everything they wanted to do in their professional life, and now I'm trying to do some of the same in my personal life. Dave Johnson: John, Pat and I both love to read. We love history. You mentioned that you're reading some history. Is there a book that you've read recently that you might recommend to us? Dr. John Glick: “the Last of the Breed” {With the Old Breed} It's about a private in the Pacific campaign who was not a commissioned officer; it's just a grunt on the ground. It brings the horrors of the Pacific island campaigns to life. But there's a huge number of books, some historical fiction. I'm a great fan of Bernard Cornwell, who's written about the Medieval times, Azincourt, 1356. I'll read two or three books a week. I'm devoted to my Kindle. Dave Johnson: If you could go back in time and give your younger self a piece of advice, what would that advice be?   Dr. John Glick: Try and achieve more of a work-life balance. I didn't have any choice. If I didn't do the consult, it didn't get done. That's not the situation today. But I have a second piece of advice, don't treat medicine as a 9 to 5 job. If a patient is sick, stay with the patient. Give the patient your home or cell phone number. Remember, medicine is not just a profession, but it can be a calling. Too few of our physicians today regard medicine as a calling. And even if you're employed, as most of us are by an academic or other institution, do what's right for the patient, not just what's right for your timesheet or the EMR. Remember that the patient is at the center of all we do and that medicine is a calling for some people, as it was for me. Dave Johnson: Great advice, John. Great advice.  Well, I want to thank Dr. Glick for joining Pat and me. This has been a delight. You're one of our role models and heroes.  I want to thank all of our listeners of Oncology, Etc., which is an ASCO educational podcast where we will talk about oncology medicine and other topics. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content of ASCO, please visit education.asco.org. Thanks again. Pat, before we go, I've got an important question for you. I've been trying to school you recently, and you've failed miserably. So I'm going to ask you, why is it that McDonald's doesn't serve escargot? Pat Loehrer: I can't do it. I don't know. I give up.  Dave Johnson: It's not fast food. Pat Loehrer: I like that. It's good.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Oncology is a rapidly evolving medical field. So how do you keep up with all the advances and updates that are delivered through publications, conferences, and social media? This ASCO Education podcast explores how three oncologists in various settings and stages of their career manage this issue. Our moderator Dr. Adriana Alvarez, a medical oncologist at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio is joined by Dr. Sharad Goyal, a professor and division chief of Radiation Oncology at George Washington University in Washington, DC; Dr. Shruti Patel, an oncology fellow at Stanford University in California; and Dr. Banu Symington, a medical oncologist at Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County in Wyoming, and adjunct professor in the University of Utah College of Nursing. Each will describe what they do to keep up to date on research advances and guidelines (3:25), how they find time to stay current in their field (7:25) and how they follow developments outside of their area of concentration (13:57).  The speakers have no relevant disclosures.  Resources: Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burned Out? Here's What You Can Do About It (Part 1)  Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burned Out? Here's What You Can Do About It (Part 2)  Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: An oncologist recently described that while sitting on a couch to write an article, by the time he finished his first paragraph, he received six notifications on his iPhone from WhatsApp, Twitter, and other messages. He knows what the dilemma is; you can shut down your phone, but you become worried about missing an urgent call or important update. The oncologist knows that social media is a place to follow friends and colleagues, to discover new presentations, and even debate about them. However, he understands the overload of information that is part of the rapidly evolving field of oncology. On any given day or week, there are research advances and updates in the management of cancer being shared through journal publications, conference presentations, newsletters, social media, and other methods. How does one keep up to date with these advances in oncology?  I'm Dr. Adriana Alvarez, a medical oncologist at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. In this ASCO Education Podcast, we will examine what various oncology professionals at different stages in their careers and working in different practice settings, namely academic versus community and urban versus rural, are doing to manage the large amount of information influx regarding advances in oncology.  Joining me are Dr. Sharad Goyal, a professor and division chief of radiation oncology at George Washington University in Washington, DC; Dr. Shruti Patel, an oncology fellow at Stanford University; and Dr. Banu Symington, a medical oncologist at Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County in Wyoming, and adjunct professor in the University of Utah College of Nursing.  Let's start. One of the first questions I have here is how you can describe your current field of focus in oncology. Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: My current clinical focus in oncology is in thoracic and gastrointestinal malignancies, while my research interests include clinical trials, liquid biopsy, and diversity, and equity and inclusion.  Dr. Sharad Goyal: My current clinical and research focus is on breast cancer, radiation therapy, as well as radiation therapy with respect to neuro-oncology in the neuro-oncology space. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: I'm a general oncologist, medical oncologist, in an extreme rural, I'm considered a frontier practice. I have a special interest in eliminating the social disparity that is represented by rurality, and I'm interested in clinical trials. We are the only Wyoming Cancer Center that opened clinical trials. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, it's all wonderful to hear about you and know a little bit about what your focus of work is, and we come from a variety of backgrounds. How do you feel like you keep up to date with the clinical practice, the research parts with new drugs approval in oncology? You are still in training Dr. Patel. How do you do that? Dr. Shruti Patel: As a millennial, it may come as no surprise that I primarily stay up to date on clinical practice guidelines via Twitter on my phone. I find Twitter to be the best place to learn new information. Just because you don't just get information about the new approvals, but typically experts in the field will weigh in on the trial design, their thoughts on whether it truly will replace the current standard of care or what situations they might use the new approval for, which can really be helpful, especially as a fellow in training. It's helpful context beyond just the information that you get from the approval itself. And then, I also learn about the applications of these new guidelines in the clinic with my mentors, because I am, of course, lucky enough to still be in training where I can gather that information from my attendings. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Dr. Goyal, what is your preferred method of keeping up to date and learning more about the new treatments and research in your area of interest?  Dr. Sharad Goyal: As opposed to Dr. Patel, I am not part of social media in medicine. Actually, I'm not a part of any social media, whether it's personal or work-related. So I tend to be a little more “old school” with respect to how I ingest information. So, in terms of clinical practice guidelines and new drug approvals, which is somewhat peripheral to my field in radiation oncology, I tend to rely on NCCN guidelines and attendance at tumor boards to receive that information from my colleagues in medical oncology. I believe that with any patient that I see with a malignancy, I do tend to refer to the NCCN guidelines on a regular basis. And if it's a malignancy that I do not see, I have to reference PubMed, UpToDate, and the NCCN guidelines to determine the best course of treatment for that patient. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Being in the rural area, I can see that you have a variety of situations. How do you keep up to date? Dr. Banu Symington: I guess I'm midway between Doctors Patel and Goyal. I do not follow Twitter, but I belong to a 5000-member online hematology/oncology support group, and we post questions, and local thought leaders will reply. I am in such an isolated location. I don't get the stimulation or the benefit of walking down the hall to a colleague to say ‘What would you do?' So I am affiliated with the Huntsman and the University of Utah. I've made an effort to join every organ-specific tumor board so that I can hear discussions by disease thought leaders about how they're going to take care of each type of cancer and hearing that week after week, I do absorb it.  Medical oncology is a challenging field because things move so rapidly. I took an 18-month, mostly Sabbatical, as I functioned as a chief of staff at a larger hospital. And in that 18-month period, where I volunteered in a clinic, immune checkpoint therapy arose, and targeted therapies for lung cancer arose and I felt like Sleeping Beauty. I went to sleep in one world, and I woke up in a completely different world of oncology. And it was hard to get back into the drift until I connected with colleagues. I'm an avid reader. I don't sleep much. So I am a member of AMA, ASCO, and ACP, so I get all the print journals. And I have a disorder, an obsessive-compulsive disorder, that makes me have to look through every single journal I get. So print and tumor boards and colleagues.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: So we are very busy, and the work that we do, the clinical work, trying to keep up to date and training and all that, how do you schedule time to do this, to learn about the research advances and to keep going? Dr. Goyal, how do you find the time? Dr. Sharad Goyal: In general, I do think that in my realm, in my head, I think that there are three processes that have to occur when I incorporate research into my practice. So number one, I have to learn about it. Number two, I have to determine if that's going to help change my practice. And then number three, if I do end up changing practice, I have to implement it. And that involves dealing with my staff. So I'm going to delve into each of those in a little bit more detail. So learning about the advance typically, I learn about things through CME activities. So in one of my roles in our cancer center, I help organize our grand rounds and some oncology-specific courses. Being involved in the organization, helping find speakers really keeps me engaged not only in the organization process, but also in the learning process because I have a vested interest in making sure that the trainees and other faculty that attend my courses are learning and are happy.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: To organize all these, do you schedule time during your job, outside work hours? Dr. Sharad Goyal: Yes, that is part of my job, which extends outside of work hours. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Sounds good. Dr. Symington, well, you mentioned that you don't sleep much, you keep up to date, looks more at night. But do you find the time in between patients or during your workday to keep up to date, or is more like a solitude type of time?  Dr. Banu Symington: I forgot to mention a resource that I feel like people should know about, MedNet, which is presented daily with three clinical cases and thought leaders mentioning what they would do. They often introduce research ideas that are not adopted into practice. Since I read, I read about new innovative treatments, but I am not an early adopter, so I wait until they become an NCCN guideline before I would adopt it. So that might be different from Dr. Goyal, who's in an academic center. But I see patients five days a week, 10 hours a day, so it has to be all scheduled outside of those hours. It's fortunate that my kids are grown, and I don't sleep much.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? On the go, I can imagine. I remember not long ago, being fellow and a millennial, so I guess on your iPhone. Dr. Shruti Patel: Even though I'm a fellow, I do like sleep. And now that I'm in my research years, I actually get sleep, which is lovely. I can't say that I schedule time to learn about research advances, but rather it's– Usually, I take the train to work, and so I'm scrolling on my Twitter on the Caltrain down to Palo Alto, monitoring for medical news or updates. Really, that's how I gather information. I also partake in CME activity, creating CME educational materials on Twitter as well. And so that's another way in which I learn because if I'm creating the information, then I have to go through the trials and go through all of these things, side effects. And so it's a really great way, additionally, for me to learn. But none of that stuff is really scheduled. It's kind of really when I have time, on my to-do list, usually outside of business hours. Part of the job is staying up to date with things outside of business hours. And I think we all knew that when we signed up for the job. And it's only gotten more as all of these advances are kind of coming out at us like drinking out of a fire hydrant. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: The most recent moment that you found new information related to your practice, how did you learn about it? Not about everything that you do, but the last time, the most recent one that you did that. Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: I recently referenced the NCCN guidelines. I was treating a gentleman with male breast cancer, and he told me he had some half-brothers and that they were going to get tested, but he was inquiring about the screening guidelines for men with BRCA mutations, and I had to look that up. I knew what they were for women, but I actually did not know what they were for men. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: So last Thursday morning at 7:00, I joined the Huntsman Tumor Board for Breast. And one of the breast-specific oncologists actually said something that defies the NCCN guidelines, but it sounded like it made sense. He said he regularly gets PET scans for staging lymph node-positive HER2-positive breast cancer because he finds, and apparently the breast cancer community finds, that other scans can give you a false-negative result. And there are enough patients with metastatic disease in the lymph node-positive setting that he recommended PET scans for staging of HER2-positive breast cancer patients but not for ER-positive breast cancer patients. So that was just five days ago. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Wow. And what about you, Dr. Patel? When was the most recent time that you found something that was good information for your practice?  Dr. Shruti Patel: Yeah, as a fellow, I love learning about new information when I'm able to learn how to integrate it into the practice with someone that's more experienced than I am. So, of course, I've already mentioned that Twitter can be a great place. But also a few weeks ago, I was attending GI ASCO up in San Francisco, and they presented the latest results from NAPOLI-3, which was a phase 3 study looking at first-line liposomal irinotecan 5FU and oxaliplatin versus gem-Abraxane. And they presented that it was shown to improve overall survival compared to gem-Abraxane in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. And I was actually sitting next to my clinic mentor at the time, and during the break, I got to hear about his thoughts on whether this is going to be integrated into clinical practice, given that the control arm was gem-Abraxane, and not FOLFOXIRI. And we ended up discussing it again during our weekly GI trials meetings, just when we're thinking about opening new trials and what the control arm should be. And so I just thought that was like a new piece of information. Thought about it in the clinic, thought about it in the trial meeting, and it was pretty cool. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Great. So different settings, different ways to gain information. So, Dr. Symington, you have to see a little bit of everything. So you have to be an expert in everything. And I wonder how you, Dr. Goyal, and Dr. Patel, that you are kind of more subspecialized. How do you usually follow advances in other cancers that are not in your particular area of interest or just focus on your disease group? I'm going to let Dr. Goyal go first. Dr. Sharad Goyal: Thank you. So I find that I tend to go to conferences to learn about advances outside of my disease focus. I prefer going to the educational sessions at major conferences like ASTRO or ASCO to keep up on things. On a more local level, I do find when I cover tumor boards for my colleagues that I do have to prep their patients and learn about different treatment paradigms within those disease sites. And in doing so, I feel like I'm able to gain really a deeper understanding about oncology in general, and I do very much appreciate that. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: And Dr. Patel, well, you're in training, so you have to see a little bit of everything, even though you have the focus of your specialty that you are looking forward to do. But do you follow those too, as well? Other areas that might not take your interest right away but you want to be updated? Dr. Shruti Patel: That's exactly it. I have to have a working knowledge of all the areas of oncology that are not my focus area. But really, for the most up-to-date information, the reality is that there are so many new advances in all of these disease types that I find myself leaning on my colleagues. If I come across a lymphoma patient on consults, I'll usually reach out to my lymphoma specialized colleagues, whether that's my co-fellows or attendings, just to kind of run the patient by them, get their insight, get their input, because they're just a lot more up to date on those things than I am. But really, regardless of the subspecialty within oncology, I do think that understanding the basics of all the oncology subspecialties is important in medical oncology. Because most of us will, or are, will for me because I'm a fellow, will be spending time on the inpatient service, which is not tumor type specific, and you really do have to make decisions for patients. And while, of course, you always have your colleagues to rely on and call on, some of those decisions are being made in the middle of the night. And so having a working knowledge of all of them, I think, is important. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: We are lucky to live in a time that we have so many options, right? As a practicing oncologist myself, I rely also on all the resources that you're mentioning. The fear I have sometimes is, okay, I'm relying on the NCCN guidelines, but what if I'm missing something? The fear of missing something, right? It's like if I'm not on Twitter or in another social media; I'm missing the most recent data, that may affect my patient care or things like that. But if I have to ask one of you, if you have to pick one, what would be your preferred method or format of receiving updated information if you have to decide where you could go for it? What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: So, although I have made the case that I love reading, I actually absorb information better if someone is talking to me. So if I had the freedom to take time off, I would prefer to hear it at one-day specialty seminars where a thought leader is describing their work. That is not what I do in practice, but that would be my preferred way of getting new information.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: I'm very much aligned with Dr. Symington in that. I prefer a less active role in the learning process, and I prefer to be spoken to. My preferred method is via podcast, but I also do prefer the in-person or virtual learning through a conference as well. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: I promise you that Elon Musk is not paying me to say all of this because I've probably mentioned Twitter in every single answer. But my preferred method, as you guys probably can guess, is Twitter. It doesn't require too much dedicated time. Information is delivered in small doses. Like I said, I do it on my commute, so it makes me feel like my commute is actually part of my work, which is just wonderful. I do like to attend these smaller meetings to be kind of, like both Dr. Symington and Dr. Goyal said, to be spoken to and really learn additional information. I would say that I don't necessarily always get that experience at the bigger meetings where the focus is more networking. But ‘Best of ASCO', those are kind of some types of meetings where the information is kind of told to you. It's distilled down into bite-sized pieces and really understandable. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, all amazing experiences. And I'm glad that we have different points of view, different settings, different career paths. Someone mentioned before is that we're always learning. I feel like here; everybody's very humble to recognize that we're on the learning curve all the time and that we have a real interest in our patient care. Because we are trying to catch the moment, try to make sure that we deliver the best care to our patients, like keeping up to date and listening to the new information. Dr. Goyal, any advice for your colleagues in terms of how to best keep up to date? Dr. Sharad Goyal: My personal philosophy is that as a physician, the learning never stops. And if you do stop learning, maybe you should find a different field. During the pandemic, I started scheduling time with colleagues, friends in my field, and I would set up a meeting with them via our assistants every two or three months. And we would not only socialize but we would kind of catch up on the current state of affairs in our field. And it was an opportunity to also network, and it was very helpful, especially during COVID. It really helped me gain some normalcy and kind of keep me attached to the field of radiation oncology during that time. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: How do you navigate clinic work, keeping up to date, and work-life balance? Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: Like Dr. Symington, I probably work about 50 hours a week in the office, so I tend to work from 7:00 to 5:00, and I'm out of the office at 5:00 on the dot. I have two small children at home, and I want to see them at least for two hours in the evening before they go to bed. As a radiation oncologist, we take HomeCall, and there are very few emergencies, so I have the weekends to not only spend time with my family but also catch up on any work that needs to be done.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: I'm so glad to hear that. Congratulations on your family.  Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: Well, I rescue small dogs, so at the moment, I have five small dogs, and they get a walk a day when weather permits. We're in the middle of a blizzard in Wyoming, so weather hasn't been permitting for the past four days, so the love and attention of those dogs keep me grounded. I also regularly go to the gym. I dread it every time I go, but I go at least four times a week, and I leave the gym and leave some of my problems behind. When I was younger, people would comment on the fact that I was slender and didn't need to go to the gym and would ask me why I did it, and I would say it's so I don't beat my children. That was obviously a joke, but I could shed the problems of the day by running on the treadmill or using the StairMaster. So I guess that's how I keep work-life balance.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: I would say that my work-life balance has improved greatly in the last eight months since I started the research portion of my fellowship. I'm not writing papers at 2:00 a.m. anymore, so that's like a huge upgrade. But really, I think, prioritizing when you're at work, you're at work, but then when you're at home, really trying to prioritize the things that are important to you. I am currently in my parents' home, while I'm recording this podcast, I get to spend time with them. I get to spend time with my family, my friends. I like to make time for those things because they provide me joy. I think a huge part of our work is being there for people in really, really tough times in their life, and that can be extremely emotionally draining, even though it's exactly what we want to do. And I think making sure that you have things outside of work that really provide you a lot of joy is extremely important. And so I think now that I have the time to do it, I really am trying to capitalize on it. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, I really want to thank you, all of you, Dr. Goyal, Dr. Patel, and Dr. Symington, for a lively discussion. I learned a lot from you and a little bit about your personal life. Thank you for sharing that and sharing how you navigate to be a physician in oncology.  So this ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncology well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you would like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org. Thank you very much.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.              

The availability and quality of cancer care varies in different parts of the globe. Some locations find it difficult to have proper equipment, access to medications or even trained staff on hand. In this ASCO Education podcast we look how a group of doctors are sharing their skills and experience to set up training programs to help improve outcomes for patients with cancer in Kenya. Our guests will explore the creation of a pediatric oncology fellowship program in Kenya (11:48), how a young doctor found herself interested in improving global health (14:30), and discuss lessons learned that are applicable to health care in the United States (21:07).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Terry Vik: Research Funding Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation Dr. Jennifer Morgan: None Resources: Podcast: Oncology, Etc. - Dr. Miriam Mutebi on Improving Cancer Care in Africa Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 1) Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan Part 2 If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page. Dave Johnson: Welcome, everyone, to a special edition of Oncology, Etc., an oncology educational podcast designed to introduce our listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of Oncology. Today's guest is my co-host, Dr. Pat Loehrer, who is the Joseph and Jackie Cusick Professor of Oncology and Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Indiana University, where he serves as the Director of Global Health and Health Equity. Pat is the Director Emeritus of the Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center. Pat has many different accomplishments, and I could spend the next hour listing all of those, but I just want to point out, as many of you know, he is the founder of what formerly was known as the Hoosier Oncology Group, one of the prototypes of community-academic partnerships which have been hugely successful over the years.  He's also the founding director of the Academic Model for Providing Access to Healthcare Oncology Program, which has grown rather dramatically over the last 17 years. This includes the establishment of fellowship programs in GYN oncology, pediatric oncology, and medical oncology through the Moi University School of Medicine in Kenya. Through its partnership with the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, over 8000 cancer patients a year are seen, and over 120,000 women from western Kenya have been screened for breast and cervical cancer in the past five years. Pat is also the co-PI of the U-54 grant that focuses on longitudinal HPV screening of women in East Africa. He currently serves as a Senior Consultant of the NCI Cancer for Global Health.  So, Pat, welcome. We have with us today two special guests as well that I will ask Pat to introduce to you. Pat Loehrer: Dave, thanks for the very kind introduction. I'm so pleased today to have my colleagues who are working diligently with us in Kenya. The first is Terry Vik, who is Professor of Pediatrics here at Indiana University and at Riley Hospital. He's been the Director of the Fellowship Program and the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Program and Director of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Program. He got his medical degree at Johns Hopkins and did his residency at UCLA and his fellowship at Dana-Farber. And he's been, for the last 10 to 15 years, been one of my co-partners in terms of developing our work in Kenya, focusing on the pediatric population, where he helps spearhead the first pediatric oncology fellowship in the country.  And then joining us also is Dr. Jennifer Morgan. Jenny is a new faculty member with us at Indiana University as an Assistant Professor. She, I think, has 16 state championship medals for track and field in high school. I've never met an athlete like that in the past. She ended up going to Northwestern Medical School. She spent time in Rwanda with Partners in Health, and through that, eventually got interested in oncology, where she completed her fellowship at University of North Carolina and has spent a lot of her time in Malawi doing breast cancer research. I don't know of anyone who has spent as much time at such a young age in global oncology.  Dave Johnson: So Pat, obviously, you and I have talked a lot over the years about your work in Kenya, but our listeners may not know about Eldoret. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about the history of the relationship between your institution and that in Kenya. Pat Loehrer: It's really a remarkable story. About 30 some odd years ago, Joe Mamlin and Bob Einterz, and Charlie Kelly decided they wanted to do a partnership in Global Health. And they looked around the world and looked at Nepal and looked at Mexico, and they fell upon Eldoret, which was in Western Kenya. They had the birth of a brand new medical school there, and this partnership developed. In the midst of this came the HIV/AIDS pandemic. And these gentlemen worked with their colleagues in Kenya to develop one of the most impressive programs in the world focused on population health and dealing with the AIDS pandemic. They called it the Academic Model for Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS or AMPATH, and their success has been modeled in many other places. They have many different institutions from North America and Europe that have gone there to serve Western Kenya, which has a catchment area of about 25 million people.  About 15 to 20 years ago, I visited AMPATH, and what they had done with HIV/AIDS was extraordinary. But what we were seeing there in cancer was heartbreaking. It reminded us, Dave, as you remember back in the ‘60s and ‘70s with people coming in with advanced cancers of the head and neck and breast cancers that were untreated. And in addition, we saw these young kids with Burkitt's Lymphomas with huge masses out of their jaws. And seeing that and knowing what was possible, what we saw in the States and what seemed to be impossible in Kenya, spurred me on, as well as a number of other people, to get involved. And so, we have built up this program over the last 15 and 20 years, and I think it's one of the most successful models of global oncology that's in existence.  Dave Johnson: That's awesome. Terry, tell us a little bit about your involvement with the program at Moi University.  Terry Vik: Sure. So, I took an unusual path to get to Eldoret because I started off in work in signal transduction and protein kinases, then morphed into phase I studies of kinase inhibitors that was happening in the early 2000s. But by the end of the decade, Pat was beginning to establish oncology programs in Kenya. And because half the population is children and there were lots of childhood cancers, and many of them can be curable, he mildly twisted my arm to go with him to set up pediatric oncology in Kenya. And through his help and Matt Strother, who is a faculty member on the ground, establishing that, I first went in 2010 just to see how things were running and to see all the things that Pat had recognized as far as things that needed to be done to make Eldoret a center for cancer care.   And so, the last 13 years now, I've been working, going anywhere from one to four times a year to Kenya, mainly helping the Kenyans to develop their medical care system. Not so much seeing patients or taking care of patients, other than talking about best practices and how we do things in the US that can be readily translated to what's going on in Kenya. And so, we've been able to establish a database, keep track of our patients in pediatric oncology, recognize that lots of kids are not coming into care, not being diagnosed. There's a huge gap between numbers who you would expect to have childhood cancer versus the numbers actually coming to the hospital. As the only pediatric treatment center for a catchment area of 25 million, half of whom are under the age of 20, we should be seeing a lot of kids with cancer, but we are probably only seeing 10% of what we would expect.  So, myself, many of my colleagues from Indiana University, as well as colleagues from the Netherlands Princess Maxima Hospital for Pediatric Cancer, we've been partnering for these past 13 years to train Kenyans to recognize cancer, to have treatment protocols that are adapted for the capabilities in Kenya, and now finally starting to show real progress in survival for childhood cancer in Kenya, both in leukemias, lymphomas, and solid tumors, with a fair number of publications in Wilms tumor and Burkitt lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. So, it's been really heartening, I think.  I tell people that the reason I go to Kenya studying signal transduction and protein kinase inhibitors in pediatric cancer, I can maybe save a couple of kids over a career by that kind of work. But going to Kenya to show people how to find and treat kids with leukemia, I'm literally seeing the impact of hundreds of kids who are alive today that wouldn't be alive otherwise. So, that's really been the success of pediatric oncology there. Dave Johnson: Is the spectrum of childhood cancer in Kenya reflective of what we see in the States, or are there some differences? Pat Loehrer: It really is surprisingly similar. I think the only thing that– Well, two things that are more common in Kenya because of the so-called ‘malaria belt' and the association with Burkitt Lymphoma, there's a fair number of kids with Burkitt's Lymphoma there. Although, as mosquito control and malaria control has improved, actually, the numbers of cases of Burkitt's have been dropping, and a lot of cancers were sort of hidden, not recognized as leukemia or not recognized as other lymphomas. Just because if Burkitt's is endemic, then every swelling is Burkitt's. And I think that's been shown by looking at pathology retrospectively to say a lot of what they thought was Burkitt's was maybe not necessarily Burkitt's. And then nasopharyngeal carcinoma with Epstein-Barr virus prevalence also is a little bit more common than I'm used to seeing, but otherwise, the spectrum of cancers are pretty similar. So, it's heartening to know that we've been treating childhood cancers with simple medicines, generic medicines, for 50 years in the US. And so I like to tell people, I just want to get us up to the ‘90s, maybe the 2000s in Kenya, and that will really improve the survival quite a bit. Dave Johnson: You mentioned that there were adjustments that you were making in the therapies. Could you give us some examples of what you're talking about? Terry Vik: The biggest adjustments are that the ability to give blood product support, transfusions of platelets is somewhat limited. So, for instance, our ability to treat acute myeloid leukemia, which is heavily dependent on intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy, we're not so good at that yet because we don't have the support for blood products. Similarly, the recognition and treatment of infections in patients is somewhat limited. Yet, just the cost of doing blood cultures, getting results, we actually have the antibiotics to treat them, but figuring out that there actually is an infection, and we're just beginning to look at resistance patterns in bacteria in Kenya because I think that's an indiscriminate use of antibiotics. In Kenya, there are a lot of resistant organisms that are being identified, and so figuring out how best to manage those are the two biggest things. But now, in Eldoret, we have two linear accelerators that can give contemporary radiation therapy to kids who need it. We have pediatric surgeons who can resect large abdominal tumors. We have orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons to assist. All those things are in place in the last three to five years. So, really, the ability to support patients through intensive chemotherapy is still one of the last things that we're working diligently on improving. Dave Johnson: So one thing that I've read that you've done is you're involved heavily in the creation of a pediatric oncology fellowship program. If I read it correctly, it's a faculty of one; is that correct? Terry Vik: Well, now that two have just graduated, it's a faculty of three, plus some guest lecturers. So I feel quite good about that.  Dave Johnson: So tell us about that. That must have been quite the challenge. I mean, that's remarkable. Terry Vik: That goes back to one of my longtime colleagues in Kenya, Festus Njuguna, who is Kenyan. He did his medical school training at Moi University and then did pediatric residency there. They call it a registrar program there. And then he was, since 2009, 2010, he's been the primary pediatric oncologist. Although he always felt he did not have the formal training. He'd spent time in the US and in Amsterdam to get some added training for caring for kids. But it was his vision to create this fellowship program. So Jodi Skiles, one of my colleagues who had spent some time in Kenya and myself and he worked on creating the fellowship document that needs to go through the university to get approved. That finally got approved in 2019. And so the first two fellows…I was on a Fulbright Scholar Award to start that fellowship program for a year right in the middle of the pandemic, but we were able to get it started, and I was able to continue to go back and forth to Kenya quite a bit in the last two years to get through all of the training that was laid out in our curriculum. And two fellows, Festus and another long-standing colleague of mine, Gilbert Olbara, both completed the fellowship and then sat for their final exams at the end of last year and graduated in December. So it really was heartwarming for me to see these guys want to build up the workforce capacity from within Kenya, and being able to support them to do that was a good thing. Pat Loehrer: Parenthetically, Dave, we had the first Gynecology Oncology program in the country, too, led by Barry Rosen from Princess Margaret, and they have 14 graduates, and two of them now are department chairs in Kenya. Jenny's spearheading a medical oncology curriculum now so that we have that opened up this year for the first time. Dave Johnson: It's uncommon to find a junior faculty as accomplished as Jenny. Jenny, tell us a little about your background and how you got interested in global health, and your previous work before moving to IU.  Jennifer Morgan: I was an anthropology major at undergrad at Michigan, and I think I really always liked studying other cultures, understanding different points of view. And so I think part of that spirit when you study anthropology, it really sticks with you, and you become a pretty good observer of people and situations, I think, or the goal is that you become good at it. I think my interest in medicine and science, combined with that desire to learn about different cultures really fueled a lot of my interests, even from undergrad and medical school. I really felt strongly that access to health is a human right, and I wanted to work for Partners in Health when I graduated from residency. I had heard a lot about that organization and really believed in the mission around it.   And so I went to work in Butaro in Rwanda, and I really didn't have any plans to do cancer care, but then I just kind of got thrown into cancer care, and I really loved it. It was a task-shifting model that really where you use internists to deliver oncology care under the supervision of oncologists from North America. So, most of them were from Dana-Farber or a variety of different universities. And so it made me feel like this high-resource field of Oncology was feasible, even when resources and health systems are strained. Because I think a lot of people who are interested in Oncology but also kind of this field of global health or working in underserved settings really struggle to find the way that the two fit sometimes because it can feel impossible with the hyper-expensive drugs, the small PFS benefits that drive the field sometimes. And so I think, Butaro for me, and Partners in Health, and DFCI, that whole group of people and the team there, I think, really showed me that it's feasible, it's possible, and that you can cure people of cancer even in small rural settings. And so that drove me to go to fellowship, to work with Satish Gopal and UNC. And because of COVID, my time in Malawi was a bit limited, but I still went and did mainly projects focused on breast cancer care and implementation science, and they just really have a really nice group of people. And I worked with Tamiwe Tomoka, Shakinah Elmore, Matthew Painschab, really just some great people there, and I learned a lot.  And so, when I was looking for a job after fellowship, I really wanted to focus on building health systems. And to me, that was really congruent with the mission of AMPATH, which is the tripartite mission of advancing education and research and clinical care. And I knew from Pat that the fellowship program would be starting off, and I think to me, having been in Rwanda and Malawi and realizing how essential building an oncology workforce is, being a part of helping build a fellowship as part of an academic partnership was really exciting. And then also doing very necessary clinical outcomes research and trying to do trials and trying to bring access to care in many systems that are very resource constrained. So that's kind of how I ended up here.  Pat Loehrer: That's awesome. So tell us a little bit about your breast cancer work. What exactly are you doing at the moment? Jennifer Morgan: In Malawi, during my fellowship, we looked at the outcomes of women with breast cancer and really looking at late-stage presentations and the fact that in Malawi, we were only equipped with surgery, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy, but not radiation. You see a lot of stage four disease, but you also see a lot of stage three disease that you actually have trouble curing because it's so locally advanced, really bulky disease. And so that first study showed us the challenge of trying to cure patients– They may not have metastatic disease, but it can be really hard to locally even treat the disease, especially without radiation. And so that's kind of what we learned.   And then, using an implementation science framework, we were looking at what are the barriers to accessing care. And I think it was really interesting some of the things that we found. In Malawi, that has a high HIV rate, is that the stigma around cancer can be far more powerful than the stigma around HIV. And so, we are seeing a lot of women who are ostracized by their communities when they were diagnosed with cancer. And really, they had been on, many HIV-positive women, on ARVs for a long time living in their communities with no problem, and so HIV had kind of been destigmatized, but we're seeing the stigma of cancer and the idea that kids are as a death sentence was a really prominent theme that we saw in Malawi.  So some of these themes, not all of them, but some of them are very similar in Kenya, and so what I'm helping work on now is there's been this huge effort with AMPATH called the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program, where around 180,000 women have been screened for breast cancer in a decentralized setting which is so important - so in counties and in communities. We're looking at who showed up to this screening and why did women only get breast cancer screening and why did some of them only get cervical, and why did some get what was intended - both. Because I think many people on the continent and then other LMICs are trying to do breast and cervical cancer co-screening to really reduce the mortality of both of those cancers. And the question is, I think: is mammography a viable screening mechanism in this setting or not? That's a real question in Kenya right now. And so we're going to be looking to do some studies around mammography use and training as well.  Dave Johnson: So, I have a question for all three of you. What lessons have you learned in your work in Kenya or Malawi that you've brought back to the States to improve care in the United States? Pat Loehrer: One is that the cost of care is ever present there. And so one of the things that we need to think about here is how can we deliver care more cheaply and more efficiently. It goes against the drug trials that are going on by industry where they want to use therapy for as long as they can and for greater times. And there are a lot of common things like access to care is a big issue there, and it's a big issue in our country. So we have used in IU some community healthcare workers in rural parts of our state as well as in the urban centers so that they can go to people's houses to deliver care.  Terry was involved with a wonderful project. It was a supplement from the NCI, which looked at barriers to care and abandonment of therapy. And just by giving patients and their families a small stipend that would cover for their travel and their food, the abandonment rate went down substantially, and they were able to improve the cure rate of Burkitt's Lymphoma. It's probably about 60% now. And so those are issues that I think we see here in our state, where people can't come to IU because of the cost of parking, that's $20 a visit. The lesson there is that we really need to get down to the patients and to their families and find out what their obstacles are.  Terry Vik: My favorite example, since I deal with kids and parents, is how striking parents are the same worldwide. They all want the best for their child. They all want anything that can be done to potentially cure them, treatment, they do anything they could. And I think the hardest thing, as Pat said, is the financial burden of that care. And the other thing that I bring back to my fellows in the US is that you don't have to do Q4-hour or Q6-hour labs to follow somebody when they start their therapy. Once a day, every 3 days, works quite well also. And just the realization that things can be done with a lot less stress in the US if you only decide to do it. Dave Johnson: Jenny, any thoughts from you on that? Jennifer Morgan: I think for me, decentralized cancer care is so important. Even being back on the oncology wards in Indiana in December, I saw a couple of really advanced patients who were really unfortunate, and they had tried to go through the system of referrals and getting to cancer care. And unfortunately, I think there are disparities in the US health system, just like in Kenya, and maybe on different scales. But cancer care that's accessible is so important, and accessible versus available, I think we a lot of time talk about therapies that may be available, but they're not accessible to patients. And that's really what we see in Kenya, what we see in rural Indiana. There are a number of grants that talk about reciprocal innovation because some of these things that we do in Kenya to minimize burden on the system are things that can be done in rural Indiana as well. And so, partnership on these issues of trying to improve decentralized care is important everywhere.  Pat Loehrer: And again, from the perspective as a medical oncologist, we see patients with late-stage diseases. We could eradicate the number one cause of cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa, cervical cancer, from the face of the earth just by doing prevention. We don't do enough in our country about prevention. The other dimension I guess I wanted to bring up as far as multidisciplinary care - when we think about that in our country, it's radiation therapy, surgery, medical oncology, but one of the lessons learned there is that the fourth pillar is policy. It's really about cancer policy and working with the government, Ministry of Health to affect better insurance cover and better care and to work with a different discipline in terms of primary care, much more strongly than we do in our country.  Dave Johnson: Are you encountering similar levels of vaccine hesitancy in Kenya as you might see in the States, or is that something that's less of an issue? Pat Loehrer: I'll let Terry and Jenny answer that. Terry Vik: I think there is some degree of vaccine hesitancy, and not so much that it's fear of the vaccine, but it's fear of the people pushing the vaccine. If it's coming from the government or if it's coming from outside drug companies or outside physician recommendations, it's less likely to be taken up. And if it's coming from within their own community or if it's their chiefs and their community leaders they respected, then I think there is less vaccine hesitancy certainly in a lot of things we do in pediatrics. So I think there is hesitancy, but it's coming from a different source than what we see in the US.   Jennifer Morgan: I would agree, and I think also COVID has changed the game on vaccine perceptions everywhere, and I don't think Kenya is spared from that either. So it may take a few years to see really what's going on with that.   Pat Loehrer: Jenny and I were at this conference, it's a Cancer Summit in Nairobi a couple of weeks ago, and we saw this little documentary there. And this notion of misinformation, as we've seen in our country, is also common over there. They were interviewing a number of men and women from Northern Kenya about prostate cancer, which is a very serious problem in Kenya. The notion was that even doing PSA screening caused infertility, and so the men and women didn't want their husbands to get screened for prostate cancer because they would become less fertile by doing that. So, again, there are lessons that we– as Jenny mentioned from the top about anthropology, I think we're all connected, we all have different ways of viewing communications in health, but I do think that we can learn from each other substantially. Dave Johnson: I mean, it's remarkable work. How is it funded?  Pat Loehrer: Well, I've been fortunate to be able to work with some friends who are philanthropists. We've had strong support as we've told our story with various different foundations. And we've been very grateful to Pfizer, who are very helpful to us in the early stages of this - Lilly Foundation, Takeda, Celgene. And I think as we basically share our vision of what we're trying to accomplish, we've been very humbled by the support that we have gotten for us. The U54 helps support some of the research. We have D43 we're doing through Brown University. So we plan to increase our research funding as best as we can. But this is active generosity by some wonderful people. We have a $5.5 million cancer and chronic care building in which a large sum of it came from Indiana University and the Department of Radiation Oncology. Dr. Peter Johnstone helped lead that. There was a Lilly heir that gave us quite a bit of money. An Indian Kenyan named Chandaria also donated money. So it's a matter of presenting the vision and then looking for people that want to invest in this vision.  Well, I just want to say, from my perspective, I am more of a cheerleader than on the field. But Terry, I know you spent a tremendous amount of time on the ground in Kenya, and Jenny, you're living there. I just wanted to say publicly that you guys are my heroes. Dave Johnson: Yeah. I think all of our listeners will be impressed by what they heard today, and we very much appreciate you both taking time to chat with us.  So at this point, I want to thank our listeners of Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Educational Podcast. This is where we'll talk about oncology medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org.  Pat, before we go, I have an important question to ask you. Pat Loehrer: I can't wait. Dave Johnson: Do you know how snails travel by ship?  Pat Loehrer: As cargo! Dave Johnson: Awesome. You got it. All right. Well, Terry and Jenny, thank you so much for taking time to chat with us. It's been great. I'm very impressed with the work you guys are doing. Really appreciate your efforts. Terry Vik: Great. Thank you. Jennifer Morgan: Thank you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Clinical trials are essential to progress in medicine, but racial and ethnic minorities are frequently underrepresented in such studies. In this ASCO Education podcast episode, we will examine this issue with Dr. Carol Brown, gynecologic cancer surgeon and Chief Health Equity Officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Ana Maria Lopez, Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Oncology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College and former Chair of ASCO's Health Equity Committee and Mr. Ted Bebi, Innovation Manager at Medidata Solutions. They discuss how diversification of clinical trials contributes to health equity (4:03), barriers to participating in clinical trials (14:37), and what clinicians and trial sponsors can do to improve participant diversity in clinical trials (20:25).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Carol Brown – None Ted Bebi: Employment – Medidata (a Dassault Systèmes company); Stock and Other Ownership Interest – Pfizer, Eli Lily, Abbvie, Merck, BMY        Dr. Ana Lopez - None Resources ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial & Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials Journal Article: Increasing racial and ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trials Journal Article: Representation of minorities and women in oncology clinical trials Podcast: Impact of Implicit Racial Bias on Oncology Patient Care and Outcomes ASCO-ACCC JustASK Training Program If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Carol Brown: Welcome to the ASCO Education podcast. I'm Dr. Carol Brown, a gynecologic cancer surgeon and the Chief Health Equity Officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Our guests and I will be exploring the problems and solutions with regards to racial disparities in clinical trials.   A necessary element for conducting clinical trials is, obviously, the enrollees or participants. Racial and ethnic diverse groups are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, despite having a disproportionate burden for certain cancers. In addition, there is increasing evidence that a person's individual genetic makeup may determine the level of toxicity or efficacy of a new cancer drug specifically. Therefore, when we don't have enough diversity in our cancer clinical trials, it can really undermine the generalizability of our results. And so, to address this gap, in its recent updated guidance to industry, the US Food and Drug Administration stated that enrollment in clinical trials should reflect the diversity of the population who ultimately use a treatment.   In 2022, ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers issued a joint statement recommending that anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion.   Joining me to discuss this important topic today is Dr. Ana Maria Lopez, who's the Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College. And she's the former Chair of ASCO's Health Equity Committee. Our second guest is Mr. Ted Bebi, Innovation Manager at Medidata Solutions. His research explores underrepresentation of black patients at clinical trials and how diversity impacts clinical trials.  Participant disclosures for this episode are listed on the podcast page.  So why should we care about improving diversity in clinical trials? Dr. Lopez? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: We are clinicians. We are wanting to take care of our patients as best as possible, and we can only do that if our studies include everyone. An example that I often think about is the concept of airbags began in 1953, and in 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came out and said, “You know what? We should be testing airbags on small female crash test dummies because otherwise, we don't know that these airbags will be safe.” And in fact, there were data that the airbags that existed put women and children at a much higher risk for injury or death. So, we want to be ahead of that curve, and we want to allow the best possible treatment. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Mr. Bebi, what would you say about how we could improve diversity in clinical trials? Ted Bebi: So I really like the example of the airbags that Dr. Lopez brought up because it makes it clear when building a product it's important to test the product in a representative sample of the population that will ultimately end up using it. It's the same with products like medications. If you want an efficacious drug, you should test it in the appropriate population. It's what constitutes good science. Additionally, adequate diversity in clinical trials is also important because it's ultimately an issue of health equity and providing fair access. Dr. Carol Brown: Could you kind of go on from there and talk about, specifically, how does diversifying the group of people that participate in clinical trials actually translate into increasing health equity?  Ted Bebi: Well, participating in a clinical trial is a form of receiving health care. Often, we are talking about patients for which a clinical trial might be their last resort. And even if not, participating in a clinical trial means gaining early access to potentially life-changing drugs that could become the new industry standard and doing so at no cost. So, you're receiving care and follow-up from some of the best specialists in the field. So having fair access to this opportunity for all patients is definitely a health equity issue. Dr. Carol Brown: Great. Dr. Lopez, how would you answer that question about how does diversifying clinical trials contribute to health equity? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Yeah, no, I think I agree with everything that Mr. Bebi said. In addition, I think we have to remember that diversity is more than race. Race is truly a social construct. We need to think about gender. We need to think about age, the whole lifespan, and people are living longer. How we metabolize medications at different time points in our life may vary. So, lots of different factors that we can consider when we think of diversity. But the gold standard is really: Are folks getting the best outcome possible? And as long as that metric is not being reached, we need to be thinking of how can we facilitate that. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Dr. Lopez, you brought up this concept that health equity is really the best outcome possible. Could you comment a little bit about how do we know, particularly in cancer, what is the best outcome possible? So how do we determine what the reference is for that, so we can figure out whether our patients are actually getting health equity? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Sure. So, we use different time points. We can look at relapse rates, survival rates, and of course, part of that may be comorbidities. Certain comorbidities that people have may impact their cancer treatment outcomes. So, it is complex, but it is important for us to take a look contextually at what the patient's risk is and what the patient's outcome would be. Dr. Carol Brown: We can kind of all agree that when we're talking about equity, it's getting the best outcome for everybody, no matter what they're bringing to it. And I really like your comment, Dr. Lopez, about race being not only the only factor but remembering that it is a social construct. If you could add to that, Mr. Bebi. Ted Bebi: We're talking a lot about diversity in clinical trials in terms of race and ethnicity, and that is something that is ultimately very important. But we're talking about diversity in all sorts of aspects. We're talking about diversity with age. We're talking about diversity with sex, with socioeconomic aspects because we often use race as a proxy for other things that might be going on in patients' lives. And we need to consider all of this part of diversity in clinical trials because once the drug is out in the market, it will be an intersection of potentially all of those identities and many things going on in their life that might affect how they respond. So, when we're thinking about race as a diversity point, we might be using it as a proxy for a specific type of individual, a specific patient journey that we want to make sure to include. It's not necessarily that race is the end-all, be-all measure of diversity; it's that we want to capture the true patient experience for that disease. Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: What I think is also really interesting is how we collect the data. And some of what the last couple of years have taught us is that folks may not trust our healthcare systems, and so folks may not be willing to say, ‘I am X, Y, or Z,' which certainly puts us a little bit in the void. So how important it is for us as clinicians, as researchers, to be part of creating an environment where patients can feel that ‘Yes, I can trust and I can share, and I can say, this is who I am,' because that could impact clinical care. Dr. Carol Brown: So, acknowledging that race is a social construct and that it really is used as a surrogate for other social determinants of health and other factors that affect health, and again, really acknowledging what you said, Dr. Lopez, that even asking people to identify their race is extremely problematic. But given what we do know and what our experience has been in the clinical trial world, first, Mr. Bebi, could you comment about what has been your experience and your research with the current state of participation by diverse racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials in the United States? What have you found in your research?  Ted Bebi: Recently, at Metidata, we published a paper where we looked at the state of black participation in clinical trials. We found the level at which you look at the data really matters. For example, when we looked at racial diversity across all US trials, black representation actually matched the proportion of black people represented in the 2020 US National Census, which is about 14%. But looking deeper, there were actually huge differences by therapeutic and disease area. And specifically, we saw that in oncology, black participation was only at around 8.5%, so far below the representation of black people in the United States.   Another interesting story is that when we were looking at the central nervous system therapeutic area, overall, we saw a pretty high rate of black participation at around 20%. But when we looked at one of the largest central nervous system indications, Alzheimer's, we saw only 5% black participation, so much, much lower. What we discovered is that within this therapeutic area, there were actually a lot of psychiatric trials that were driving the rate up. So, the main takeaway from this research is that you cannot take a general level of diversity as adequate for all diseases. You really have to zoom in on the specific indication to understand what constitutes good diversity or representative diversity for that disease.  Dr. Carol Brown: I'd like to ask both of you what do you think about that - what the bar should be. Because Mr. Bebi, you mentioned using the census distribution of races in the population, but I think a lot of us in the cancer field feel like that maybe isn't the right bar. Maybe the bar should really be what is the cancer burden distributed according to self-identified race, ethnicity, or other categories. And when you look at that, I think you find some different statistics. So, Dr. Lopez, could you comment about what your work has shown you about the current state of representation of diverse people affected by cancer in cancer clinical trials, and maybe get a little bit more into what you were saying earlier about the definition of race and the challenge of determining race, etc. Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: We really need to look closely at the data, and that looking at therapeutic trials and at specific populations can be really important. Now, we're a big country, so there can be - what is the catchment area that you serve? And in that catchment area, what are the cancers you're treating, and in which populations are at greatest risk? But right, sometimes it may not be - let's say the population is 10%x, but if that population is at higher risk for a certain disease, to really get granular about the understanding, I need to recruit more people that are from that greater-risk population. So that's where I think it's so important to know the population, to have connections with the community. And actually, the community can say, “Hey, this is what you may want to be studying because this is what impacts us.” Ted Bebi: If I can speak on the research side as well, the best way to ensure representative diversity is to have a very solid understanding of the natural prevalence of a disease. We need to be able to understand what the risk populations are and, even further, what does the mortality look like? Are there differences in how different patients are experiencing the disease further on, not just how they're getting the disease and how often they're getting the disease? So it needs to look different for every single indication. And even with the oncology, for example, the two largest indications in clinical trials for oncology, lung cancer and breast cancer, they also look slightly different. With lung cancer, and our research showing at 8% black participation and breast cancer being a little bit higher at around 11%. So, we always need to take into consideration that incidents include prevalence, include mortality. And yes, the golden standard should be can we build a clinical trial that reflects the actual representative diversity of the disease in the real world? That is what we're striving for. Dr. Carol Brown: I would agree with that. I would also add, though, that there may be some specific cancers for which you want to have an even greater representation of a particular group because it might be directly related to the question you're trying to answer. So, for example, you mentioned breast cancer, so I think most of the audience is probably aware that young women who self-identify as black tend to have a higher mortality from breast cancer. And this is believed to be because they are more likely to get triple-negative breast cancer. And so one of the strategies we've looked at at our cancer center is for trials specifically for triple-negative breast cancer, trying to overrepresent women who self-identify as black or have African ancestry in those trials because we're specifically trying to make sure that we do something to narrow that gap in survival from breast cancer that they experience. So, I think that, as you all mentioned, I think what we can take from this is it's really important to look closely that there are different layers and subtleties that we have to take into account.  So, I think we've clearly established that there is underrepresentation of diverse groups. But let's talk about why. So why do we think that different self-identified races and ethnicities or age groups or socioeconomic status background people are underrepresented in clinical trials? What are some of the reasons in your experience for this, Dr. Lopez? Is it funding outreach? What are the main barriers that you've experienced in terms of getting diverse populations to participate in clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Maybe all of the above. But one of the things, and one of the things that we're working on, is when a person comes in and you have the trauma of the diagnosis. And they're offered a study, and there may be suspicion of the health care system, that may not be the best time to really talk and educate around a clinical trial. So, if people receive the education, learn about clinical trials before that acute event, then they can come in more prepared. So, one is just the concepts of randomization, double blind in the setting where there may be distrust of the healthcare system may be difficult. Also, some of the clinical trials, and I'm sure everyone has studies where the person needs to be at the clinic for about 12 hours getting blood draws. And people have other responsibilities, and they may not have the support mechanisms for transportation, for childcare, for elder care. And if you're taking two to three buses and, you know, here I am in Center City, Philadelphia, and you need to take two to three buses to get home at 07:00, that could be a deterrent to getting on a clinical trial.   So, there are lots of clinical factors, social factors, experience with the studies, and also how we design the studies. Can we design studies so that we are more inclusive in the criteria? So, I think lots of questions, and then certainly there are clinician factors. There could be bias that we all have that maybe we don't offer studies to certain people, so something for us to be very introspective about as well. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Mr. Bebi, could you comment specifically on, with the research that you've done, are there some barriers on the side of the sponsors of the trials or in terms of industry that you found and that you found in your work at Medidata, maybe really affecting the ability of diverse people to participate in clinical trials? Ted Bebi: Dr. Lopez did a really good job at presenting what we consider patient-level barriers, such as mistrust in the healthcare system. Logistical issues such as taking time off from work, transportation, or feeling that the investigators running the trials don't fully represent the patient. But the industry-level barriers are just as important. A lot of companies are making decisions on what good diversity should look like and where they can find more diverse patients based on incomplete data sources such as disconnected external data, or they might be limited to data from the companies.  Dr. Carol Brown: Great. So, Dr. Lopez, what do you think individual physicians can do, or individual investigators can do to improve the diversity of representation in cancer clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Certainly, being circumspect, being aware of our own biases, our own approaches. But as a health system, I think we need to think about: How can we make it easy to enroll people into trials? So are there ways, if this is, for example, a study for people at this stage of cancer, that all of those patients could be screened in the electronic record? Let's have our electronic tools work for us so that we identify patients that are meeting the study criteria and then connecting the patients, the study, and the investigators together. So, this way, by having our systems identify potential participants, there's a less chance of there being that personal bias. The research team can come to the doctor, to the oncologist, let's say, and say these are folks that are eligible. What do you think? So, in a way, setting up systems to help with the recruitment would be very helpful. Dr. Carol Brown: Mr. Bebi, can you comment from the standpoint of specifically– because you focus on this– the importance of data, the data, how to capture the data about race or ethnicity or whatever the demographic diversity variable is, what can individual investigators do to really address the challenges around collecting this data and sharing it? Ted Bebi: Often, race and ethnicity data is not even captured at all. So, if we want to understand this issue better and improve upon it, we need better data inputs in order to produce this large-scale research that will help us ultimately advance the issue and not just rely on anecdotal information. Dr. Carol Brown: Are there any technologies or things that you came across in your specific work that can help with this ability to capture this type of data and to share it? Ted Bebi: I think it has more to do with the awareness and the clinician relationship with the patient. And I also think it has to do with sponsors and the way that they design the trial, to begin with, whether or not the race and ethnicity entry is something that they're asking in their electronic health forms. Because if that is not included in the clinical trial, to begin with, then there won't be any incentive to capture that information. Dr. Carol Brown: Dr. Lopez, do you have any specific tips that you would recommend to clinicians who want to improve recruitment of underrepresented groups in their clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: I think one thing that's really important is to be able to have the time. Now, that may not mean that it's all the clinicians' time. It may mean that you have a research coordinator. It may mean that you have a research nurse. It may mean that you give the patient a video that explains the study that they can take home. There can be different ways. Something that I often ask a patient is, “How do you make decisions?” People tell me, “You know, I always go over this with my wife,” let's say, or, “I always discuss this in our family, and then we come to a conclusion.” Because that really helps me to think about how should I best deliver the information so that the patient can really feel I made a good decision and I made a value-congruent decision. So, I think time is critical and to set up our patient experience to really facilitate that type of experience for the patient.  Also, as a reference, I would urge people to take a look at the recent recommendations put out by ASCO and ACCC that talk specifically about increasing racial and ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trials. So, there are lots more strategies, a lot more ideas, and ways to really support clinicians and researchers. Dr. Carol Brown: Mr. Bebi, do you have any specific tips, particularly for trial sponsors, about how they can improve diversity in their clinical trials? Ted Bebi: In terms of companies and sponsors, what they can do if they want to improve diversity in their trials is they need to find and include the right sites that serve the populations that they are looking for. We published research that shows that there is high variability of diverse recruitment based on which sites you are looking at, with some sites providing the highest concentration of diverse patients. So, if diversity is not woven into trial design off the bat and you're not selecting the right sites, you run the risk of not reaching these populations. Companies also need to be willing to put in work to educate and develop sites into clinical trial sites. A clinical trial site is about building trust and relationships and knowing how to be culturally adept at talking to diverse communities.   Dr. Carol Brown: Great. Thank you so much. Well, I want to thank both of you, Dr. Lopez and Mr. Bebi, for a lively discussion on this ASCO Education podcast about diversity in clinical trials.   The ASCO Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org.  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Carol Brown – None Ted Bebi: Employment – Medidata (a Dassault Systèmes company); Stock and Other Ownership Interest – Pfizer, Eli Lily, Abbvie, Merck, BMY       Dr. Ana Lopez – None The purpose of this Podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this Podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the Podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

For some, pursuing a medical career is an all-consuming passion. What do you do if you have two? In this ASCO Education podcast, we look at the influences that propelled Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum to become a practicing cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a national correspondent for the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Rosenbaum will explain the family legacy that impacted her choice to pursue medicine (1:46), her discovery of the love of writing (5:02) and what prompts her to write about specific topics (15:53). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: None Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Resources:  Gray Matters: Analysis and Ambiguity by Lisa Rosenbaum, MD Podcast: Oncology, Etc. - In Conversation with Dr. Peter Bach (Part 1) Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Peter Bach (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.  Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson:  Hi, I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology, hence the "etcetera" in our name. Today's guest is an example of the "etcetera" aspect of our podcast. Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum is a practicing cardiologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty. She's a highly respected national correspondent for the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Rosenbaum began her writing career while she was still an undergraduate at Stanford. She later attended med school at the University of California, San Francisco, completed an internal medicine residency at the Mass General Hospital in Boston, and a cardiology fellowship at Weill Cornell in New York. She spent an additional year of fellowship at The New England Journal, where she learned about writing, reporting, and investigative journalism. Subsequently, she was hired for an academic position at Brigham and presented with an opportunity to write on a regular basis for The New England Journal. She's written on a whole variety of topics, ranging from physician burnout to cognitive bias, resident duty hours, conflicts of interest, vaccine hesitancy, and many other topics.  So, Lisa, thank you for joining us today. We're very excited to have you on the program.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Thank you so much for having me. Dave Johnson: Well, perhaps we could start by asking you to just tell us a little about your background and your family. Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I grew up in Portland, Oregon. My parents are both physicians. My father is a rheumatologist and my mom is a cardiologist, and now my sister is also an endocrinologist. And we have several family members who are physicians, including my grandfather, who was also a rheumatologist and a writer and played a pretty pivotal role in my life, both in terms of my decision to become a physician and also a writer. When he was in his 70's, he got laryngeal cancer and he was treated with radiation therapy and cured. But after, he wrote a book about the experience of being a patient called A Taste of My Own Medicine, which I think was published in the late 80's. It's an autobiography. And then in the early 90's, Disney bought the rights to the book and made it into the movie The Doctor, starring William Hurt. He has a cameo, actually, and apparently it took him like 17 takes just to get it right, to wave his hand when he's sitting in the waiting room.   That was a pretty formative experience in my life, because basically he ended up, after writing that book and, you know, having a lot of success with it, wanting to write another book. And by then he was in his late 80's, and he ended up getting Parkinson's disease, which steadily progressed. He died at 94, so he lived a long, good life. But when I got into medical school, he decided he wanted to write a book with me and that it was sort of the follow up to A Taste of My Own Medicine, because he sort of recognized medicine's shortcomings in the book and asked a lot of questions, but he would always say, "I have more questions than I have answers." And when I got into medical school, he had this idea that we were going to come up with all the answers and make medicine as wonderful as it had once been for him. So obviously that was a big part of my life, both in terms of my career as a writer and also my career as a doctor. Though I think I really never questioned whether or not I wanted to be a doctor. That just sort of seemed so obvious to me as a kid that the work was so meaningful. And I don't know, there's something about growing up where everywhere you go, people tell you how one of your relatives made their lives better. That's pretty inspiring, as a kid.   Pat Loehrer: It's interesting that both your parents were physicians, but you claim that your grandfather is the one that got you into medicine. But I think your early career, I think you were actually kind of focused on writing and writing creative fiction, and there was another event in your life that kind of turned you back over to medicine too, right? Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Right, right. And I don't want to not give credit to my parents. They played a huge, wonderful role in my life as well, and they still do.  So anyway, I did take a detour in my career. So, in college I ended up, the fall of my junior year, taking a creative writing class. I'd done all the pre-med requirements by then and probably like many pre-meds, it felt very robotic to me. It's also, you're surrounded by all these people who are really ambitious, and you can feel like you're not very good, right? I remember I made a B-minus on my first organic chemistry exam, and I called my mom crying, and I was like, "I'm not going to be a doctor. This is a disaster." So all of a sudden, once I had gotten through those classes and I took this creative writing class, it was just this transformative experience for me because it was intensely creative. And I've always been just really interested in people, like what makes people do what they do, and character. I am just so fascinated by people's characters.  But the other part of the creative writing classes that I loved so much was just the sense of community. So you go from this setting where you're all sort of pitted against one another in these classes, and then you're in this place where everybody's trying to help each other and you're learning about each other through writing because we're all really just like writing about ourselves, even when we pretend otherwise. And I made some of the best friends of my life who've gone on to have actually remarkable writing careers. So sort of on a whim because it was so enriching for me and I felt like I couldn't live without it, I applied for MFA's in Creative Writing in my senior year, and I got rejected everywhere but waitlisted at Columbia. And then I got in. So I moved to New York in 2001, basically a week before September 11th, and I truly fell apart. Not in a way that I regret at all now. I think that a lot of us, when we are not productive, feel like our time is wasted. And I don't think I wrote a word that entire year. Like, I got really depressed and I just spent a lot of time wandering the city and I ate a lot of bagels, but I was really sad. I spent a lot of time downtown, like, looking at the faces of all these people who had died. And it was so unfathomable to me. And I wasn't able to use writing to cope with it as I might be able to now. I think I was just too young. And I had challenges with my writing professor who sort of felt like we shouldn't be writing about that.  And so I ran away from writing. I mean, I dropped out of creative writing school and went to medical school, and that was clearly the right move. More than anything in my life, I love being a doctor, so I don't regret that at all. And I think it actually was really helpful to me to recognize that I'm not cut out to just be a writer. I need to be inside people's lives, and there's no better way to do that than as a physician. And writing is this extra bonus that I have still that helps me just like it did when I was writing fiction, sort of try to understand the world. But I don't think I could function if I didn't get to take care of patients. And that became clear when I was 22 years old, essentially.  Dave Johnson: So, Lisa, you did this fellowship at the New England Journal of Medicine. Can you tell us about that? What was that like? And how much influence did that have in your current position?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: It was awesome on so many levels. I think the first was that I really loved listening to people talk about science. That was new for me. And the rigor of the conversations at The Journal is really just hard to describe, and I just felt like I was like a kid in a candy shop. I'm interested in science, obviously, as a practicing physician, but I'm interested in science always in these meta ways. I'm interested in how we communicate science and the words we use and the conflicts that we focus on and those that we don't. And so much was always going on in my mind. ‘I was like, oh, my God, these are the data that are going to shape our practice. And then you have, like, a bunch of humans making these decisions.' And so that was inherently fascinating to me.  And the other thing that was really transformative was just sort of watching Jeff Drazen, who was the editor in chief at the time, and just how he led was so amazing to me. And I still think about it because, you know, in an ideal environment, I mean, people study this their whole lives, you know, organizational psychology and things like that. But, you know, to create a work environment where you can have, like, all these brilliant people sort of have a conversation and argue with each other and still come out friends was really remarkable to me. I don't think I could ever tell you what the recipe for that is, but I loved watching Jeff do his thing. And then, of course, on the most personal level, it was eleven years after I had tried and failed to be a writer in New York and all of a sudden I had medical training under my belt and I had a lot I wanted to say and I was capable in a way that I wasn't before of spending my days writing. So it turned out that I was able to structure my time and not just fall into a deep depression. So that was really important to me in terms of shaping my ambition. I still didn't believe that it was possible to have a job as a doctor and a writer until I was actually offered that job. But at least I knew that I loved it as much as I ever had.   They published what I wrote, and it's hard to describe, like, how that changes you in terms of realizing that, like, anybody might care what you had to say. You know, my experience until then had been writing this stuff with my grandfather, which was so inherently meaningful, but I could never get it published. I mean, the piece that I think that I'm still most proud of is what I ultimately wrote about my grandfather and this book project and it's called ‘The Art of Doing Nothing.'  I had a knee injury at the time, and I was in med school, and I couldn't get the doctor to do anything about it. And I was really compromised. I couldn't walk, and I was going into internship. And the prospect that I wasn't going to be able to do what I needed to do as an intern was just so terrifying to me. And so it sort of goes back and forth between that experience and my grandfather's ambition for us to fix medicine and his sense that something so fundamental had been lost. And it ends—I'm going to start crying when I talk about this—it ends with his death and how I wasn't planning to speak at his funeral, but then I just remembered this sense of something pushed me to walk onto the pulpit after all the other eulogies had been given. And I remember feeling the sense like, ‘Okay, he spent the last seven years wanting me to tell these stories, and I'm never going to be able to convey what he means or the point of his stories. And I could never describe the way he touched people's lives.' And I just remember when I was standing up there, I looked out and there were hundreds of people, patients, their children, who had just come to celebrate his life. And then this feeling that I didn't have to say anything because everybody already knew. So ‘The Art of Doing Nothing' is this idea that we're so reliant now on all these things that we can do. And my sort of tension with my own doctor was wanting an MRI. And by the way, I completely believe in a lot of the things we can do. I don't see how you could spend a day in the hospital as a cardiologist and not feel some awe for advances in our technologies and what they can do for patients. But I do think a lot of it has come at the expense of our humanity, not by the fault of any physicians, but in a system that just doesn't allow us to give people our time, our attention, or make them feel how much we care about them.  And so I think for me, the idea that my grandfather practiced at a time where he didn't have an MRI machine and he couldn't revascularize—I mean, he was a rheumatologist, but at that time, he would see patients having MI's and he did house calls and all these things, but that he could give them his love, for lack of a better word—it's a different type of love, but the love that we can give to patients, and that so many people then remembered him and showed up for him.  Pat Loehrer: If I can speak on behalf of your grandfather, if he was here, he would say that you have honored him.  Dave Johnson:Yeah, for sure.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: That's very kind.  Dave Johnson: Lisa, you write about so many different things. They're all wonderful. I really appreciate your willingness to bear your soul, so to speak. And speaking of soul, one of my favorite pieces that you wrote was I think it was ‘Heart and Sole', where you talked about-  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: -broke my feet?  Dave Johnson: Yeah, your feet. That was great. You, in a sense, mentioned your father. And your father is also a Rheumatologist, actually, your father gave a grand rounds here about seven or eight years ago that was one of the best lectures I've ever heard on uveitis.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: No, my dad is also huge. I've talked about my mom. I've talked about my grandfather. My dad is a huge part of my life, too. I just love him a whole lot.  Dave Johnson: Well, that came through in the article about your feet. What I wanted to ask you is obviously a lot of your ideas for writing come from personal experience, but you've also written about things like conflict of interest. You wrote a three-piece article in The New England Journal that actually generated some interesting conversation in the letters to the editor, including from former editors of The New England Journal. I wonder how you come upon these ideas. I mean, what prompts you to write about a particular topic?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: The two things in my life that like, drive my writing. I mean, I'm not talking about medicine specifically, but I'm extremely emotional. I feel things very intensely, and I think because of that, I've always been interested in the way emotions affect reason, because it's been clear to me for a long time that my emotions could get in the way of my ability to make good decisions. So then I became very interested in sort of the nature of how we make decisions and the role emotion plays in that. And so conflicts of interest were, like, the perfect example of this, both at a very individual level of the way emotion shapes reasoning, but also I'm very interested in sociology, how humans affect one another's perceptions. And I think that series was published in 2015, so it was sort of a little bit before social media became so much more pervasive in our lives, but this idea of sort of collective pile-ons and canceling people that hadn't picked up as much.  But I was very interested in this tension between advancing care and how that had gotten lost in this sort of desire to vilify people who worked with industry, because it just seemed very obvious to me that we needed that. And I was perplexed as to why we sort of seized on this one aspect of bias when so many biases shape how we behave. And again, that goes back to the fact that I spend my entire life thinking about what is biasing my own behavior. And so I remember very clearly, and I tell this story in the series, in the second essay, how I used to get called when I was a cardiology fellow about transfers from other hospitals overnight and whether or not they should give TPA en route, because if you wait too long to revascularize them, at that time, people were getting TPA. I've only ever worked at a hospital where people get revascularized, so we don't really do it a lot. But anyway, I remember being so tired and so wanting to not go in that I would feel inclined to say, just give TPA, even though it would be better for the patient to get revascularized. And if they would get revascularized, it meant that I would be up all night, because after they would have, like, a sheath, and I would have to pull the sheath, and it was over. And so I remember thinking, like, ‘I'm making a decision out of, like, fatigue and laziness.' I mean, I didn't actually make decisions this way, but I remember how powerful those forces were in shaping my medical advice. And we all know when we practice in these busy hospitals that so many of our interactions are not about what the science says to do. There are other factors that come into play that are deeply embedded in sort of the sociology of medicine or people's feelings about one another or themselves. And so conflicts of interest was just like, at the nexus of all these things that fascinate me.  And then the third one was about sort of moral outrage. And again, this was before our politics were as polarized as they are today, for instance. But this idea that when you feel moral outrage, that you lose the ability to weigh trade-offs was extremely interesting to me because, again, it seemed to be at the crux of what was happening in sort of our ability as a profession to talk about how to optimize our relationships with industry so that we could get our patients the best treatments. And that instead of vilifying scientists who either had unique expertise that could be shared with companies to develop treatments, or who were on FDA panels because they were the ones who knew the most, it just seemed to me kind of strange that we weren't able to have those conversations.  And then when you mentioned all the blowback, I mean, that was the first time in my career, and I've since experienced it again and again. But that felt to me very much part of the problem in the first place, that that like, just saying that this was more nuanced than we were recognizing, you know, generated a lot of anger, and I was, like, totally okay with that, because it it was why I wrote it in the first place. And if I felt that in 2015, I feel that even more now, which is essentially you cannot write about anything interesting anymore without risking being canceled. Like, it's just things are so volatile, and everything I write, I think this might be the end of me. And you sometimes can't predict what is going to enrage people, but it feels, speaking of trade-offs, like a worthwhile trade-off for me because I could write what I know everybody wants to hear, or what they already know, and there's clearly a market for that. But that is so boring to me. And I don't learn anything, and I don't think readers learn anything, so that just doesn't feel like my role in this universe. Dave Johnson: When do you find time to read?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I read like, every night, every afternoon. I mean, I'm constantly reading or listening to podcasts and thinking about what I'm writing, or I'm interviewing people. I read like, all the time. Pat Loehrer: What are you reading now that you would recommend it?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: The best books that I've read recently were Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin. I don't know if you've read it. It's actually my computer is literally sitting on the book. She also wrote a book that has some oncology relevance. It's called The Storied Life of AJ. Fikry, I think. I finished it the night before I was going on the consult service, and for some reason I wept. There's a cancer part of the story, so you'll see when you read it, I don't want to give it away. But it was one of those moments I think I'll remember forever, just because even though I'm saying all these things about caring about humanity, I still lose it sometimes. And the consult service can be really hard because this goes back to this whole bias thing, because you're just going as fast as you can. It's not because you don't care, it's because there are ten people also who need to be seen. And so you're triaging your time, but also your emotional bandwidth, and you walk into the room and you just hope that you don't get asked a lot of questions and that you can move quickly so you can go see the next consult. And so I finished this book, and I hope it's not giving me too much away. But anyway, someone in the book has cancer and isn't treated very well by the medical system. And so it was like the night before I was going on consults, and it stayed with me in the same way my grandfather stays with me. Just like, take a deep breath, the week will end and you never get a second chance to see these people. So do it right. Pat Loehrer: I can't wait to read it. One of my residents, when I was an intern, I had a patient that died, and I was just really distraught, but she just quietly said that the beauty of medicine is that it has such a great joy, but it also has these downs, and that's unlike any other profession. And that's really what makes it such a marvelous profession, because of the feeling that you have.  You're a physician writer. Which physician writers do you think are the most meaningful? Or which ones do you admire the most?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I have to tell you, I teach a writing class.  Pat Loehrer: It's you.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: For what?  Pat Loehrer: You're the one that you admire.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Oh, God, no. That wasn't what I was going to say. It's the opposite. So in the writing class, my editor of the journal and I teach a class to people, mostly to Brigham, but over the years, people from all over have started to join, and we do it on Zoom. And I have to say that there are some people in the class I just think are so talented. And what has struck me most about the experience beyond their talent, is just that physicians often just don't have an opportunity to get to write. And so I lucked out, like I really did. I lucked out in terms of having the opportunity to journal. I lucked out to grow up in a family that was just so loving toward me, telling me I could do whatever I wanted. But not everybody has that luck or privilege. And so to get to be in this writing workshop and see all these people who are just having their first chance to process what they've experienced and narrate it has been really awesome for me. And so they are not the people who are household names yet, but I have been struck by many of their talents. And also my editor and I taught one at Colorado this past summer, and there were some people who are just so equally talented. So that said, I think Gawande is like a masterful storyteller. He's able to sort of narrate in a way that is so accessible to people, and I think that is a mark of genius. So I do find myself studying his work. I have to tell you that I read mostly fiction, so I don't read a ton of doctor writers anymore. I used to when I was, before I was more established as a doctor writer, and I would do it to study them. But now I just find myself wanting to either read about culture or some sort of nonfiction that is unrelated to medicine or just read pure fiction. I'm mostly interested in how people tell stories and develop characters, and I could think about that forever. It never stops. Dave Johnson: What advice do you have, Lisa, for young physicians who may be contemplating a career with writing as a part of it? What advice do you have for them? Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: When you write, you have to expect to fail. And I think that one of the hardest things about being within the institution of medicine and trying to be a writer is that we have these metrics for success that we're all so accustomed to in terms of publications and putting things on our CV and also how those are valued in advancing our careers. And if you really want to write, if it's really important to you, you have to let all of that go. And again, if people meet me at this moment in my life, they don't realize that I had this chunk of time for seven to ten years where I was writing and writing and writing, and I wasn't publishing anything, and I was getting rejected all over. And I did it because it meant so much to me and it meant so much to my grandfather. But if it becomes this thing that is meant to, like, advance your career, I think first of all, it becomes much more frustrating, but also you take away what makes it so meaningful, and I think that ends up detracting from the writing itself because it's just like the purity of it goes away. So I think that's one thing I would say.  The other thing is if you want to write, you just have to write. There's no other way about it. It's not fun. I mean, I wish people could see how much of my writing gets thrown away. It's so bad. But if you think of it as an act of discovery, which it is, I never know what I'm going to say until I get there. Then you can sort of forgive yourself for all of that time wasted. But it's pretty empathetical to how we function as doctors. I mean, when I go into the hospital, it's like a switch flips in my brain. I move into this extremely efficient, concrete sort of way of existing, and it's just so different from the mode I'm in when I'm creating.  Dave Johnson: That's extremely helpful. Thank you for that Lisa.  We want to thank all of our listeners of Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast. This is where we will talk about oncology medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Thanks again.  Pat Loehrer: Hey, Dave, I got something for you. Dave Johnson: A present?  Pat Loehrer: No. A question for you. Which knight of King Arthur invented the roundtable? Sir Cumference. Doesn't get any better than that.  Dave Johnson: No, the snail joke was better. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of Asco. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) are a key component to effective team-based care, but what is it that our APP team-members can do in an oncology practice? Join the Co-hosts of the APP podcast series, Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Stephanie Williams (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), along with guests Wendy Vogel (BroadcastMed/APSHO)) and Tammy Triglianos (University of North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital), as they highlight the services and examples of what APPs in oncology can do, their role as an APP in team-based care, if and how they bill for their services, and how they are reimbursed.  Speaker Disclosures: Stephanie Williams: Consultant or Advisory Role – CVS Caremark Tammy Triglianos: Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Todd Pickard: No relationships to disclose Wendy Vogel: No relationships to disclose  Resources: Podcast: Advanced Practice Providers - APPs 101: What and Who Are Advanced Practice Providers (APPs)? Podcast: Advanced Practice Providers – An APP's Scope of Practice Advanced Practice Providers - APPs 101: Physicians Assistants (PAs) and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNS) in Oncology If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Stephanie Williams: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the ASCO Education podcast, and our fourth episode of the Advanced Practice Providers series. I'm Dr. Stephanie Williams, a medical oncologist, and your co-host for the series, along with physician assistant Todd Pickard. We'd also like to introduce you to our guest panelists today. Returning guest, Wendy Vogel, along with Tammy Triglianos. We'll take a moment to let them introduce themselves, starting with Wendy. Wendy Vogel: Hi. Thanks so much for having me today. I'm Wendy Vogel. I'm an oncology nurse practitioner by trade, and I am the Executive Director of APSHO, the Advanced Practitioner Society for Hematology and Oncology. And thanks for having me here today. I'm really excited to be here.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Tammy.  Tammy Triglianos: Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me. And I'm excited to join this group for our conversation today. I'm Tammy Triglianos. I am a certified oncology nurse practitioner practicing in North Carolina. My career has been dedicated to caring for oncology patients, even starting out as a nursing assistant and then as a registered nurse practicing in a variety of settings. I've been a nurse practitioner for almost 20 years now, with the past 15 specializing in GI medical oncology.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Thank you.  Todd Pickard: Thanks, everybody, for being here today.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: In today's episode, we will be highlighting the services and examples of what advanced practice providers in oncology can do and describing if and how they bill for their services and how they are reimbursed.  So let's get started. Wendy and Tammy, I'm starting in my clinic, 8:30 in the morning. We have a full panel of patients, patients who just need reassessment, chemotherapy prescribed, reevaluation, bone marrow biopsies, test results. How do we work together to see, as a team, these particular patients, or in other words, what can you do to help me through my days as an oncology practitioner?  Wendy Vogel: Wow, that's a great question to just jump right in and start with. I'm excited to talk about that. Well, I think that, you know, as we always are talking about our team approach, we would look at that schedule. And hopefully, the AP and you have their own schedule so that we're able to divide and conquer and be able to accomplish that schedule, see all the patients in the most efficient manner possible. Hopefully, I've looked at all my patients beforehand and see if there's anything that I need to collaborate with you on. Looking at our labs, you know, maybe scans, talking about any changes in plans that we might anticipate together, and so on.   Tammy, would you do the same?  Tammy Triglianos: Yeah, I'd like to echo your point, Wendy. Having independent schedules, I think, makes for a more efficient workflow in the clinic. And in my practice we have a team meeting with our clinical pharmacist, physician, myself, and our nurse navigator, and review last week's and even prep for the upcoming week, trying to anticipate and make sure people are set up and orders are in, and we're prepared for the week to come. Day of, as you know, can get pretty hectic. But since we've done a lot of that prep work, I think it makes for the unknowns that pop up in clinic easier to connect with each other, with my physician and other team members.  Todd Pickard: I agree. I think the great thing about how physicians and APPs work in teams is that the team can decide what's best. I have done everything from having my own independent template so that I have patients that I'm responsible for to a general template where the physician and I just divide and conquer at the beginning of clinic, and we say, “Okay, you see these patients, I'll see these patients, and we'll back each other up if we need to.” All the way to seeing every single patient along with the physician when we are seeing a lot of news and consults, very complex, very acutely ill patients. And we basically just work as a team the entire day on everything.  So it's really interesting about the conversation that I think we'll end up doing today is the “what” versus “how.” What APPs do is– really, honestly, APPs can do anything and everything unless a state scope of practice or an institution's policy specifically says they can't. That's the good news is that we pretty much can do everything but the “how,” that's a really interesting question because a lot of different things come into play. Position preferences, which could be influenced by their own personal experience or their own personal preferences of style versus, you know, having a misunderstanding of what APPs can and can't do. Then there's the institutional policies and the state scope of practices that come into play. So I think this where we'll end up spending some time today.  And, you know, Stephanie, maybe we could start the conversation with you a little bit around physician preferences and what your experience has been, and some of the things that you've noted around the physicians as part of this team.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: I've worked with APPs, both inpatient and outpatient, and I think it is very important to have that team-based approach. Patients really appreciate that, knowing that there is always a provider, someone there that they can turn to. And I think that's one of the great things about APPs is they always seem to be there for patients to turn to and for our nurses to turn to, to get help too. Both our clinic nurses, our infusion nurses, and our inpatient nurses really appreciate having that extra clinical provider available to them. I think as a physician, during my day, what I would like to see is us getting through our panels of patients, whether we're together, which is not as efficient as if we're independently seeing patients, but also help with things like procedures that need to be done on patients, phone calls at the end of the day, peer-to-peer reviews in order to get either medications or tests done for our particular patients. Filling out forms, no one likes doing that. No one likes filling out disability forms or other insurance forms, but those are all things that we all need help with in terms of doing. Ordering consults, seeing new patients together. I work in the transplant field, so they're complicated patients, so it actually is very helpful to have, to see a patient with your advanced practice provider so that you can come up with a treatment plan together that you know you can then follow throughout the course of hopefully that patient's treatment and recovery. Chemotherapy orders is another place that we need, that can be very valuable, whether it's the initial chemotherapy order, which were usually the physician or pharmacist initiated, but those follow-up chemotherapy appointments or problems in the infusion clinic are also helpful areas.  There are some physicians, though, who want to have an APP simply as their scribe, to follow them around in clinic and to then begin whatever orders they feel is appropriate for that particular patient. That is not the most efficient way to see patients, particularly when you have a large panel of patients that you have to see.  Wendy Vogel: Exactly. It really isn't. I will just tag off something you said about the AP being the scribe. That's probably one of the most expensive scribes that a physician could employ, and what a better use of our time is to not be a scribe. You know, there are other people who could really efficiently be a scribe better than the AP, and the AP could actually be seeing patients and gaining reimbursement for the practice.  Tammy Triglianos: An additional comment on team-based care. I work with a physician where we alternate visits, and I think that has really worked well in establishing a relationship with patients. We both have very high touch points with the patients, very involved, and patients feel like there's that team that's always available because always one of us is usually available. Dr. Stephanie Williams: How long did it take you all, all three of you, to develop that relationship with your physician colleagues to work tightly in a team? Todd Pickard: That's really a great question, Stephanie, because I think one of the strengths of the relationship is that level of trust and comfort and not really to view it as a hierarchical relationship, but really a team. We're there for each other. And you know, that depends, you know, there's personalities involved, people's previous experience, you know. If you've only had great experiences with APPs, probably trust them right away. If you've had difficult relationships with APPs or teams that didn't work well, it may take longer. I'd say the best approach is for both the APP and the physician to really look at this as, “How can we accomplish our work together that provides the best quality and the highest level of safety for our patients?” And really just set the expectations of ‘this is a trusting relationship where we work together, we support each other, and we're willing to talk about where the limits of our knowledge are. And for both of us, that's when we get consultations with other folks, and so we just approach it from this perspective.' And of course, you know,over time, that just strengthens and grows. And when you have a really good, strong, trusting relationship, that's where the real power of the team comes into play. Wendy Vogel: I like what you said about trusting. You know, the AP has to trust in the physician to be able to go and ask questions and to be mentored, and vice versa, too. I think we play to each other's strengths. If my strength is talking about hospice to a patient that needs to change trajectory of course, then maybe that's what I do better. And there are other things that another team member would do better, but feeling comfortable and saying, “You know, this is what I do good,” or, “Hey, I need help with this. I don't do this as well as I would like to.” Dr. Stephanie Williams: Tammy, anything? You said you work with one physician. How did that develop?  Tammy Triglianos: Right now, that's my current setup because of volumes, but I have worked with a team of physicians as well, which, when you're an APP working with a team of three, four plus physicians, that can kind of get a little bit tricky, people fighting for your time. I think being in parallel clinics has helped establish our trusting relationship because all day long, you're with that person navigating care together. We've been together probably 14 years, so that's really dipping back into my memory bank of the beginning of our time together. But I think it's what Wendy was talking about is just approaching each other with questions or, “Hey, why did you do that?” Or “Help me understand this.” And I think our approach to each other wasn't, “Why did you do that?” But, “Help me understand your thoughts on this.” Or “Can I talk through this with you to make sure I'm on the right page.” And how that response came back, then I think that has helped develop a trusting relationship.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: You both bring up excellent points because there still exists that power gradient between the physician, the advanced practice provider, and a staff nurse or an infusion nurse. And it's really important to overcome that so that people are comfortable in terms of taking care of the patient, to give the patient the best possible care that there is. Todd Pickard: Yeah, I mean, I think this is a great time to really just highlight the fact that there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there around APPs, what they can, what they can't do, what they will, what they won't do. In some corners, there's this fear that APPs will go rogue, and that will harm patients. And really, that is an irrational fear because when we are trained, we are trained very clearly about when you reach your own limits, that you are required and obligated as part of your professional practice to find that support, find those resources, get consultations, work with your team to understand so that you serve the patient. And I think it's really important that folks remember that with this respect and trust and accountability, because asking for help is not a failure. Asking for help shows a successful dynamic within a team so that the entirety of the team brings to bear their expertise, their knowledge, their skills, and their judgment. And when the team doesn't know what to do, that's when you've got to reach out to your consults and your other resources. So I think that's an important thing to remind everybody is that we're all here trying to do the same work, and it doesn't do any good if you spend a lot of time wondering, “What's Todd up to today?” So I think it's important to realize and for us to kind of dispel those kinds of myths. Wendy Vogel: I think, despite a social media post by one of our well-known medical associations that will remain unnamed, we don't think that healthcare is a game. We are absolutely serious about this, and we love taking care of our oncology patients. This is something that we're trained to do and that we want to work together as a team. Great thoughts, Todd. Dr. Stephanie Williams: In terms of actual practice in the states that you're at, are there any restrictions, either statewide, institution-wise, on what you can and can't do? Tammy Triglianos: I think a big topic that comes up a lot is signing treatment plans or antineoplastic treatment plans. And I don't know across the states, but in my state, that is not a state restriction. But not allowing APPs to sign antineoplastic treatment plans is more of an institutional restriction, and that varies. Recently, I was able to work with a team of people to update our policy to allow APPs to sign antineoplastic treatment plans and how it works at my institution, they go through a privileging process, so essentially it's an opt-in privilege. So, APPs can obtain approval to sign treatment plans, and it is restricted to cycle two and after. So the treatment plan initiation and signing the first cycle is done by the physician, and APP can place the treatment plan and get it teed up. But it actually is signed by a physician for cycle one, and then an APP is now allowed to sign beyond cycle one. We have a few guidelines like they have to be in their subspecialty practice and be manipulating treatment plans that are cosigned by the physician initially and have certain subspecialty training. So, yeah, I'm excited about this update to allow APPs to practice to the top of their license.  Todd Pickard: Stephanie, this is such an important concept and one that we have hit upon in all of our podcasts. And really, the limits of APPs outside of physician preferences are really state laws and institutional policies. And so, the answer to your question is ‘yes, and it depends on where you are'. So, for example– Tammy gave an example of what's going on in her institution. In my institution, all chemotherapy plans must have a double signature, whether it's initiated by a physician or a pharmacist, or an APP, and that's a safety and quality check. And so everybody just needs to understand, again, limits generally are only in state laws and institutional policies rather than what APPs are trained to do or what folks will reimburse for. And so, really, that's where you have to do the most detailed examination is: what state are you in and what does your institution or your practice say? Generally speaking, most states allow teams at the local level to kind of figure out what they want to do. Sometimes they'll limit a certain medication, like a schedule II drug or a certain other medication. Institutions sometimes do the same thing. But the good news is, if it's not explicit in state law, you can change institutional policy and physician preference all day long.  Wendy, what's your experience been?  Wendy Vogel: Oh, I totally agree. I think it's important for APs to know who's setting the institutional policies and for physicians to know this as well because it may be someone who is not familiar with what the AP role could really be. What do they know about the advanced practitioner? We mentioned that earlier. But I think it also brings up a very important gap that we've seen in oncology, is what's the training of the AP to be able to write anti-cancer therapy orders, and it's a wide variety. There are very few, for instance, nurse practitioner oncology certification or graduate programs. Most of us are trained in a generalist level as a family nurse practitioner. PAs, as you said before on this podcast, you are trained at a generalist level, and we get a lot of our specialty education on the job or through other advanced education. So we're coming into this at all different levels: brand new APs, brand new to oncology APs, and we've seen a gap at the educational level across the US is not the same.  One of the things that APSHO has done to relieve this, and I'm so excited to be able to share with you guys, is we've just recently launched the APSHO Cancer Therapy Prescribing Course. This, I think, will set the benchmark that we've just talked about and bridge this gap, and allow APs to really practice to the top of their licensure, as Tammy mentioned earlier. It's a very comprehensive online, self-paced course providing that advanced education to prescribe cancer therapies and to manage that hem/onc patient throughout the treatment trajectory. It does not just include the cancer therapies but other things we need to know as APs, like: what kind of drugs do we give with the cancer therapies, what are the standards of care, what do we do in clinical trials? And so just all this that we need to know, and I hope this will bridge that gap, if you will, for this education.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Excellent points. I think it also requires physician education to know and understand what advanced practice providers can do. And I think an advantage to our younger generation physicians is that they are now growing up in institutions where APPs are normal, as opposed to older physicians like myself, where we really do have to learn what can be done and what can't be done so that we can trust what everyone is doing there. Todd Pickard: Are we normal? Yes. But what you really mean is that we're present. It's really about interprofessional education, and I think there's a lot of importance of that concept. If we're going to be delivering care in teams, we should be trained in teams so that you grow up side by side and so that way it does seem normal. I'm working in a team; where's the social worker? Where's the APP? You know, where's the pharmacist? Because that's how you trained, and that's how we really deliver care. That's the honest truth. No man or no woman is an island in medicine. We all work in teams, whether we recognize that or not. And so I think it's great when you hear about folks that are actually training side by side because it just dispels some of this anxiety, some of these misconceptions, and you're just used to the team being around, and it's like, “Okay, where's my team?” And then it doesn't become unusual. It's just normal. Wendy Vogel: Yeah, we're all sitting here nodding our heads together. You all can't see us, but we're all nodding. So, Stephanie, I really want to know, how do you educate your colleagues who might not be as receptive to the idea of an advanced practitioner writing cancer therapy orders? Dr. Stephanie Williams: I have to tell you, it's difficult sometimes, Wendy, or it has been difficult in the past. The problem becomes not so much a “do you know what you're doing,” problem is how does the reimbursement - I hate to say this – how does reimbursement figure into all this? If I let an APP see half of my patients, who gets that money? And then the other thing is just how do I efficiently use an APP? And we are trying, and  ASCO through the Clinical Practice Committee, to try to get out there and reach out to practices, particularly rural practices, to help them understand the role and the value of advanced practice providers. And I think it's going to be a reach-out effort, leading by example, showing people that this is the way we can do it and we have to do it this way because we need practitioners out there to take care of patients. Todd Pickard: I want us to all pause here because what you just talked about is critically important. And we all know this is part of medicine, whether we like it or not. But reimbursement, how we get paid, and productivity, how we are recognized for what we do, are concepts that sometimes get mixed up. So when you're talking about reimbursement, APPs are reimbursed just like physicians for everything that we do. Depending on who's paying the bill, they may reduce that reimbursement. So CMS reduces generally to 85% of the physician fees. Medicaid is all over the place, depending on your state and the third-party payers, like the commercial insurance, that's based on whatever you've negotiated in your contract. Sometimes it's a little, and sometimes it's the same. So APPs get reimbursed, period. What level they get reimbursed compared to the physician's reimbursement is really up to a lot of different factors.  But productivity, I think that's the thing that we really get hung up on is, well,who's going to get credit for this work? And guess what? The beauty of that is you get to decide. Every practice, every institution makes up those rules. And so, you know, the take-home message here is, don't confuse reimbursement with productivity. Reimbursement is a lot of external factors that are either statutory, or they're contractually negotiated. But productivity is an internal accounting, and you can use team-based metrics. Who's to stop you from saying ‘we reward and recognize both the physician and the APP in these teams.' They both get credit, and they both get productivity measurements and recognition. And so I think that's where we really need to drive home the message is it's not about setting each other up as competitors. It's redesigning our internal productivity measures so that it's collaborative and that all the work that's being done by the entire team is being recognized and rewarded. Wendy Vogel: A lot of what we do, as Stephanie referred to earlier, is not reimbursable. All those peer-to-peer reviews, we don't get paid for that. None of us do. Calling patients back, liaisoning with the nursing staff, and answering their questions through the triage line, so much of that is vital to supporting a practice, and you can't do it without all that, but it doesn't appear on the bean counter's metric sheet. So how do we do that? I don't have the answer to that. Tammy Triglianos: Yeah, and I think in oncology/hematology, there's a lot of frequent touch points in between provider visits, and that doesn't equate to money, but equates to high-quality care, to have access to skilled providers to help manage all the complications, and, you know,in between stuff that happens between provider visits. Dr. Stephanie Williams: Wendy, there have been changes now in terms of who can enroll and write treatment orders for patients on cancer clinical trials. Could you go over those changes with us and how APPs can now fully participate in this process? Wendy Vogel: So there were some recent changes to CTEP and then now allowing APs to sign clinical trial orders. This is huge because it really makes the process of getting patients their drugs in the infusion suite much quicker. We don't have to track down a physician to sign those clinical trial orders. The AP can do that. And so this process is made much smoother. I think we'll see a lot of other cooperative groups and institutions follow suit with this. And I think this was a real demonstration of the AP's quality of care and the safety of AP prescribing and being able to have this privilege. Todd Pickard: Well, this has been a fascinating conversation today, and I would like everybody to have a final say. What's your take-home message today about what APPs can and can't do. And Tammy, we'll start with you.  Tammy Triglianos: Thank you. This was a great conversation today. Happy to be a part of it. Know that APPs with supportive, appropriate training, and, you know, I just have to shout out to Wendy and APSHO for the chemo prescribing course. I think this is huge for bridging a gap. Lots of education programs don't have oncology subspecialty, and this is such a comprehensive course that bridges a gap that I think will be huge. And I hope every oncology cancer center adopts, incorporating this to elevate the education and offer some subspecialty education to our oncology APPs. Kudos for all the team-based care and physician and APP teams out there that are really working hard to care for our cancer patients. Todd Pickard: Wendy, what are some of your final thoughts? Wendy Vogel: I have to agree with Tammy. I'm really excited about the APSHO Cancer Therapy Prescribing Course. I think that we can, together as a team, really make a difference in cancer care, playing to each other's strengths, and I think that would be my takeaway is: how can we better play to each other's strengths? Todd Pickard: Stephanie, what about some of your final thoughts? Dr. Stephanie Williams: I think working with APPs is critical to the success of any medical practice and to any physician who takes care of patients. Todd Pickard: Well, I appreciate all the insights. And just as a reminder, APPs and physicians, generally speaking, can decide whatever they want that is best for the practice, best for their patients, and delivers high-quality and safe care. Just be aware of your state regulations and find those institutional policies that are holding you back. Good news on the institutional policies - you can change them just like you can change your productivity metrics and models. So the good word is APPs and physicians can work in amazing teams, and we have all the power at our disposal to do so.  Well, I want to thank you to my co-host, Dr. Williams, along with Wendy and Tammy, for joining our discussion today and sharing all of your experience and highlights into the services that APPs can deliver. It's clear that APPs and physicians working together in teams are vital to a strong and efficient delivery of our team-based care.  Well, until our next episode, thanks, everybody, and take care. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

"Various places on the globe lack the proper knowledge, infrastructure and workforce to adequately treat cancer. In Africa, one doctor is focusing her efforts to change all that. This ASCO Education podcast spotlights Dr. Miriam Mutebi, the first female breast surgeon in Kenya. One of Dr. Mutebi's goals is to improve women's health and cancer care in Africa and includes attaining her pilot's license to reach remote areas of the continent. Dr. Mutebi reflects on her life growing up in Kenya (1:21) and her inspiration for getting into medicine and pursuing what was at the time a male-dominated specialty (5:07). She also details how cancer care has improved in Kenya in the last decade (12:49) while there are ongoing challenges of working in low-resource settings (23:25). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Miriam Mutebi: None Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Resources: ASCO Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 1) ASCO Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Pat, we have a terrific guest today that ties in very nicely with your interest in global health. I'd love for you to introduce her. Pat Loehrer: Thanks, Dave. Battling cancer is truly a global effort, both in research and in treatment. However, there are various degrees of quality in these fields, depending on the economic health of a particular region. Our next guest is trying to optimize cancer care in Africa. We're very excited to talk to her. Dr. Miriam Mutebi is one of the most prominent cancer doctors in Africa. Dr. Mutebi is the first female breast surgeon in Kenya, and she's currently assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the Aga Khan University in Nairobi, Kenya. She's on the board of directors for the Union of the International Cancer Control. She has trained and studied at top hospitals in New York and South Africa. Dr. Mutebi is so focused on increasing women's health in Africa that she's trained to be an airplane pilot in order to connect with hard-to-reach areas. Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page. Thank you so much, Dr. Mutebi, for joining us from Kenya. Can you start off by telling us a little bit about what it was like growing up there? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I grew up in Nairobi, which is a pretty urban setting to grow up in. So, most of my childhood was spent…I think it was probably a much simpler time where, you know, you would play in the street, go off to somebody's house, spend the rest of the day there and come back at the end of the day. But in terms of growing up, I think I was one of those super nerdy kids, for want of a better word. One of the sorts of things that got me interested in reading and learning and challenging myself was actually my dad. Because what would happen was we had to go to school, I would say almost about 30 kilometers bus ride, and my dad would be like, “Well, if you're on the bus for that long, you can as well, you know, carry a book and made it nice and exciting.” So I remember sort of discovering the library at my primary school and going like, “My word!” Because you get access to all these different experiences and worlds. I mean, you're going in and reading, you know, The Chronicles of Narnia, you're reading about Enid Blyton and different experiences, you're reading all these different worlds and getting to, you know, identify to some extent with the core values that exist. It doesn't matter where the books were centered. And so that for me was an almost, I would say, idyllic growing up, because for me it was like, “Yes, books, check; running around, check.” That's, I think, what I remember most about my childhood. Dave Johnson: It sounds like your father was a powerful influence in your youth. Can you tell us more about your father? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Sure. My dad, how old is he now? He's going to turn 74. One of the things that he always says, “It costs you nothing to be kind.” And so he would generally– Sorry, I'm just going to stop a little bit. I'm getting weepy. Dave Johnson: I'm sorry. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: It's okay, it's okay. Shame. Dave, you pushed the button. Dave Johnson: It's not our intent to push a button. It sounds like your dad's a wonderful person. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: No, it's fine. Pat Loehrer: Both Dave and I have daughters, and we feel the same way. So as weepy as you're getting, I can guarantee you that he's going to feel the same way on the other end. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: No, it's just that he hasn't been well recently, so it's just– Dave Johnson: Oh, I'm sorry. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Yeah. Okay, cool. Let me see if I can stop getting a little weepy. Yeah. So one of the things that he frequently says is that it costs you nothing to be kind, and I think that's one of the things that he sort of instilled in us that you need to think beyond yourself. You always need to sort of think about what is the other person going through and how can I help to make it better. Now, my dad, he has a really interesting sense of humor. I think it's where I get my cheesy humor from as well. But he always talks about what we call the 11th commandment, which is, don't take yourself too seriously. And so I think that was part of the grounding steps that he sort of helped to instill in us because he was working– I mean, sort of looking back, our parents, I would say, got married at a very young age and had several kids that they were raising. And sort of looking back, you're thinking they were probably just doing the best that they can, right? But I think he did a fairly decent job, I hope. Dave Johnson: So, Miriam, when did your interest in medicine begin, and who was the inspiration for that? Or if there was someone that inspired that? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: At the end of high school, I remember I wanted to do five or, rather, was it six different things. And so I wanted to do medicine, I wanted to write, I wanted to do architecture, I wanted to do law, I even forget what the other things were. There was like two other things on my to-do list. And I think part of the genesis of that was because, as part of the high school training that we go through, we had to do the international sort of baccalaureate, and what that entails is we have to do components of creativity, action, and service. And so at the end, I'm like holding back to father dearest, and I'm like, “Dad, I have six different things I want to do, and I don't really know about.” And he was like, “So why don't you spend a bit of time, sort of just going through each of those, like shadowing these different specialties?” And so we managed to track down his lawyer friend, spent time in the hospital, spent time in the pharmacy, just shadowing the pharmacist. I actually went to work briefly for a publication house. Eventually– Oh, yes, in architecture as well. So then I managed to narrow it down to, “Yes, okay, I want to do medicine, and I want to write.” And so I went back to my dad and said, “Dad, okay, I have two things I want to do.” And my dad was like, “Well, if you do medicine, you can write. But if you write, then you might not necessarily be able to do medicine.” So that's how I sort of wandered into medicine. Although I still say there's still the great African novel waiting to get out. But again, with medicine, I think I'm guilty of what we call ‘end of rotationitis', where at the end of the day, you finish a rotation, and you're like, “I can do this. I can do this.” So I think going through different rotations– I think for me, the drive– Well, the slow narrowing down to surgery was really around, unfortunately, the time when we were doing our rotations, and this was just really at the start of the 2000s in Kenya. And the challenge around that time was we're really just at the tail end of the HIV epidemic, and not everyone had access to antiretrovirals. And it was an incredibly harrowing time, I would say, for the healthcare profession, just because there was still a lot of stigma around HIV. And what was happening was that we would go to the wards and find patients had been abandoned. And there was a general sort of pervasive sense of hopelessness because people didn't have access to the medication, they'd been abandoned, and unfortunately, not much was being done in terms of active management to patients. Whereas then that was like on the 7th floor, and then you would go four floors down to the surgical ward where patients come in, they're bleeding; you take them to OR, they get better, you send them home. And so, for me, the timing was like, “I need to do this. At least I could see where I was making an impact.” And so that's sort of how I wandered into surgery. And I'm sure, as I said, with, of course, the developments now, the experience, of course, for medical rotations, they're entirely different, but that's how I sort of ended up in surgery. But then, how I sort of found myself in breast surgery was actually because– for me, what stood out about my breast rotation was really looking at what we were reading in the textbooks, which was breast cancers, the disease of the sixth and seventh decade and a “poster child” for this is the elderly nun who's never had any children, who's had this prolonged [inaudible]. And I'm sitting there and looking at the clinic, and I'm like, “These patients are in their 30's and 40's. All of these traditionally protected factors, like having multiple children, having breastfed, ticking all the boxes, but they're still coming in with these kinds of cancers.” And so just thinking this is totally different from what the textbook is saying, and somebody needs to get to the bottom of this, and that's how I found myself going in along breast cancer surgery and also research into women's cancers and things. Pat Loehrer: My sense is that Kenya and many African nations were male-dominated. I don't know what it was like for you going to medical school, but particularly in surgery, it tends to be a male-dominated field. What was that like as a woman? In many ways, I think you were breaking some glass ceilings. I'm sure other women are doing similar things, but tell me a little bit about that experience. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I would say bewildering for both parties. Because we had to do several interviews just in different institutions before getting into a surgical residency, and I remember these senior professors sort of peering down their glasses and looking frankly bewildered and asking the most bizarre of questions, which I don't think anyone would sort of get away with in this day and age. I remember somebody asked me, and this one always stands out in my mind because somebody asked me on the interview route, “So what happens if you get a patient in ICU and you start to cry?” I'm like, “Well, first of all, I'm guessing that I am crying because I'm having a bit of empathy for the patient. And I think that actually probably makes me a better clinician because I am really truly seeing the patient rather than bed X with diagnosis Z. This is like Mary, mother of one, two, three, and whatever.” But it was really bizarre. Then somebody asked me as well, “Okay, so what happens when you're on call, and you have to breastfeed?” And I'm like, “Well, let's see. This is a tough one.” You could tell as well that they were really out of their depth. So,  eventually I settled on the Aga Khan just because, in terms of the faculty and the interviews, I got a sense that they were a little more open to the idea. And that's because I think one of my earlier mentors, Prof. Raja, who is our former chair of surgery, had come in from the Aga Khan in Pakistan. And for him, it wasn't anything unusual to see women in surgery. So, like, “Yeah, come along. We'll train you and stuff.” And he was also pretty inspiring in terms of the decision to get into surgery because, for him, their approach to at least surgical training– and we always tease him and say, we all drunk the Kool-Aid because we kind of came back. Because it wasn't about just training surgeons for surgery's sake, it's about how do we become leaders, how do you impact care in your region. And so it was never about just learning surgery; it's how do you use the tools that you have in order to improve the health of those around you. In the Aga Khan, you're sort of, one would say, in a position of privilege. Just the backstory to those listening who might not know about the Aga Khan, it's a private university hospital. But I mean, as a private center, then, of course, I would say there isn't any difference, one would say, between the Aga Khan and most of the international hospitals anywhere in the world. But it was always sort of driven into us that this is a privilege that you're having. And how do you use this privilege to elevate the communities around you? Pat Loehrer: Let's talk about breast cancer, if you will, in Kenya. You mentioned it that when you first went into it, patients were coming in with advanced disease, they still do. But how has the field of medicine changed in Kenya during your professional lifetime as it pertains to breast cancer? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: While we still have the majority of patients diagnosed with advanced disease, the scenario ten years ago was that patients would get diagnosed with advanced disease and frequently would not complete their care. And if we did a deeper dive into the reasons behind this, we saw a constellation of factors. One being the fact that patients were having to pay out of pocket, resulting in financial toxicity, catastrophic health expenditure. And then the other major barrier was the health system itself. And again, to some extent, that still exists where we know, at least on average in sub-Saharan Africa, patients are going to see 4 to 6 healthcare providers before a definitive diagnosis of their cancer is made, which of course, again, translates into delays in ultimate treatment. Another area that we frequently don't necessarily talk about as much are the social-cultural barriers that exist and, to some extent, are still pervasive in some communities. What we see is, one, there's a lot of use of alternative therapies. There is still quite a bit of stigma around cancers. There is what we call collectivism, where we always say in Africa, ‘our community is our strength'. But sometimes, that sense of community is a double-edged sword because then, if the patient is losing agency, then that becomes a real concern. Because what we find, for instance– I'll give you an example, I'll have a patient come in and discuss, and maybe she has early cancer, and discuss the options of having breast conservation versus a mastectomy. And then you will find maybe she goes home to have a think, and then a couple of days or whatever later, there's a community gathering, and the clan elder is saying, “We have decided.” And I'm like, “Who's we? That's not your breast coming off. Like, what right do you have to decide on patient decision-making?” But you see, as much as we would like to sort of say have the patients have autonomy over the decision-making, it's really a question of equity and access to care. Because even if you're giving the patient autonomy, and she's saying at the end of the day, “Well, they're the ones paying for the treatment so let them decide what it is I'm going to have”, then we haven't really adequately empowered our women. And so those are some of the challenges that existed, I would say, about ten years ago. We're definitely seeing an improvement. One in the patient's ability to pay, and this, I think, has been a concerted effort by the government to come up with a National Health Insurance Fund, which initially wasn't covering cancer care but has definitely helped to ensure that the number of patients who actually complete their care or going through their entire cancer journey are probably more.   I remember when I was doing my internship, there were like truly heartbreaking because, as interns, we would have the medical internists sometimes– and because there weren't that many medical oncologists– prescribe the chemotherapy and as interns, we were the ones who would administer the chemotherapy. And so, you would have a patient come in and it involves– Basically, we give the prescriptions like chemotherapy, but they'll also have to buy their own saline, the IV line, and everything else,,, and then they get the first cycle, and they just disappear. And then those were the times when mobile phones weren't that common. They literally just disappear. But then they come back six months later, and they're like super excited, and they're like, “Doc, we've raised enough money for the next cycle.” And we're like, “Well, it doesn't quite work like that.” So, with the National Hospital Insurance Fund, it's not perfect, but we definitely see more patients going through the entire care continuum, which is gratifying. I'm sort of putting on my  [inadudible] hat as the chair of Kenya Society for Hematology and Oncology, and we've been working closely with the National Cancer Control Program, really to advise the National Hospital Insurance Fund on maybe getting more comprehensive covers. Because what was happening initially was, for instance, they would cover maybe four cycles of chemotherapy. Then the patient has to come up with the remaining four, for instance, and sometimes if they're not able to afford that, then you're sort of giving them the side effects without the therapeutic benefits of some of these. So they are currently in the process of really looking more at treatment plans, and that's also been, at least, a truly– And the fact that they are willing to listen has also at least been a huge stride. And then, of course, in terms of the real efforts, I would say by the National Cancer Control Program to ensure some of the decentralization of cancer services. Initially, we had only one radiotherapy center at the tertiary referral hospital in Nairobi that was having patients traveling from across the country, 400 kilometers or more, coming in. And you come in from a rural area, you come into Kenyatta and somebody tells you have to live there for a month, you have no family, nowhere to stay. People say, “You know what? I don't need to have this stage or rather have this additional treatment.” And so with the deliberate development of or decentralization of the radiotherapy services, we now have at least regional centers in planning and so really looking at how do we bring the services closer to people. And so, we now have, in addition to the tertiary referral centers, we now have two regional centers in Mombasa and in– Pat Loehrer: Eldoret. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Yes. I think beyond Nairobi, Eldoret, we now have a comprehensive center in Mombasa. Nakuru's just launched a comprehensive center and Garissa as well, so really looking at enhancing our capability to bring these services closer. And there has also been the development of the chemotherapy units across the country that have at least tried to ensure that these services are more readily accessible to populations. And really just underpinning that with the support from the National Hospital Insurance Fund has helped to basically have more patients completing their care. One of the other things that I think deserves particular mention is really the grassroots advocacy that has really tried to increase awareness around cancers. And as a result, we definitely are seeing, as much as we are saying the majority of patients are still diagnosed with advanced disease, we are definitely seeing the entire continuum all the way from screen-detected tumors, early stage I, stage II cancers to more advanced tumors. So with that, it also really shows that there is a continuing consciousness that's really sort of driving these education efforts and awareness in the community. Of course, we definitely do need to do more because we still see that the advocacy's efforts sometimes tend to center largely around urban areas. And also, the question is how do we then sort of percolate that down to more rural areas? It's definitely something that's improved in the last ten years. And then, of course, we've also seen an expansion in the cancer workforce. And that, I think, has also been largely driven by the fact that we're having in-country training for clinical oncology, medical oncology, gyne-oncology, so we're really thinking about how to expand the workforce but– Of course, we are still looking at the patient-to-population ratios, those are still pretty low and we still recognize that there are deficits along the care continuum. But we're now having pharmaco-oncologists, we are having psycho-oncologists, increase in palliative care specialists. So there's definitely been an exponential growth of all the cadres of healthcare providers, whether it's oncology nurses and things. We've had an oncology nursing chapter now that's been developed. We really see the rise of the professional societies like the Kenya Society of Hematology and Oncology, and there is a lot of crosstalk between the academic institutions that are running the oncology training programs. So it's really a positive move in the right direction, but I think what needs to happen is, as I would say, more deliberate investment in the workforce. Because, again, even as we increase the spectrum of the oncology workforce, there's really a need to carry along the primary care providers because they invariably are the gatekeepers to access. And so unless the primary care providers are empowered and knowledgeable to facilitate early and timely diagnosis and referrals to the appropriate pathways, then it doesn't matter how many people or how much of a workforce you have on top of the pyramid. It just means you're invariably going to be still getting patients diagnosed at later stages. And so there's also been efforts around that to come up with, from healthcare provider courses to educating common signs and symptoms. This is something that the Kenya Society of Hematology and Oncology has been doing in collaboration with the National Cancer Control Program. There's a deliberate effort to come up with an online platform that are actually able to give real-time information to primary care providers. And so, I would say there are definitely steps in the right direction, but there definitely needs to be more investment in the entire spectrum of care. Dave Johnson: Miriam, what you've done is astonishing. What you've just described is an amazing infrastructure in a relatively short period of time. What you're talking about took us in the United States half a century. You're trying to do that in a matter of five to ten years. You've trained in both Kenya and in the United States. I wonder if you might just take a few moments to compare and contrast those experiences. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: In terms of working in different spaces and sort of working in the US, working in South Africa, working in Kenya, what you realize is perhaps a very different patient profile. Whereas in countries like the US, where you have vibrant screening programs, and you're definitely having a lot more discussions around 4-millimeter, 5-millimeter tumors that you are doing an MRI-guided biopsy for and maybe a lot more screen-detected tumors. Whereas working in settings, especially when you get out of the urban areas, whether it's in Kenya or South Africa, you find that you tend to have a lot more diagnoses of patients coming in with fungating tumors and advanced disease, and so it's really that spectrum. And that's what I'm saying in terms of the current state of flux that we're in. We're now, as clinicians, at least working in Nairobi, you're sort of seeing the entire spectrum and much less and less of the sort of fungating tumors. So I think in terms of the principles, and the good thing is that irrespective of where you are, principles do not change. But I think you sort of have to rapidly innovate and iterate in settings where you may not necessarily have a say, MRI to do an MRI-guided biopsy, but you also sort of look at what makes sense for the patient. Working in lower-resource settings, I think, is actually a good thing because it challenges you to constantly think about value-based care. People talk about value-based care as a concept, but you're doing it on a day-to-day basis, even between different patients in clinic, because you have to think about the cost and you have to think about how do I deliver care that's still of good quality, that's not necessarily going to break the bank. And so these are some of, I think, more challenging or at least questions that we have to think about deliberately. Whereas in the US, if you have insurance, then it's pretty much carte blanche, for want of a better word. Which we did realize, especially with COVID - and I'm sure Pat and Dave you can bear testament to this - these disparities exist globally. And so you'll find that in your patients who have no insurance or are underinsured, they're still coming in with the same, sort of, challenges. I was talking to my colleague at NYU who works at Bellevue. When she was giving me the profile of her patients, it was interesting to see that there wasn't really– and these are patients who don't necessarily have insurance, there really wasn't any difference in the images we are seeing from patient they're seeing and the patients we're seeing. So really it's an opportunity for us to sort of rethink collectively our approach to care and really thinking about how do we provide quality care. Pat Loehrer: I was in Washington this week, and President Biden had a three-day African US summit, and at the end of this, he basically pledged to spend $55 billion in Africa to help relations with them. We also had a discussion about the Moonshot 2.0, in which President Biden wants to end cancer as we know it, with a particular emphasis, I think, and now, in linking with LMICs. Briefly, what would you tell President Biden in terms of what would be very helpful for the United States to help with the cancer problem in sub-Saharan Africa? What would you say in a sentence or two? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: As we say, perhaps have the Moonshot, but stay grounded in the sense that– even before we think about complex molecules, we are still struggling as a continent with the basics of care. And so, investing in health systems and the basics will ultimately give more or improve outcomes rather than sort of focusing on specific molecules. So if we have the basics in place to deliver the basics of care, then that would go a long way toward shifting outcomes. The other bit that does need to happen is, again, with research because there is a paucity of cancer research. We did a recent bibliometric analysis and found that as a continent, we are only contributing to less than 8% of all sort of cancer research globally. And we do know that one, we have, I would say, the breadth of diversity in terms of genetic diversity. We do know that the responses to care and treatments are different. We do know that we do need to think about implementation science and what structures we can put into place, and what strategies. What works in different settings might not necessarily work in ours, and it does need to be backed by evidence. So there are opportunities to expand care and strengthen systems, but really do this in an evidence-based, pragmatic way that ultimately [inaudible] its own outcomes and outputs for the patient. Dave Johnson: Thank you for that, Miriam. Pat Loehrer: Well said. Thank you. Dave Johnson: Great advice. I hope the President is listening. Pat Loehrer: Dr. Mutebi, what was the first book that you remember that you really loved? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I think it was actually The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It was just the whole sort of just stepping into a different world. And then, of course, we all had crushes on Aslan, the lion, but it was more because he was like this sort of guy who would swoop in and was morally just and get to mediate the world. And so I went through the whole series, I just gobbled it down, and I think that's one of the things that really stands out for me as one of the books that I sort of remember early on. Pat Loehrer: It's such a great pleasure today. I'm really excited. We're typically talking about books. And here's a book, Dave, I know that you have not read; it's entitled 101 Things I've Learned in Engineering School. It was an interesting book. As you know, I'm an engineer background, but there were a few quotes in here that I– Dave Johnson: Pat, I live on Purdue Avenue, so I have some engineering background. Pat Loehrer: Oh, that's true. Good for you. So you might like this one, Dave. One of the quotes I have is: "Inventing is a mixing of brains and materials. The more brains you use, the less materials you need." And another one - do you know the difference between accuracy and precision? They're really different things. And so, the best example that came from the book, which I thought was interesting, was pi, so pi is what? Dave Johnson: Round. Pat Loehrer: Okay, this is going to be painful. Pi is 3.14. Right? So that's accurate. But if you say pi is 3.1415926535, that's accurate and precise. And if you said pi is 3.98, that's just inaccurate and imprecise. As I think about engineering as we move forward, I'm thinking about the Lung Pragmatic trial that has just been announced, where we're trying to do trials a lot more simply in which I think we can be accurate, but perhaps not as precise as we always deem to be important. And I think we're really excited about that and that project. Dave Johnson: Well, that's really all the time we have for today. And we really want to thank you, Miriam, for a wonderful interview. And knowing that you're up very late at home makes it all the more special. We also want to thank our listeners to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast where Pat and I will talk about just about anything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. Thanks again. Pat, I have an important question for you before we leave. What do you call a snail that's not moving? Pat Loehrer: You got me, man. Dave Johnson: Escarstay. Pat Loehrer: I love it. Miriam, Asante sana. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Nime Shukuru. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

"Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part Two of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College London Dr Richard Sullivan shares with us his research into cancer care in conflict zones around the world (0:58), his thoughts on “colonial” cancer research (5:50), his advice to people interested in pursuing a career in global oncology field (10:08) and using “pooled procurement” as an innovative approach to cancer care (11:13). Participant Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow the podcast. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org or contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes.  Pat Loehrer: Hi. I'm Pat Loehrer, director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas, and a friend of mine. This is the second half of our Oncology Etc. conversation with the professor of cancer and global health at King's College in London and the director of the King's Institute of Cancer Policy and the co-director of the Conflict and Health Research Group, Dr. Richard Sullivan. In part one, we chatted with Professor Sullivan about his international travels as a child to his transition from biochemistry and finally to a great career in health policy and research. Today we're going to continue our conversation with Professor Sullivan by asking him about his insight into the current state of the progress in global health care. Richard Sullivan: Conflict and fragile populations around the world are sadly growing. They're unique ecosystems for a whole variety of reasons. I think fundamentally, though, to do research in those systems requires a huge amount of sensitivity and experience and expertise because you're dealing with the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. And then, of course, whatever research you do, you're constantly thinking in the back of your mind how you then tie this into any form of impact. There is a tendency, often with research in these populations, that the research is just done for the researcher's sake rather than actually being utilized to help improve those lives you're actually involving and studying. But I admit it's a very tricky area to work in. Cancer in conflict populations, a particular interest is a relatively new domain. It's only really been around for the last eight to ten years for a variety of very understandable reasons. Let's be honest, 30 years ago, cancer was not a significant factor in humanitarian conflict operations. You were dealing with demographically untransitioned societies, much younger. Really the group one, infectious diseases, child and maternal mortality, et cetera, were the primary foci. That still is the case. But what we're seeing now is much more transitioned populations being impacted by conflicts. And you think about in Mexico, in the Narco Wars, Syria, Iraq, even Afghanistan, and all of those have changed dramatically the nature of how care is delivered and how patients move. And we call these new therapeutic pathways, and we consider them kind of post-Westfalian. We're not talking about cancer care anymore that's boundaried within nation states. Patients moving across national lines, we have patients moving in pathways which are absolutely unique and we've never experienced or seen before in the high-income West. And that means you have to have a different paradigm for care and a different paradigm for building cancer control systems. And I guess for the last ten to fifteen years that's what we've really been interested in is this dynamic of conflict populations and how you deliver care and who delivers it. And there, of course, you're talking with a very mixed act, a bunch: humanitarian organizations, the big NGOs, the ICRCs, Medecins Sans Frontières. You're talking about the militaries in many countries. The militaries are very powerful in many countries in terms of providing care. And then finally there is, of course, the health services or systems that exist to varying degrees in the individual countries infected by conflict. So our program really tries to understand how you strengthen health systems per se in these conflict populations. And obviously, my particular interest is in cancer and palliative care. But I'm going to be honest, for that we have a very large team, some remarkable colleagues I've worked with over the years, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and increasingly, there's a lot of leadership coming out from these countries taking these sorts of programs forward. It's an important time, and I think Ukraine has taught us as well that if you don't think about, for example, cancer care within humanitarian operations, within UNHCR, you can end up in serious trouble in terms of planning, financing, sustainability. So I think Ukraine is going to be an interesting turning point in generally thinking about cancer care and conflict and humanitarian operations because it's really illuminated to everyone very clearly in Europe and the USA, what cancer and conflict really is, because I think the Middle East has felt a little bit far away, and it's been quite difficult selling all that kind of policy and work. But Ukraine is really having a dramatic impact and I think it's producing a lot of learning points. Dave Johnson: You recently published, along with colleagues, I thought, a very provocative paper in JAMA Open Network about the participation of lower and upper middle-income countries in oncology clinical trials led by high-income countries. You made the point, be sure to correct me if I'm wrong on this, that first of all, Ukraine and Russia are actually two of the top participants in these kinds of trials. Number one. Number two, the question is, is it exploitative of the higher-income countries to be conducting these trials in these two countries and then more particularly, what the recent conflict in Ukraine has done to the participation of patients? And I wonder if you might comment on those points. Richard Sullivan: I'll maybe talk to the last point first. The conflict has been devastating for recruitment. It's also important to realize a lot of these sorts of clinical trials are funded by industry and they've been the backbone of funding research and also to a greater degree also access to certain types of medicines in these countries. Is it exploitative? I think it's a very hard judgment call to make and I think if you ask my Ukrainian colleagues, the answer is no. We know exactly what we were getting into. When companies work in these places, they pay and they pay properly. The difficulty I think is, generally speaking, there is obviously this discussion now ongoing about neocolonialism and exploitation of low middle-income settings more generally. It's very hard, all the research we've been doing, it's very hard to make generalizations. There is absolutely no doubt. I want to recognize right up front that there has been some appalling exploitation and what I would consider to be colonial cancer research going on over the last 20 years. And it's blindingly obvious when you read papers, when you look at authorship, when you undo this sort of analysis, that there has been a lot of exploitation where high-income countries are parachuted in. Investigators have taken whatever they needed data, samples, interview data, made good careers on the back of it and good research funding, and not really put much back into the ecosystem they've been working with. So that's absolutely clear up front. Then we have this other problem, as well as research funding generally, because if you step back and look at the data, and this is something we've published on, actually, with Julie Gralow, and ASCO, we talk the talk about funding global cancer, that's big, high, powerful, wealthy, high-income countries. But when you actually look at the data and you ask that question, of all the cancer research publications, how many from the USA, the UK, the Frances, the Germany are actually with lower middle-income countries, you barely get above 4%. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize we taught the talk here, but we're not walking the walk. The money is not being provided to do genuinely equal collaborative work. We've not built capacity and capability in many countries in terms of clinical research methodologies and strengths. We failed to back up a lot of the rhetoric. We talk about global cancer with actually proper cancer research system strengthening. And I think there's that realization, and there's been that realization over the last five or six years that that's been the case. And when you take countries like India who kind of realized, you know, maybe ten to fifteen years ago this was the case, they've obviously gone themselves and driven their own agenda. So the National Cancer Grid of India, the development of Credo, the methodology workforces led by Dr. C.S. Pramesh from the Tata Memorial Centre, has been absolutely superb work. I mean, it's been amazing. A real master class in national development. But I think we do, as high-income countries have to think, look ourselves in the mirror and ask the question, is this what we mean by global cancer? Are we really putting enough money in? And are our research priorities right? You've heard me argue about this enormous amount, about how much money goes into discovery science and biopharmaceuticals. Where's the money going into implementation science, health services research, social science research, health economics, all the stuff that actually leads to direct improvements by strengthening cancer systems. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the billions and billions a year that have been spent in these other areas. So I think the agenda is unbalanced. But I think when you talk about exploitation, you have to be kind of more nuanced about that argument. Pat Loehrer: Richard, we were just at the World Cancer Congress and it was heartening to see all these wonderful young people from around the world thinking about global oncology and various different aspects of things. But I'm thinking about Brexit. I'm thinking about some of the issues going on in our country in which we are hunkered down to issues in our own country. P30 grants for the cancer centers are focused on issues in our catchment area. They have an illusion of global stuff, but it's really not a priority. What would you say to young people who are interested in pursuing a career in global oncology? Is this something that's worthwhile for them to do, and what would you advise them? Richard Sullivan: Yes, it's absolutely worthwhile to do. And I think two pieces of advice I would have is develop, first of all, your interests with friends. The work we do around the world is with friends. These are close colleagues. This is not some instrumental transactional research program of sending your samples to a genome lab for them to sequence it and send back to you. These are really long-term true friendships. That's what makes the difference, is that long-term commitment, year after year, decade after decade. So find out where it is and what it is you're really passionate about. Make those friends and then develop the suite of knowledge that you're going to require to do the kind of research. I mean, the thing with global cancer is it requires a very broad outlook. It doesn't matter what you are the master of; whether you're an epidemiologist or social scientist - mixed methods is absolutely the way to go. What you have to be able to do then is sort of think more broadly about other sorts of disciplines to bring out, because most of the really complex problems require a very transdisciplinary approach methodologically, and that takes a few years to build the insight into these other disciplines and also to make research relationships. And again, there is no substitute for experience in terms of going to places, working with people, working on projects. And of course, with that comes the advocacy. Cancer crosses borders, the advocacy for global cancer. You need people who are going to be passionate about this, who are really going to stand up and shout from the rooftops what's really needed and change, I think, the minds of both national and the philanthropic funders, which, as you said, Pat, you're spot on, are still very, very insular, very inward looking in terms of how they see the world of cancer research. And I think it needs a bit of a sea change. But the opportunities are out there. There's some, as we know, wonderful, wonderful people working all over the world on really, really different problems. Building capacity in surgery in Zambia is not the same as building capacity in surgery in one of the states in India, for example. So there's an incredible richness and diversity. It's a really, really important area. And I think younger crowds don't get put off because there's no clear pathway and there's a reason there's no clear pathway. It's so diverse, but it's absolutely worth it. And there's plenty of us, I think, out there now that can help. There's some great conferences like the Word Cancer Congress, amazing regional conferences like AORTIC, which is happening in Senegal next year, the big conferences in India. Absolutely superb. Just go immerse yourself in this. Dave Johnson: You've talked about a lot of different innovative approaches to cancer care and lower- and middle-income countries. One thing that I read that you'd written about was something that I had never thought about. I think you called it pooled procurement. Can you talk about that? Where maybe two countries can join together? It seems irrational to me that we could expect something like that to happen. Are you aware of any examples? Richard Sullivan: It's interesting because I've the pleasure of working with a lot of colleagues over the years on access to essential cancer medicines. And it's interesting because we're now getting into a domain in global health, which again is very rich for more learning, for more people coming into which is the political economy of cancer. Because this is where the disciplines of health economics, decision procurement, logistics, all kind of fuse together, as well as an understanding of power and decision making in individual countries. So, in and of itself, procurement is where groups of countries or centers within a particular country will come together to create sufficient volume to negotiate with suppliers for a particular consumable. And that drives down the prices. You become much more powerful in negotiating prices if you can all get together. One of the biggest problems, and again, there's some amazing work that's been done, for example, by Chai on this, who have really innovated in the pool procurement medicine space. But we've also seen pool procurement as well for radiotherapy. If you can come together as large groups with common needs, you've got a lot more power to negotiate prices with individual suppliers. And more importantly, one of the problems with suppliers, whether it's essential medicines or other sorts of consumables, is if the market is too small, if you're trying to negotiate on a center by center basis, it's often it's just not worthwhile for the supplier to come to attend a deal with you. They don't want to contract with you because the volumes are too small and the margins are therefore too small. So pooled procurement is one way of getting around this. But I speak very easily about something that's actually a very complicated and complex subject. There's a lot of law involved in this, there's a lot of economics in this, there's a lot of business work in this. Again, it's one of those areas of research and expertise in the cancer area that's really quite thin and really needs to be bolstered. And here we're talking about the second translational gap is you've got the Essential Cancer Medicines list - how on Earth do you deliver that in an equitable and affordable manner to population X and country Y? That is in of itself a research question, that falls under the political economy of cancer in terms of research, but again, also falls out with most research funding organizations who don't quite know how to handle supporting this sort of research and capacity building. But as you can see, absolutely crucial. Great. You've invented the drug, you've invented the new surgical technique, or the new form of radiotherapy. It delivers clinically meaningful benefits. So how on Earth do you embed that in a sustainable manner in a health system? And that is a big missing gap in the global research agenda. Pat Loehrer: You can have all the drugs and radiation equipment in the world, but if you don't have the healthcare professionals trained to give it, it's worthless. I think one statistic was that there's 176 physicians in the United States for every one in Uganda. And how do you deliver cancer care by trained oncologists? It's getting more and more complex for us, too. But this has been just a wonderful discussion. Just as a quick question, though, Richard, Dave mentioned his book. Anything you're reading right now or anything of interest? Richard Sullivan: Yeah, yes, I've just started reading a fascinating book called Dadland by Keggie Carew. And it's fascinating because this is a marvelous piece of work, actually. And this is a daughter trying to make sense of her father's life. And she really sort of spends years patiently collecting all these details of her father's life and growing up with it. And she sort of takes, juxtaposes– when she starts the book, he's got dementia. But this is a man who in his early days was in Jedburgh, was a Special Operations executive, fought behind enemy lines in France in D-Day, went to the Far East in Burma. And there's this extraordinary pathos and sensitivity in this book about watching his decline with dementia, as she puts it, as he slowly disconnects from reality and then he disconnects from himself, and trying to make sense of it with the individual he once was and the kind of individual. And through that, she gets to explore all the kind of boxes of letters and things that were all stuck in the attic. Memento mori, essentially, of his time in Burma and France. But it's very, very touching, and I would really recommend your listeners to read it because it unpacks dementia in a way I've never seen a book unpack before in terms of the impact it makes to an individual. And it asks that question about - what makes you you? And when this father, he dies, is he still the same man who jumped out of airplanes in the middle of the night in France? Is he still the same man as he was in Burma? It's very touching. It's one of the most impressive books of exploration into human nature and an identity that I've read for a long time. So, yeah, Dadland, excellent. Pat Loehrer: I'll get it. Dave Johnson: Absolutely. Sounds great. Well, that's all the time we have for today, and I want to thank Richard Sullivan so much for joining Pat and me. This has been a fascinating conversation and you're to be congratulated on all of your many accomplishments and all the things that I'm sure you'll do in the future.   I want to take the opportunity to thank our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, etc. This is an ASCO Educational podcast where we'll talk about almost anything and everything. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to hear on our show, please email us at education@asco.org.       The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma or DLBCL is the most common type of lymphoma. Much progress has been made in treatment of the disease lately, particularly with emergence of CAR T-cell therapy, but not all patients are benefiting from it. This episode of Cancer Topics features Drs. Loretta Nastoupil and Chijioke Nze exploring treatment approaches for two cases of refractory DLBCL: a 60-year-old man with no comorbidities (1:30) and a 39-year-old woman with HIV (18:35). The guests also discuss improving patient access to CAR T-cell therapy and managing its toxicities (10:35), as well as emerging therapies for DLBCL (14:30). To learn more about management of refractory DLBCL, check out the ASCO course linked bellow. Guest Disclosures:Loretta Nastoupil, MD: Honoraria – Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Bayer, Janssen Oncology, TG Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeuitcs, Morphosys, Epizyme, Genmab, Takeda, Genentech/Roche; Research Funding – Janssen Biotech, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Epizyme, Novartis, IgM Biosciences, Caribou Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Allogene Therapeutics, Takeda Chijioke Nze, MD, MPH: No Relationships to Disclose Resources: ASCO Course: Second-line Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) ASCO Podcast: Cancer Topics - New Therapies for Lymphoma (Part 1) ASCO Guideline: Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy ASCO Article: Navigating the Evolving Treatment Landscape of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org.  TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: So, I do have optimism that as we have more and more treatment options entering into the treatment landscape, we'll have fewer patients that are experiencing a refractory disease, and potentially succumbing to the lymphoma. Hello, my name is Dr. Loretta Nastoupil, I'm an Associate Professor and Deputy Chair of the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Welcome to this ASCO Education podcast episode. It's my pleasure to welcome Dr. Chijioke Nze. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Hello, everyone. I'm Dr. Chijioke Nze, a Hematology/Oncology fellow at MD Anderson, I'll be co-hosting this episode with Dr. Nastoupil. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: We've seen notable advances in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma research lately, with novel treatments including CAR T-cell therapy, offering the prospect of long-term remission for some patients, yet many patients are not even receiving second-line or later therapy, and even fewer are treated beyond the second line. How do you approach a patient with refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? In today's episode, we'll explore strategies for management of refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma through two patient cases. So, Dr. Nze, walk us through our first case. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Our first case is Frank. Frank is 60 years old and has no comorbidities. He presented with severe back pain in September 2021, and was evaluated locally. He had a CT scan that showed retroperitoneal mass, prompting further evaluation. He had a biopsy of the left retroperitoneal mass in November 2021, which was consistent with diffuse large B-cell, germinal center B-cell of phenotype Ki-67 of 90%. He had a subsequent PET-CT scan, which showed a large conglomerate, and invasive left retroperitoneal hypermetabolic mass with satellite nodularity and contiguous bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy. He had bulky, FDG-avid metastatic retrocrural and intrathoracic adenopathy as well. He was treated with R-CHOP for six cycles, and at the end, achieved complete remission. He had a PET-CT a year later that showed new and worsening intensely FDG-avid abdominal adenopathy. This was new from a PET scan he'd had in January 2022 of the same year. He had a biopsy of this retroperitoneal adenopathy, which was consistent with relapsed diffuse large B-cell germinal center phenotype, also Ki-67 of 90%. Locally, he was treated with ICE, times five cycles, and had a follow-up CT scan at the end, which showed persistent bulky nodal disease with periaortic regional nodes with double 5, consistent with persistent disease. He also was found to have new and more conspicuous nodes in other areas as well. He presented for his first visit at MD Anderson in September 2022. Dr. Nastoupil, when you see a patient like this coming into your clinic, what's your typical approach? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: For a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, we are always hoping for cure with frontline rituximab, containing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And so, it's always a gross disappointment when patients experience relapse. The timing of that relapse right now informs our current approach. And the reason I mention that, is because there have been three large randomized studies conducted and reported out just in the last year demonstrating that CAR T-cell therapy is the preferred option for patients who experience either primary refractory disease, or relapse within 12 months. And that is because they resulted in better outcomes than standard salvage-based chemotherapy and high-dose therapy autotransplant in the setting of chemosensitive disease. I have to acknowledge, of the three studies that were done, two were positive trials, so that's why currently, we have axi-cel or Axicabtagene ciloleucel, or Lisocabtagene maraleucel, and not tisa-cel or Tisagenlecleucel, as CAR T-cell therapy options. And again, that's because two of the three studies were positive trials. Now, the challenge is why would we have two positive studies in one negative trial? There are a lot of caveats to how those studies were conducted, but I think one of the biggest important lessons to be gained is that if you're going to consider CAR T for these high-risk patients, you want to do it as soon as possible, because that delay from identifying CAR T as a preferred option to actually infusing cells in a disease-- in a case particularly like this, where patients may have bulky, aggressively-behaving disease - that prolonged time may actually have an impact on outcomes. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. Thank you. So, you've mentioned he had an early relapse. How would you define early relapse in this patient population? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Thinking back to how we've been approaching diffuse large B-cell lymphoma over the last two decades, the PARMA study, which was done prior to Rituximab, suggested that for patients who had chemosensitive disease to a platinum-based salvage chemotherapy, which generally, was at least a partial response on CT, if they went on to high-dose therapy autologous stem cell transplant, 50-60% of those patients could anticipate cure. Whereas for the folks who continued on salvage chemotherapy, 10-20% of those patients had favorable outcome. So, we generally do try salvage-based chemotherapy, and for patients with chemosensitive disease, go on to high-dose therapy autotransplant. However, in the modern era where we've approached patients who've had rituximab as part of their frontline therapy, at least two studies - the ORCHARD study, and the CORAL study suggested that only 20% of patients who relapse in the post-rituximab era, particularly within 12 months, were successfully salvaged with platinum-based chemotherapy and high-dose therapy autologous stem cell transplant. Now, fortunately for patients who fail salvage, we have had CAR T-cell therapy as an option based off of three pivotal phase II studies, demonstrating about 40% of patients could anticipate a cure with CAR T-cell therapy. So, it only made sense to try and move that therapy up into second line, and the preferred population was those that had progressed within 12 months of frontline rituximab and anthracycline-based chemo. Now, to qualify for those studies, patients had to be considered fit for the control arm, which was salvage and auto transplant. Nonetheless, I do think for a patient like this, who's 60, without any other significant comorbidities, whose biggest challenge to longevity of life is his aggressive lymphoma, CAR T-cell therapy should be considered as soon as possible for this patient. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Is there still a role for high-dose therapy and autologous transplant in the new era, given the efficacy shown with CAR T-cell therapy? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: I think there is. And the reason why I say that is, the trials that were done really did focus on the highest-risk patients, which were those with primary refractory disease or those who progress within 12 months of frontline. Now, there are patients that will have later relapse. And so, I do think for those patients, particularly those who are young and otherwise fit, should be approached first with a platinum-based salvage chemotherapy, in the setting of chemosensitive disease, proceed onto high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant. Now, what do we do for those patients who have a late relapse but are otherwise older, or who have comorbidities that would make them suboptimal candidates for the high-dose therapy preceding stem cell transplant? I have a couple other options for those patients - so, there was a trial done with liso-cel for patients who were otherwise older, or not fit for intensive therapy. It's a single-arm phase II without a randomized comparison, but also demonstrated that liso-cel in second-line, later relapsed patients who are not fit for intensive therapy, resulted in comparable outcomes to what we would anticipate on that third-line or later setting. We also have other non-CAR T-cell therapy options, such as tafasitamab, which is a naked CD19 antibody, which has been combined with lenalidomide in the L-MIND study, again, for patients without primary refractory disease and who would not be appropriate candidates for intensive therapy. So, I do think we have alternative options, it's just when we look at the totality of the data right now, my conclusion is that CAR T-cell therapy, particularly for high-risk patients, is the most likely chance to result in cure. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. In a patient who we are considering CAR T-cell therapy, what are some of the short-term and long-term consequences, or toxicities that we should worry about? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: One of the challenges right now with CAR T, and why it's still only available in specialized centers, is the acute toxicity, which is really a derivative of its mechanism of action. We take patients' own T-cells, we use a viral vector to introduce extracellular receptor, but also a co-stimulatory molecule. So, once these cells engage their antigen, sort of prime to react to that, and that can lead to pretty rapid T-cell expansion, release of cytokines, recruitment of other inflammatory cells to that tumor bed, and as a result, a large portion of patients can anticipate to experience cytokine release syndrome, which again, is the result of the activation of these T-cells, the expansion and the recruitment of other inflammatory cells. Fortunately, for most patients, this results in fever alone that can be managed with supportive measures. Occasionally, they'll have concomitant hypoxia or hypotension, and unfortunately, few patients will have significant or severe toxicity. The other toxicity that's less easily manageable or less predictable is the neurotoxicity that can vary according to patient-specific characteristics, such as age, and the amount of tumor burden, their performance status going into CAR, but even more importantly, the construct that's utilized, with highest rates of neurotoxicity associated with axi-cel. Again, likely speaking to its construct and the CD28 costimulatory domain that is unique to axi-cel. As a result of these acute toxicities, patients are required to stay within two hours of their treating center for the first four weeks, and they're also discouraged from operating heavy machinery, such as driving, for the first eight weeks following CAR T. So, I do you think this creates some barriers to access to this therapy, particularly the patients that are treated in community settings that may reside long distances from these certified CAR centers. Dr. Chijioke Nze: So, you mentioned that obviously, given the specialized care needed for the CAR T therapy, that they're kind of localized in certain sites. What are some of these issues with access that you're noticing both in the logistics of giving CAR T, and also in patient access? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: I'm hoping we're going to address one of those issues right now, which is, education and awareness, because we've had these three randomized studies, and two being positive readouts just in the last year. It's important to get the message out that CAR T-cell therapy for high-risk early relapsed refractory large cell lymphoma patients can result in a significant improvement in event-free survival and progression-free survival over the standard of care. And so, being aware that this therapy can result in more favorable outcomes is step one. Step two is, we have to ensure that there are minimal barriers to getting those patients into these treating centers as quickly as possible. So, recognizing who delivers the care - is it your traditional stem cell transplant physician? Is it a lymphoma doctor? What centers are certified? Some of these issues can be addressed with quick internet searches. So, for instance, in our center, we have a 1-800 number for anyone who's interested in CAR T-cell therapy that connects them directly to a CAR T coordinator who can help them understand do they meet the FDA-approved indication? Would they be interested in seeking consult? And we try and prioritize getting those patients in the door as soon as possible since time likely does have an impact on outcomes. And then, partnering with our community oncologist - you're going to be the primary oncologist for these patients leading up to CAR, and then after that four-week window, when we're keeping the patients in close proximity to our centers, we often send them back. And so, making sure that they're comfortable knowing what potential late toxicities to be on the lookout for, which include B-cell aplasia and risk for infection, or prolonged cytopenias, beyond just lymphopenia. And so again, there's a need for education and partnering with our community sites to make sure that there is successful handoff of these patients back after they've completed the monitoring for the acute toxicity. And then, really trying to explore opportunities to utilize some of the better tolerated CAR T, such as liso-cel, in your non-traditional academic centers. Those that are equipped to handle phase I studies or stem cell transplant, for instance, may not be affiliated with the university. So, I think those are all types of strategies that could be employed to try and improve access for patients. Dr. Chijioke Nze: And then, you mentioned the liso-cel, but in some of the toxicities, are there ways of predicting which patients will do better or worse? Are there ways to reduce toxicities? And is there any hope for things such as outpatient administration of CAR T? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: So, my answer today may improve over time as we get larger numbers and more experience, but what we currently understand is that the patient performance status, their degree of tumor, how quickly that tumor is increasing, LDH and some inflammatory markers such as CRP or ferritin pretreatment can provide some insight into a higher risk of toxicity. And then obviously, the construct that's utilized. Again, axi-cel has higher rates of neurotoxicity. All will have some form of cytokine release syndrome, generally speaking, but rates of grade three or higher are quite infrequent, particularly with liso-cel and tisa-cel. So, it's multifactorial. That then raises the question, can we do anything to alter those modifiable risk factors? Can we reduce the disease burden? Can we improve the performance status? Can we do anything to reduce the inflammatory markers pre-treatment? And so, those are strategies that are being discussed, and I think in general, as we get more effective therapies that enter into the treatment landscape, it's probably some of the best ways to try and reduce some of those risk factors. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Rounding that up, are there any exciting developments or things to look out for, for exciting therapies in the relapse setting? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: A couple of things beyond CAR T that I think we should all be aware of and anticipate to be in our toolkit relatively soon; probably, one of the most exciting, is the development of the bispecific antibodies. So, another challenge with CAR T is the requirement to collect these patients' own T-cells and send them off to a central manufacturing site, and the turnaround time can be anywhere from 3-4 weeks. And again, in a situation where you have an aggressive disease, that can be a long time to wait. And so, is there any treatments that are more readily available, that again, will be effective at reducing disease burden? And so, by specifics kind of fit those unmet needs to some extent - you have essentially two heads; one head is going to bind the endogenous T-cells that eliminates the need to leukapherese these patients and manufacture, and then the other head is going to generally engage CD20, which we know is an effective targeted antigen, particularly in B-cell lymphomas. And there are a number that are under development. We saw preliminary phase II data with glofitamab, epcoritamab, as well as combination strategies with mosunetuzumab. So, I do have optimism that the bispecific antibodies will potentially enter into the treatment landscape. I anticipate they'll probably be used first post-CAR T, but will likely move their way into earlier lines of therapy. I've already mentioned tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide, which is an effective non-chemotherapy option. We have antibody-drug conjugates, such as Loncastuximab, which is a CD19 antibody-drug conjugate. It's essentially targeted delivery of chemotherapy, and it looks to have a pretty promising activity as a single agent in that third-line or later space, and then polatuzumab, which is a CD79b antibody drug conjugate, in the relapse setting has been combined with bendamustine and rituximab, but also demonstrated significant improvement in the frontline setting in the POLARIS study where vincristine was replaced with polatuzumab. So, I do have optimism that as we have more and more treatment options entering into the treatment landscape, we'll have fewer patients that are experiencing refractory disease, and potentially succumbing to the lymphoma. Dr. Chijioke Nze: And then, one additional question: How do you approach a patient who is not quite as fit, in thinking about what their options are for later-line therapies? You already mentioned some of these, but which of those would you prioritize in this setting? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Again, as we get more experience, we develop skills that help us sort of navigate all these different options. In my practice, if I'm even considering CAR T, I'm going to delay bendamustine until after I've collected those cells. I think that's one caveat that-- we do get nervous about the quality of those autologous CAR Ts if they're generated in someone who's had recent exposure to bendamustine. So, that may help me sequence that later on. We have questions right now about what's the optimal sequencing of CD19-directed therapy because we have several options beyond just CAR T-- As I mentioned, we have Lonca, we've got tafasitamab and lenalidomide. Currently, we don't have prospective data that really informs that question, and there's a number of research studies underway to try and help us understand if there is a preferred sequence, or even if it matters how we handle CD19 targeting. For my older, frailer patients where I'm really worried, they're not going to be able to tolerate something like liso-cel, or they're not going to be able to have that caregiver, and they're uncomfortable relocating to an area where CAR T might be available, my general approach right now is to consider tafasitamab and lenalidomide first in that relapse setting, followed by either Lonca or Pola-BR. Selinexor is another option. It's an oral agent, though again, in my opinion, if we look at the totality of the data, may be less effective than the other options. So, I might reserve that as a last option for someone, again, with relapsed/refractory large cell. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. Thank you. This has been very helpful. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: All right. So, Dr. Nze, now I'm going to turn the table and ask you some questions. I'm going to change this up a little bit - she's now a 39-year-old female. She has significant comorbidities. She has HIV, and again, large cell lymphoma. So, let me walk you through her case, and then we'll discuss some of the challenges, again, in a very different scenario, albeit a similar disease. So, our female is, I mentioned 39, pre-existing HIV, she's treated frontline with six cycles of R-CHOP and intrathecal methotrexate for CNS prophylaxis. Because of her comorbidities, again, not well controlled HIV, she also has a poor functional status at the time of relapse. This was a couple years ago, and CAR T was not an option in second line, though she is someone who had a relapse that was beyond 12 months. So, for her second-line approach, because of her comorbidities, she actually receives rituximab in combination with high-dose cytarabine, dexamethasone, and oxaliplatin for three cycles, and actually achieves a chemosensitive disease and is referred to our stem cell transplant colleagues. Unfortunately, at that time, due to comorbidities, she was deemed not to be an appropriate candidate for high-dose therapy, and she's been monitored for signs of relapse. Despite being in the minority, she actually does not have a recurrence of her lymphoma but has a number of other, again, challenges in regards to her comorbidity, including multiple infections, resulting in recurrent hospitalizations. And so, it's always been a challenge for me in being intimately involved in her case, deciding when she's presenting, how alarmed to be about recurrent lymphoma versus infection, and how I might approach her in the setting of relapsed large cell lymphoma. So, what role does prior type and response to therapy play in treatment selection at your next line of treatment? Dr. Chijioke Nze: I think in this patient, it sounds like she got one adequate therapy on and the initial presentation with R-CHOP, and then with IT chemotherapy as well. She looked like she had a good response. I think the fact that she achieved a complete response and the duration of her response, lets me know that she likely has chemosensitive disease. This, in turn, helps me to pick what to do next. As you mentioned previously, we know how efficacious the CAR T therapy is, but in someone like her who had a long duration, trying salvage therapy and proceeding to autologous transplant might make sense. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Yeah, I agree. And I think part of the challenge, particularly when we're facing patients with HIV, they're often excluded from prospective studies. And so, we're often in a scenario where we may not have the wealth of data to inform our treatment decision. But I do think in general, comorbidities play a major role-- we're navigating treatment options. Because again, traditionally, we've used intensive chemotherapy as our mainstay of treatment, and there are clear criteria that patients generally should meet that help us predict how likely they are to have significant or severe toxicity from high-dose therapy. And this is a prime example of even though she was young, her comorbidity made her a poor candidate for intensive therapy. I think the other sort of non-clinical factors that we sometimes take into consideration, because CAR T was approved off of single-arm phase II studies, again, none of which would've included someone like her, because of her HIV status, how do we extrapolate-- for instance, if she had relapsed in that third-line space, and suggesting that she did not have significant infection or other significant comorbidities, do we have experience to proceed with an autologous CAR in that setting? So, again, there've been a few cases where we have case reports where people have reported on their standard of care outcomes, particularly with CAR T in patients with active HIV disease, but one of the concerns I have in these scenarios is very selected. If you have active infection, that can make the acute toxicity with CAR significantly worse. And so again, we're trying to navigate a sort of limited data zone to try and help her and choose the right therapy. Again, you've met this patient with me, you helped care for her for some time, and you have a unique experience of also practicing in a county hospital where comorbidities, particularly, like HIV, can be much more common. What is your perception regarding barriers to accessing CAR T as it pertains to social factors, clinical factors, and again, this is a case that highlights some of those issues. Dr. Chijioke Nze: You mentioned at first that she had uncontrolled HIV. So, I think which, one, speaks to her treatment reference of her non-malignancy-related diseases, and trying to get that under control would be one of the first things I could think about. Thinking about how her care is managed and what kind of support she has are very important for us to think about as well. The other thing that's very important is, a lot of patients who we're seeing in the community may not have access to such specialized centers such as MD Anderson, where patients do have access to clinical trials and CAR T therapy. So, patients who are unlike her, who might qualify, may not actually be able to get these therapies as well. Part of the reason is, it can be insurance status, which is what we see in a lot of our patients. So, a barrier to get into the door. And then too barriers, lack of social support can be a big issue as well. And then there's also a big push in the community to improve the trust and awareness of these novel therapies, as you've mentioned. So, in a lot of the community practice, some of the community practitioners may not be comfortable with these, and a lot of the patients may not have heard of these new technologies, and also want to defer trying new therapies before having other people try new therapies before they consider them themselves. I think all these things present specific significant barriers to patients in the community. One, their ability to adhere to care, two, their insurance and their ability to get care and the financial toxicities associated with that. And then third, really understanding the options that are available. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: And again, just to try and illustrate a couple other points. You know, we use a case here, which is a real case, with significant comorbidities such as HIV, which again, is something that is not frequently encountered, and will have a large impact on treatment selection. What if I just told you this patient has comorbidities, but she has moderate type-2 diabetes, and as a result, she has mild renal insufficiency, ejection fraction is actually adequate, would you have done anything different in this case? Dr. Chijioke Nze: No. I think in this particular case, I do think the fact that she did have a good response for a long duration of time, and did seem to have chemosensitive disease, I would probably still have tried a salvage therapy and autologous transplant in this patient. In the event that she was refractory, or had early relapse, and in that case, I would consider her to not be chemosensitive and would definitely have sought some more active therapies such as CAR T cell therapy through available products. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: And then one last question for you: What if we just changed her age and we made her 79, but no other significant comorbidities, how would that have impacted your approach? Dr. Chijioke Nze: I'm going to turn that one over to you, I'm not exactly sure how I would treat with older patient with the same disease. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: That's fair. So, if you have an older patient who has a late relapse, but not necessarily someone you would consider appropriate for salvage chemotherapy and high-dose therapy, then I think tafasitamab and lenalidomide would be probably my first choice in that setting, just based off of the L-MIND study. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Thank you, Dr. Nastoupil, for a great discussion of the management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. And thank you to all our listeners. We appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Educational podcast.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part One of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Dr. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College London, shares with us his intriguing life trajectory, encompassing a childhood in various parts of the world, aspirations for a veterinary career that turned to basic science, medicine, health policy (4:27), and even a long-term stint with the British Army Intelligence (12:22). Dr. Sullivan, who served as Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade also discusses traits he looks for in a cancer investigator (19:21), and how to be happy (21:16)! Guest Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University Cancer Center.   Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas.   Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what book have you read this last month?   Dave Johnson: I have one I wanted to recommend to you. It's very interesting. It's by Steven Johnson, not of the syndrome fame. It's entitled Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer. You may have heard of this because PBS made a special documentary about this particular book. But in it, Johnson talks about the remarkable increase in human lifespan, especially over the 20th century, and the various factors that contributed to increased years of life from on average in the United States of about 48-49 in 1900 to just about 80 in the year 2000. So that beats anything in the history of mankind before.   And he has a chapter about each of the factors that contribute to this, and some of which I think we all recognize. Things like antibiotics playing a role, but some of the things that I hadn't thought about were improved drug regulation and the development of randomized controlled trials, which all of us have participated in. How important that is.   He also talked about, at least in the United States, the importance of automotive safety. And I'm sure some of us on this podcast are old enough to remember cars that did not have safety belts and certainly not other safety maneuvers that have really improved lifespan in that regard. So I found it a fascinating book. I think our listeners who are interested in medical history would also enjoy this text.   Pat Loehrer: Did he mention this podcast?   Dave Johnson: No, actually it wasn't mentioned, and I thought that was a tremendous oversight. So, I've sent him a letter and recommended that he add it.   Pat Loehrer: We may not live longer, but it just seems like we're living longer. When you listen to this podcast, time stands still.   Pat Loehrer: Well, it's my real great pleasure to introduce our interviewee today, Richard Sullivan. I met Richard several years ago through the late Professor Peter Boyle in Leon, and it's one of the greatest highlights of my life to be able to know Richard.   Professor Richard Sullivan's Research Group studies health systems and particularly chronic disease policy and the impact of conflict on health. He's a professor of cancer and Global Health at King's College in London and director of the Institute of Cancer Policy and Co-director of Conflict and Health Research Group. As well as holding a number of visiting chairs, Richard is an NCD advisor to the WHO, a civil military advisor to the Save the Children Foundation, and a member of the National Cancer Grid of India. His research focuses on global cancer policy and planning and health system strengthening, particularly in conflict ecosystems. He's principal investigative research programs ranging from automated radiotherapy planning for low resource settings to the use of augmented or virtual reality for cancer surgery through the political economy to build affordable equitable cancer control plans around the world.   Richard has led more Lancet Oncology commissions than anyone else. In fact, Lancet is talking about calling it the Sullivan Commissions. He's led five Lancet Oncology commissions and worked on four others. He's currently co-leading the Lancet Oncology Commission on the Future of Cancer Research in Europe and Cancer Care and Conflict in the conflict systems. His research teams have had major programs in capacity building in conflict regions across the Middle East and North Africa. He's done studies on the basic packages of health services in Afghanistan and worked in Pakistan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He's been a member of the British Army, intelligence and security, and in that capacity he's worked many years in biosecurity and counterterrorism issues. I think in some ways, this is the most interesting man in the world, and it's our pleasure today to have Richard join us. Richard, thank you for coming.   Richard Sullivan: Pat, Dave, you're really too kind. Marvelous to be with you. Thank you for the invitation.   Pat Loehrer: Can you tell us a little about your upbringing and early life before you became Dr. James Bond?   Richard Sullivan: I'm not sure that's anywhere close to the truth, sadly. But, yeah, I have had a very interesting, eclectic life. I was born in Aden just on the cusp of where the British Aden Protectorate met a country which actually no longer exists, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. Because after the British left Aden, essentially the East Germans, and what was then the Soviet Union took over southern Yemen. So I was born in a very unusual part of the world, which sadly, since then has just deteriorated. I spent many years of my life with my parents, who were in the diplomatic service and doing other things, wandering around the globe, mainly in the Middle East and East Africa. We spent quite a lot of time, strangely enough, we washed up on the shores in the USA once as well. Dayton, Ohio, and eventually-   Pat Loehrer:  Not to interrupt you, Richard, there are no shores in Dayton, Ohio. So just correct you there.   Richard Sullivan: That is so true. My memory - cornfields everywhere. I had a wonderful dog then, that's how I remember it so well. And I didn't really come back to the UK until, oh, gosh, I was nearly 10-11 years old. So, coming back to the UK was actually a bit of a culture shock for me. And then relatively classical in terms of the UK, sort of minor public school and then into medical school. In the old days when it was in the 80's. I had a fabulous childhood, going all over the place, seeing lots of things, being exposed to lots of different cultures. I think it remained with me all my life. I never really feel a foreigner in a foreign land. That's nice. That's really unique and it's been marvelous being able to tie in the passion for global health with my upbringing as well. So, yeah, I had a wonderful childhood.   Dave Johnson: Would you mind expanding on your medical training, Richard? Tell us a little bit about that.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, so when I, when I went to medical school in the UK, we were still running the old system. And by the old system, I mean, you know, these small medical schools with entries of, you know, 70, 80 individuals, particularly in London, you had that St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, which is where I went, Charing Cross, Guy's, St. Thomas', and they were all individual medical schools. Now, most of these now have merged together into these super medical schools. But certainly when I went to medical school, I'll be absolutely honest with you, I wanted to be a vet to begin with, but actually discovered I wasn't bright enough to be a vet. It was harder to become a vet than it was to become a doctor. In my day going into medicine, and people listening to this, or some people who understand the A level system in the UK will recognize if you're offered a BCD, that's quite low grades to get into medical school. So I went to Mary's, to be absolutely honest with you, because I heard that they took people that played rugby, and I came from a rugby-playing school. And sure enough, 90% of the interview was based on my rugby prowess, and that was St. Mary's Hospital Medical School. So it was wonderful.   And we'd already had people going there who were big rugby players. And again, it was, I remember thinking to myself, am I making the right decision here? But it was interesting, as soon as I went into medical school, I realized that was the life for me. I had done myself a favor by not going into veterinary science, which I would have been awful at. We had six years of very, very intensive pre-medicine, the classical medical rotations, and then that movement into the old schools of pre registration house officers, registrar jobs. We were quite an early stage. I kind of slightly went off-piste and started doing more academic work. Interestingly, most of my academic early days academic work was not in health policy and research. It was actually in very hard core cell signaling. So my doctorate was in biochemistry, and we worked on small GTPases, calcium-sensing proteins.   There were some really extraordinary heady days, and I'm talking here about the early nineties and the mid-nineties of tremendous discovery, real innovation. I was at UCL at the time, but mixing and matching that up with a sort of surgical training, and again, surgical training in those days was pretty classical. You went into your general surgery, then sort of specialized. It was really, really interesting but it was full on. I mean, you spent your entire life working. Morning to night so these were the days of 100 hours week rotations. You were doing one in twos, one in threes. That's every other night and every other weekend on call. It was incredibly intense, but there was a lot more diversity and plasticity in those days. You could dip in and out of medicine because of the way you were chosen and how you were recruited. So it suited my personality because I liked moving around and doing different things and that sort of took me through, really until the late 1990s.   Pat Loehrer: You became a urologist, right?   Richard Sullivan: That's right. Exactly. So I trained up until the late 1990s, it was all pretty standard, I would say. And then I decided I was bored and moved into the pharmaceutical industry and I went to work in for Merck Damstadt at the time, which was relatively small. I was going to say family owned, but it was quite family-owned pharmaceutical company that was just moving into oncology. And because I'd done the background in cell signaling and cell signaling was really the backbone of the new era of targeted therapies, this seemed like a great move. To be absolutely blunt with you, I didn't last very long, less than a couple of years, I think, mainly because I just found the whole environment way too constraining. But what it did provide me with was a springboard to meet the wonderful late Gordon McVie, who I met at a conference. And he said to me, ‘You're absolutely wasting your time and life by staying in the pharmaceutical industry. Why don't you come out, get an academic job at University College London and become my head of clinical programs?” - for what was then the Cancer Research Campaign. This Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund were the forerunners of Cancer Research UK. So, you know, this was an offer that was too good to be true.   So I jumped ship immediately, went back into academic life and joined CRC. And really the next ten years was this extraordinary blossoming of the merger of CRC with the Imperial College Research Fund, the creation of Cancer Research UK, and that was Paul Nurse, and obviously Gordon and me, bringing that all together. And it was the heady days of that resurgence of cancer, the importance of cancer care and research in the UK. And coupled with that, of course, it was the blossoming of my interest, really then into the global health aspects of cancer, which really, Gordon, people like you mentioned already, the late, wonderful Peter Boyle, all those individuals were already engaged in and they were the ones that really kind of catapulted me into a more international scene.   Dave Johnson: Did you know Dr. McVie before you met him at this conference, or was it just a chance encounter?   Richard Sullivan: No, he actually met me via John Mendelson, because John had picked up a paper I'd been writing on basically the very early versions of Rituximab that we were working on and we were looking for pharmacodynamic endpoints. And of course, one of the things I noticed with the patients is they were getting all these skin rashes on their faces, and I thought, that's terrific. Just seemed to be the skin rashes seemed to be together with those individuals that had better responses. And I remember writing this paper for Signal, which was a kind of relatively minor journal, and I think it was John Mendelson who picked it up and must have mentioned something to Gordon. Gordon hunted me out down at a particular conference, said, "How on earth do you know about this, that you're not anything more than a surgeon?" He was absolutely right about, goodness sake, what do you know about pharmacodynamic endpoints, and I kind of had to sort of confess that I've gone kind of slightly off-piste by doing biochemistry and cells signaling and working with these extraordinary people. And that's how I essentially met Gordon. He was very good for spotting slightly unusual, eclectic human beings.   Pat Loehrer: I'm very curious about the intersection of your work and how you got into the British Army and Intelligence with medicine and how that even may continue even today. So explain that story, that part of your life a little bit to us.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, it was very early on, as I went into medical school, one of the key concerns was making money. I looked around for ways of doing something interesting to make money, and most of the jobs on offer were bar jobs, et cetera. Then I thought, what about the Territorial Army, which, in the early days of the 1980s, was, and still is, a very large component of the UK Armed Forces. So I actually joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, as you would expect for someone going into medicine. I thought, okay, I'll join the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I was a combat Medical Training Technician, et cetera. So I went along, signed up, and I think I was about three months into training when I was at a place called Kew Barracks and some chap came up to me and handed me a little bit of paper. It said "Intelligence Security Group" and gave a phone number. He said, "This is more your line of work. Why don't you give them a ring?"   It was interesting because, in those early days, they were looking for analysts who could work on lots of different areas. In those days, most of the work was domestic.. Of course, there was counterterrorism with Northern Ireland, but there was also the Soviet Union, and the fallout from the Warsaw Pact, so they were still actively recruiting into that area. There are lots of details I can't talk about, but it was relatively, to begin with, quite hard work and low level. It was a lot of learning foreign equipment recognition. It was what we consider to be standard combat intelligence. But the more time you spend in it, the more interesting it gets.   One of the areas they were looking to recruit into, which I didn't realize at the time but only later, was bioweapons and biosecurity. They needed people who understood biotechnology and the language of science, and who could be taught the language of infectious disease on top of that. That is quite a difficult combination to find. It's very easy to teach people trade craft and intelligence, it's very hard to teach them subject matter expertise. And they were really missing people who specialized in that area.   It was interesting because it was still a relatively open domain. There was still a lot of work going on in the counterterrorism front with biological weapons, and a lot around the Verification of the Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention. And it was an interesting, and I'd almost say parallel life. But your medical knowledge and the scientific knowledge I had already gained and was gaining was what was being looked for. So that was very early on and it has expanded over the years. More and more now we talk about health security and intelligence so that goes beyond what you would consider classic medical intelligence or Armed Forces - this is more about putting together the disciplines of intelligence with the securitized issues of, for example Ebola. That is a classic example. The big outbreaks in West Africa, the DRC, these are sort of the classic security intelligence issues - even COVID 19 for example - and mostly around the world, what we've seen is the intelligence apparatus taking front and center in that, whether you're looking at states like South Korea, et cetera. So I've moved more into that, and we do a lot of work and research into this as well. So we look at, particularly now, how to improve human intelligence in this area, the pros and cons of signal intelligence collection. And we go as far as to kind of ask sort of deep ethical and moral issues, for example, about how far should these sorts of apparatus of state be applied to public good issues like health. Because at the end of the day, when you're talking about the armed forces security sector, their primary job is for defense of the realm. So applying them in other areas obviously comes with a whole load of moral and ethical challenges. So, yes, it's been a fascinating journey, which, as I said, it extends all the way back to the late 1980s. It's been both complementary and different.   Dave Johnson: So, Richard, there's so many things in your resume that warrant exploration, but you served as Clinical Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade. What was that experience like, and what accomplishment are you most proud of?   Richard Sullivan: It was an enormous privilege. In your life, you always look at some jobs and you think, “How lucky I was to be there at that time with those people.” I think, first of all, enormous respect for the people that ran both Cancer Research Campaign, Imperial Cancer Research Fund – I mean, Paul Nurse and Gordon McVeigh, Richard Treisman – I mean, some extraordinary people who were leading both of these charities. And so to be there at that moment when they both came together, but more importantly as well, they had this most amazing global network of literally the illuminati of cancer research, spanning from basic science all the way through to epidemiology, public health, health systems. And in those days, of course, those individuals would come on site visits to the UK to look at the different units and evaluate them. So you can imagine when you're bringing those sorts of individuals across, you get a chance to go out with them, go drinking, talk to them, learn about their research, and also learn about the extraordinary breadth of research that was there in the UK. So you're condensing almost a lifetime's worth of learning into a few years. It was an absolute privilege to have been able to serve the community like that.   What I'm most proud of? Gosh, I like to think I suspect that most proud of trying to help a lot of the fellows get through to where they were going to actually get the most out of their careers. When I look back, there are lots and lots of names of people who started at a very early stage with funding from Cancer Research Campaign or the Imperial College Research Fund, who are now very, very senior professors and global research leaders. And I like to think that we did a little bit to help them along that way and also help to support individual research programs actually reach their full potential. Because I think research management and planning is often overlooked. People think of this as very transactional – it's not transactional. It's an incredibly important, serious discipline. It requires very careful handling to get the very best out of your research ecosystem. You've really, really got to get under the skin and really have a clear view of how you're going to help people. So I think that's what I'm most proud of – is the individuals who made it all the way through and now these great leaders out there.   But it was also, let's be honest, it was halcyon days. Great innovations, great discoveries, new networks growing, incredible expansion of funding in the UK, in Europe, in the USA. They were very, very good days. And it was, as I said, it was a real privilege to be there almost at the center for nearly a decade.   Dave Johnson: Let me follow up on that, if I may, just for a moment. You have had such an incredible influence. What characteristics do you think are most desired in a cancer investigator? What sorts of things do you look for, especially when you're thinking about funding someone?   Richard Sullivan: Creativity. I think creativity is really important. We talk about the word innovation a lot, and it's an interesting engineering term, but creativity is that spark that you can see it in people, the way they talk about what they're doing. They have this really creative approach. And with that, I think you have to have the passion. Research careers are long and difficult, and I'd probably suggest there's probably more downs than there are ups, and you have to have that passion for it. And I think along with that passion is the belief in what you're doing – that first of all, you have that belief that actually drives you forward, that what you know you're doing is good work, and that you're really dedicated to it. But obviously, hand on heart, when you're looking at researchers, it's that passion and that creativity.   I think it's a brave person to judge how any person's career or program is going to go. I don't think any of us are prophets. Even in our own land. We might be able to see slightly into the future, but there are so many elements that make up  “success”. It's funny when I look back and I think those who've been successful, it's people who've also been generally happy in their lives. They've found their careers in whatever shape or form, fulfilling, and they've generally been happy human beings, and they've managed to create a life around research which has given them meaning.   Pat Loehrer: Richard, you have reinvented yourself a number of times – this transition of going from like a basic scientist, a surgeon, moving into public policy and global policy. Tell me a little bit about the journey that's been in terms of academics. How do you learn? What were the transition points in each of these things to get you now to be, as I mentioned before, kind of the key person for Lancet's commissions to somebody who was a rugby player?   Richard Sullivan: I suppose if you're being mean, you say, he clearly gets bored easily. But it's not that. Actually, I'm not very instrumental about life either. I mean, there are many people you will meet who have got their lives and strategies mapped out. They know they're going to do X next year, Y the following year. And for me, it's never been like that. For me, it's that excitement, that creativity of working on new and interesting things, but also knowing when you've run out of road in a particular area, where it no longer gets you out of bed in the morning, where you no longer feel happy, where you no longer feel you're contributing. All of us talking today have the great privilege of having choice about our lives, about what direction our lives should take. And it's not a privilege one should squander lightly because many people do not have choices about their lives. It's all about chance. And having that choice to be able to move into different areas is really important because I said you can stick in the same thing because you think you have to. And you can become an unhappy, miserable human being. And that makes you a miserable researcher to be around. It makes you a terrible doctor. Probably makes you a terrible person, actually, generally, if you're having a miserable life.   So finding new things, that really you're passionate about how you do it, there's no shortcut in this. It's hard work. Readily admit I went back to law school of economics, retaught myself lots of things. There are no shortcuts for. Deciding if you're going to a new area is learning, learning, practice, practice, practice, and just doing the hard work. I think that's an ethos that was probably drilled into us quite early anyway in medical school, because that's how you approach medicine. That's how you approach science when I was growing up. And it was that idea of humility that you can never have enough learning, you will always learn off other people. That's probably what drove me and how I've managed to change and as I say, who knows what the future is? I don't know. Maybe one day I'll think about doing a bit of poetry.   Dave Johnson: Your comments about happiness and work resonate with Pat and me. I think we both feel like humor is really important for happiness and career success. And, you know, Osler once said, “The master word of medicine is work.” You can't get around that. It is what it is. And I think you just reaffirmed that.   Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Richard Sullivan, professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College, London and director of the King's Institute of Cancer Policy and co-director of the Conflict and Health Research Group. In the second part of this episode, Professor Sullivan will speak about the progress of global health, especially in conflict areas, and the need for young people to enter into the world of oncology and oncology research.   Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. Thank you again for listening.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education ASCO.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Getting into oncology requires a lot of education and training. How does one deal with the success and stress of such a journey? In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Aakash Desai – fellow at the Mayo Clinic along with guests Dr. Madison Conces – fellow at Cleveland Clinic, and Hematology/Oncology fellowship program directors Dr. Lori J. Rosenstein (Gundersen Health System) and Dr. Deepa Rangachari (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) explore the past, present, and future of Oncology Training. They discuss the transition from training to clinical practice (1:02), how to stay current with new treatments and guidelines (6:39) and what oncology training should look like in the future (12:12). Resources: ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 1) ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation, is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. Aakash Desai: Hello, everyone, this is Dr. Aakash Desai, I am currently a Hematology and Oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, and this is part two of our discussion on the past, present, and future of Oncology training. My guests are, Dr. Madison Conces, Hematology/Oncology fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori Rosenstein, Hematology, and Oncology Fellowship Program Director, at Gundersen Health System, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, Fellowship Program Director, at Fellowship Program Director, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In part one, we gave our insight into what motivated us to get into Oncology, along with spotlighting the rewards and stresses of going through fellowship. Today, we're going to look at what the future of Oncology should look like. But first, I and my guests will explore the challenges of transitioning from training to clinical practice in Oncology. Lori, gives us her answer. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: You know, I think part of it is, you are in that final stage, this is the rest of your life. So, I think a lot of my fellows feel like when they're leaving fellowship, they have to find the perfect job, because it's where they're going to be for the rest of their life, and I think everybody who is out in practice knows that it's very unlikely you stay in the first job out of fellowship. And so, having less stress on yourself, of finding that perfect experience, I think, finding an experience that fits with your goals and aspirations, and what you see your life being like, is good enough. And then if you go there, and it turns out it's not a great situation for you, feeling free to go somewhere else, that's a different paradigm than I think fellows expect. They put so much stress on themselves. We're all type-A people, right? And you just want to make the right choice.  I've now had a couple of jobs. Each of them was the right choice for me at the time, and each of them taught me really important lessons that I have carried on to my next role. When I started my first job out of fellowship, I had no idea medical education was going to be a huge part of my life and career. I like to teach - that was what I knew about myself, but as I got more involved in medical education as a career, as a research opportunity, as probably the most important part of what I do in work, it changed where I was going to go. It changed what I ended up doing. You know, I ended up as a program director, and when I talked to my fellows and I say, you know, my job is research and taking care of patients, and teaching, and then medical education. To me, medical education is at the top, and that would not have been what I said as I left fellowship. So, having that openness to say, "I'm going to take in experiences and continue to grow and develop," is huge. Aakash Desai: Madison, what challenges do you think you are going to have to face when you start clinical practice from training? Dr. Madison Conces: I think for me right now, the main things on my mind are making sure I have the support I need after I graduate. I don't think I'll be abandoned anywhere, but I just want to make sure I join a supportive practice. And I think the second kind of big stress on my mind is doing research as a staff. Obviously, have mentorship, but as a fellow, I feel like there's a little bit more of a structure maybe with that, and so again, I'm not sure how that will be as a staff, but you'll be kind of more of the PI right on the project rather than a co-PI necessarily, and kind of going with patient care, like all the details, and making sure all T's are crossed and I's are dotted, and I know I'll be ready when it's time, but I just feel like it's kind of always in the back of my mind, like that it's coming - exciting, and I think one thing I try to reflect on, is I have made it; I'm literally the 10th year of my medical training. If I've made it this far, and I have problem solved, and helped patients, and worked as a team, and been a leader when I needed t0 this far, then I have to have faith that I can figure it out as a staff as well. Aakash Desai: Deepa, can you answer next? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Couple of recurring themes: one, appreciating the interdisciplinary nature of the care that we give, and just recognizing that the need for help, whether it's help with regard to clinical decision making, or intuition, or best practice, or the need for help just in terms of supporting the needs of your patients, those things never, ever go away. That sort of segues very nicely into this idea of consistent and ongoing rapidity of the growth and knowledge that doesn't end when you come out of fellowship. Those things continue to evolve and change well after your fellowship training. You need to know when and how, and who to ask for help. You also need to develop paradigms for lifelong learning. What will it mean to you to be a learner during career span journey, where not only will the knowledge change, but the way in which you access that knowledge will change? And I think those are important things to recognize as challenges of making us transition. I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. And what I mean by work-life negotiation is, on any given day or any given week, or any given month, the way in which you organize these relative priorities at home and at work certainly can change dramatically. And this idea that you can be in charge of refining, and reorganizing, and defining, and turning up or down the dial at home or at work, according to what's going on in your life, is very important to recognize, and so, I think that idea of paying attention to the need to continue to negotiate those factors on a regular basis is something that is very important as you transition from training to clinical practice. I would not go so far as to say that it necessarily ever becomes easier, but I absolutely think it becomes more manageable for two main reasons; one, you have more control over your career and your life as you move from training to practice, and two-- and I think we should be open and honest about this, you have more resources to do so - whether there's financial resources, or supportive resources. But both of those things, I think, make it more manageable, even if the challenges never go away. Aakash Desai: And now we'll move on to the next question. I think this is a question I think most fellows have in mind because they realize that as and when they go out to clinical practice, the treatments you learned during fellowship and what ends up happening when you're actually interactive, there's going to be a lot of difference because of all the new updates, and the new drugs, and others that come out. But how do you stay current with new treatments and guidelines, and what would you advise current fellows and future Oncologists, the resources to use for these kinds of updates? So, Madison, I'll start with you. Dr. Madison Conces: That's a tough question, I think because some groups, the field is changing so fast. I would say if I'm dealing with something I've not seen before, or I don't know in depth as much as maybe, you know, GI malignancies, which is mostly my interest right now, we'll start out with the NCCN guidelines, and I'm well aware there are plenty of people who don't follow those verbatim and all of that, and there is some interpretation with those, but at least, it gives you a structure to work with. And so, I like to start there, and they usually have at least updated, you know, genetic mutations and some drugs that are, you know, used for those mutations, and so any targeted therapy might be listed on that guidelines. And so, I usually start there and then go beyond there. I mean, I'm obviously talking in a very general sense here, because patients with a really rare cancer, you're just going to have to read up more and look at case reports, you know, see if there's any recent trials. That's kind of where I start, and I just kind of read from there. It's almost like a trickle-down effect in a way. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: So, Madison, I think that is also where I start - NCCN guidelines, up to date, those sorts of things. I will tell you that as I have gone along, I have become much more likely to phone a friend than I used to be. I used to be, as a fellow, like, "I'm not going to call that person." I still remember, as a fellow, I called somebody at MD Anderson to ask about Mantle Cell lymphoma, and he was absolutely lovely, but I was petrified. I was like, "Oh, he's going to think I'm an idiot, and why am I calling him?" Now, I know that people are out there and they're experts for a reason, and they're experts because they want to share their expertise, and it's very rare that someone is just completely not interested in helping you. But reaching out, I think there's lots of ways on social media that you can reach out, and my fellows, they think I'm silly because I tell them, "Look what I just found on Twitter." Like, if you're following the right people on Twitter, and people who you trust their opinions, and you know they're experts in their fields, and they say, "Hey, I was just at ESMO, and here's the slide from what I think is really important." That helps guide me to like, "Hey, this is something." Now, obviously, social media is what it is, and you have to take it with a grain of salt - I try not to trust complete strangers, but at least it leads me to new articles that I wouldn't necessarily have seen. Currently, on my desk, I probably have about 30 "Bloods" because I just am so behind in looking through those, so, knowing that someone who I know in Hematology said, "Hey, this is a really great review article on X, Y, or Z," I'm texting that to my fellows at night when that comes across Twitter. And likewise, there's some really good groups on Facebook that are specifically for Hem/Onc, that provide support, you know who the experts are, they're willing to help. ASCO and ASH both have ‘phone a friends' where you can present difficult cases and MedNet -- I have no financial disclosures for any of these, by the way. MedNet is a really interesting ‘phone a friends' where you can put in a question around a general concept with a clinical case, and get experts in the field to reply back. So, all of those things, I'm much more likely to do now, than I was when I was a fellow, just because I'm now less concerned that people would think I don't know what I'm doing; I'm much more likely to say, "Hey, I don't know what I'm doing, and I need help in this situation." Aakash Desai: That is so great to hear because social media really has become one of the primary sources of updates that we get. It's definitely not the ideal resource, but I think in a fast-paced world, I think having a few things on updates, I think definitely has been very helpful. How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Yeah, being, staying current, it's really a challenge and I think lifelong learning is often interpreted as sort of like being willing to continue to learn over time. The trickiest thing about this is learning how to adapt the ways in which you learn over time, and so, I'm a very pen-and-paper sort of a person, I've had to really learn how to be savvy with using digital resources. I keep a very brisk PDF library of key literature, not only that I like to read and save to re-review myself, but also in terms of a lot of the teaching, and presentations, and talks, that I'm invited to give. And so, I think I've gone from a very pen-and-paper modality, and I still have the notebooks that I kept during my residency and fellowship training, and I still remember at the quarter left hand of a page, I wrote something that I really wanted to remember, but I've had to move away from that because I can't be walking around with pen and notebooks all the time. And so, I've developed PDF libraries and things that are available leveraging the technological support provided by my institution to maintain things on the cloud. I've incorporated podcasts into my lengthy commute time to, and from work, to sort of have a chance to keep up. And I think the honest truth is that everybody has to develop a system, and you have to be willing to be flexible and iterative with that system, and modify it, and grow it as time goes along. So, I don't have any simple equation for this other than a willingness to recognize the importance of being organized, and a willingness to be willing to change as the ways in which we learn and get information change, and a willingness to ask - that's the most important thing, is to be willing to ask others, and have others in your realm, who you know and trust, and can get candid and accurate answers from. Aakash Desai: So, now I have a very simple question, I think, to which you'll all have to give straightforward answers: What do you think Oncology training should look like in the future? What are your thoughts, Deepa? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think two of the things that we really have to acknowledge are; one, it has never been possible, nor will it be possible in the future, to think that three years of clinical training can prepare you for all of the questions, and nuances, and advancements that our discipline is fortunate to witness, or that we are fortunate to be a part of, and contribute to. So, really, fellowship training then has to be about developing a very rigorous infrastructure for critical thinking, and lifelong learning, and recognizing general frameworks and scripts for illness, and wellness, and therapeutic intervention, and understanding when are moments to push, and when are moments to sort of take a step back, and sort of revisit or refine the care trajectory along with our patients. I think that's one thing - sort of really just acknowledging there's no way we're going to be able to train people to see everything and know everything, so to really make sure that our training programs provide each trainee, and the program at large, with that sort of rigorous infrastructure and framework for thinking about complex problems, and really for working in complex interdisciplinary teams. I think the second thing that conceptually, I think, training program leaders should be thinking about is, helping make connections between different disease entities so that we're not training folks to think in disease-specific silos, but really think about emphasizing concepts that are shared across disease entities; thinking about making connections between common disease biologies, and things that may be similar or different, rather than memorizing a series of therapeutic pathways in stage III non-small cell lung cancer versus locally advanced breast cancer, versus early stage pancreatic cancer, but really thinking, what are the things that these different disease entities, at the biological level, or at the care coordination level, what are the things that are similar or different? I think this serves a couple of different things. From a learning science perspective, it sort of reinforces what we know are effective strategies for knowledge acquisition and retention, but I think also part of our obligation as training program leaders, is to make sure that we're training people to be thought leaders and innovators in their respective clinical and scholarly domains, and that really requires a lot of cross pollination of ideas - what is something that we know works well in lung cancer? How might that same way of thinking or science be applied to a patient in breast cancer? And how could we use those insights to innovate across different diseases? And I think a lot of this comes down to just acknowledging that this finite amount of training time will never be enough to fully expose people to every aspect of the breadth and depth of the discipline, let alone, how we're practicing now, or even thinking about the future. And so, really thinking about making sure that training programs create paradigms of thinking and collaborating, and lifelong learning that will go the distance rather than just emphasizing very specific content. Aakash Desai: Lori, what are your thoughts on this? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: From my standpoint, I think if I could totally change fellowship-- the thing that I'm most worried about with my fellows is trying to have all the medical knowledge for Hem and Onc by the time you finish three years. ACGME is so useful, as a program director, to help me guide what I need to be helping my fellows learn during that time. But for any of you who are program directors all know, there continues to be more and more things that we need to show that we're doing - we need to show that we're teaching our fellows multidisciplinary approaches to care of patients, they need to know about patient safety and quality improvement, they need to do research, they need to have all this medical knowledge. And as more and more things kind of come on the plate of what we need to turn out in three years, and more and more knowledge is out there, it becomes this point where we're not going to be able to do that. And if I had my choice, I would drop the medical knowledge part of knowing every esoteric drug mechanism and pathway, and having testing for that, and more, can we prove that they can critically think and take care of patients who are very complex? It's hard to test on that, and it's hard to just check that box and say, "Complete." But when you're a program director, and you're working very closely with fellows during that three years, you learn that - is this someone you want to take care of your patients or not? And they may be extremely able to take tests and answer questions correctly, and still not the Hem/Onc doctor that we would want them to be. In general, I would just say, less and less emphasis on test taking, and you know, regurgitating medical knowledge, and more and more emphasis on, where can you find the knowledge, and how do you apply it? Aakash Desai: So, as currently the programs are structured, I think most programs in the country are dual Hem and Onc boarded. Some programs do allow for single boarding, but I guess I want to ask thoughts on the future. There'll be more and more programs who will opt for singular boarding Hem or Onc, rather than a dual board. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah, so this is Lori. I think that single boarding is extremely challenging with the way our healthcare structure is laid out. So, you know, we all have to be very realistic that most of our fellows are going to leave fellowship, and are going to practice both Hematology and Oncology, and they're going to take care of the broad spectrum of all of those diseases. And in order to do so, their hospital is going to require they're credentialed, and certified in both of those. So, I think if we start to either only have Hem, or only have Onc, people are going to have extended training, and it's going to become less and less attractive. It's already a really long slog to be a medical oncologist and hematologist, and making that longer, I really don't think it's the way to go. Aakash Desai: Madison? Dr. Madison Conces: I'll jump back to the prior question of where do I see fellowship training in the future. I definitely think that the critical thinking aspect will still be there. I think there'll have to be more of an emphasis on thinking through patient care, and not so much the regurgitation medical knowledge of memorization. I think, you know, core lectures, like I'm sure a lot of fellowships we do here, which I think are really important to have, maybe at the beginning of the year, just to kind of lay out the basics for first-year fellows, but I think beyond that, doing case conferences where it's not crystal clear what even the subject is going to be and walking through it, and making people answer questions even in more of an interactive manner is another way we could go about the conferences. Other than maybe some very obvious information, I think a lot of this we just need to make sure we know how to find it - like we've already mentioned the NCCN, up to date, I think probably a lot of us got used to doing some of that in residency, in terms of where to find information. We've all been-- I think most people who are in fellowship right now have trained through all their training with computer and the internet, so you know, I think a lot of us are very familiar with it. Aakash Desai: Yeah, I think completely agree. And I think, you know like Lori mentioned, fellowship should be more than just preparing for Boards. And especially, I think as we move on in our fellowships Madison, and I think I've realized that you know, to know what your blind spots are and when to ask for help is also a critical part of actually training during fellowship. And I think as I come towards the end of my fellowship journey, I think I've realized now that it's a continuation of a longer journey. You know, three years is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's obviously a whole lot of you know, things that I'm going to see in the future. So, that, to me, I think in the future, needs to be kind of emphasized for the fellows to kind of really be okay with the idea of not knowing it all at the end of three years. And as we've geared more towards-- and we talked a little bit about work-life negotiation rather than balance, I think will be also very important. Thank you. I think those are phenomenal points, and I really appreciate everyone's time today. So, that is all what we have for today. Thank you so much, Dr. Conces, Rangachari, an Dr. Rosenstein, for this candid and vivacious conversation on Oncology training. I'm sure our listeners will appreciate and be able to relate to many of the personal anecdotes that you've shared, and the insights that you have shared today. Thank you also to our listeners, we appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "subscribe". Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Getting into oncology requires a lot of education and training. How does one deal with the success and stress of such a journey? In Part One of this ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Aakash Desai – fellow at the Mayo Clinic along with guests Dr Madison Conces – Hem/Onc Fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori J. Rosenstein, Hematology and Oncology fellowship program director at Gundersen Health System and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, fellowship program director explore the past, present and future of Oncology Training. They discuss their motivation of pursuing oncology (1:55), the rewards (5:51) and the stresses (8:44) of fellowship, coping with the loss of a patient (12:52) along with methods to keep up with advances in the field (19:50). TRANSCRIPT Dr. Lori Rosenstein: What I learned in fellowship is completely different than what I know now. And I passed the Boards, I did well on the Boards, I stressed about them, but the Boards do not define who you are as a cancer doctor; they are just a step along the way. And so, really, I am much happier if a fellow has that thought process and that self-reflection and knowledge of what they do and do not know; they're going to be amazing when they're done. Dr. Aakash Desai: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Education podcast. My name is Aakash Desai, and I'm a Hematology/Oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I will moderate this episode focusing on how Oncology training has changed in the last couple of decades. Do you think today's fellows have it easier with the electronic medical records, or is it rather harder with that? Given the much bigger pool of treatments to choose from and the constant stream of information, is it more difficult for Oncology fellows in this day and age? On a personal level, what challenges persist? How might we reimagine Oncology training in the future? To discuss all these questions and more, I'm joined by current Oncology fellow Dr. Madison Conces from Cleveland Clinic and two former fellows; Dr. Lori Rosenstein, a Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Gundersen Health Systems in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, a Medical Oncologist, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Director of Hematology/Oncology Graduate Medical Education at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. As we are all colleagues, I'm going to refer to everyone by their first names, if that is okay. And so, I'm going to pose my first question to Madison. Question is, what motivated you to get into Medicine and specialize in Oncology? And then, I will have Lori and Deepa answer the same. Dr. Madison Conces: Thank you, Aakash, for having me join this conversation today. So, I'll kind of answer the Medicine and Hematology/Oncology portion at the same time. I was in college when I actually was shadowing Dr. Pat Loehrer at IU over the summer, and I worked in the lab while also doing clinic with him one day a week. And I think being able to see the science and working to improve patient care while also witnessing the patient interactions, and the relationships, and the trust between the physician and the patient, is something I really admired, and that really drew me. So, I think that's kind of when it first sparked. And then, just during residency in medical school, my recurrent interactions with Oncology patients is what kind of definitively made me go that route. Dr. Aakash Desai: Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: So, I was a little bit slow to figure out what I wanted; I thought Neurology or Internal Medicine, and then I had no plans after that, and I really debated a long time. You know, ultimately, now that I'm a Hematologist-- and this totally makes sense with my personality and everything else, what I love about Hematology is the mystery and the detective work that happens. It also happens in Neurology. That's what I liked was figuring out where the lesion was based on your exam. But in Hematology, we figure out where the lesion is, and then often, we can fix it. And to me, that was really exciting. So, I joke with my fellows all the time that I'm a blood detective, and the best thing ever happened yesterday - is that one of my fellows knocked on my door, and she came in, and she said, "Today, I'm a blood detective. I figured this out." And it's super cool. I think that's a really fun part about Hematology and Oncology. Dr. Aakash Desai: How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: My inspirations mimic those shared by my colleagues already today. At a very young age, a very dear family friend whose mother is a Pediatric Hematologist/ Oncologist, and I think I was immediately enthralled by her demeanor. And later in life, as a medical student, I had the opportunity to shadow her and really see her in action. And I think she really embodied all of the things that I always considered in terms of being a consummate physician. And I think, on a daily basis, what inspired me to become an oncologist is, really, what to this very day holds me deeply, devotedly to this lifelong career which is the ability to exhaust and frankly apply all of my intellectual, emotional, and interpersonal skills to achieve the best possible outcome for a patient and their loved ones in what is often very challenging and/or devastating circumstance. The inspiration, in many regards, from years ago is the ongoing inspiration. Even today, I'm very much informed by early experiences, seeing such folks practice in a way that I felt was truly the art and science of Medicine. Dr. Aakash Desai: I guess the next question I would want to ask both of you is: What is the most rewarding part of the fellowship? Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: I hate to say this; I'm the oldest one of the group here, so I've been here the longest since I did my fellowship. But I will say, the best part of being a Heme/Onc doctor is the longitudinal relationships that you develop with those patients over time and the difference that you make in people's lives in the really short amount of time that sometimes you're with them. I think fellowship-- we'll talk later about the stresses and difficulties of fellowship - but knowing that you're in that final stage, you know, everything up until fellowship is, "I'm doing this to do the next thing. I'm doing this to do the next thing." There is really not a next thing after fellowship. That is what you're going to do. And I think that's the most exciting part - everything you're doing is for that purpose. You know, once you pass the Boards. Dr. Madison Conces: I agree with what Lori just said, and I think as someone who's in their final-- I'm a third-year Heme/Onc fellow right now, and I would agree where you're just like, "This is it. This is what I am going to do for the rest of my life." And there's excitement with that, there is some little bit of anxiety, I guess, under it, but there's a lot of excitement with it, and I think-- like when I sit and talk with patients now, I know we keep kind of reiterating a human connection, but I feel like at least as a fellow now, I'm able to explain things or understand things in a way I didn't before. And I feel like that makes me even more connected in their care, and also in a way kind of, I wouldn't say I understand, because I'm not in their position, but I'm able to, I feel like, meet them closer to the middle than I was before. So, I really appreciate that, I guess, growth I've had during fellowship, that's allowed me to, I think, be closer with patients and their journey. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Madison, this is Lori. So, I was just going to ask based on that; I see externally as my fellows are going through their training, there's usually just this moment where I can suddenly see that it's kind of clicking, and, you know, the hardness of first becoming a fellow all of a sudden, starts to get easier; and they really start to fly - they start to do fantastically. Do you remember if that was something that you experienced? Dr. Madison Conces: So, I was on Oncology consults August of my first year of fellowship, and I am September of my third year of fellowship. And I just noticed how quick I can be. Like in July, I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm a third year. How am I going to be ready for next year?" But now that I'm on Oncology consults, again, seeing every type of solid tumor malignancy, specifically for solid tumors, obviously, but I see the pace I'm going compared to before; I know the depth of knowledge I have is much greater, I kind of am more aware of my deficits of knowledge. So, I would say, just even in the past week, I've noticed, like, "Wow, I've definitely gotten better." I don't know if I'd call that an aha moment, but I've definitely had that perception of myself in the past week. Dr. Aakash Desai: Yeah. I think, as a third-year fellow myself, I agree. I think that's, you know, very rewarding. Essentially, recently, I was giving a talk to our first-year fellows as a primer talk on lung cancer. And, you know, I realized like some of this comes so naturally to me now, and I remember myself being a newly-minted, first-year fellow, and just thinking like, "How am I ever going to make sense of all this data and everything that's coming out?" That's also, I think, the part of the personal growth - you grow as a fellow. I think it's also very rewarding, as the fellow that I've found. So, with that, I think one other thing that's been, you know, obviously, more recently brought out is resident burnout, fellow burnout. Just in general, position burnout has been the theme, and we are becoming very aware of this. And I think fellowship, being the training, it obviously has its own stressors. So, what are the most stressful aspects of fellowship that you've found? Tell us about the most stressful day you've had so far and how do you cope with stress and workload. And any tools or strategies that you would recommend to current fellows and other peers that would be useful. Dr. Madison Conces: I would say, probably, it's twofold in terms of what's most stressful about fellowship; one is the information which you had already mentioned, Aakash, and I think with that, is kind of the research aspect and balancing that. Like, how do we dive into research and look into spaces that are unknown, if you will, and then at the same time, know the data of the cancers we're already treating? I think the outpatient stressors are different from the inpatient stressors in a way because I think during inpatient, you're constantly engaged in these difficult situations patients are in, and there's not much of a break. And so, I think sometimes, not that we don't have difficult clinic days, but I think there can be a little bit more emotional drainage, and I think, in terms of trying to deal with that stress, like you mentioned-- I'm a distance runner. And so, even when I'm on service, I actually still make time for a run, even if it's just a quick run in the evening, or get it in before work if I'm on call that night, or something, sometimes just some light weights. That's been my crutch, if you will. I've done that all my medical training; I've been running for most of my life. And I've been very deliberate and diligent about continuing that, and I think, somehow, it kept my head above water some days. I do wonder what else I could do to help because I definitely have days where I feel like my running isn't enough. I think, as many people have felt since the COVID pandemic started, there's been a real struggle with burnout. Dr. Aakash Desai: Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah. I think there's a lot that's stressful about Heme/Onc fellowship, and as a Program Director, you see the cycle. You know, first-year fellow comes in; they're brand new. That first six months, as I said previously, is just so, so hard, and you, as a program director, want to help. You know you want to get them through that. Because, you know, many people are coming in, it's a new hospital, it's a new system, it's new diseases, it's working in the clinic instead of the hospital-- most Internal Medicines are very, very hospital-focused. And then all of a sudden, you're in a clinic where it's almost all outpatients, and you don't know how that works, even though you should. You know, like people think, "I could be an internist; I could be done.” And yet all of a sudden, I'm right back at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak. You know, not knowing how to do anything. And so, that first six months for sure is really stressful because you feel like you've had autonomy; when you're a third-year resident, you're ready to go out, and then boom, you don't know what you're doing again. And so, at the same time, you are a young adult who often is having families, thinking about settling down, buying homes, you know, growing up, and that just adds to all of the stress because you have the stress at work, and then potentially, stress at home. For me, I had my first child when I was a resident and then had my second as a third-year fellow. And so, I had these different stresses as I was going through my training. You know, some of my fellows have had parents die while they've been in fellowship or parents that they're helping to take care of. So, not only are us older people in kind of the sandwich generation, but I think younger people in fellowship are seeing that as well. So, yeah, I think there's a lot going on that can make it challenging. But my encouraging part of it is that it gets easier. You start to figure out where you can find the information that you need, how to make things happen, and there's just this tipping point where suddenly it becomes easier, and then I see that they're back having fun again. You know, that, "Oh, this is such a really interesting disease, and I've never seen this presentation before, and I looked in the literature, and there's only three cases." You know, that passion and that excitement for finding new things, or, you know, "I wasn't sure if this chemo was going to work, and I gave it, and they're back today, and they are so much better." Just that excitement and passion. It's so wonderful to see as a program director. Dr. Aakash Desai: The other thing is also; I feel like the stresses are different as you kind of evolve through your fellowships. So, I think, as Lori very rightly pointed out, like the first year is, you know, just getting used to the information, the flow, and everything. But what I've found particularly challenging is, as you enter the second and the third year, and when you have patients that you continue to follow, just by the nature of the disease and the field that we are in, you will end up having some patients who you lose along the way. And I think that dealing with it emotionally; I think because during the first two years of your fellowship, you know, you meet them every few weeks, you kind of get attached to them, and you know what their life is like, you share part of your life with them. How have you found your way of coping with loss of the patients that you kind of have a deep connection with? I think that's part of the stressful aspect of, like, later years of your fellowship, I feel. Any insights on that, Lori? I mean, you've obviously been doing this much longer than me and Madison. How do you deal with this kind of loss and keep going every day, even with the same enthusiasm? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah. I think that absolutely is a really challenging part of our field, but it's also part of the blessing of our field - is that we are there, and we can help negotiate people through difficult times. And if we're doing this well, we have seen this coming. We have been able to prepare people; we've been able to make sure that we're honoring the things that are important to them at the end of life, and we're working to make sure they're not in pain and that they have their family members near them. And so, for me, that's always that rainbow at the end - is that I was able to assist them in this process. We all know we can't stop death. We may, you know, fool ourselves into thinking this carbo/etoposide is going to change the world for this patient. But I think being realistic about what we can and cannot do. For me, having a great conversation with a patient and their family and knowing that I've helped them, even if the end result is not that they have another 20 years to live, is super meaningful. And I think most oncologists that can do this for a long time find the value and the meaning in that part of their job. I think if you're constantly trying to stop death and trying to, like continue chemo till the very bitter end, this could be a very draining job. Dr. Aakash Desai: You know, and more and more, we are realizing the importance of supportive care in Oncology. And I think what you just pointed out is that, you know, improving someone's quality of life, even for two months, is also very rewarding in its own way. So, thank you for saying that. The next question I have is especially geared towards you and Deepa for fellowship program directors: How has Oncology training changed since you were a fellow? And is training for current fellows harder or easier do you think? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: You know, any program director who trained a long time ago will give you the woes of, you know, ‘I had to walk both ways with no boots in the snow'. I think that probably the biggest change since I was a resident is work-hour restrictions, which came sometime during my residency. So, I was a fellow when there were work-hour restrictions. But to be very honest, in fellowship, you almost never are reaching that 80-hour work week like you would've been when you were on an ICU rotation in Internal Medicine. Most of my fellows, you know, they log their hours every week, and we're somewhere around 40 to 45 hours a week, depending, you know, there's going to be times where it's busier. So, I think the work hours are less of an issue, but that doesn't mean it's easier. And I think now, the most difficult challenge is, all the new treatments, all of the options-- it used to be-- we had two choices; you could do this, or you could do this. And now, there's all these nuances, and nuances are very challenging when you're first learning. You know, you can see this study, and it was this compared to this, and option A was better. But then you would talk to your attending, and they say, "Well, option A was better unless you were from some esoteric country," and then you know you did worse. So, you start to really piece apart, and you know, you gain your basic understanding, but then start to try to apply that to your patients. And that is, I think, a very big challenge. Dr. Aakash Desai: How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think it's become harder in that it has become incredibly more nuanced than incredibly more sophisticated. Three things, in particular, come to mind; one's are the burgeoning evidence basis for what we do and the prospects for advancing our knowledge and understanding and thereby have better interventions that's certainly been a seemingly explosive growth in our knowledge and understanding, especially considering the humble origins of our field. They work daily with colleagues and friends who remember those days when Heme/Onc was sort of an esoteric field of people whose methods were considered bizarre at best, and that's absolutely not where we are anymore. It's an incredibly exciting time, so a lot of information to keep up with. Secondly, one of the things that maybe we didn't really appreciate at the time was true before but is increasingly true now is the importance of recognizing your role as the leader of a very sophisticated interdisciplinary team. Thankfully, I think this is true for all patients with any illness, but thankfully, in our disease area, care by an expert village is really the new norm, not the exception. And sort of learning how to function in those interdisciplinary teams in an incredibly collaborative and productive way across the spectrum of a patient's care and needs is incredibly nuanced, more so than ever before. And something that fellows, at the earliest instance of their training, really need to learn to be agile with. So, I think that's something that is also both a sign of progress, but also an added layer of nuance and sophistication. And I think the final thing is that there are so many diverse ways in which someone can have it truly impactful and fulfilling career within Heme/Onc, and I think this makes fellowship also that much more exciting and complicated, nuanced, really trying to understand within your career span, what is the pathway or the different pathways, honestly, that you may choose to train and prepare for and conduct yourself is really dizzying. And I think we really are expecting a lot in terms of our fellows these days to sort of be willing to understand those options and understand which options are most meaningful to them and then prepare in a very deliberate and rigorous way for those specific career interests. So, kudos to all of you. You guys are doing an incredible job; you are the future of our field. And those of us who run programs, direct such programs, we really have a continued challenge and inspiration to meet your needs. Dr. Aakash Desai: The field is moving so fast that I can say, like when I joined fellowship in first year compared to now, I think there is a lot more treatment options. And I think as fellows also, it's so difficult to keep up with this, you know, constant stream of information. So, Madison, how do you think things have changed since you joined fellowship, and how do you envision yourself, you know, resources to use to kind of keep yourself updated? Dr. Madison Conces: I would agree with both of you. It's definitely changed. It's also interesting because it's not always the addition of treatments; it's sometimes showing that adding this extra drug does nothing. And so, all of a sudden, you've now changed the paradigm again for how you treat that patient. And I think for me, what I've found during fellowship is-- and maybe Lori would enjoy this part, but the thinking of it, right? So, even Hematology, I definitely think of as the puzzle, but in general, all these patients, there's something about them, whether their tumor's genetics, or the family history, or any of their germline mutations they have. So, there's always this kind of; every patient is very specific. And so, I think what has helped me, at least during fellowship, is in clinic, to go through that, in that mindset with the staff I'm working with. And I think sometimes, at least, I've been fortunate to have staff who do a great job of making sure I'm thinking of everything, which is like, "Oh, if this doesn't work, what are you going to do next?", which makes me think about, "Well, what do we know about the patient? What do we know about their tumor? What are the other options?" I'm someone who learns by doing, which I think is many of us at this point, and so, I think the constant feedback from staff of kind of pushing us to think on our own is going to be helpful in the long term, rather than expecting us to come in remembering, you know, every part of the NCCN guidelines, because those are going to change as well. So, we've really got to be able to think through these patients' cases like puzzles, and also, you know, a lot of these patients don't read these textbooks a lot of times. Lori was talking about seeing the excitement of her fellows. Again, you know, yesterday I saw a patient who has paraneoplastic nephrotic syndrome. It's like these things; we have to be able to keep pace with essentially our patients in their pathophysiology. And the more we learn, the more kind of breath that's going to be. It's going to be wider and wider in terms of what we have to know, and I'm not sure knowing it all is going to be the way to go. And for me, I try to know the basics, and then beyond that, really look at the patient. And instead of thinking about every treatment for that whatever cancer of the patient, look at, "What do we already know about it, and what can I go from there?" Dr. Lori Rosenstein: That's so interesting, Madison. And Deepa and I had talked about this; you know, as program directors, my goal for fellows is that they learn how to think about cancer, and how to have a really regimented way of going through a new patient, and thinking through, "Do I have the diagnosis? Do I have the stage? Based on those things, what do I know about the patient and their disease to make my treatment plan?" And that's the same for every cancer. Essentially, you're going through this regimented process. If I have a fellow that I know can think through a cancer, to me, it doesn't matter if they know that Merkel cell is associated with the Merkel polyomavirus virus. They may never see a Merkel cell, or they may see it once. So, that regurgitation of information that you are so used to doing for Boards and for tests, to a program director, is really so much less important than, "Can you think through the process? Can you find the own holes in your knowledge base? And then, can you find where to fill those holes so that you can take great care of patients?" If I could tell any first-year fellow coming in, don't panic about your knowledge base because what I learned in fellowship is completely different than what I know now. And I did well on the Boards, I stressed about them, but the Boards do not define who you are as a cancer doctor. They are just a step along the way. And so, really, I am much happier if a fellow has that thought process, and that self-reflection, and knowledge of what they do and do not know; they're going to be amazing when they're done. Dr. Aakash Desai: This kind of reflects how the program directors in our field actually, you know, are thinking beyond just like, "Oh, you need to score good on the Boards," because they realize the importance of thought process, and how to come up with treatment plans. So, thank you, Lori. I think this is phenomenal, and I'm sure all the fellows listening to this podcast will be delighted to hear what you just said. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Now, you still have to pass the Boards; that's still a key component. But I think if you polled program directors about what we think about Board passing, most of us would say it's probably sixth or seventh on the list of importance. Dr. Madison Conces: Yeah. I would actually add onto that. We've been talking about thinking through processes, and through these cases, and using, you know, the thinking process more than just memorization. And I think also in fellowship, we are trained to also have these conversations with patients, right? Because it's not always what would be the right answer when we think about it in a treatment sense, but if that doesn't match what the patient wants, then it's not the right treatment. And how do we adjust that based on what's in the patient's best interest or what the family wants, depending on what the situation is, obviously? I think fellowship is about this critical thinking, but also in the context of the fact that we're taking care of this human being in front of us. Dr. Aakash Desai: Well, this concludes part one of our discussion on the past, present, and future of Oncology training. My guests have been Dr. Madison Conces, Hematology/Oncology fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori Rosenstein, Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Gundersen Health System, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, Fellowship Program Director at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In the second part of this episode, we will explore the different ways to stay current with new treatments and guidelines, as well as our guests' insights into how Oncology training should look like in the future. Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into this ASCO Education podcast. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at: education@asco.org.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.           Resources: ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 1) ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org

Vaccine development is a tremendous scientific breakthrough. In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast episode, Dr. Doug Lowy, Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute describes overcoming the hesitancy of taking vaccines in the era of Covid (:57), the scientific impacts of other nations like China (3:54), the importance and the standing of the NCI (5:10) and the future of oncology (10:36). If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity, at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a colleague and friend, and Medical Oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. This is the second half of our Oncology, Etc., conversation with Principal Deputy Director of the NCI, and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory of Cellular Oncology in the Center for Cancer Research, Dr. Doug Lowy. In part one, we chatted with Dr. Lowy about his interest in cancer, which was developed through his personal academic experiences, including that of his parents, as well as his groundbreaking work on the HPV vaccine with Dr. John Schiller. Today, we're going to continue our conversation with Dr. Lowy by asking him about overcoming the hesitancy of taking vaccines in the era of COVID.   Dr. Doug Lowy: Pat, it's very difficult. There was some vaccine hesitancy when the HPV vaccine was introduced initially. My view is that the people you want to speak to and with, are the people whose minds can be changed. So, I don't try to change the minds of people who are opposed to vaccination for one reason or another, but instead, try to talk with people about evidence, but directing it towards those people whose minds potentially can be changed. A big advantage with the HPV vaccine is that this has been going on over a number of years. With COVID, everything happened in a greatly truncated way. So, the vaccine was introduced less than a year after the pandemic. But concomitant with that was a lot of vaccine hesitancy, and I think that that's going to be difficult to overcome. What I have really worried about is whether the vaccine hesitancy associated with COVID might extend to other vaccines and not just to the HPV vaccine, but to childhood vaccines, et cetera. The national data for 2020 and 2021 for HPV vaccination is almost counterintuitive and provisionally reassuring, both. Compared to 2019, the last full year without the pandemic, the number of people being vaccinated with the HPV vaccine went up between '19 and '20, and between '20 and '21, went up again. So, at least by that metric and through that time, it doesn't look as though the vaccine hesitancy associated with Covid is extending to the HPV vaccine, at least in the short term. So, what we've seen between 2019 and 2021 is that HPV vaccine uptake among teenagers actually has gone up each year. So, at least in the short term, the vaccine hesitancy associated with the Covid vaccine does not seem to have extended to the HPV vaccine. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, I'm going to shift gears just a little bit. I read recently, in Science, that China had overtaken the United States in terms of scientific publication and impact; and I'm wondering what you think about that, and what we need to do to retain our longstanding leadership in that role. Or does it really matter? Dr. Doug Lowy: If China's research, if their quality is outstanding-- I mean, there's nothing wrong with another country making important contributions to biomedical research. I don't see this, per se, as a competition. Perhaps, it's because I'm just looking at it through the lens of cancer research, and we think that cancer research is much too big to be done exclusively through support of NCI, exclusively in the United States, et cetera. So, to me, if other countries are doing high-quality research that can help people all over the world with regard to cancer- Pat Loehrer: -Let me ask you this, Doug, you've been at the NCI for 50 years. And I calculated that you've served under nine presidents, and of the NCI's 16 directors, you've served with 10 of them- Dr. Doug Lowy: Really ancient. Thank you. Pat Loehrer: -so, with all that, what do you think; one, about the importance of the NCI, and then also, we'll ask you a little bit about the reflections of the directors, and lessons learned from them, and maybe, some good stories. So, where do you think the NCI stands, and why is it important for the world, and for the country? Dr. Doug Lowy: What's really important is the funding from Congress. It is long-term and sustained. Cancer research can't be done in two or three years. It just takes a while to do really high-quality cancer research. And what really counts, from my perspective, is you can rely on the government to be strongly supporting cancer research through the NCI. In other words, private philanthropy is very important, but private philanthropy can decide, "Tomorrow we don't want to be doing what we have been doing." It's very much like pharmaceutical companies - they can decide that they're not going to be doing it. But it's almost impossible for us to say, "We are no longer going to support basic science research. Okay? We're not interested in investigator-initiated research," because, of course, we are. And that's the bedrock of development. We can't say, "We're no longer interested in doing clinical trials," because, of course, we are, because we can't make the progress that we need to make without clinical trials. We can't say, "We're not interested in doing implementation research," because it's one thing to have a new approval, it's something else to have it widely and equitably disseminated, and doing some kind of research with implementation. Science is critically important, and this applies for prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, all of these areas that NCI supports, and will continue to support. The proportion may vary from one year to another, from one director to another, but all of those areas are going to continue to be supported. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, during your various tenures as the interim director, what program or programs are you most proud about? Dr. Doug Lowy: Instead of programs that I'm most proud of, I would say that working with NCI staff is what enables the achievement. The mission of the NCI is just incredible, and virtually everyone on the staff buys into the mission; which is, to help people live longer and healthier lives through research-related advances in cancer. That's what people do. And the first time when I was Acting Director, was the first Cancer Moonshot, so I was involved in that. But tremendous amount of credit needs to go to the Obama administration for wanting to do it, to the Congress for its strong bipartisan support for the initial Cancer Moonshot, and to my NCI colleagues, and then extramurally, for everybody who really got on board and tried to do things. So, this is very much a team effort, and it's not limited to NCI, you know, extramural colleagues are critically important to everything that we do. Pat Loehrer: Doug, you've alluded to the fact that you've served under so many different presidents and directors, and they all have different leadership styles. If you were gonna be a mentor on leadership, what advice would you give to the listeners as to what makes a good leader, and perhaps, what makes a not-so-good leader too? Dr. Doug Lowy: I think that there is a spectrum - there are some people who lead by intimidation, and some people who lead by example; and all of them can be effective leaders. My own view is that I like to lead by example because I really feel that that leads to very high morale. People who lead by intimidation may get a lot of work out of people, but it is nowhere near as satisfying as knowing that you are an extraordinarily, highly-valued member of a team and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, I think that having tremendous admiration and respect for the people that you work with, is absolutely number one, and number two, is listening to them. You don't always need to do what they advise, but people really thrive on being listened to, and everybody wants to make a difference. And so, help them to achieve that goal. When they look good, you'll look good. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, I'm attending on the general medical wards right now. Just got asked today by the medical students to give them some advice about the future of Oncology, and where did I think it was going. Before I go back and meet with them, I'd love to get your thoughts. Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, the future of oncology is extraordinarily bright. On the one hand, we've made tremendous progress. On the other hand, there are still 600,000 people dying every year in the United States from cancer, and worldwide, the problem is even greater. But what's going to happen in the future is, we will understand the causes of cancer better, and so, that will enable us to prevent more cancers. I think there's going to be an enormous increase in the opportunities for screening, and to reduce either the incidence of cancer or increase the outlook for people with cancer, because asymptomatic cancer will be diagnosed at a substantially earlier time point. And then when it comes to treatment, my view is, we've barely scratched the surface. With the opportunities for making drugs, immuno-oncology, and who knows what other areas lie in front of us, are almost limitless. The Biden administration has a goal for the reignited Cancer Moonshot of decreasing the mortality rate over the next 25 years by 50%. What I think we need to do is to decrease mortality over the next 25 years by even more than that, and in addition, to make progress against those cancers where progress thus far has been limited. Take pancreatic cancer as a specific example; 10 years ago, the RAS oncoproteins were thought to be undruggable targets. But last year, we had the first approval from the FDA of a RAS-specific inhibitor. The good news is, that can target about half of lung cancer that has mutant RAS. The bad news is, it targets very few people with pancreatic cancer who have mutant RAS. On the other hand, there now are G12D inhibitors where there's excellent preclinical data and hopefully, sometime next year, be starting clinical trials. G12D mutations account for about half of people with pancreatic cancer. If the success there mirrors the success that we've seen thus far with lung cancer, it means that we are potentially on the way to actually making a difference in outlook for people with pancreatic cancer. But I just see this as one of many opportunities as time goes forward. Pat Loehrer: You did, this week, something that no one has done, and that is, to turn the reins of the directorship of the Cancer Center, over to the first woman director, Monica Bertagnolli. What was in your letter that you left on the desk that you gave her? What kind of advice did you give her? Dr. Doug Lowy: My advice that I gave her was really, "How can I help you the best and the most?" Dave Johnson: That's awesome advice. No doubt about it. It's a really historical moment, and of course, we, who are members of ASCO, are particularly proud that Monica has taken the reins, as a former ASCO president. And Doug, we really appreciate you taking the time to spend with us. It's been incredibly interesting, and congratulations on an amazing career. Pat Loehrer: Absolutely. Dave Johnson: And also, thanks to our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. As you know, this is an ASCO Educational podcast, where Pat and I will talk about just about anything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please by all means email us at: education@asco.org      Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "subscribe". Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center, at: education.asco.org.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     

Vaccine development is a tremendous scientific breakthrough benefitting countless human lives. In Part 1 of this ASCO Oncology, Etc. Education Podcast episode, you will hear from the pioneering co-developer of the HPV vaccine Dr. Doug Lowy who serves as Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute , He speaks about how he got into the cancer field through the influence of his parents (4:49), the path that led him to focus on HPV (8:04), and his collaborative professional partnership with fellow HPV vaccine developer Dr. John Schiller (9:31). He also discusses his ongoing trial of one-dose administration, which promises to boost HPV vaccine uptake and reduce the burden of cervical cancer globally. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm Director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: I'm Dave Johnson. I'm a Professor of Medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what have you been reading lately? Dave Johnson: Well, you and I have talked about a couple of books, but I thought in light of our guest today, I would mention a book I actually read probably nearly 60 years ago called The Microbe Hunters by Paul de Kruif - very interesting book, written, if memory serves me correctly, in the '30s, about many of the early bacteriologists and physicians who were interested in microbes; Pasteur, for example, and others. And I don't remember all the details, but it certainly was one that was influential for my choice of Medicine as a career, much like Arrowsmith. It was a really impactful book. I doubt many of our listeners today would've read that book, but if one is interested in the history of Medicine, it's a really interesting book to read. Pat Loehrer: You said 60 years ago. Okay, when I was reading books back then, it was about Dick and Jane. Dave Johnson: It's my understanding that you're not past Dick and Jane yet. Pat Loehrer: Good, good point. Good point. Well, it's such an incredible honor today, we have Dr. Doug Lowy as our interviewee today. Doug is the Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory and Cellular Oncology Program at the Center for Cancer Research. He has served as Acting Director more than any other person - he served as Acting Director between April of 2015 and October of 2017, between April of 2019 and October of 2019, and most recently, he served as an Acting Director until Monday of this week, October 3rd. I had a chance of seeing Doug, I think, about a year ago, a week after he took over, and this is great to have that bookend here. He has had this title of Principal Deputy Director since July of 2010 and he leads many of the NCI's key scientific initiatives. He graduated from Amherst College, I think in Art History, I may be wrong on that, received his medical degree from New York University School of Medicine, trained in Internal Medicine at Stanford, and did a Dermatology Residency at Yale. His focus has been on papillomavirus and the regulation of normal and neoplastic growth. The papillomavirus is in close collaboration with Dr. John Schiller with whom he's co-authored 150 papers over the last 25 years. In the 1980s, he studied the genetic organization of papillomaviruses and identified oncogenes that were encoded by the virus, and he's been integrally involved and instrumental in the development of the papillomavirus vaccine. His laboratory did work with the RAS gene family and other suppressor genes, and as you can guess, he's just one heck of a smart guy. For his body of work and together with Dr. Schiller, they received the Federal Employee of the Year Award in 2007 and the Partnership for Public Service Award, the Dorothy P. Landon American Association for Cancer Research Prize for Translational Research, the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal in 2011. In 2007, he got the Medal of Honor for basic research from the American Cancer Society, and President Obama awarded him the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2014. And in 2017, he received the Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, which is considered one of the most prestigious honors in biomedical research. He is listed in the Institute of Scientific Information as one of the most highly-cited authors in Microbiology, and obviously, he's a member of the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Medicine. Although these are notable honors, I'm told that none of them match the opportunity to speak with Dave and I today, and we really thank you so much, Dr. Lowy, for joining us. Thank you. Dr. Doug Lowy: Pat, I am speechless. Pat Loehrer: I so wish that Dave Johnson was, but could you tell us a little bit about your upbringing and your early life? Dr. Doug Lowy: Sure. I grew up in The Bronx, in New York City. I'm the younger of two boys. My brother is two and a half years older than I am. Both of my parents were general practitioners. My parents were both Americans, but my father had a classic sophomore slump when he was an undergraduate and was unable to get into a medical school in the United States. And so, he actually went to medical school in Austria, in the University of Vienna, and needed to learn German in order to go to medical school. But my parents were both very successful private practitioners. They had separate practices but practiced in the same office, and I learned about medicine, in large part, through them. They would go to lectures, and from the time I was probably nine or 10 years old, they would be telling me about cancer, and I became interested in that area. And then, when I was 16, my mother developed a deep melanoma on her leg, and so, cancer literally came home. And luckily, she had very good surgical treatment and lived for almost another 40 years - she lived until she was 80 and actually died of metastatic stomach cancer. But I got involved in thinking about cancer really through my parents. They talked with me about the role of tobacco in the development of lung cancer, and I heard about the Hammond and Horn report from the mid-1950s when it came out. Pat Loehrer: That was when Dave was reading the Microbe Hunters. Dr. Doug Lowy: I was reading it at about the same time. I must say that, although I found it very interesting, it didn't really speak to me, and now that's what I need to go and do. Although, in retrospect, that's what I've ended up going and doing. Pat Loehrer: Was it because of your mother that you had an interest in dermatology? How did you swing into there? Because we think of you mostly as a translational researcher. Dr. Doug Lowy: The dermatology was really when I was at NYU. I worked in the laboratory of Jan Vilcek, who had recently come from Czechoslovakia to NYU, and in his lab was Alvin Friedman-Kien, who was a dermatologist. And Alvin subsequently was among the first people to identify the AIDS epidemic through the Kaposi sarcoma. But Alvin talked with me about dermatology, and potentially, this might be an interesting field for me to go into. And then, when I went to Stanford, I did Internal Medicine for internship and a year of Medicine, and I did a rotation in Dermatology. And I was very impressed that the people who smiled the most were the dermatologists. And they had time also to think about what was going on with patients. And since I was at Stanford, it was a tertiary care facility and so we were taking care of people who were terribly sick, largely people with lymphoma and other types of cancer. And I thought that I might be better suited to taking care of people who were less sick than that. Dave Johnson: Is that where your interest in Papillomavirus started? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, that was indirect. I first went into dermatology and then said, "Well, I want to be doing research. What can I do in research that might be connected both with dermatology as well as with cancer?" And the closest that I was able to come was Papillomaviruses. And when I started working on them, they were not yet clearly associated with cancer the way they are today. It was known that they were associated with an uncommon condition called Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis or EV and this is a condition where people have widespread HPV infection. And on sun-exposed areas, a subset of them develop skin cancer, but it's distinctly uncommon. The real interest, if you will, came from the identification of HPV infection and cervical cancer, which is one of the more common cancers, especially on a worldwide basis. And that was really the link with cancer. Pat Loehrer: You had an incredibly long-term collaboration with John Schiller, and as I mentioned, you published more than Dave and I have written letters to our wives with this man. Tell us a little bit about that relationship, that friendship, and that professional partnership. Dr. Doug Lowy: John, actually, he was at the University of Washington in Seattle doing his PhD, and it was so long ago that he sent me a letter, and I had been doing research on retroviruses. He sent me a proposal that he was doing his PhD in bacterial genetics, but he wanted to learn about mammalian viruses and so was writing to me about doing work with retroviruses. I wrote back to him and said, "That's very interesting, but I had just started working on papillomaviruses." And I thought the room for development and learning more was even greater there than with mouse retroviruses, which is what I was working on and what he was proposing to do some post-doctoral research on. Of course, he had never heard of papillomaviruses, so he had to look them up. But he developed a project with papillomaviruses and was able to get an NIH award to come as a postdoctoral fellow to work in my lab, and he actually did the research that he proposed, and it led to our improved understanding of the genetic organization of papillomaviruses. But then, it was clear that John and I got along very well, and it looked like both of us might be able to work together. So, he ended up getting tenure after he had been at NIH for about 10 years. And it's just been an amazing collaboration for me because John knows a lot of things that I don't know, and he thinks that I know some things that he doesn't know. And working together has been terrific, really, because when one of us doesn't want to do anything about something, the other one tends to step in. And so, it's been an amazing partnership that we have had for this time. Dave Johnson: This is really important. One of the reasons we agreed to do this podcast is to provide insight to up-and-coming faculty and fellows about mentoring and partnerships. What is the most important aspect of your partnership with Dr. Schiller? Dr. Doug Lowy: I think treating him as an equal colleague from day one, that probably is important. And then, since I was senior and he was junior, trying to make sure that he got credit when discoveries were made because the default, otherwise, was going to be that it was Doug Lowy who was doing things, whereas it was very clear that John was a key part of this collaboration. Dave Johnson: Now that your relationship is a long-lasting and mature one, how do you make those decisions now? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, we've just worked together for a long time, and we enjoy talking, and actually, over the last few years, we are collaborating less rather than more. We're still very close colleagues, and we're in the same lab. But since I've been Deputy Director, especially during the last seven and a half years, I've been Acting Director for about three and a half out of the last seven and a half years, and there just isn't enough time to devote to the lab. And it would've been inappropriate for me to have been considered a co-principal investigator with John, who has gone off and done a lot of amazing research, more or less independent of me. Like everything else in this world, it develops, it continues to evolve, but we still are very close colleagues. As Pat was mentioning, this is my first week in several months not being Acting Director, and yesterday, John and I simply reveled in the opportunity to talk informally for 30 minutes without having to look at my watch because I needed to go someplace else. Dave Johnson: I'm glad you've reviewed that. I think a lot of junior faculty and fellows think that being in a leadership position is a cush job, and I'd tell them that it defies the laws of Physics because all poop flows uphill in this setting, and you have to deal with it. Pat Loehrer: I do want to spend some time talking about the NCI and your role there, but talk a little bit about how you have seen and where you envision that vaccines, particularly, HPV and maybe hepatitis vaccine - where you see it's been, and where it's going, and the impact that this potentially has on cancer worldwide? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, one of the areas that John and I are continuing to work on closely is more research on the HPV vaccines. We noticed, quite a number of years ago, that the HPV vaccine performance was quite different from that of other so-called subunit vaccines. So, this is not an attenuated live vaccine, but instead is a subunit - it's just made up of one protein of the papillomavirus, the protein that gives rise to the outer shell of the virus. And what we noticed in a clinical trial that we were doing with colleagues in the intramural program, but who are medical epidemiologists - they are the leaders of the research, and what was happening was that although everyone was supposed to get three doses, there were some young women who were getting either two doses or one dose, in the trial, and this is in Costa Rica, where historically, cervical cancer has been the number one cancer of women. And it turned out that there was no difference in level of protection whether the women got one dose, two doses, or three doses. And even more surprising was that the antibody levels over the first few years were remarkably stable. And this led John and me to wonder whether it might be possible to get away with just a single vaccine dose. So, a lot of the research that we have been doing with our colleagues over the last few years is to develop stronger evidence that one dose of the vaccine would be sufficient to confer strong protection that's long-lasting. We've now carried out the studies in Costa Rica, with the initial trial to more than 10 years, and the antibody levels continue to be very stable, and the protection does not seem to have waned. Because this was not a pre-specified outcome, it's not enough to change standard of care. So, we and our colleagues are conducting a non-inferiority efficacy trial that is comparing two doses versus one dose of two different FDA-approved vaccines. One, GARDASIL 9, which is the HPV vaccine that's available for sale in the United States. But also Cervarix, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline, it's approved by the FDA, but it's no longer sold in the United States. And we anticipate that the results will read out in another couple of years. And if the results show that one dose and two doses are pretty comparable, we're expecting that this will lead to a worldwide change in recommendations for the HPV vaccine. So, whether you are in a high-income country or a low or middle-income country, that one dose is what will end up being recommended. Pat Loehrer: They could almost completely eradicate this disease, the most common cancer around the world. It's huge. Dr. Doug Lowy: So, Pat, the problem is that although the vaccine was approved 15 years ago, only about 10% of eligible young women in low and middle-income countries have actually been vaccinated up to now. And we think that the logistics and the cost of one dose could really be transformative, especially for those young women. It also would save the United States a great deal of money because needing only one dose would be far less expensive, and the government actually pays for about half of the HPV vaccine that is delivered to teenagers through the Vaccines for Children program.   Dave Johnson: Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Dr. Doug Lowy, Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory of Cellular Oncology in the Center for Cancer Research. In the second part of this episode, Dr. Lowy will give his insight to vaccine hesitancy in the COVID era and the evolution of accomplishments over the past 50 years working at the National Cancer Institute. We want to thank all of our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Educational podcast, where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So, if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like for us to interview on the show, please email us at: education@asco.org.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, Subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center, at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

In Part Two of this Oncology, Etc. episode, hosts Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson continue their chat with hematologist-oncologist Dr. David Steensma. They explore his views of key opinion leaders and a lifelong passion – collecting rare stamps, including medical stamps. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist from The University of Texas, Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Welcome to the second half of our Oncology, Etc. conversation with Dr. David Steensma. He's a highly accomplished physician and scientist in the field of Hematology/Oncology. In the first part of this episode, Dr. Steensma told us about his Dutch immigrant roots, and how a single college biology course changed his career interests from astronomy into medicine. Today, we'll explore his views on Key Opinion Leaders and another passion of his, and an interest of ours - collecting rare stamps, including medical stamps. Dave Johnson: So, David, in addition to your scientific writing, you've been a prolific writer in many other sort of viewpoints and opinion pieces. There's a lot to choose from, but I know you've been interviewed in the past about your column called ‘The Raven', which I won't ask you about, as an Edgar Allen Poe fan. You also wrote a wonderful piece called, ‘Key Opinion Leaders', which I thought might be quite interesting to ask you about, now that you might be calling upon KOLs. Do you want to tell us a little about that? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah, that's not my favorite term. Thought Leaders is another kind of silly term, but we know what we mean when people are talking about it. Yeah, I've had a chance to write on a lot of different things over the years, and that's been great fun. And when I first heard that term, I couldn't figure out what it meant, KOL. And then, a pharmaceutical representative actually accidentally left a list of KOLs in my office and I realized that not only are KOLs cultivated very carefully, those relationships, but there's a hierarchy of KOLs. They were people who influenced the local formulary and local practice at the institution, there were those who had a regional impact, and then there were those who were on the NCCN guideline committees, and had, you know, much broader impact that they really wanted to make sure to influence the heart and minds of-- in my interactions now, this opinion piece was a sort of tongue-in-cheek about Key Opinion Leaders and Thought Leaders. And with Thought Leaders, I was reminded of Sherlock Holmes's brother Mycroft Holmes, who, by Conan Doyle's fiction, was a brilliant man, but unwilling to stir his ample backside from his Chair in the Diogenes Club to actually get out there, and do some real work, and solve mysteries. And so, it fell to his slightly less brilliant brother, Sherlock, to become the consulting detective. So, that was fun. Now, we're sort of on the receiving end of wisdom from people who are experts in the area. And it's very important what doctors think, and in different geographies about how they think their patients will be potentially treated in a year or two, five years down the road, what the issues they have with current approaches are, where they see opportunity for some of our new compounds, for some of those of other companies, and it's different in Europe versus the US versus Australia. And so, there's a lot that we gain from advisory boards. There's an arc to an advisory board. You don't want to convene an advisory board when there's no data, because then, everybody is just speculating. You don't want to do it too late after something is already on the doorstep of FDA approval because then not anything can be changed at that point. So, you know, doing it at an in-between point where there's some initial data, but where we can really be guided by academic, clinical, and other experts, is really helpful. Pat Loehrer: I'd encourage people to pull this article out. It is really, really good. 2015, I think it came out there. The end of it, I also love it. You're talking about Kanti Rai who came up with the Rai classification and he was at this Meet the Expert session at the ASH meeting, and he said at the meeting, and this is your quote from it, and I love it, he said, “I don't like the name of this session because no one's an expert in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I've been studying this disease for decades, and still too many of my patients die. If I was truly an expert, the disease would've been cured by now." I just love it, but it's a great read. Dave Johnson: Let me ask you, very seriously, if a younger colleague were to come to you, David, what advice would you give him or her about being invited to be on an advisory board? We'll skip the term KOL or Thought Leader. What advice would you give him or her, and what should they look for, and how should they prepare for that activity should you think they should do it? Dr. David Steensma: Well, I think getting back to imposter syndrome, people should feel, if they're invited to be in such a meeting, that they're there for a reason because their opinion does matter. And sometimes, younger physicians are reluctant to speak up in this setting, especially when there maybe leaders in the field there that have been doing it for decades, and may have very strong opinions. So, not being afraid to share their perspective and realizing that they're invited for a reason. On the other hand, I found it very helpful when I was a young faculty member and, on these panels, to listen to how colleagues were assessing data, and the recommendations they were making, and their perspective. And I learned a lot from some of those advisory boards earlier on. Many of the people who are the senior leaders in leukemia and MDS, you know, Rich Stone, Peter Greenberg, you know, John Bennett, in MDS, Marty Tallman, Hagop Kantarjian, Clara Bloomfield, just people who had decades of experience. And in part, I think it's some of my comments at advisory boards that helped get me my job at Dana-Farber, because I'd been in a number of meetings with Rich Stone, and he apparently liked some of the things I'd said about approaching patients. And so, you know, when a faculty position came open, he invited me out to come visit. And so, they can have benefits that you don't anticipate. Dave Johnson: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. And there's pros and cons to being involved in those activities, but there are an awful lot of good that comes from it. And I think you've just touched on some of those. I'm going to shift gears a little bit because Pat has been waiting anxiously to hear all about your stamps. So, out of the many, many things that you've done and written about, I would say you've got close to 100 publications on medical stamps. It's an extraordinary productivity, David. So, tell us a little about your interest in medical stamps. How did you get involved in this, and where do you find time to write about them, and how do you decide which ones you're going to write about? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah. Bob Kyle, is really the driver on that, and we continue to do these together. Bob turned 94 this year, and he continues to be intellectually engaged. He's fun to talk to, if it weren't for COVID, he'd still be traveling and coming into the office, you know, which he was doing until just a few years ago. So, I met Bob as an intern when I was at Mayo. Somebody said, "Oh, you should meet this guy, he's really fun to talk to." And we just hit it off. And when I was a boy, my grandfather and my great-grandfather had collected stamps. And my grandfather really got me interested in it, partly given our family history, those of The Netherlands and former colonies, but also just more generally. And then as often happens, I got to be a teenager and other things took over in terms of interest, and there was less time, so, I had fallen away from it a bit. But somehow in this conversation, Bob had mentioned this, and that they were looking for someone younger who had this kind of background, to help with this series that has been running. Initially, it was running in JAMA with a guy named John Mirt, beginning around 1960, and then about a decade later, moved to the Mayo Clinic proceedings when they published six stamp vignettes on medical science per year, and Bob has done over 500 of these going back decades. And so, I got involved in that, and writing about-- thus far, it's mostly focused on individuals, but I have done a few also about more general trends in Philately. I will say that there are fewer of us, certainly those under 50, who are involved in the hobby. There's so much other distractions, but I still find it interesting and fun. And I've learned a lot, putting those vignettes together. Pat Loehrer: I started collecting stamps when I was young, I still have my Scott's album down. And now it's not stored, in properly, but I remember US Number One, I could have bought for $35, but I was only like 10 years old, and that was, you know, like $500 to me. So, I still regret that. Are you collecting stamps yourself now, still that you've resumed the collection part of it? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah. I would say, only a little bit. So, my Netherlands and Colonies collection is now actually complete, except there's one elusive. There's always one, right? Can't find this thing, even at auctions and such. And I also collected coins as a kid, and you know, still have some involvement in that. It's hard to find the time because I do do so many other things, and my wife and I have children, they're now college and PhD age, so I do woodworking, I have a telescope, so I never lost the love of astronomy. It seems like there's always other things to do. But I still have my collection over there on the shelf. Pat Loehrer: Did you inherit it from your grandfather too? Dr. David Steensma: Some of it I did. Yep. The core of it, I inherited from my grandfather and my great-grandfather. And then once I paid off my substantial medical school debt to the University of Chicago with the help of, in part, from advisory boards, but also mostly from moonlighting in emergency rooms around rural Minnesota-- during fellowship, I was like a full-time ER doc who happened to be doing a Hem/Onc Fellowship on the side, and finally got it paid off and then I could start on filling in some of the gaps. Pat Loehrer: Before we change this thing, what is your most cherished stamp that you own? Dr. David Steensma: Oh, my most cherished stamp is not a Dutch one. It is a set of national park stamps from 1934, authorized by James Farley, who was the Postmaster General at that point. 10 stamps, different colors about, you know, Zion and Acadia-- and it was my grandfather's favorite, and he was a big fan of the national parks, took two big trips there back in the '50s out West. And so, at his funeral, I put together a little display of those hanging with the photographs of other things from his life. I have that display, it's very meaningful to me - it's a connection with him. He was certainly very influential in my life. I never imagined I'd be working for a Basel-based pharmaceutical company, like he did for his whole career. Never thought that that would happen, but life has some unexpected twists. He worked for Roche in Nutley, New Jersey for much of his career as a research chemist. And ironically, when my grandmother was diagnosed in the 1990s, pancreatic cancer, and she saw the oncologist and was offered a 5-FU infusion after surgical, he said, "5-FU. I worked on that in 1959, 1960, that's still the best that we have to offer?" He was shocked by that. I was a fellow at the time. I said, "We need better drugs." Dave Johnson: For sure. So, do you have a favorite medical stamp, David? Dr. David Steensma: A favorite medical stamp? Gosh, that one's I think a little bit harder. I certainly have medical stamps that have piqued my interest. One of the sort of most moving is one of the US stamps that came out in the 1950s that has the Sir Luke Fildes' ‘The Doctor', on it. You know, with this concerned physician at the bedside of a young boy, and I actually wrote a vignette about the history and background there, and I think that connection with patients at the end of the day when we don't have good drugs, that connection with patients is still so meaningful, isn't it? As you guys really know. So, and as many of our listeners know, and so much of what medicine remains despite the molecular glue degraders and CAR T and gene therapy, is still that human connection, and being there for our patients. And so, I would say that that is probably one of the most meaningful. There's some real quirky ones, too. Austria's come out with some stamps in the last few years; one made of toilet paper, when the toilet paper shortage was happening, another, made of the mask material and the shape of the mask to remind people to mask up. You know, there's been a lot of creativity. And the Dutch are very good about design. They come up with just some brilliant innovations in postage stamps. Dave Johnson: I mean, stamps are really quite artful, by the way, the Fildes painting hangs on the wall of my office. You can't see it, but it's on the wall. And then behind me, you can perhaps see a couple of framed stamps that are some of my favorites. One was a gift to me from a former Group of Chief Residents, of an Osler stamp that Canada put out, and the other is one I received actually as a gift, as part of an award. It's the first cancer stamp that was produced in the United States. So, I love them both. They're quite nice. The Fildes stamp is actually my favorite of all, so I think that's a great stamp. Pat Loehrer: I have actually looked behind me. I've got a stamp collection on the frame that was given to me too that I love. It's stamps of medicine. There was one, a Dag Hammarskjöld stamp, that was famous because they printed it upside down when they put the color in, and I think it created a huge controversy from-- you know this better than I do because they decided then just to overprint them. Instead of making a few sheets that were incredibly valuable, they ended up printing out thousands of these things, which I have one now. It's only worth 7 cents, but at the time, it seemed really cool to have a misprinted stamp in your collection. Dr. David Steensma: Dag Hammarskjöld, there's an interesting connection with what I was talking about a little bit earlier with St. Elizabeth's Hospital. So, this relatively small teaching hospital had, at one point, a very strong hematology research program led by a guy named Fred Stallman. And in 1974, Fred Stallman, who was coming back from ISH, International Society Hematology, which was in Tel Aviv that year, and his plane exploded somewhere over the Aegean Sea, ultimately thought to be related to the PLO, and so he died. There was a big painting on the wall, in the hospital of him. And Dag Hammarskjöld also, at the peak of his career, you know, as the UN Secretary-General, was killed in a plane crash. But the interesting thing about Fred Stallman is, here, you have somebody who was so important in hematology. None of the fellows had any idea who he was or their connection to hematology. You know, it shows how fleeting fame is, unless you're an Einstein or Babe Ruth level. So, that was a good thing to keep in mind as well. Pat Loehrer: We could talk for another hour or two on this. Dave, we really appreciate it. But unfortunately, this is all the time we have for today. And I really want to thank you for joining us, Dave. This has been a wonderful conversation. I also want to thank all our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Education broadcast where we will talk about anything and everything, as you can imagine. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, just email us at: education@asco.org. Thanks, again. And, Dave, I've got a quiz for you here. Do you know why pirates don't take a shower before they walk off the plank? Dr. David Steensma: I do not. Dave Johnson: I have no idea. Pat Loehrer: It's because they wash up on shore. Dave Johnson: Oh boy.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up-to-date with the latest episodes, please click, "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

"What exactly is implicit racial bias? How does it manifest in physician-patient interactions and what is the potential impact of such bias on oncology patient outcomes? In this ASCO Education Podcast episode, Dr. Lauren M. Hamel (Wayne State University) and Dr. Nimish Mohile (University of Rochester) share their insights and perspectives on these topics with host Alissa A. Thomas (University of Vermont). If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. Resources: Blindspot: The Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin R. R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald Implicit Associations Test 21-Day Racial Equity Challenge   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nimish Mohile: We had a patient a few years ago who had presented to our clinic, who ended up having a diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma, and she was a young black woman, and it took about nine months for her to get that diagnosis. She had gone into multiple emergency rooms, she was only 22, had not had prior interaction with the medical system, but based on some of her socioeconomic demographics, her skin color, she was never given the kinds of testing that any other patient I think should have gotten at that time.   Dr. Alissa Thomas: Hello, and welcome to another episode of ASCO Education podcast. Today's topic is, 'Implicit racial bias and its impact on patient care.' My name is Alissa Thomas, and I'm a Neurologist and Neuro-Oncologist at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. I'm delighted to introduce our two guest speakers; Dr. Lauren Hamel, who is an Associate Professor of Communication and Behavioral Oncology at Wayne State University, and the Co-program Leader of the Population Studies and Disparities Research Program of the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Her ongoing research explores racial attitudes in non-verbal behavior of oncology patients and physicians, and how those behaviors influence treatment decisions. Dr. Nimish Mohile is a Professor of Neurology and Oncology at The University of Rochester. He also serves as the Diversity Officer, Associate Chair for Career Development and Leadership, and Neuro-Oncology Division Chief. I'll get us started with the first question, really a definition. What do we mean by the term, ‘implicit racial bias'? Dr. Lauren Hamel: I'm happy to go first. I think understanding what the definition of what implicit racial bias is is really important. You know, for good or for ill, over the last few years, it's gotten a lot more attention. And I think what's important to remember about it is that it's not a cognizant or a conscious bias, and it really is implicit, and it really is more of an association than it is anything else. It's sort of like the built-up associations that we have for anything. You know, could be race, could be gender, any number of demographics, or other factors that make our lives as humans. So, you know, associating certain aspects of people with positive or negative valuations. I think when we're talking about implicit racial bias, it's kind of like the gut associations we have for members of different racial groups. So often, it's kind of paired with "white is good, black is bad." It's a very rudimentary description of it, but that's a real kind of basic association that this kind of definition is built around. Dr. Nimish Mohile: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that's a great discussion of what this is. I think it's really important for us to remember that these are really ingrained behaviors. It's, based on, you know, how we've been socialized and conditioned. And I think it's helpful to also put it in the framework of knowing that we all have some biases, we all probably have racial biases, and age biases, and other kinds of biases, and there's no sort of good or bad about having these biases. And the important part of this is, how do we recognize some of the biases that we have so that we can be more conscious about how we might fix those or think differently about the patients that we're seeing so that it doesn't result in actions that can be harmful. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, I agree with everything that Dr. Mohile just added. It is these ingrained associations. Really, it isn't about blaming ourselves for them because it's kind of the result of how our brains are structured. But to his point, it's once we know that we have them, and you know, we have data showing how they affect our behavior, it's then on us to identify them and then work to mitigate them. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you. How do racial biases in patients and physicians influence treatment decisions or ultimately, how does this affect patient outcomes in Oncology? Dr. Lauren Hamel: You know, I think the direct relationship between certain biases and outcomes is still kind of being uncovered and investigated. But there are some interesting patterns that have been uncovered in data, specifically in the Oncology context too, because as you can imagine, a variety of professional organizations and groups examine the influence of bias. But just within Oncology, we see physicians who have higher levels of implicit bias who tend to see their patients who are black as less trustworthy, less educated, and less adherent to treatment recommendations. We also know that higher levels of implicit bias may be associated with less aggressive treatment programs recommended for black patients. We see some associations between levels of implicit bias and verbal dominance. But what was I think, especially interesting, is that we also see patterns of kind of perceptions from the patients that these physicians are communicating with. So, we see some manifestations in behavior, but we also see patients kind of “picking up” on some of these, whether or not they can identify them as bias necessarily. But for example, we see that patients who are seeing a physician with higher levels of implicit bias tend to see their physicians as less patient-centered, and less trustworthy. And I think that's a really important piece to identify because these biases are by definition kind of operating outside of our own consciousness, but they're manifesting themselves in a way that the people that we're communicating with are noticing. Dr. Nimish Mohile: We had a patient a few years ago who had presented to our clinic, who ended up having a diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma, and she was a young black woman, and it took about nine months for her to get that diagnosis. She had gone into multiple emergency rooms, she was only 22, had not had prior interaction with the medical system, but based on some of her socioeconomic demographics, her skin color, she was never given the kinds of testing that any other patient I think should have gotten at that time. That was a real sort of wake-up call for our clinic, because as some of you know, this is a disease that we can really treat, especially in younger patients. So, there's real consequences to these kinds of biases. And some of them are personal, the ways they're ingrained in us, but some of them are built into our systems, and it's based on; what our ERs are designed like, where our hospital systems are, what kind of relationships we have with primary care physicians in different communities, what kind of access some of our patients have to primary care physicians. This patient in particular didn't have great access to primary care, so she didn't have this other team of people to advocate for her and to say, "Hey, you know, this is something really different in this patient, and we need to take this seriously." So, I think it can get complicated as we think about biases in ourselves, in other people, in the whole health system, and then also as we get out of our health system, some of these things are so influenced by what's going on in our communities. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, I think that's a really important point. At least with my work, I examine kind of at the interpersonal level, but these biases, as Dr. Mohile points out, exist in all levels of our society, and they interact, and they're-- I don't want to say additive, it's probably much more exponential. But yeah, it's a layer, on top of layer, on top of layer problem. Dr. Alissa Thomas: So, Dr. Mohile, you commented earlier that part of it is recognizing these biases in ourselves. Can you discuss how we might approach this with the impact of an anti-racism education program has been in your department and applications for that? Dr. Nimish Mohile: So, we've worked on anti-racism in our department on a couple of levels. One of the main levels is just building awareness for individuals to understand that they have biases, that they have racial biases, and starting to understand why they have those. So, we've gone through exercises like book clubs and talks, for people to really do some of that self-reflective work to understand how they've been conditioned as they grew up. I've personally done that and have found it very revealing and understood some of the biases that I grew up with based on people I was around, and based on my schools, and based on segregation within my school systems. So, I think that that's one piece of it. I think another piece is we don't often get taught about the history of racism in the United States, and how widespread it is. It's a very small part of our curriculums, and I think we have to take it upon ourselves now in our medical systems to go through that education. Education that we probably should have had all through elementary school, high school, college, we have to do that learning now because then we can really start seeing that impact of race on our society. And I think for physicians specifically, what is that impact of racism on patient care in our medical systems and how it's been ingrained in US healthcare. Understanding that we had segregated hospitals right until the 1960s, those are all things that were in the lifetimes of still practicing Oncologists. One of the things we did for our other professional society that I belong to, The American Academy of Neurology, is we did develop an anti-racism education program that focused on understanding this history and this historical lens in healthcare, reviewing the impact that anti-racism has on our colleagues. So, what does that mean for black physicians or physicians from other underrepresented groups and how they interact with our health systems, how they're treated, what does it mean for their roles in academic departments? Then talking about how we can connect being anti-racist with the goals of health equity. So, how can we change the systems that we have control of to have healthcare that's more fair? And then finally, how do we engage trainees and physicians in really developing anti-racism action plans? One of the important things about anti-racism is that you really have to be active, it's not a passive experience. You have to take action to change all these systems around us that are embedded with racism. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you. Along the same line, Dr. Hamel, you recently co-authored a study of a longitudinal implicit bias training curriculum. And can you tell us something about this project and what's come of it? Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, so it came about a little more than a year ago and kind of coincided happily with an executive directive made by our state's governor requiring implicit bias training, so we were able to kind of design it so it met those requirements. But really what the goal is, is to approach implicit bias with a 360 view. So, what are all of the issues related to it? What are the scientific underpinnings? What are the measurements? What are the pros and cons of those measurements and what we've used, and what they've shown in terms of influence on our individual behavior, our decision-making, kind of how we relate to people who might be different than us. And certainly, expanding beyond racial groups — we've looked at gender, we're looking at age, things like structural racism. So, we're trying to kind of have a comprehensive view of it. And I think, you know, one thing, and it sounds like Dr. Mohile and his group have done a really nice job of tracking what happens after those. Because, you know, I think one-off sessions are better than nothing, certainly. Awareness is critical, but also, tracking like, what does this do for our attitudes, perceptions, and behavior? And that's not easy. And so really, you know, trying to invest in tracking how things change. So, we've had a full year of assessments, we've seen some improvements in people's attitudes and perceptions. But now what we really need to start doing is tracking certain behavioral aspects, and I think that's where the next step needs to be. Our next year is just about to kick off in a couple of weeks. So, I think that that's where we need to start putting our effort where it's—okay, we've gotten kind of institutional support, the leaders of both the University's School of Medicine and also the Cancer Institute have been encouraging this, which I think is really critical, because even though it's a lot of individual work if you want these changes, you really have to have the support and buy-in from the leaders of the institution. So, we've got that, we have interest, you know, we've established a really consistent and impressive participation in terms of each session. We've had upwards of 200 people attending each session, so people want this information. Now, according to the state, they also are required to have it. So, I think building up on that now, we've established a lot of good pieces of it, but now let's start doing a better job of tracking how does this affect long-term perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. Dr. Nimish Mohile: Every cancer center and department should be doing what Dr. Hamel is doing. The risk of the one-off trainings is that people come out of an implicit bias workshop and think, “Well, I'm fixed. I don't need this anymore, now I can go on and take care of patients without bias.” And you really need that time to really work on those things and start to fix some of those attitudes that we have. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah. Because the associations get built up over a lifetime. You know, that's not something you're going to fix in an hour. It's a campaign, it's a marathon, to be sure. Dr. Alissa Thomas: So, you've both touched on something that a lot of this is about perception, and it's not just what we say verbally, but non-verbal behavior. It plays into implicit racial bias. Dr. Hamel, can you talk a little about your study of non-verbal synchrony, and can you describe differences between non-verbal behavior with doctors and patients of the same race compared to those of different races? Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, a lot of my work focuses on nonverbal behaviors. On the study you referenced, we were looking at something a little bit more kind of in line with how implicit bias acts. It sort of manifested unconsciously. So, this whole idea of non-verbal synchrony is kind of this non-conscious coordination of movement that happens between two people. And this is a construct that's been studied for decades in a number of settings, but we were the first to be able to examine it in an oncology setting, and also comparing diads of different racial makeup. We were able to take like real video-recorded data of naturally-occurring treatment discussions. We had a set of videos that included black patients in a similar set with white patients. And we used automated software to track their behavior and determine how coordinated they were over time. We actually observed more coordinated behavior between black patients and their physicians compared to white patients and their physicians. Some literature is non-verbal synchrony is sort of seen as always good, and there's also some new data showing that maybe it could be evidence of trying to repair a relationship. We're very early phases, I'm not in a position to offer kind of a best practice with this, but I think the point is, is that we do see differences. There is a coordinated behavioral difference between dyads. We're also starting to look at how that level of coordination is influenced by attitudes including implicit bias. So, I think identifying a difference is important, but now I think it's on us to now figure it out. Like, what is that the result of? And then, what does that do for the patient in terms of short and long-term outcomes? So, does that affect their perceptions of their physician? Does it affect their perceptions of the recommended treatment? Does it affect adherence to that treatment? Dr. Alissa Thomas: How can we do better? How can doctors improve non-verbal and verbal communication methods with our patients? Dr. Nimish Mohile: I can speak a little bit about verbal communication. I think this work on non-verbal communication is fascinating. I'd love to hear where that comes out because it's something I think we're not really thinking about very much, and I'm not surprised that there's differences there. I think sometimes with communication, just having an awareness in that you might be communicating differently with someone can be helpful. In many of our institutions, we sometimes go through coaching with our communication, particularly with Oncology patients, where you have someone witnessing how you're interacting with that patient, and what kind of verbal and non-verbal cues you're giving, how you make eye contact. I think there's models there that we could really be thinking about, not just focused on some of the stuff that oncology has been focused on, like, delivering bad news or end-of-life discussions, but also on these issues of racial bias or age bias, and see what we could do differently in those areas. Dr. Lauren Hamel: Yeah, I completely agree. And I think decades of research have shown that patient-centered communication skills are something that can be taught, learned, and improved upon. Maybe not just regarding the issues related to racial bias and other racial attitudes, but you know, for helping to improve a number of outcomes for patients. So, I think, that kind of focus, I mean there are very clear, well-established frameworks and methods around that, I think that was just, you know, something we already have in our toolbox that we can use. But I think also things like building up trust within a community, I think is critical, for really any kind of medical institution that operates within a community should be, you know, trusted by the community it's in. And there's a number of strategies that can be implemented to build up that level of trust. So, you're kind of looking at like the outside going in. A lot of these the data that I'm referring to right now are coming out of the primary care setting. But I think people like us that are in an Oncology setting are certainly well poised to start testing these in Outpatient Oncology clinics. And I think just like what we're doing right now, making the topic of race, racism, implicit bias, something that we can have in a number of settings. And I think Dr. Mohile made a really good point. Like, we're not taught this like we're taught like grammar, and, you know, math. This is a part of our lives too, and you know, it's having big effects on huge swaths of our population. So, I think normalizing these conversations is a really important step, too. Dr. Nimish Mohile: In the United States, we're particularly uncomfortable talking about racism. Even within our medical teams, we don't know how to do that. So, what do you do if you're on rounds and you see another provider have some kind of verbal or non-verbal communication that, you know, might not be appropriate, or you think that there's a racial bias in the way we're treating or talking to a patient? That's not something we know how to deal with. We don't know how to bring that up. And so, I think that that's something that within health systems, we need to start working on. We have great models for this. When we think about the transitions we've made over the last 20 years in patient safety, we have elevated these conversations about patient safety. If there's a medical error by anyone on a team, it's something we're open to discussing, not blaming, and then really having a conversation about how can we fix this next time. You know, can we work towards doing that with something like racial bias? One of the things we've started doing in our department is that one of our mortality and morbidity conferences each year is focused on racism. So, a scenario where we think that there might have been differing treatment to a patient based on race, and then having an open discussion about that, going through some of the literature about that, and just practicing some of those conversations with each other as faculty, and medical providers, physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, of being able to name racism as one of these problems. And then we really try to model that behavior on teaching rounds, so that with our medical students and residents, and fellows, we're also having these conversations about how could racism be at play in this patient's story, and how they got to their diagnosis, and in their outcomes, and an acknowledgement that racism is having some effect on this patient's ability to get screened for cancer, and potentially, their ability to have the same survival as another patient. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you. That's so helpful to think about how to elevate this through departments and people who may be less aware of the issue and raising awareness. You both have touched a lot on communication between patients and providers, and there's a theme here that it's not just the doctor-patient relationship, but also the patient's community, and the medical team, that support that physician. Can you elaborate a little bit more about that, about how we communicate to the patient and the community they represent, and the provider and the team that they represent? Dr. Lauren Hamel: Having active, mature, genuine involvement of community members within a cancer hospital or cancer institute, I think is really important. I know my work has benefited from those who have come before me that established really strong connections with people who are, either survivors, care caregivers, advocates, you know, people who are very devoted to their particular neighborhood, community, that work really closely with us and provide feedback on a lot of the interventions that we design. So, one thing that I work in with all of my research is, as I'm developing an intervention that I think will improve either communication with a physician or another care provider, I certainly would never implement that without getting that thoroughly vetted by the people who it's going to affect. My clinician colleagues are always really generous with their time. It's a little bit more challenging to get community member feedback, but I do believe that it is, I mean, not just worth it for my own research success, but also for the mission and the purpose of what we're trying to do here. So, if you seek out feedback from a community group or community members who are willing to give you their honest opinion, and you know, you have to be in a position to receive that feedback with grace and professionalism, I think that's an important piece of it. Like, you want to have that connection, you don't want to just kind of have a checkbox. You know, you really want them involved in what you're doing. I'm using my own personal experience, but I'm sure there's far greater levels of, you know, system-level issues where something similar could be implemented. Dr. Nimish Mohile: I agree with that. I think this is really hard, and I think our medical systems are just starting to learn how to do some of this work. So, I'd echo what Dr. Hamel said about really getting input from members of those communities. I think many cancer centers are trying to do more outreach into communities, and that's not that easy. We have to really start by kind of building that trust, and building a philosophy where it's really about helping that community, as opposed to getting more patients from that community, or getting more trial participants from that community, or being able to check off boxes for our NIH grants from those communities. It really needs to be a genuine approach of, what does this community need? Because we don't often know that answer. And so, we have to start with that curiosity, and then determine how can we help those communities with the resources that we have. And I think cancer centers can do this optimally if the entire health system does that, that's where you can really start building some of that trust. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you. For those of us that want to know more, would you be able to share some practical tools or resources that are available for healthcare professionals who want to learn more about implicit racial bias, either on an individual or institutional level? Dr. Lauren Hamel: I think one of the first things someone can do is take an Implicit Association Test, or an IAT, as it's often referred to. They're all housed at Project Implicit, at Harvard's website - google IAT, it'll take you right there. No identifiable data are collected from the individual test taker, but it gives people a sense of what's being measured. You know, it's not a character assessment, it's a measure that's designed to test your associations. And I think just having that experience makes you a much more informed consumer of this kind of science because I think it's important to keep a critical eye. You know, if we're scientists, we have to be critical. And I think this really helps people kind of get to a point where they can understand the science a little bit more effectively, but maybe also can reduce a little defensiveness that inevitably comes up when these kinds of data are discussed. So, I would do that. And then the second thing would be, there's a wonderful book called, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, it's written by Doctors Greenwald and Banaji, and they are basically credited for creating the Implicit Association Test, as we know it. It's a relatively easy read, and it can really give you a sense of how these kinds of associations affect our decision-making and communications. I would take those two, as a way to start. Dr. Nimish Mohile: I agree with both of those. I'd say that many of our health systems have implicit bias workshops and trainings, and sometimes they're online, sometimes they're in person. They do have varying sort of quality. I encourage people to just look at those trainings a little bit differently than they look at all of the other trainings that we're forced to do. To go into those with a little bit of an open mind and a learning experience, rather than one to just sort of check boxes and move on. I think you can learn some things about yourself from them. One of the things I encourage folks to do if they're interested in more information about anti-racism is to do something like the 21-day Racial Equity Challenge - you can Google that. Kind of small bite-size openings, and then there's talks about biases, but also helps you sort of understand some of the foundations of racial inequity in this country. Dr. Alissa Thomas: Thank you so much. That's all the time we have for today. I really want to say thank you to Dr. Hamel, and Dr. Mohile for sharing your perspectives on addressing implicit racial bias in oncology, and tips for improving communication with patients and providing culturally-sensitive care. And thank you to ASCO for providing this platform for us to discuss. Thank you to all of our listeners, we appreciate you turning into this episode of ASCO Education podcast.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click," Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center, at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this Oncology, Etc. episode, hosts Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson interview hematologist-oncologist and scientist Dr. David Steensma, who currently serves as Head of Global Hematology at Novartis. In Part One of the episode, Dr. Steensma shares about his career journey from astronomy to medicine, and from academia to industry. We'll also learn about the discovery and significance of a new pre-malignant condition - Clonal Hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential (CHIP). If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

"An advanced practice provider's scope of practice can vary drastically depending on where you practice; listen to the ASCO Education's third episode of the advanced practice providers series, and learn more from our co-hosts, Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Dr. Stephanie Williams, (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), along with guest speaker Heather Hylton (K Health) on what scope of practice is, who or what defines it, and why knowing this information is critical to your oncology care team success. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org   TRANSCRIPT Todd:  Hello everyone, and welcome back to the ASCO Education Podcast, and the third episode of the Advanced Practice Provider series. I'm Todd Pickard, your co-host for this series, along with Dr. Stephanie Williams. We'd also like to introduce you to our guest panelist today, Heather Hylton. Heather, why don't you share a bit about yourself, what you do, and where you're from. Heather: Sure. Well, thank you so much. It's a pleasure to join you in this podcast. My name is Heather Hylton. I'm a physician assistant based in New York. Most of my career has been in oncology, but I've been fortunate to have been able to serve in administrative and clinical roles in organizations in multiple states. So, I'm currently working in the remote care space, and I'm excited to bring this experience to our conversation. Todd:And Stephanie, why don't you remind our listeners today about your background, and why you have so much experience and really just have a really true appreciation for working with advanced practice providers. Stephanie: Thanks, Todd. I've worked in oncology for almost 40 years and I've had the opportunity to work with advanced practice providers, both physician assistants, and nurse practitioners for a couple of decades now. I've been in stem cell transplants and cellular therapy, and they're absolutely integral to our practice, both inpatient and outpatient in that particular field. Todd:  Well, in today's episode, we're going to be talking about advanced practice providers' scope of practice; what it is, what it means, who defines it, and why it is important for oncology APPs to know and understand what their scope of practice is. So, why don't we jump right in? So, I think it's important to define scope of practice first. So, I would like to just offer a little bit of a perspective around that language of scope of practice. Generally speaking, it is what is allowed by law at any particular state for an advanced practice provider to perform care on patients; what types of patients they can see, what kind of medications they can prescribe and write, what kind of activities they can be in, what kinds of relationships they have to have with other providers and delegating or collaborating physicians. So, generally speaking, a scope of practice can be very, very broad or it can be very, very narrow. And it really depends on the state and how the state defines it. So, I'm going to ask Heather to jump in here and can you provide an example or a story, or a case that comes to mind that helps illustrate scope of practice for an APP? Heather: Sure, I'd be happy to, you know, in terms of how I think about this, very simply stated is, what it is that I'm permitted to do as an advanced practice provider. And the boundaries, as you said around this, are really determined by a number of factors. So, education, training, experience, my competency, federal law in some cases, state laws, regulations. And this may also include, as you mentioned, specific physician collaboration requirements, facility policy, clinical privileges that are granted by that facility, sometimes payer policy factors in, and then of course, the needs of the patient. So, one very common question that comes up in the oncology space is, can APPs order or prescribe systemic therapy? And the answer of course, is really going to be determined by going through that checklist of the entities that determine if this is something that that APP can actually do. So, one example I have is a facility where the module that they utilized for ordering systemic therapy provided system rates only to physicians. And the facility that had been using that module before APPs were widely integrated. So, there were some innocent assumptions made that the absence of the APPs in the module meant it was “illegal” for APPs to order systemic therapy. So, in working with this group, we were able to go through this checklist. So, there were no federal or state restrictions on this particular clinical activity, but it needed to be written into the facility policy. So, criteria for establishing competency were devised. And then an education training plan was designed, implemented, and driving systemic therapy became part of that privileges requests from the APP, and then the systems' rights issues were also addressed. So, this was truly a success story in being able to safely expand the number of clinicians, who were able to prescribe systemic therapy in a busy and growing facility. Stephanie: Heather, what does it mean to you (this is a term that our administrators throw around a lot and our nurse managers throw around as well) to practice at the top of your license, whether you're a nurse, physician assistant, or an advanced practice nurse; what is the top of your license? Heather:  Well, this is a hot topic. And top-of-license practice really comes down to role optimization. It is just good business. It means that the patients and the caregiver's needs are being met by the professional with the appropriate training, experience and competency for each function or task that the professional performs. And from an engagement standpoint (which I know is not the topic of our conversation today, but it is important) we know that people want to engage in work that they find meaningful. While that definition certainly is individualized, a common thread is being able to leverage that education, training and experience you have to help others. And often, the reason why we really pursued our careers. Todd: I think this is such an important topic to talk about, is the top of license practice, because it really impacts all of us, Stephanie. You know, as physicians, you want to do what you've been trained to do, which is to assess a patient, have a differential diagnosis, do a diagnostic workup, arrive at a diagnosis, create a treatment plan, and have that treatment plan implemented so that you can care for the patient. And APPs are the same way. So, when you have folks, whoever they are, whether they are the nurse or the advanced practice provider or the physician or the social worker or the pharmacist, whoever it is; if they are utilized in a way that does not take into account all the skills and competencies that they have to deploy and provide for that patient, they're really working below the top of license. As an example, if you had an APP go from room to room to room with you seeing patients and the only thing that you had the APP doing was scribing, that APP is working well below their licensure. And in fact it's incredibly wasteful with limited resources in healthcare, to have folks who have lots of skills and competencies working at a level where you really should have a different member of the team providing that service. Like if you need a scribe, you should get a scribe. And so, I think that kind of illustration really makes it salient to folks to think about; we should all work to stretch the knowledge and skills and competencies that we spent so much time developing in all of our training and our certification. Because otherwise, it's just wasteful. And as Heather said, it's not very satisfying. Stephanie: Todd, I think that those are excellent points that you bring out and I think that's very important for people to realize that APPs aren't scribes, they aren't there to extend me. They're there to help me as a physician in my practice, to help the patients actually. And then we should work together as a team to give the best patient care that we can. But many times I see my colleagues, just as you said, going from room to room with their APP and expecting the APP, you know, “I'll pontificate and tell you do this, that, that and the other, and then you go out there.” I think also from a career and job satisfaction rating, it's really important to have that team around that can help each other out. And I think that really does help in terms of decreasing burnout and other things like that. Todd: So, Heather, can you give us some idea of how is scope of practice defined at a state or an institutional level? How do people arrive at those kinds of decisions or, you know, how does an institution decide what the scope of practice is? How does it work? Heather: Taking a step back and just, you know, kind of thinking about it through different lenses. So, you know, in contrast to physicians whose scope of practice has minimal variability from state to state, we know that there can be a bit more state to state variability for APPs. And the regulatory bodies or agencies can also be different. And there may be multiple agencies that weigh in on what that APP can do within a particular state. And so, it's certainly important to be familiar with the Practice Act for each state in which you are licensed. And I would also add onto this, in certain geographic areas, this may be particularly relevant to you if you are in a practice that has multiple locations in multiple states, but we'll come back to that a little bit later. But, you know, again, kind of going through your checklist, starting off, looking at what the Practice Act says, and these can all be written up in many different ways. Sometimes it comes across as what I would call like a laundry list, which when you first read it, seems pretty straightforward, but it can also kind of lead you into some issues because if it isn't on there, then what does that mean? Some Practice Acts are written up really more on the basis of what activities are excluded or things that you cannot do as an APP. And then some are just kept very broad, which sometimes makes people uncomfortable, but I would encourage you to not be uncomfortable with that because sometimes, they're written this way in order to give you more flexibility to set that scope of practice at facility level, which is ideally where you really want to be cited. You don't want to create something more limiting or more restrictive than what the state actually allows you to do. Todd: That is a critically important point and one that in my 24 years as an advanced practice provider who happens to be a PA, that has come up often and frequently is, “Well, it doesn't say this” or, “It doesn't specifically exclude that. And so, we're uncomfortable.” And my response is, “Well, that gives us an opportunity to create this space”, because, you know, many times, as you point out, Heather, these kind of ambiguities are written intentionally, so that local practice decisions can be made, so that physicians and advanced practice nurses and PAs can decide as a team, how do we work? You know, in my state, it was very specific that they wanted APPs and physicians to collaborate on ‘what does our practice look like?' And every local level, outside of those very large kind of rules about who can prescribe and who can pronounce a patient dead or write a restraining order — outside of those very large things, they really want us, they want the care team to figure it out and to do it in a way that's best for our patients. I think that is the best approach, is when we get to decide how we work. You know, the places, some of the states that have these laundry lists, you're right, Heather, it seems like, “Oh, that's easy,” but then you're like, “wait a minute, there's only 10 things on this list and we do, you know, 57, what does that mean?” And so, I think it can be very disadvantageous when you have those lists. And I do think it's important to think through these things, work with your legal colleagues to analyze these things, and then take an approach, stake out some territory, you know, once you've gotten informed and say, “This is what our scope looks like, we've all talked about it and this is how we're going to work as a team.” So, that's wonderful when you've got that level of flexibility. I think that's really great. Stephanie: Does insurance reimbursement play any role in terms of scope of practice, either locally or nationally? Heather:  It absolutely can. And it's important to know, for example, if you are in a practice, where you're seeing Medicare patients, to understand Medicare conditions of participation. If you are in a practice where you are taking care of patients with Medicaid or certainly private payers as well, like understanding what is actually in those contracts, so that you can make sure that you are either updating them if you need to, or making sure that what you need to be able to bill for is billable within those contracts. Todd: It's really interesting because I always have a sense of feeling like I need to cringe when somebody says we can't do this because of a reimbursement issue, and also, partially laugh. And the reason why I have both of those reactions is it's typically a misunderstanding, because saying that we won't reimburse for oxygen unless a physician's order is present to prescribe the oxygen does not equate to only a physician can do this. And so, you constantly have to kind of explore these issues and say, “Okay, so yes they use the word physician, but as an APP who has a collaborative delegatory relationship with a physician, and according to my state license and scope of practice, I write physician orders.” So, if you connect those dots, if I, as the APP, have written the physician order for the oxygen, it meets your criteria. It doesn't say a person who holds a medical license, it says physician order. And so, I think that's where you have to really constantly be on guard about these misconceptions, misunderstandings, and these ambiguities. And as Heather said, working with APPs, you just have to say, “Look, there's going to be ambiguities, we're going to work it out, we're going to figure it out. And, you know, reimbursement is important.” But you have to remind folks that reimbursement doesn't define practice, it defines how you get paid. Stephanie: Excellent point, Todd. Excellent. Heather: I'll add a story to that as well. When I first came to New York, I became aware of a situation where the narrative at a particular facility was that a major private payer would not reimburse for services provided by PAs. Now, I thought that was a little strange, but, you know, I was a new kid in town, but at that time — there are more now, but at that time there were 10,000 PAs in New York. That's a pretty big number. And so, I thought, you know, I probably would've heard something about this if this major payer would not reimburse for these services. So, to help with the situation, I started doing the research, you know, looking at specific information from the payer, checking with connections at other facilities to learn about any issues that they may have experienced with this payer, checking with our national organization and so forth. And really, nothing was coming up, suggested that the payer would not buy reimbursement for services provided by PAs. And ultimately, it came down to something very simple, which was the facility just didn't have this in their payer contract, they hadn't needed it up to that point. So, it made perfect sense and it was fixed once the issue was identified. So, this goes back to just being very vigilant about the research that you're doing. And sometimes, it takes a little time to get to the solution, but really that perseverance does pay off. Todd: Heather, I'm sitting here, I'm laughing because I just had a recent example of where the right and the left hand within a state had no idea what was happening. So, an employer who does ambulatory outpatient treatments at different retail locations (we'll just leave it at that) there was this concept that PAs as an example, were ineligible because of the state requirements that then were reflected in this company's policy. And what was so interesting is that a PA colleague of mine started investigating and I said, “Well, what does the state law say?” And she went and she looked and she said, “Oh, it was changed last year that this thing that was causing this policy in this employer was changed.” And I said, “Well, does the company know that the law was changed?” So, she reached out to the medical director who was a physician, whose daughter was happening to want to go to PA school. So, she had an in, she had an in right away, which serendipity does play a part here. And she said, “Did you know that the state law changed?” And they said, “No.” And so, she sent them the state law and then within a week, the medical director said, “Oh, just so you know, we're hiring PAs now, we've updated our internal policies to reflect state law.” So, sometimes it's just these small things that people forget the details, that when something changes, you have to reflect that in your policies of companies or institutions or your practice group. And that's the one thing that I think is so different for APPs from physicians. Physicians are kind of just granted this big broad authority and it rarely changes. It's very stoic and it's kind of fixed. But for APPs it is constantly in flux, constantly in flux. And that's just the nature of it. I don't know why it's been that way. We've organically developed this in the United States over the past 50 years, maybe 50 years from now, it'll be different, but right now, it's not. And so, I think that's the important thing is there's more space out there for advanced practice, scope of practice and top of licensure, than you think is possible. It just requires a little work. Heather: I will say that I 100% agree and, you know, when you take a step back from some of these, like these Practice Acts, they tell a story about the climate in the state and the history in the state. And it's quite fascinating if you like that. I'm not the most fun person at a party, but, you know, these things, they tell a story and it gives you a good sense of what's actually going on in the micro environment in that state. In the last year plus, I've spent a lot of time reviewing Practice Acts of most of the states of the union, and so, I have this ability to really compare. And I also know which states I really, really like and which ones are a little bit more challenging. But there are things like even legislation that's left over from the industrial revolution that's actually influenced how a particular pharmacy interprets, you know, whether or not they can accept a prescription without a counter signature from a physician. And so, some of these things, like when you start drawing some of these lines, it becomes very interesting and it definitely comes down to some interpretation as well. So, always being able to work with a good legal team or people who do understand Practice Act information and working with your state resources as well, as well as your national organizations can be very impactful. Todd:  I would also say step one is to pull up whatever Practice Act is influencing something and read it. They are in English, they're not in Latin or French, they're in English. And many times, you can find something very plainly said. Other times you do need your legal friends to help you understand, “Okay, now what does this mean? I read the words but it's not clear.” But sometimes it will say, you know, “An APP may prescribe a controlled substance.” Period. So, oh, well, there's an answer right there. Now, there may be a how-to section later, in another part of the regulatory or administrative code within a state, but for the most part is, don't be afraid to look, don't be afraid to phone a friend and explore and ask questions. Stephanie:  You're eligible though for controlled substance licenses nationally, right? A DEA number? Todd:  That's a hot topic. Stephanie:  Is it? Heather: There may be other things that you need to do within a state as well in order to prescribe. So, for example, in Massachusetts, even to prescribe legend drugs, you need a Mass Controlled Substance Registration, because any substance that's not a DEA scheduled substance is considered a category 6 substance in Massachusetts. So, if I'm going to write a prescription for Omeprazole, I need to have a Massachusetts Controlled Substance Registration, as any prescriber would in the state. So, again, some of these little nuances, making sure that you're very familiar with that and doing the research. Stephanie: So Heather, you're in New York, I'm sure you get patients from Massachusetts. So, you have to make certain that you can prescribe both in New York and Massachusetts and probably, Rhode Island and all the states around there? Heather: Well, you bring up a really good point, which is, you know,when you are in a practice that has locations in multiple states, and we can talk about telehealth a little bit later. But if you are in a medical group that has practice sites, say in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York, licensed in all three states, and you work at sites in all three states, say you're an APP who likes to float and you make these commutes each day. So, all three states may have significant differences in their Practice Acts or what you need to do in order to optimize your practice in that state. And that includes collaboration requirements. So, some states have the ability for nurse practitioners to have autonomous practice, but there may be other steps where you may need a particular license, in order to be able to do that within that state. So, again, being very aware of those steps that you need to take is really important. Stephanie: So, Heather, you mentioned telehealth, which is a big topic through COVID. I don't really have to tell people how big a topic that is. So, what are the changes or what is going to happen with that now that we're “getting to the other end of COVID”? Heather:  That's a big question mark, right? So, certainly, the advancement of telehealth was an important development during the pandemic. And many states have a separate set of laws, regulations that govern delivery of healthcare services through telehealth. So, if your practice is utilizing telehealth to deliver medical services, it's necessary to be fluent in this information. So, this can include important information such as how a patient provider relationship is established. And, you know, it may also include information on prescribing practices, what may or may not be permitted or the conditions under which a prescription can be provided and so forth. And so, some states relaxed telehealth-related rules under state of emergency declarations. And so, making sure that you are up-to-date on this as some of those rules have returned to the pre-pandemic state and some of those relaxations actually became permanent. And of course, if you're billing for these services, knowing the payer requirements and then the policies and procedures you need to follow, in order to bill for those services. And where the patient is physically located at the time that the service is being provided, is the state in which you need to be licensed in order to provide that service. So, if Todd is performing a telehealth service for a patient in Oklahoma and he's not licensed in Oklahoma, he won't be able to see that patient. Todd:  It's really strange because telehealth has brought a different layer of perspective around scope of practice and licensure that we hadn't really faced as much before, right? So, for example, I've been a PA for 24 years. I have been able to call across state lines and interact with patients and talk to them on the phone, get updates on their surgery, if they're having, you know, a postoperative infection, get them an antibiotic and do that kind of work forever. But as soon as you add that technology and that billing entity called a telehealth encounter or a virtual encounter, it becomes a different animal all of a sudden. And this really came to light during the pandemic. And we quickly realized all of these things made it impossible. And that's why all the states did all of these emergency declarations saying, “Just forget it, just take care of people.” But now that we're getting past that, we're kind of going backwards, not because anything bad happened, but because folks are saying, “Well, we want to go back to the older ways where, you know, every state could have differences in regulations and make folks pay those professional fees to get licensure.” So, it'll be interesting to see how this space develops, particularly since our patients are becoming more consumers. Really, they want to talk to who they want to talk to, when they want to talk to them, and they want service here and now. And I think we're going to have to continue to respond and adapt to that. And some places will lead and some places will lag. But those lagging places quickly are going to start having conversations within the state and our legislators will respond. I mean, politically, it will change over time. It just, you know, matters how quickly. So, it's really an interesting thing to watch unfold in real time. Stephanie: Heather, any final remarks, concerns, advice to those out there, both physicians and advanced practice providers, about how to handle questions about, my God, what is your scope of practice? Heather:  I'm so glad you asked Stephanie because I have a list I might be able to pass them along. So, here we go. Do take the time to review the state Practice Act information and laws and regulations and of course facility policy governing a practice where you are. And as the license holder, you are responsible for knowing what you are permitted to do. Please do not make any assumptions about others' knowledge of this. Unfortunately, I've seen people get caught up in that and always own it, yourself. Generally, recommend facility policy not be more restrictive than what is permitted under the Practice Act of the state. Fact check, challenge your assumptions, and if you haven't had the chance to already do so, do check out the ASCO Advanced Practice Provider Onboarding and Practice Guide for more resources. Stephanie: Well, I'd like to thank Heather for her excellent insight into this very complicated topic. Todd, as always, is always on top of everything. And sharing both your experiences and your ideas with us on APP scope of practice, which can vary quite drastically depending upon the state and also the type of institution you practice in. Stay tuned for our next episode. Until next time, take care. Voiceover:  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. Voiceover: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

"Have you ever struggled to remember or pronounce a colleague's foreign name? In part two of this ASCO Education Podcast episode, host Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas) continues the conversation on creating more inclusive oncology practices with medical oncologist Dr. Timothy Gilligan and clinical psychologists Dr. Lauren Wadsworth and Dr. Stephanie Pinder-Amaker. They explore identity-related aggressions in the workplace and tips for practicing to recognize and address them. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

"In part two this ASCO Education Oncology, Etc. podcast, healthcare policy expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist, and writer Dr. Peter Bach shares what it was like to face his wife Ruth's cancer and eventual passing − as a husband and as a doctor. The episode also explores delivering difficult news to patients. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. Resources: Cancer Topics - Delivering Serious News" The Day I Started Lying to Ruth by Peter Bach, MD After a Cancer Diagnosis, Wishing for a Magic Number - The New York Times   TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist at The University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. This is the second half of our Oncology, Etc. conversation with health policy and payment expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist, and writer, Peter Bach. In part one, we chatted with Dr. Bach about his upbringing, the trajectory of his career from English Literature to Medicine, and from academia to industry. We also explored his seminal work on drug pricing and improving health equity. Today, we're going to continue our conversation with Dr. Bach by asking about something deeply personal: his wife, Ruth, who sadly passed away from cancer at the age of 46. Probably about seven or eight years ago, you wrote a wonderful article in The New York Times, and there was another article you wrote, but the one that I liked reading was called, “The Day I Started Lying to Ruth”, and this is where cancer stabbed you very personally. Can you tell us a little bit about that, and tell us a little bit about your wife, Ruth? Peter Bach: So, it was in New York Magazine, just to give credit where it's due, I'm very grateful to them for running it. I wrote that after she died, and it followed on a series I had in The New York Times called, The Doctor's Wife, which I wrote while she was getting her initial treatment for breast cancer, and then I walked through the steps of adjuvant therapy that she received, in my experience. And then the piece in The New York Magazine talks about her last months basically, and my experiences then. The story goes that she was tragically taken from us and tragically taken from my son when he was very young, and my experience being at her side-- and I think I was a good husband, I was present -- was an alarmingly dissociative experience along every dimension. You know, I'd go to her appointment, I would swipe in with my badge. You know, this was my place, and the doctor who took care of her is and was a dear friend, and so were the other doctors in most cases. And the visits, you know, I had nurses and people in the hall would say "Hi" to me. And then I was going through this absolutely devastating experience, you know, tearing apart the sort of prevailing narrative and experience and structure of my life and our family. And so, for whatever reason, it was this out-of-body experience where I could see stuff very, very clearly. Not only clinical realities, like I knew what was happening, but also the mechanics of healthcare, the interactions, and I felt like I should journal it, if you will. And then when I journaled it, I thought I should publish it, and so I wrote about what it was like to stand there when my friend, Chip Cody, the surgeon said, "This is cancer, I can feel axillary lymph nodes, you've got cancer." And what that morning was like between the-- look, most people have a lump, what's the big deal? We'll go, we'll deal with it. She's young. She had just had a mammogram actually, to that. And then the experience of, you know, and I was in Biostat at MSK. So, I'd sat for a gazillion protocol reviews, I'd read a gazillion informed consent forms, and then there was one in front of her for a randomized trial for adjuvant therapy. I mean, it was Avastin versus placebo versus a longer period of Avastin, if I remember correctly, and ultimately a negative trial I saw at ASCO. But sitting there and actually thinking about like, "What is this like for somebody who doesn't know all of this stuff?" And my wife was way smarter than me, that you guys know me, that is the least surprising fact ever. But it was still dizzying for her. And so, I wrote about that, like, hawt was our conversation like that night after that whole, like, “Do you want to join this trial?" And her peppering me with questions, like, essentially, “What the hell is wrong with you guys? Why don't you know these answers?" And it was sort of like, "Okay, this is why we do randomized trials, this is why we have placebo. This is–” And she's smart, not irate. She was much more relaxed and philosophical through the whole thing up until the day she died, or a few days before, than I ever was. So, I wrote about that. Like, what was that conversation like? What was she being asked to do, and how important was it that she did it? And I remember sitting in the room when that trial was presented, and The Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves, and I was pretty sure I saw the step in that curve. I'm pretty sure I saw her on that graph. And it made me-- obviously, I'm desperately sad that she's gone - but it made me proud that she had contributed to it, even though, you know negative studies are important, too. So, I wrote about those things, and I wrote about prognosis and what it was like to have a conversation when she asked about prognosis, and in an article called ‘Waiting for a Magic Number', where I described her oncologist saying, "Fine, I'll tell you what are your chances of living five years, you tell me what's the cut point. Essentially, above or below, what number are you going to change things in your life? When you tell me that number, I'll tell you whether you're above it or below it." And it was like, "Wow, philosophy from an oncologist, fantastic." Really sunk in with both of us, and that was it. We never asked that question again, he never gave us a number. And I've been greatly rewarded over the years to run into people from here and there who say, "You know, I always hand my patients that article to put that in perspective." And then when she died, I wrote about the sheer horror of what was happening to me. And the title wasn't mine, but it was worked right on point. I found myself in a situation where I didn't want to reveal to her just how bad things were, and it was terribly weak of me. And ultimately, and I describe it in the article, got to a point where I just was ready for it to be over, before it was. And I think it's actually not that hard, to be honest, after you've gone through something like this like I don't really care what people think of me. I went through something really hard. And again, I'm someone with resources, I'm someone with knowledge, I could call her oncologist at two in the morning and he'd answer, that's not something normal people get. And you know, even for me, like this was completely disorienting. And so, that article was very rewarding to write because it allowed me to put it somewhere where I've gotten to revisit it. A couple of years ago, of course, he was young when I published it. He said he had read it; he liked the part about the dog. But I got a lot of notes afterwards from strangers saying that it provided them some comfort that even someone like me went through basically the same experience they went through. And look, this whole, like, "even something like me” seems odd, but I think to the external world, somehow, we're like, "You know, we get those white coats. Stuff is different for us," and of course, it isn't at all. Since that time, and we're all in the same world, so we have the same sets of friends. We probably have many of our overlapping friends who we know have lost spouses. In recent years, I routinely get phone calls from folks like, "I'm going through this, what's the first step?" You know, and it's about everything. "How do I deal with my kid? Should I go dating?" Stuff like that. Dave Johnson: You know, Peter, that article should be required reading for every Oncology fellow. I think it was beautifully written, clearly from the heart. I think your undergraduate degree shows in terms of your writing style, but to write that, I'm sure was emotionally challenging and difficult. In fact, Pat mentioned at the start of our podcast, Trillin's book, About Alice. In a book review that was written in The New York Times, About Alice, Trillin made a comment similar to the one you just made, where people that he didn't even know wrote letters in which they conveyed to him a sense of knowledge of Alice, even though he knew they had never met Alice. And I think your article about your wife conveyed that same sense to anyone who did not meet her. And I think you memorialized her in ways that are really fantastic. But I want to just read something from an article in The New York Times, and this is quoting Trillin. He says, "They may not have known her, but they knew how I felt about her." And he went on to say, "Yes, I got a lot of letters, like the one from a young woman in New York who wrote that she sometimes looked to her boyfriend and thought, "But will he love me like Calvin loves Alice?" I think the same could be written about your relationship with Ruth. And thank you for sharing that. I can't imagine how challenging that must be even all these years later, and I'm glad your son had the opportunity to read that. He should be proud of both his mother and his father. Pat Loehrer: It was a gift to all of us and mankind. You know, again, as I saw that article, there's a photo of you and Ruth on your last vacation. I think it was from Versailles, and I think you were in the Hall of Mirrors. And I think there's a poignant metaphor there about the reflection of your lives and being with her at that time, and we really thank you. We have all experienced this and it's so powerful there. There's this time when you get a result of a test of someone that you know and love and there's this limbo between, they're so naive and life is good, and it really is a time between heaven and hell in which you're the only one there, in which you know that you're going to go in the room now and change their lives forever by sharing this news. And we've been there and we pause, and again, you talked about that - I think being in a car looking at the x-ray. And that's the essence of when you said, the day you started lying to them, which is understandable because you just don't want to shatter that moment there. You know, we pause and reflect on that enormity of the moment there and I thank you deeply for sharing that with us because it's something that we physicians find, and this uniqueness of being a physician, and having someone you care about and knowing something that they don't quite know yet. Thank you for all of that. Peter Bach: The important message is that to patients, it's very isolating. And part of what I think the article did, and this was the message I got at least, was, send a message to other people that you're not alone. That others are going through it, others have gone through it, and I don't know what "it" is in that context, but loss. And there's that wonderful article in The New Yorker called ‘The Aquarium', which is by man who had a sick child-- and I don't remember all the details, but the aquarium metaphor is, I can't remember if he's in the aquarium and the rest of the world's outside or the other way around, but it's that isolation that is particularly frightening. And when I talk with my friends who've gone through it, it's part of it. As I just said, you know, there's a lot of us out there. I don't know if it gives so much reassurance. You know, 40,000 women die a year of breast cancer, so there's a lot of people out there. Dave Johnson: Pat, you had, I think, a final question? Pat Loehrer: Briefly. You know, now I'm asking to be an academic person there, but if you had a young medical student and you were going to try to give them one lesson about communicating bad news to patients, what would that be? Peter Bach: I've obviously been in this situation many times. I'm a Pulmonary Critical Care doc, so I've watched bad news be delivered many, many times. And the first mistake I see people make is trying to fill the silence with words, and I think I made earlier reference to it. One of the key skills doctors need to develop is the ability to listen. And sometimes listening to silence is a version of listening, but it's delivering what you have to say without euphemism, with directness. Not everyone's enamored with it, I am. But then giving time to listen, even just space for people to feel safe, that that communication is part of a relationship, not a sort of text message. You know, in today's metaphor, right, that just arrives and the person moves on. That is really hard for people to do; not experienced doctors, for trainees because it's frightening for a lot of reasons. Over my career, I've certainly rehearsed it many times with people. I made the mistake myself too, of just sort of talking over the thing in the room to avoid, you know, just sort of as you said, the enormity of what you just communicated. Dave Johnson: So, Peter, I think you're right on. I think that's one of the most difficult things to do, is to allow that pause to take place. And so many, even highly experienced physicians attempt to fill that void when it doesn't need to be filled. Been there, done that, been on the receiving end as well as the delivery end of that. It's always challenging. You know, we're out of time, and I'm sad about that because we could go on, I'm sure for quite a long time. Want to end this by asking you, Peter, we talked about a book on the front end, both Pat and I love to read, and we share recommendations all the time. I wonder, is there a book or a podcast, or anything that you think we should read or you think our listeners should know about? And by the way, you can include anything that you wrote if you'd like. Peter Bach: Yeah, it'd be very au courant to pitch my own stuff here, I would never do that. I like to read as well. And so, I just finished Rules of Civility by Amor Towles. Of course, there's a few health events in it, but it's not to do with anything, but, you know, it's a book about New York. I live in New York, so I just enjoyed every single word of it. I'm newly married- Dave Johnson: Congratulations. Peter Bach: -thank you. I feel very lucky. And my wife has noted that I often like to read nonfiction at night. Typically, books about how the world is just going completely to hell. And she's noted that outrage is my happy place, that I sleep extremely well if I read something that's absolutely infuriating. So, the other thing I'll recommend is the book about the Department of Justice has essentially lost its mojo when dealing with corporate crime. If your best soporific is being absolutely furious, it's right up there with a full dose of Ambien. So anyway, those are my two recs. Pat Loehrer: I love it. Yeah, Dave and I both love non-fiction. We love that. So, it's great. Dave Johnson: We've come to an end of another podcast, and we want to thank our listeners for tuning in. We really appreciate your participation. Remember, Oncology, Etc. is an ASCO Educational podcast, where we'll talk about virtually anything and everything. So, if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like for us to interview, please email us at: education@asco.org. Thanks again. You know, speaking of interesting nonfiction, Pat, if ‘pro' and ‘con' are opposite, what's the opposite of progress? Pat Loehrer: Oh, I love that - Congress. Dave Johnson: Yes, Congress. I knew you would get that. Peter Bach: That is a ‘Dad joke' if I ever heard one. Dave Johnson: We don't have good jokes on this show. Pat Loehrer: We're going to have to redo the ending to this because, Dave, you said this was an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm not sure we've taught anybody anything on this one. Dave Johnson: Now, Peter has taught us a lot. Pat Loehrer: That's for sure. Thank you so much, Peter, for a wonderful interview. Dave Johnson: Absolutely perfect. Wonderful. Peter Bach: Thanks for the privilege. It's wonderful seeing you both.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

"In part one of this two-part ASCO Education Podcast episode, host Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas) sits down with licensed clinical psychologist Dr. Lauren Wadsworth, Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, and medical oncologist Dr. Timothy Gilligan, to discuss diversity in the US oncology workforce today. Dr. Pinder-Amaker and Dr. Wadsworth share excerpts from their book “Did That Just Happen?!” along with personal experiences to illustrate how various prejudices and micro-aggressions can impact healthcare providers and practices. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

"In part one of this two-part ASCO Education Oncology, etc. podcast, hosts Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson chat with health policy and payment expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist and writer Dr. Peter Bach about his background and career. Dr. Bach, who created the Drug Abacus, shares his views on cancer drug pricing, based care, and health equity. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

"There are different types of advanced practice providers that you may meet in an oncology practice - PAs, APRNs, NPs, but what's the difference between them? In the second episode of ASCO Education's podcast series on Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), co-hosts Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Dr. Stephanie Williams (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), along with guest speakers, Leslie Hinds (Centura Health), Martin Clarke (Arizona Oncology), and Kathleen Sacharian (Main Line Health), break down the differences and similarities between physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses, share what their days might entail in each of these roles in an oncology practice, as well as address some common misconceptions surrounding these types of APPs. Duration 35:52. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

Drs. David Johnson (University of Texas) and Patrick Loehrer (Indiana University) host this live ASCO podcast with award-winning documentary producer/director Bill Brummel. After undergoing a laryngectomy in 2016, Mr. Brummel produced and directed a documentary film titled “Can You Hear My Voice?” that chronicles the one-of-a-kind Shout at Cancer choir, whose members have all had their voice boxes removed, as they prepare for the most ambitious concert. This podcast features audio clips from the film. Mr. Brummel, who is joined by his surgeon, Dr. Uttam Sinha, of Keck Medicine of USC, reflects on his own cancer experience and the psychosocial impact of losing one's natural voice. For more information about the film or hosting a screening, visit www.canyouhearmyvoice.com or email info@bbprods.com. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Dave Johnson: So we're back here with another episode of our world-famous Oncology, Etc. podcast with two very distinguished guests, Pat.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, we're thrilled to be here to record this episode in front of an audience. Usually it's just Dave and I, and supposed to be a live audience. Although after three-and-a-half days of ASCO, I'm not sure if anybody's still alive. We have two very distinguished guests today. Mr. Bill Brummel is the award-winning documentary producer and director. He and his films have been recognized with the Peabody Award, two International Documentary Association Awards, five national Emmy nominations, and have been named for the Oscar shortlist. Many of Dr. Brummel's films have focused on civil rights and human rights issues.  After having his voice box removed in 2016 due to complications from radiation therapy, which he received for his head and neck cancer, Bill produced and directed Can You Hear My Voice? This film, which has not yet been publicly released, was shown on Saturday afternoon here, chronicles London's Shout at Cancer Choir, whose singers are living without voice boxes. It's amazing. The ASCO Annual Meeting attendees saw this on Saturday, and today what we're going to do is hear and see some of the clips from the movie and hear from the director himself.  Dr. Dave Johnson: We're also joined by Bill's physician Dr. Uttam Sinha who encouraged Bill to create this documentary about the psychosocial aspects of living without a voice box. Dr. Sinha is an Associate Professor of Otolaryngology at the University of Southern California where he tells us he spent the bulk of his life. He's also the Watt Family Endowed Chair for Head and Neck Cancer at his institution. Dr. Sinha's holistic medical approach was really truly critical, Bill tells us, to his both physical and emotional recovery following laryngectomy. So Bill, Dr.Uttam, welcome to Oncology, Etc.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Thank you very much. But one thing your audience should know and you should know is that after having a laryngectomy, speaking with a voice prosthesis, we lose the ability to laugh out loud. So, Pat and Dave, if you happen to tell a joke or say anything funny, know that I'm laughing inside.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: I think Dave and I think that most of the people that listen to our podcasts probably have had laryngectomies because we hear no laughter at all from anything we say. So, Bill, we're really here today to talk about your documentary. And we're going to show a few clips. But before we show the first clip, can you set this up for us?  Mr. Bill Brummel: This clip sets up the choir and the premise of the film. We follow the choir as they prepare for the most ambitious concert they have ever attempted. So it's really just setting up the premise.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Now this is extraordinary. So if you could run the first clip for us. Appreciate it.  [Clip starts playing]  Speaker 1: I'll remember quite well, when I first suggested let's form a choir. They responded with laughter and surprise and disbelief.  Speaker 2: It just seemed ridiculous that you would expect a group of  people with no voice boxes to stand up and sing in a choir. It didn't seem realistic. But Thomas had confidence that we could do some things. We went along with his mad scheme. And then one day was sort of now, what about a concert? What?  [Jazz playing]  Speaker 3: Well, the people in the choir are just normal people.  Speaker 4: I really admire the courage that it's kind of taken to come through all of their treatment.  Speaker 5: After all the stuff they'd gone through, they're able to turn that into something creative and artistic. That's really, really impressive.  Speaker 2: The concept is something new. It's almost a defiance, which is what people need, is to be defiant. Was that a F sharp I sang or what was it? You know, it doesn't matter.  Speaker 6: Most of them never read poetry before. Most of them never sang before. Most of them never were on stage before. And they were going to put on a show. And they're going to add this other two or three layers of emotional vulnerability.  Speaker 1: All right. Everyone, just like we prepared. We know what we're doing and we're going to enjoy ourselves. Yeah?  Speaker 6: We're doing a concert. People have paid money to come and see us. The adrenaline rush is incredible. I can't describe it really. I never thought I would do something like this.  [Applause]  [Clip ends]  Dr. Dave Johnson: Tell us a little bit about how this film came about. Obviously, you had a personal connection to it. But give us a little bit of background information, if you will.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, about nine months after my laryngectomy and after getting through some of the emotional and psychological problems that a lot of people who've had the surgery experience, and we'll go into that later on, I went to an appointment with Dr. Sinha, a regular scheduled appointment. And out of the blue, he suggested that I make a documentary about the psychosocial aspects of recovering from and living with a laryngectomy. Now my first thought was stick to medicine, doc. I'm the professional here. Just kidding. It was an excellent idea. But why on Earth did you suggest that?  Dr. Uttam Sinha: We never get to see the psychosocial aspect or the challenges or the suffering they go through, and most importantly, the head and neck cancer is not so well known in the society, unfortunately. So all my life, in my 25 years of practice, I always tried to promote head and neck cancer awareness in our society. One day I told my friends, 'I need to raise money for research for head and neck cancer.' So they asked me, 'What is head and neck cancer?' I said, 'This is head, this is neck – cancer of this area is called head and neck cancer.  So anyway, so that was one of the driving forces then to create awareness within the society and also how the head and neck cancer patient live after going through the treatment and surviving the cancer.  Mr. Bill Brummel: When Dr. Sinha suggested it, it was an excellent topic. But I knew I needed a story to illustrate it. So right after the appointment, I went home, fired up Google. And very quickly, I discovered the Shout at Cancer choir on a website. Shout at Cancer is a London-based nonprofit charity, that among other things, uses some breathing techniques and singing techniques to improve the vocal outcomes for laryngectomy. Now, I knew that if I could get all the pieces in line, that this would be a great way to produce the film that I wanted to produce, that of a group of people who've undergone a life-altering surgery, and all the hardships and drama that goes with that, but still leading a meaningful and productive lives in a very entertaining fashion.  Dr. Dave Johnson: There's some really extraordinary people in this film from the Shout at Cancer choir. How did you happen to select the specific individuals within that choir group?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, I took two production trips to the UK after we found funding and after I got the choir on board. I took two pre-production trips to the UK and went to every choir member's home individually and met with them and their spouses. Now, they all have compelling stories. But for reasons of time, I couldn't have personal profiles on all of them. But I eventually settled on five. And I knew even then, that only four would probably be included in the film. I say that they have compelling stories. I think I could have done a Netflix limited series 10 episodes, one on each choir member.  Dr. Dave Johnson: I think you should consider doing that.  Mr. Bill Brummel: That might be too late to do that. But they're really excellent and articulate and all have slightly different stories.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: You told their stories. And again, for those who haven't listened to the documentary, I really encourage you to do this when this comes out. But just I have a question. You've done so many different documentaries about so many important things over the years. Do you think you would have done this documentary had you not had a laryngectomy?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Definitely not. A laryngectomy was not even on my radar. I don't think I knew what it was before I was faced with having it. So no, I definitely wouldn't have done that.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: It really is a terrific service that you've done. You've helped so many people. Dr. Sinha, there may be a listener or two that listens to the podcast that is not a physician. Can you explain just in lay terms what a laryngectomy is and what it means and the process behind it?  Dr. Uttam Sinha: So, as you know, that larynx is an organ that produces sound. It doesn't produce speech. This a misconception within in our society that the patient undergoing laryngectomy they cannot talk. A laryngectomy patient, they talk well, but the patient when I remove a portion of the tongue for a partial glossectomy, then they have a hard time to speak because speech is produced within the oral cavity.  So a laryngectomy is basically, the removal of the voice box removing the trachea from the esophagus so that they can breathe well and also they don't aspirate because that's a big challenge. Aspiration pneumonia, is a consequence to fibrosis induced by radiation.  So early on in our practice at Keck School of Medicine, 25 years ago, we started this program where we decided to do neuromuscular electrical stimulation swallowing therapy to reduce the fibrosis so that there'll be less chance of aspiration, and aspiration-related pneumonia. So the laryngectomy we perform, especially in Bill's case, he's a cancer survivor, but he had a hard time breathing and talking and also mild aspiration. So that's why we had to do a laryngectomy where we remove the voice box, and that improved his overall quality of life.  Mr. Bill Brummel: I remember as my breathing difficulties increased, Dr. Sinha advised me that a laryngectomy was in my future. And like I said, I didn't even know what it was. But he advised me that my quality of life would improve in the long term. But I was in denial. So I stalled. I didn't have it when he first advised that I have it.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Here at ASCO, we have 30,000 to 40,000 people there, many of them are cancer survivors, and I'm thinking about when we think about most cancer survivors, Dave is one of them, and we'll talk about that in a little bit, most of them fit in with the crowd. The cancer survivors with laryngectomies something that doesn't. This is something that not only have you survived it, but you have the wounds to show for this. Can you tell us a little bit about that and briefly the thought processes of 'Listen, someone's going to take out my voice box. I'm a director. I need to have this.' I'm sure you stalled making this decision. And what was the final tipping point for you to have this done?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, as my condition got worse and worse, it was really hard to speak. And it was really hard to breathe. At times, my wife could hear my labored breathing from the other rooms of the house. I couldn't even climb maybe three or four stairs without getting winded. And then I remember the date of March 10th of 2016. I went to another appointment with Dr. Sinha. And I don't think I got two sentences out before he interrupted me and said rather firmly and with a good sense of urgency, 'Bill, we have to do the surgery now.'  He was obviously concerned that I would have a breathing emergency at home or in the market, paramedics will be called in, they do an emergency trach on me. I knew that Dr. Sinha would do a much better job than a paramedic. But I remember sitting in that exam room with Dr. Sinha and my wife, and the Dr. Sinha was basically telling me I was risking my life if I didn't have the surgery. My wife was worried sick. And although I was frustrated, I couldn't come up with any more excuses. So I said, 'Yes, let's do the surgery.'  Dr. Sinha wanted to admit me right then and there, and not send me home, but the OR was booked on the next day. So Dr. Sinha, bless his heart, called an OR to come in to do the surgery on a Saturday. I was the only one in the recovery room or the pre-op room. And I remember that when we arrived at the hospital, I think we have a clip of our kids, my wife, and I, we were sitting in the admissions waiting room. And my wife got out her cell phone and asked if she could record my natural voice, although wheezy and weak, one last time. And this is the 35 seconds.  [Recording starts playing]  Frances Fitzgerald: Okay. What's happening today?  Mr. Bill Brummel: It's 5:30 in the morning, March 12th, 2016. And today, I'm giving away my vocal cords. And walk out of here, hopefully within a few days, with voice prosthesis and a new voice. Although I won't be able to test the voice for several weeks, I'll have to be silent, which will please many people around me. So that is what is happening. Last time you'll hear this voice. So to all of you, I love you. Thank you for all your support and prayers. Here we go.  [Recording stopped]  Dr. Dave Johnson: So I'm sure that that probably brings back some very emotional memories to you, Bill, and as Pat asked, post-operatively, what did you think about your future? What was your psychological state at that time? And how did you feel physically?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, physical recovery from the surgery was hard. And I vacillate by saying it was hard and it's awful, but it was physical recovery. But worse yet, I was saddled with insecurity and fear and doubt. People who have had the surgery can often lose confidence. They can sometimes retreat from society and withdraw into a world where we don't have to be seen in public. But when we do that, lonesomeness and depression are sure to follow. There were times I found it easier to isolate myself rather than navigate. I didn't want to go out. I didn't want people to see me. And I got depressed. It was just natural. Losing your natural voice is really traumatic. From the time we learn to speak, much of how we perceive ourselves is wrapped up in the unique tone of our voices. It expresses laughter and happiness. And with that gone, many patients really struggle with anxiety, self-doubt, and doubting their self-identity.  Dr. Dave Johnson: So, Dr. Sinha, is that a common reaction amongst your patients post-surgery?  Dr. Uttam Sinha: Yes, it's fairly common. That's why I started 16 years ago with my colleagues a survivorship program to support the psychosocial aspect of these patients. Whenever we can, we mentor the newly diagnosed patient with the established patient. Bill has done many, many mentoring for those patients who underwent laryngectomy after his laryngectomy. And I'm so grateful that our patients are so supportive to each other for the whole organization. So yes, this is very common and that's why we always talk about not just the physical but psychosocial aspects of our health. And also in our practice, we always try to promote not only the health of the patient but also health of the caregivers and the family to improve health. I think it depends on all four dimensions of health, which is the WHO definition of health, the best state of physical, mental, spiritual wellbeing, and not a mere absence of a disease process.  Dr. Dave Johnson: You mentioned the family. We want to get back to that in a moment. I think we have a clip from Sara. She was one of the patients that was featured in his film, and there's a wonderful clip. I want to get to that in just a moment. But I just have an important question to ask Dr. Sinha. Was Bill a good patient?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Was I a good patient?  Dr. Uttam Sinha: I have to think about that.  Dr. Dave Johnson: That's what I thought. We'll watch this clip while you think about that.  [Video clip playing]  Sara Bowden-Evans: I have two vivid memories of those moments just before going down to theater and having the realization that when I came back out, I wasn't going to be the same person. I would never be me again because they would taken my personality which would mean my voice. And then when I came around, I couldn't call for help. And that was so frightening, really scary.  That was pretty awful actually coming to terms with all of this. I lost all my confidence and didn't want to speak. You can sound very angry all the time, even when you're not. I didn't want anybody else to really see me or hear me and all the other things to contend with as well, not being able to swallow properly and losing all my taste with radiotherapy, suddenly gone. I think the loss of laughter is one of the most difficult things for me. So it's just one thing after another after another and it just made me angry all the time.  Speaker 7: Emotional changes were quite dramatic. She was very, very moody at times. She just felt that everybody was staring at her. And it just changed her personality.  Speaker 8: We know from evidence that people who've had a laryngectomy can be much more likely to experience anxiety, depression, social withdrawal that can have a really important impact on relationships.  Speaker 7: The emotional side is the hardest part of caregiving. That's part of a relationship. You take the bad times with the good times.  Sara Bowden-Evans: I know that I wasn't a very good patient because I know that there were times when I was really horrible to him because I was dealing with my situation, and I took it out on him. But he's still here. He stayed with me regardless.  [Video clip stopped]  Dr. Pat Loehrer: As you watch this film, you realize what a remarkable human being Sara is. She's a writer, she's a poet, and even the title of your documentary comes from her.  Mr. Bill Brummel: I stole it from her.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, it's extraordinary.  Mr. Bill Brummel: It's one of the poems she wrote and we use in the film.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: The question I'd asked Dr. Sinha, if you don't mind just following up on this, when a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, as my wife was, there's this wonderful support community, and they even have a color of their own. And the women get together and they have runs and they do all the stuff. Similarly for several other cancers. I think with head and neck cancer, the inclination, I think, as Bill mentioned earlier, is to be isolated and almost withdraw yourself. This was a unique group of individuals that got together for this project. We'll hear about it more. But how common is it for laryngectomy patients to actually bind together? Or do they typically fight this battle alone?  Dr. Uttam Sinha: So they feel very isolated, no question, and depressed. That's why it's very important to have that kind of support system. Head and neck cancer is very unique. Most other cancers, squamous cell carcinoma, the same cancer when it happens in the lung, and you remove half of the lung, nobody would know and person's quality of life would not be compromised.  On the other hand, if same squamous cell carcinoma happens in the head and neck area, it compromises quality of life because all the function that makes us human beings - speech, swallowing, hearing, balance, smell, taste, all those things happen in this area. So when this area is damaged, whether by cancer itself or treatment related, that causes tremendous depression as their functional status goes down, and also they get isolated because they cannot go to the society freely, like to go to a restaurant and feeding himself with a G-tube with the rest of their friends or family are eating by their mouth. So that's quite depressing. In fact, I have patients, couple of patients who committed suicide because they were G-tube dependent. So head and neck cancer in that regard is very unique compared to other cancers.  Mr. Bill Brummel: I would say, to just add one point in regards to Sara and other women who have a laryngectomy, obviously, we don't have a lot of breakage in our voice. Our voices are very low. And it's really the same for women as it is for men. But men's typical voices are lower and women's are not. So that is a factor in their emotional recovery. They really don't sound how they used to when speaking with a voice prothesis or through an electrolarynx. So it's really difficult for women.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: As humans, we think in the past and the future, we go back and forth, but you've had a life as a very successful film producer, director. And I think in many ways, this is probably one of the most unforgiving professions for any kind of disability, whether it's even putting on some weight or having an accident. But tell me a little bit about your life before laryngectomy and after laryngectomy. How has this changed your life as a professional? What has happened?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well before even my laryngectomy, before cancer, I was originally diagnosed in 1997 with tonsil cancer. It was treated by neck dissection, not by Dr. Sinha, and seven weeks of radiation antidotes over wide fields. I had been in television production for about 10 years prior to that. And I was doing mostly silly reality shows, or music video shows, stuff that didn't have really any substance to it. I had started my own production company about a year before, but after my cancer diagnosis, I really thought to myself that if, God forbid, the cancer comes back and my life is cut short, do I want to spend my days, my effort in terms of my work life producing shows with no substance. And I said, 'No, I don't want to do that. I want to produce shows that feed the soul as much as the wallet.' Unfortunately, 20 years after that, my soul got a lot better than my wallet. But I wouldn't change it for the world. But having cancer, having that diagnosis definitely changed the trajectory of my career. I wanted to have a legacy and something that my children would be proud of.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Just a follow-up question, I had a very good friend of mine who had a glioblastoma. After his diagnosis, he said he learned things about friends. He said, there were three kinds of friends. There were these friends who were the loyal friends who he'd always had, who really were with him. There were the people that he had thought were friends that just disappeared. And then there was a third group of people who we never ever dreamed would be friends, but they came out of nowhere to become new friends for him. So reflect a little bit on that. Does that resonate at all with you?  Mr. Bill Brummel: It definitely resonates. After my laryngectomy, and I went through this period of emotional difficulty, I was still one of the fortunate ones. I was blessed to have a supportive network that included family and friends, others, colleagues aided my recovery. And obviously, the medical team at Keck Medicine of USC, a lot of them became my friends and are still my friends. So they came out of the woodwork. My laryngectomy buddies are close friends. We have a supportive group that meets two times a month. They become real good friends. I can't imagine my life without them. But Dr. Sinha talked about his supportive care. It was really important to me. He's always preached about a hollistic response approach to health that includes traditional medicine, exercise, nutrition, physical therapy, mindfulness, and a bunch of other things, occupational therapy, speech therapy. To varying degrees, I embraced each of those modalities. But back to your original question, certainly, some friends fell off the map. I made new ones, the family and friends that I had, the relationships became really strong and a really important and critical part of my life.  Dr. Dave Johnson: That certainly resonates with my own experience as a cancer survivor as well. And you've mentioned your family more than a few times. I'm confident that they were a very important part of that support system. Could you speak to that a bit?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, they understood what I was going through. And if they didn't understand, they asked questions. They didn't ignore the elephant in the room. My wife, as a caregiver, I really don't know what I would have done without her after my laryngectomy. She was changing all my dressings, cleaning out the stoma, stuff that I assume if I was alone, I could have done it, but I didn't want to. I didn't want any part of it. So she got me the physical recovery. And then she started getting me the emotional recovery.  When I was feeling sorry for myself and sitting at home, she very politely kicked me out of the house. And she said, 'If you want a cup of coffee, you get it.' I would drive down to Starbucks. It took me three months to speak because the swelling wasn't going down. But she kicked me out of the house and said 'Go to Starbucks' And I would just write on my phone my order and show it to them. And that seems like a very easy thing to do, but it was a big step for me.  But it also started me thinking, well, maybe people are going to stare. But it seems like most people are understanding. And that's been my experience. I get stared at a lot all the time. And when I speak, people turn their heads. But most people are really understanding and want to help. In fact, they might even take the extra step for me that they wouldn't for some other person.  Dr. Uttam Sinha: We established a caregiver support group, Coffee with Caregivers, and Frances is the president.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Frances, my wife, yes, she facilitates the weekly meetings.  Dr. Dave Johnson: Well, there's so many rich aspects of your film. For those who have not seen it, you really do need to see this film. But there are a couple of areas that really resonated with me and reflected my experience, one of which we have a clip from this family. But I have a daughter, who was 10 at the time that I was diagnosed with lymphoma. And my wife and I did our best to shield her from the possibility that I might not survive that. In retrospect, I'm not sure we handled it quite the right way. But you have a clip from Pug and his wife, Kat, and their daughter, Lily. And I think it so reflects my own personal experience with my daughter and her reaction to me. So maybe you might want to just comment on that before we show the clip.  Mr. Bill Brummel: In the pre-interviews I did and selected a choir member for shooting, I developed an outline of what I thought the segment with life would look like. And you know when you do documentaries, you had to be able to change it at a moment's notice. So I had three interviews with Pug and Kat and came up with a sweet story that involves just them. When we recorded the interview, I was just blown away by Pug's daughter, 12-year-old Lily, and completely changed the focus of Pug's presence in the film to illustrate the impact that a cancer diagnosis and a laryngectomy has on families.  [Video Clip Playing]  Interviewer: When your dad got the laryngectomy, how did you deal with it?  Lily: I think I was probably more upset than dad seemed because I thought he was really going to die.  Pug Halliday: It's hard because we were always honest with Lily. But no matter how many times we said it was going to be all right, you know, you were worried, weren't you?  Kat: Basically after the operation, Pug had a lot of black, like Frankenstein stitching and drains and tubes. And Lily hadn't really seen that sort of thing before. Because she was younge,. I didn't want her to be frightened, so I waited and I spoke to Pug. 'When shall I bring her up?' And he said, 'Why don't you take a photo?'  Pug Halliday: The drain's around, so that would be five, seven days after my operation.  Mr. Bill Brummel: And Lily, so that didn't scare you, the photo?  Lily: No, because he was—well, I think that yeah, it scared me a little bit, but in that photo, he's like really happy, so-  Pug Halliday: By the time when we asked Lily, she said, 'You were smiling and had both thumbs up.' So, you were reassured a bit by that, weren't you?  Lily: Yeah.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Lily, what did you do to try and make your dad feel better during his recovery?  Lily: I made tea for him.  Pug Halliday: Yeah, you came and you read me stories instead the other way around.  Lily: I read you stories, and I made him lots of things as well. Like, I don't know, like little books where he was really amazing.  To you, my favorite person in the world.  You are the best.  You're my inspiration.  I love your facial hair and your mustache presentation.  When you were ill, feeling depressed,  I knew you'd make it because you're the best.  You're kind.  You're brave.  You're funny, too.  I'm so happy I have you.  I can't believe that you're my dad.  It turns out that you're not so bad.    [Giggles]  Pug Halliday: I keep these by my bed. And when she turns into a teenager and hates me, I shall read them regularly.  [Video clip stopped]  Dr. Dave Johnson: If that poem doesn't melt your heart, you have a heart of stone.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: What you can't appreciate on a podcast this incredible poem. It's just incredible.  Mr. Bill Brummel: He's a marvelous character. You know, you're mentioning your daughter, my daughter was eight years old. And my son was five-and-a-half in terms of when I had my original cancer diagnosis. In fact, we celebrated his sixth birthday in the hospital. On the last day of my radiation treatment I had to be hospitalized three times because I couldn't keep anything down. But my daughter commented, this was when she was graduated from high school, I think, that she really thought that I was going to die. And we said no such thing. In fact, like Pug, we tried to reassure her that my tonsil cancer diagnosis was not life-threatening. But in her mind, she remembers it as being a case that my dad might die.  Dr. Dave Johnson: Yeah, my daughter reacted the same way. And she kept a diary at the time. When we went back and read her diary, she actually wrote, 'My dad is going to die.' Yeah. The other clip that really stood out to me also involved a poem, and it comes from Sara. Sara is a real star in this. It's a poem to her husband, Nigel. It's a cancer survivor's reflection on how they dealt with their cancer and their spouse during the intensity of the treatment. I wonder maybe if you could make a few comments and maybe we could show that clip.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, definitely. The spouse or partner, the impact can be great. And in Sara's case, in her words, she took out her frustrations on Nigel. And Nigel was a great caregiver and just dealt with it and never stopped loving her. Interesting thing about this poem, it was not a poem for the choir. It was after we finished shooting one of the rehearsals. I was talking to Sara, and she casually mentioned that, “Oh, I've written a poem to Nigel, but I'm scared to show it to him. Like he hasn't seen it or heard it.” And being a film producer, I said, “Wait. Don't read it to him. Don't show it to him.” We were scheduled to go out and shoot the segment with her at her home in a week or two. So I said, 'If you would read it on camera, I would love you forever.' I would have loved her forever anyway. So what you see, it's almost one take of her reading the poem to Nigel. And none of us in the room, of the crew and me, Nigel, had ever read the poem. And Nigel had never heard of the poem.  Dr. Dave Johnson: This is very real and in many ways, raw. I think it really illustrates that relationship. Again, not to talk about my own illness, but I felt the same way Sara did.  [Video clip playing]  Sara Bowden-Evans: So I need to read you something.  Nigel: You need to read me something?  Sara Bowden-Evans: Yeah.  Nigel: Go on then.  Sara Bowden-Evans: I wrote another poem that is for you.  Nigel: For me?  Sara Bowden-Evans: Yeah. I'm going to try to read it very easily now.  Nigel: When did you write this? Kept that very secret.  Sara Bowden-Evans: Because I don't know how else to say what I needed to say.  Nigel: Okay.  Sara Bowden-Evans:  I'm sorry for the pain I caused.  I'm sorry for the hurt.  You were always in the firing line  To take the brunt of course  It's not that I'm actively directing it to you.  It's just you're the one that's always there.  And that's the truth.    They say we always hurt the ones we love.  And there's a reason.  And that's because the ones you love the most know all your feelings.  You've suffered with me.  All the pain, the sadness, and my darkest days.  You forgive whatever nastiness I throw.  But I don't know how to ever repay all the things you've done,  apart from writing down in words.  Nigel: That was so beautiful. Thank you. That's amazing.  [Video clip stopped]  Dr. Dave Johnson: I know that there are no words that can describe that.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Yes. Sara really is the emotional center of the film. And from a producer's standpoint, I don't mean to sound crass, but you always can get behind a person cry on camera.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: When I was watching the movie, though today, could you get behind me because I was crying.  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, I usually, at any public screenings, and because of COVID, there hasn't been a lot of them, but I try and view the film from the back of the audience. And I'm scouring the audience to make sure they're laughing or crying at the appropriate places. And they usually are.  Dr. Dave Johnson: So Bill, what message would you like for oncologists to take away from your documentary?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, very simply. It's the message I would like oncologists to hear and implement, and a lot of them do, but it's to treat the patient and not just the disease. And that's it in a really simple form. The psychosocial consequences of any cancer diagnosis are challenging, and especially as Dr. Sinha said, in head and neck patients, where the treatments often leave a patient disfigured in a noticeable and visible way. Shame, anxiety, and depression are common enemies. Support the psychosocial health of your patients. And I'm convinced that if you do that, their physical condition will improve.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well said. We certainly can't let you out of here without showing a clip from the choir's performance at the concert that you filmed. In fact, there were several, several songs. I think we're going to show one of them there. But can you tell us a little bit about the film distribution plans, the business of this, how will the public be able to see this film? What's happening on that end?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Well, we have a commitment from PBS if I want to show it on the PBS network of stations. We're aiming for a 2023 broadcast, probably spring. Currently, I really want to maximize the impact the film will have with the general cancer community. And for the last six months or so, we've initiated impact and outreach campaigns. And by that I mean we're doing branded screenings and webinars and speaking and showing films at conferences. We're aiming at the cancer advocacy and support communities, universities, medical schools, clinician associations. We've done a bunch so far. We're doing more. We're also trying to partner with corporations or nonprofits to bring these screenings to cancer advocacy and organizations that might not be able to afford a screening. And we're looking for underwriters with the PBS podcast. But the film will get out there. I just really, for the time being, want to concentrate on the cancer community.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: That's terrific. So we're going to show a one of the performance clips. Do you want to set that up for us, there.  Mr. Bill Brummel: COVID shut down the choir. So every time I see a performance, it makes me long for more and more performances. But this clip is as rendition of Ain't Got No, which was popularized by Nina Simone in the ‘60s. It was originally written for the musical 'Hair', but one of the unique things about the choir is that they at times rewrite lyrics to songs to make them more illustrative or the lyric to explain the full impact of having a laryngectomy. So this is the song we're playing last, it's the finale of the concert and the film. The first half of the song speaks to all the things we've lost by not having a voice box. Second half, which we'll see, speaks to all the things we still have, can still do in life. Sara helped adapt the words. It was a group effort.  [Video clip playing]  Singer: [singing] What have I got? Why am I alive anyway? Yeah. What have I got? Nobody, nobody can take it away. I…  Choir: [singing] got my hair, got my head, got my brains, got my ears, got my eyes, got my nose, I got my mouth. I got my smile.  Got my health, got my tongue, got my teeth to make these sounds, in my head I change my breath, I got control. I got voice. I got poems, I got friends, got my songs, got my limbs, got my heart, got my soul, got my pride.  I got my voice.  Opera Singer: [singing] What have they got? Sing, what have they got?  Choir: We've found our voice.  [Applause]  [Video clip stopped]  Mr. Bill Brummel: Obviously, the woman that sang at the end did not have a laryngectomy. She's a professional opera singer.  Dr. Dave Johnson: I think I can safely say, for all of us here today, that we thank you for producing such an inspirational film, and one that really I think captures the emotions that go along with, one, being diagnosed with cancer, two, going through treatment, three, experiencing survivorship and the support. And Dr. Sinha, to you, thank you for inspiring Bill to doing that.  We have maybe just a couple of minutes if there any questions from the audience. We haven't received any via the text. So if there's any questions, there's a microphone here. And as an added incentive, if you ask a question, you get a free Oncology etc. t-shirt.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Better yet, we may not give them. That might be a great incentive.  Dr. Dave Johnson: Don't trample one another running to the microphone. I see, there are people who want their t-shirt. So please.  Question 1: Thank you so much. That was a beautiful film. I'm a nurse, and it's a great inspiration. And I'm sure it's a great inspiration to the patients. Are there any similar organizations in the United States doing a choir?  Mr. Bill Brummel: Not that I know of to the extent that Shout at Cancer does. There's several laryngectomy support groups or laryngectomy clubs around the United States. And every once in a while, you'll see one that the patients get together and sing for fun or they do a Christmas performance at some event. But Shout at Cancer takes it really to an unheard of level. I've never heard of anybody doing this in the world as much as they do in terms of the original writing, the professional musicianship, the rehearsal. So I'm not aware of any that take it to that extent.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: I just want to say from my own behalf, we're in this world. The best thing you can do at the end of your life is to say that you made a difference. And this film, what you have done has made a difference. As long as I have the capacity to remember, I will remember you and I will remember this film. So thank you very much.  Mr. Bill Brummel: You're welcome. And thank you for saying that. I'm touched. And that exactly was the point. I think that was the point when Dr. Sinha said, 'You should do a documentary about the psychosocial effects of having a laryngectomy recovery and living with a laryngectomy.' I don't know that he thought I'd do it to this extent, but that is the message I want to inspire people who've had a laryngectomy, and I want the world to know and to relate better to people and understand people.  Dr. Uttam Sinha: That gives me a lot of joy in what it means to recognize leaders like you and the society of head and neck cancer patients. And Bill has been a driving force for me to stay in head and neck cancer surgical oncology care.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: The world's a better place because of both of you.  Dr. Dave Johnson: Yeah, for sure.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: For those that were here in the audience and those at home, don't forget, you can claim credit for this. Provide feedback. And if you could, I really would like to have a little bit about who's the best-looking podcaster, if you could.  Dr. Dave Johnson: I think that's critically important. And I appreciate Dr. Sinha's recommendation. It's made me rethink my take two aspirin and call me in the morning recommendations. So I'll have to be more productive in the future.  But this brings us to the end of this podcast. I don't know if any of you in the audience have listened to our previous Oncology, etc. podcasts. We hope that you did. And we hope that you will. As we've said at the end of each of our podcasts, we welcome ideas. We will literally talk about almost anything oncology related or not. That's why we have the 'etc.' on and it's been a great joy for Pat and me. Both of us enjoy doing this. We've been great friends for over 40 years. And it's a wonderful way of cementing the friendship.  So thank you for all of you who are here in the audience. It'll take about an hour to file out with this large crowd so please be careful as you move to the doors. Thank you.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   

In part two of this two-part ASCO Education podcast episode, host Dr. Jeremy Cetnar (Oregon Health & Science University) continues the conversation with Drs. Lauren Abrey and Jason Faris, whose careers have criss-crossed academia and industry. They share words of advice for trainees today. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of the ASCO Educational Podcast episode focused on career choices and transitions. My name is Jeremy Cetnar. I'm a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. In Part 1, Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris about their motivations for pursuing medicine, and how they arrived at the different positions they've had. Today, we'll further explore career fulfillment, maximizing impact on patient care, and differences between working in academia and industry. Dr. Faris, what have you learned from the different roles you have had, and what aspects of your current work do you find most rewarding? Dr. Jason Faris: So, there's a lot to discuss here. In my academic and patient care roles, I felt extremely privileged to forge strong bonds with patients and their families, to offer support, counseling and hope in the context of making really difficult, challenging decisions... to rejoice in the individual victories, whether that was clean scans and normal tumor markers after adjuvant therapy for Stage III colon cancer, using the neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and watching them go to resection, helping to maintain quality of life by addressing key symptoms that a cancer patient unfortunately must endure, and providing emotional support when things do not go as hoped. Whereas the latter times in GI cancer patients are unfortunately all too common. And the moments or clinic visits where the cancer has recurred, or the treatments aren't working really do take their emotional toll on clinicians. I'll just say I took many of those losses personally. And as a general rule in medicine, I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve, which can be a mixed blessing. But that shared sense of purpose and the many times where you were able to offer something meaningful to patients and families provided real fulfillment and joy. I think at the time of the two transitions I've had, this was fundamentally the most difficult part for me, which was relinquishing these direct patient care interactions. So, another highly rewarding part of my role in academia was working with colleagues to open clinical trials or conduct clinical research. I had opportunities to be mentored by or collaborate with multiple people Ted Hong, Dave Ryan, Chin Wu, Jeff Clark, David Ting, and others at Mass General, as well as Lionel Lewis, Konstantin Dragnev, and Steve Leach at Dartmouth. Treating patients on clinical trials was always a stressful enterprise but highly rewarding, and I had the chance to be part of some really amazing groundbreaking trials at MGH, in some cases witnessing breathtaking responses in patients who were out of treatment options, in some cases for many months. Another highly rewarding aspect of my role in academia or my roles in academia involved all of the many opportunities to engage in teaching and mentoring, whether that's with medical students, residents, or fellows, where the enthusiasm for helping patients and learning was always infectious. Finally, I'd be remiss not to mention the wonderful nurse practitioners that I've worked with like Patty Tammaro at Mass General, with whom I cared for many GI cancer patients for years, and Elizabeth McGrath at Dartmouth, whose wisdom and dedication to patient care was really inspiring. On the industry side, on the NIBR side, I've had the opportunity to work on novel therapeutics that are making a bench to bedside transition from a drug candidate to a first in human Phase 1 trial, which to me is a thrilling, complex, and highly fulfilling endeavor that contributes critical knowledge to advance the field. And in the best of cases, identifies therapies that has the potential, that have the potential to alter the prognosis for thousands of future patients. As a clinician or clinical investigators, those times where your patients are responding to their treatment, whether it's on or off a clinical trial are wonderful and so incredibly rewarding. And I would argue that there's a similar phenomenon in running trials in industry, where there's nothing quite as magical as having a cadre of patients who had run out of treatment options, enrolled to a clinical trial designed based on compelling science, go on to experience sustained and significant responses. I absolutely love the commitment to patients and to follow the science, the collaborations among our teams, and interactions with our academic colleagues which I really treasure. I'm part of a team whose responsibility is to ensure the development of a clinical protocol to safely evaluate the potential of that therapeutic, carefully monitor for adverse events, evaluate the emerging pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, and most fulfilling of all, begin to observe responses in patients whose cancers had progressed on standard of care therapies. So I think the chance to have an opportunity to explore new therapeutics that might impact the eventual treatment of thousands of people with cancer is what keeps me engaged and fulfilled. It's been a wonderful opportunity and applies the clinical skills and patient focus from my prior roles and combines this with the resources and expert teams to run and analyze clinical trials. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: If I can opine a little bit and ask you guys some philosophical questions. I think what I'm hearing today and what I've heard from other folks who have made that transition is that in industry versus academics, you work in a team, and you're evaluated as a team. And that's very different than in academics. You're very much rewarded for, whether it's patient volume or number of papers or leadership. That seems to me like a very big difference in terms of academic versus industry. And I'm wondering if you guys can comment on that a little bit more. Then you guys also mentioned, at least you just mentioned this, Dr. Faris, is that some will also say that when you go into industry, you're able to just impact a much bigger population of folks rather than typically in an academic setting where you are working one on one with patients. And yes, you have your IETs and whatnot, but there's just a bigger vision. Would you say that those are two accurate differences that are fairly significant, Dr. Abrey? Dr. Lauren Abrey: Yes. You are certainly part of a team. But I think if we're honest, you're part of a team when you're in the hospital. So I ran the team of research nurses. I ran the fellowship program. I needed people to manage the patients who were in-patient and to help me look after the clinical trial conduct paperwork, etc. and so I think that does translate into the setup that you find when you move to industry. It may be a little bit that your personal success, and industry can get very sometimes focused on metrics, like what have you contributed? What has the team been successful? So you do need to think about how to set yourself up for success. If you're leading the team, how do you set the team up for success? To me, that doesn't feel terribly different than academic medicine, but I could see where it could be a change depending on what your role was in the academic world. So I think that's reasonable. The other part of what you said, I struggle with that sometimes. I feel like we tell ourselves, that we're impacting more patients. And I think that's true. If we get a drug approved, and potentially that drug is used, not only in the US, but across western countries, in Europe, potentially in China, you get a sense of that. But it's like how do you feel that? You feel the story of an individual patient. Sensing the scale can be hard. News media know this well. They often tell the story of a particular person in the Ukraine right now to try to help us understand the scale of the war, because otherwise, it's a little impossible to digest. So for me, that doesn't always resonate. I think it resonates when I go out and talk to the different physicians practicing in different parts of the world. And I think that has been an incredibly eye-opening experience for me being in the global organization, is seeing the impact well beyond the US, because I think most companies are very indexed on the US. And we understand US practice well, but I think understanding the impact we can have across the world is also really inspiring, humbling, challenging, and something I think we all have to contend with because it's not the same everywhere. So yes, no, and in between, that's where philosophical lives, so thank you. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Yeah. Well, that's a fascinating perspective, the international perspective. Very interesting. Dr. Faris, how about you? Dr. Jason Faris: I completely agree with Lauren. I think on the team question, I definitely feel like we worked on teams in academia as well, whether we're talking about the multidisciplinary groups that are needed to take care of GI cancer patients, which always involves multiple specialties. I think at MGH, in particular, we would tend to go see the patient as a group, which is a bit unusual, to try to get everyone's schedules aligned, to be able to go into the room together. But it really presented an opportunity for the patient and the families to ask questions of us as a group and hear any disagreement that's in the room between the providers right there. There's absolutely a ton of teamwork that goes into taking care of patients. But what you were alluding to, I think, is also right, which is your promotion, your opportunities for advancement are sometimes couched on or developed from accomplishments on the individual side. And I would say more so than is true in industry. I think that's correct as well. I mean, certainly there are multidisciplinary grants that I was a part of, of course, publications that had multiple authors to which I was a contributing author. Sometimes I was first or last author, sometimes I was in the middle, but contributing to the paper. So there was teamwork there, but no question that there's an element of individual accomplishment. How many first- and last-author publications do you have? What's the grant situation look like in terms of ability to supplement the RVUs that you need to generate your clinical…? There's no question that there's an element of that that's not a present to the same degree in an industry role. And I just wanted to speak to the impact side, because I also agree with what Lauren said here. I think the idea and the hope is that in industry, we have an opportunity to potentially affect the lives of many, many, many patients, thousands of patients potentially, with a given cancer type if a new therapy is a homerun and takes off and is approved. That's a huge draw and I think something that motivates all of us is to be a part of something like that. But of course, not every drug, far from it, unfortunately, is going to end up as an approved drug that impacts thousands of patients. So I think it requires some recognition of that fact and patience and continuing to work on multiple projects, and always under the prism of doing the right thing for the patients while those trials are open. And I think that's the key, as well as working on scientifically exciting projects, really proud to say in NIBR that we follow the science. If there's an indication to be explored, based on the science, it may not be the most common indication in cancer, but if the science leads us to that place, that's what we work on. I think that decision making gets tougher, obviously, as you move through the system into a later stage, more commercially informed decision. But I think and certainly on the early phase trials side, that's something that's really exciting. I think on the academic side, taking direct care of patients, you have incredible impact on individual patients, and there's a lot of individual patients. I think you have tremendous opportunity for impact there as well, and your impact can be measured by those that you mentor and teach as well, the committees that you serve on influencing other trials that may be open at your institution. So I would in no way suggest that the impact is less in academia. I don't think that's true at all. I think it's just a different approach. And it is true that if you're lucky enough to work on a program in industry that ends up being an approved drug, you can help thousands of future patients or your team has helped thousands of future patients. That's also true when you're on the academic setting, serving as a PI, contributing safety data and efficacy data, really giving the best information back to the sponsor that you can or maybe you're running your own investigator-initiated study that can change a standard of care down the road. So that's the homerun. That's kind of the Grand Slam of situations that might develop as a medical oncologist on either side of the divide. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Thank you. I'd like to shift gears just a little bit and ask you, for people who are deciding for a transition in their career, what are some characteristics or skills or other attributes that you think would make one successful in industry? What are some things that are really, really important to be successful? And that might be different than in an academic situation or not? I'm not sure. And maybe that's another question is, you know, what are some of the things that make people successful in a career in industry? Dr. Abrey? Dr. Lauren Abrey: So I think there are so many things that you can do in industry that depending on what your strength is, I think you have the opportunity to play to that. So again, I think if you are very entrenched in the science, and that is really what makes you want to get out of bed in the morning, being in the early research group, whether it's Novartis, Roche, other companies or small biotech, you can really dig in and spend time thinking and contributing in incredible ways. And if you're the person who is much more interested, perhaps in finding out, what's influencing the patterns of care and why people are using certain drugs or certain treatment paradigms, you could absolutely work on the absolute other end and work in medical affairs and be the person who's out there, who's the critical partner to whether folks at MGH, OHSU, major cancer centers around the world, to figure out how do we bring those two together. And I think the group in the middle typically, like the drug development group that's getting the approval, so running the large Phase 3 studies, that requires people who are in it a little bit for the long haul. Those tend to be large studies. They run over several years, you're constantly looking at the incoming data, and yet you're blind to the results. So you have to be pretty diligent while you're in that space and willing to just buckle down and work hard. But I think there are things for everyone. And I think it's a little bit similar to what I discovered when you went into medicine. Not everybody's going to be a cardiothoracic surgeon. Only a few of us end up in this weird oncology space. But I think it does give you the chance to reinvent yourself and explore a few things. So I wouldn't say you have to have something. I think probably what you should do is talk to a lot of people. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what a change to a career in industry is or means. And you probably don't know what you don't know. So call people like me or Jason or someone who's done it and talk to people, because I think that's probably the best way you can make an informed choice. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: What do you think, Dr. Faris? Dr. Jason Faris: Can I offer some advice? So are we in this kind of advice section? Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Absolutely. Please do. Dr. Jason Faris: Yeah. So I would say my advice to oncology trainees would be to keep an open mind and stay flexible. I've got a Wayne Gretzky quote that I'd like to bring into this here, which is 'You miss 100% of the shots that you never take'. And I feel like I've probably taken that flexibility to a bit of an extreme with my career path and transitions. But ultimately, it's really enabled me to experience diverse career opportunities that I might otherwise not have had the chance to really experience. I think sometimes there can be assumptions or negative stereotypes about moves from academia to industry. But my own personal experience, now twice, at NIBR has been overwhelmingly positive. I've learned a tremendous amount from both environments, which I think provides me with a different perspective on design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials and allows me to bring a patient-centric view into clearer focus in my industry role. I think it's also really critical to recognize that there are significant stressors and positives to each of these career paths. And they're not necessarily one way. I know multiple colleagues who have made a transition from academia to industry. Other colleagues like me who did return to clinical practice in a clinical investigator role or returning from industry to an academic lab, I've seen that happen multiple times, and multiple colleagues, of course, that have transitioned to other industry roles. So regardless of which path someone ultimately pursues, the real critical thing to me is to remember what brought us to medical school in the first place, which is a commitment and focus to patients above all else. I believe this can be achieved in many career options, direct patient care, teaching and mentoring, clinical investigator roles in the academic setting, or in industry by collaborating with academic colleagues and patient groups, focusing on programs that have high potential to advance treatment options for diseases with high unmet medical need. I happen to think GI cancers are the poster child for that, but you know, I'm a bit biased, and designing trials that are as patient-centric as possible. So that's the kind of advice that I would offer to people is not to think of these as mutually exclusive or there's only one way forward or if I make this decision, it's irreversible. I don't think any of those things are true. And I feel like I'm living proof. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey, back to you. Any advice? Dr. Lauren Abrey: I can only agree with Jason, and I know a number of people who've gone in both directions, including some who have been in pharma for quite a long time, and then make a decision to go back to patient care. Sometimes, I'm going to say, like as a final career chapter, but it has been a bit like that, including in countries where it's quite difficult to return to practice, that they need to go back and redo some training. So I think, move forward, do things that make you want to get out of bed in the morning, and that probably will change over the course of your career. But I think don't be afraid to try something because the worst thing that could happen—that's always a good question to ask yourself, right? What is the worst thing that could happen? If it doesn't work out, you can probably make another choice. I also think you should, you know, I already said talk to lots of people. But pay attention to that network that you have and nurture it, cultivate it, because some of those people in your network might become mentors at some point, might become advocates or sponsors at some point. And always, always, always take the opportunity to mentor somebody else, including if you're young, do some reverse mentoring. I have gotten some of my best mentoring from somebody that I agreed to mentor, but he really ended up reverse mentoring me. And he's actually now leading a very small biotech and you could argue has leapfrogged part of my career. And that's a fantastic dialogue that I get to have. So, great fun. We only go around this once. So have some fun while you're doing good things, too. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Ain't that the truth? And I'll tell you, this is a small world. It does feel like the more people you talk to, all of a sudden, we all are connected. And so I just want to thank you, Dr. Abrey, Dr. Faris, for your time today, for your perspective, your interesting stories. And to all the listeners, we appreciate you tuning into this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Dr. Jason Faris: Thank you very much.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In part two this ASCO Education Podcast episode, hosts Dr. David Johnson and Dr. Patrick Loehrer continue their conversation with Dr. Richard Pazdur, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence, focusing on his leadership and vision for improving cancer care worldwide. The conversation includes reflection on drug toxicities, approval processes, and complexity of clinical trials. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: Hi. I'm Pat Loehrer, the Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dr. Dave Johnson: And hi. I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Pat Loehrer: This is the second half of our Oncology, Etc. conversation with Dr. Rick Pazdur, who's the director of the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence. In Part 1, we chatted with Dr. Pazdur about his upbringing and his early career. Today, we're going to focus on his leadership and vision for improving cancer care worldwide. But first, we'll discuss how cancer has impacted his life personally.   I want to flash-forward. I had the pleasure of knowing Mary. And there was no question, if you had a problem in oncology, you would go to Mary and not Rick Pazdur when you were a house staff member. But moving forward a bit, I'm not sure if all the listeners know that Mary came down with ovarian cancer. Dave himself had cancer. My wife had breast cancer. It is incredibly hard to be an oncologist I think when your spouse or someone who's close to you has cancer, and particularly, being married to a medical oncology nurse. Maybe just share a little bit about that journey of being a husband of a- Dr. Richard Pazdur: Yeah. It is interesting because going back to the Rush story, the first patient that my wife and I had in common, and this is so ironic, was a patient with ovarian cancer. The last patient that we had in common was her, which is some ironic fate, so to speak. And the story began of her illness was right around Labor Day. We had gone to Chicago in February driving back from Chicago. I noticed that she kept on taking a whole bunch of Tums and then saying - Oh, I just got a lot of GI symptoms, and she went to see her gastroenterologist or GP and he said, ‘Oh, this is just, you know, indigestion.' And two weeks after that or not even that, she was in the hospital with a massive amount of ascites, needed an intensive care unit. It was readily apparent just on getting her CA 125 what she had and she wound up one day in debulking surgery and then IP chemotherapy, etc. I think something that I learned, and I think we knew from the very beginning that this was not going to be a curable illness, and how to deal with that on an emotional level. And I have to give my wife credit. She spared me a lot of the emotion because she was such a strong person. She made all of her own calls as far as what she wanted. She would ask me what I thought, but she would do her own research, she would go to her own doctors' appointments. She said, ‘You don't really need to come with me. I'm self-sufficient.' She was very much interested in helping other cancer patients, and after she died, I think one of the most cherished conversations I had was a group of women that came to me and said how much she helped them during their support group because she was a nurse. She knew she was dying. She had emotional maturity not to fall apart but to accept the inevitable in a very strong way. My wife was a very religious person, had gone to Catholic schools, really embraced religion during those terminal years basically. And I think that was a great sense of comfort to her. But it did teach me a lot of lessons when you take care of somebody that has cancer, and that is, what a bad job we do with drug toxicities. Drug toxicities to medical oncologists and especially the people at the FDA are numbered, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 1. These toxicities are tolerable, tolerable to who, so to speak. And how to manage these toxicities and how they interrupt your life is one of the lasting experience I have, which I always will remember. And that has been one of my roles recently is forming several programs that we have in the OCE to look at dosing, to look at what is this definition if the drug is tolerable or well-tolerated or if the toxicities could be managed. I always say, yeah, every toxicity could be managed, even death. You call the undertaker to manage it. So what do you really mean by that statement. But I think the issue of toxicity is an important one. And then also going on clinical trials and having people considering what you want to go on, what risk you want to take, and what is actually in the informed consent and how meaningful that is. Dr. Dave Johnson: Really glad you brought that up, Rick. That matches my own experience with lymphoma and going through chemotherapy. And as an oncologist, one would think I would know what the side effects are. I'd recounted them dozens and dozens of times to people over the years, but until you've actually experienced them either personally or up close as you did with Mary, it's impossible to fully understand. I'll give you one example. Fatigue. Everybody thinks they know what fatigue is, but until you've had chemotherapy-induced fatigue, the fatigue that never abates, you just don't understand what it is. It's debilitating in ways that are unimaginable to most people. So I'm sure that experience certainly shaped your view and your role at the FDA. Dr. Richard Pazdur: Correct. Dr. Dave Johnson: I wonder, if you might share, you initiated a number of programs recently, including programs to try to improve coordination and co-operation amongst the pharmaceutical companies. Could you speak to some of those programs for us? Dr. Richard Pazdur: I think one of my favorite programs is Project Orbis. Project Orbis is an idea I had when I was walking down the street. It just hit me. When I came to the FDA, one of the things I rapidly noticed is how isolated the FDA was, even from the rest from the regulatory agencies throughout the world. There was very little cross-fertilization there. So one of the very first things that I did was set up a monthly tele-conference first with the EMA, the European Medicines Agency, and then we ended on Health Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, you name it. And one of the things that became really apparent to me, we at the FDA got applications always first—always. That's obvious. You know why they had given it to us first? The money. That's where the finances are going to be. So we got the application first, and it could be 2 years, 18 months, 12 months, that these other countries, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, Israel, would get these applications. And I said, well, this isn't right, really, because these people, they have cancer. They have every right to get these medications as soon as possible, and also we have such a large agency. We have 80 to 100 oncologists that work there, and most of these agencies have one or two oncologists. So our expertise in oncology at the FDA is so much greater than these other regulatory agencies. How can we leverage that to help these other countries? So we started Project Orbis, and what it was is that companies come in and they submit an application and they simultaneously submit the same application to the countries that want to participate in the program. They are all preselected and have confidentiality agreements with each other. And we worked together on the applications, basically reviewing the applications. So we had many meetings, tele-conversations, telephone conversations with countries. So that expedites these drugs. This has really had a lasting impact because from a worldwide perspective, it's really promoted more rapid development of drugs and rapid approval of drugs, and that's important because that establishes sooner new standards of care that will impact future trials. So in addition to the humanitarian issue of improving healthcare for patients in these countries, it has an impact on the global clinical trial system by having new standards approved much faster and accepted by world authorities. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Let me just jump on that for a second, just to make a comment. Back when we were growing up, there would be like three to five drugs approved- Dr. Richard Pazdur: Yeah. Dr. Pat Loehrer: And today, it's like once a week, there's a new indication for oncologists. Dr. Dave Johnson: Our listeners have another question that might be appropriate to ask at this time. What is the most common mistake that drug companies make in their applications to the FDA or in the process of trying to get their drug approved? Is there a frequent mistake that you can advise them? Dr. Richard Pazdur: Well, they don't come and talk to us. That's number one. They want, not necessarily what the best registration pathway is, but what the quickest registration pathway is. And sometimes the quickest registration pathway, especially single arm trials, are not the best registrations pathway. So my advice is rather than playing games with the FDA, to put it in the vernacular, just do the right thing and say, what is the optimal information that patients need when I develop this drug. We're seeing a lot of problems now with various drugs where people are developing in a refractory disease setting a drug, and they plan on getting accelerated approval on a response rate. So they push and push the dose. And with a single arm study, you can't really evaluate safety that well. Everything is attributed to the drug, and they want to get the highest response rate. And they get it, and there's a confirmatory study, and the arm of the confirmatory study, the control arm may not be as toxic as theirs, and we're seeing a wave of drugs that now have inferior survival compared to controls, which probably is predicated upon, they got the wrong dose. And I think that is one of the major programs that we have, that we need to address is dosing in oncology, this ‘More is better, more is better,' and ‘Let's push the dose as high as possible.' More isn't even probably good in cytotoxic days, but certainly, not a good idea in targeted therapies and certainly not a good idea in biological therapy. So we've really got to think about dosing more, penetration of targets, what's the optimal dose rather than what's the highest dose. You know as well as I do, pharmaceutical companies want to go with the highest dose because the major hurdle is the demonstration of efficacy, even in a randomized study. So nobody wants to be blamed by saying, well, you spent $100 million on a Phase 3 study and it's negative because you used too low of a dose. But then at the end of the day, we don't have a really good tolerable dose, and it's really hard to go backwards and look at dosing after a drug was already approved because the efficacy study has already been done. Dr. Pat Loehrer: The other aspect of drug companies is not only getting the dosage there, but also the duration. There is motivation for money, and so patients are going to and- Dr. Richard Pazdur: Oh, count on that. Dr. Pat Loehrer: So it begs a question, and I know the FDA can't do this, but in other countries, there is a monetary review together with the toxicity review. Can you reflect a little bit about that to the best of your ability? Dr. Richard Pazdur: Well, even within our simpler agencies, they may communicate more than we do with CMS, but all oncology drugs that when they're approved are then paid for by CMS, okay? In these other countries, that is not so. They may get approval and then they have to go to these health assessment agencies that will decide and argue with the companies what the pricing of the drug is. I think it's a mistake, honestly, for the FDA to get into pricing. We have a hard enough time with efficacy and safety, and pricing is a very ephemeral concept because it could change on a dialing. Somebody could promise you, you should approve their drug because it's much cheaper on Monday, and on Friday, they could say, 'Oops, we made a mistake. We really think that this dose has to be X number of dollars.' And you could see competition hasn't worked well in oncology with seven PD-1 drugs approved, pricing has not really been of any movement here. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I'm sorry. Dave may have another question, but let me ask you this. Going back to the clinical trials and what industry asked you- the complexity of clinical trials is going up logarithmically compared to the way they were in the ‘70s and ‘80s. In many of the trials where we have to get all this data in order to soothe the FDA, what are your thoughts about simplifying clinical trials? Dr. Richard Pazdur: Oh yeah. I'm for it. I am for it. If you really look at it, these are not FDA requirements for the most part. The companies want them, all of this data because it's controlled. They don't want to be blamed at the end of the day for not capturing this data or that data. They have developed complicated bureaucracies, going back in my sociology days there, complicated bureaucracies to gather all of this data, the whole CRO industry to go out and pester you guys in practice by doing site visits. It's a complicated situation and it's really predicated a lot on the history and bureaucracies that have been built up and not money to strip away those bureaucracies for fear of failure, so to speak, of not catching something. Dr. Dave Johnson: So Rick, we're coming to the end of our time that we've scheduled. I actually have two questions for you. We've asked all of our previous guests, the first of which would be if you could talk to your 21-year-old self today, what advice would you give yourself? After you've done that, we'd like to know what books have you been reading lately or is there some documentary that you've seen that you would recommend to us and our listeners? Dr. Richard Pazdur: I would tell myself, when I was 21 years old, relax and be less anxious. All things pass. I think we get so anxious when we're young about relatively small things. I remember my first ASCO presentation, I was petrified. My heart was beating out of my chest. I was sweating. And like relax. It's one of a thousand presentations at ASCO. We tend to magnify things, and I think age puts things in perspective. This in the reality of the world is a small thing, and people probably won't even remember it. Dr. Dave Johnson: Excellent advice. Dr. Richard Pazdur: My favorite author that I'm reading now for the last couple of months is a presidential historical author, Doris Kearns Goodwin. I think many of you know, she's written many books. I love her writing style. And I like non-fiction. I like biographies and I like history books, history stories rather than mysteries or things like that, fantasy books. The two books that I really enjoyed, the first one was No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. I don't know if anybody's read that. It's an excellent book. Most of our attention in World War II is directed toward Europe and what was going on in Europe, the battlefields, etc., which I'm not a big fan of reading about battles and stuff, but this was what was going on in The White House and the relationships of all of the people that came there. It was like a hotel almost with the personalities that were flowing through including Churchill and various princes and queens, etc. But also the interesting relation, the fascinating relationship that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt had, I don't know how to describe the relationship. It truly was an unconventional relationship based on some past history that they had of affairs etc., but it was just a fascinating one. The best book, though, again I'm reading now, is written also by Doris Kearns Goodwin, and it is Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. Doris Kearns Johnson was his biographer and spent a great deal of time with him in The White House as well as when he left The White House. But it's an excellent book on management and reading people, success. One of the things that is most interesting about Lyndon Johnson, and especially when he was running the senate before he became president, was his ability to know what motivated people and how to use that to form a consensus. Does this person want to go on this trip. I'll give it to him and then he could help me with this. Does this person want to go to this party or get on this position in congress? So it was really a skillset that he had, which I think most leaders need to know. You have to motivate people. You can't lead by an autocratic masthead, but you've got to lead from what do people want and to make sure that they feel you have a personal relationship with them. As I say to my staff, everything in life is personal—everything. Dr. Dave Johnson: Well, it's been a great session, Rick. We so much appreciate your willingness to spend time with us. We wish we had twice as much time. I'm sure we could go on for hours. Thanks again, and we appreciate all you do at the FDA. You've been a fabulous leader, and we hope you continue on for many years to come. Dr. Richard Pazdur: Thank you so much, Dave, and thank you so much, Pat. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Great to see you. Dr. Dave Johnson: Pat, before we leave, any idea why our patients seem to get sick on Saturday and Sunday? Dr. Pat Loehrer: I have no clue. Do you know the answer, Dave? Dr. Dave Johnson: Yes. They have a weekend immunity. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

In part one, of this two-part ASCO Education podcast episode, host Dr. Jeremy Cetnar (Oregon Health & Science University) interviews two very accomplished physicians and researchers, Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris. We'll hear about their motivations for pursuing medicine and how they arrived at the different positions they've held in academia and industry.  If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT   Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Education podcast episode on career paths and oncology. My name is Jeremy Cetnar. I'm a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. I'm delighted to introduce today's two guests, whose careers in oncology have crisscrossed academia and industry. Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris, I'm excited to chat with you about the inspiration and motivations that drive you, people you've leaned on, how you've made your career decisions, challenges you've faced, and more.  So let's start by asking each of you, could you share a little bit about your early life and background, what attracted you to medicine, and who are some of your early mentors and role models? Let's start with you, Dr. Faris.  Dr. Jason Faris: Yeah, I'd be happy to. Thank you. So, I grew up in a small town in South Jersey in Greater Philadelphia. My mom was a registered nurse in pediatrics in the maternal infant unit for many years at Cooper Hospital. I was always interested in science and medicine and my mom's dedication to her patients. Her altruism and compassion served as a real inspiration for me, for my eventual decision to go to medical school. But I took a long time to get there. I had a bit of a circuitous route to arrive to my career in medicine though it started off conventionally enough. I was initially geared towards a premedical track in college, majoring in biology, but an exciting summer research project, working on the biochemical mechanisms underlying osmoregulation in a marine crustacean with mentoring from my first true mentor, Dr. Don Lovett, led me to apply to and attend graduate school in molecular biology at Princeton.  This was followed by a position at Merck as a molecular biologist in the genetic and cellular toxicology group. I went to veterinary school at the University of Pennsylvania where I met my future wife. And then finally, back to the original plan of attending medical school, but I have to say with a much better sense of why I wanted to attend medical school in the first place, now in my late 20s, which was a bit unconventional at the time. I really did my fair share of exploration of Allied Health careers. That's for sure. I attended Johns Hopkins for medical school, where I quickly discovered a passion for internal medicine. And that was far and away my favorite clerkship and sub-internship. That's the background to how I got to medical school.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: Interesting. I love your story. We share... I grew up in a small town, not so far away, but I was in upstate New York. And I think there were two influences that kind of got me to my ultimate passion for brain tumors. And this sounds a little quirky to start with. But I had a pretty serious head injury as a tween. So I guess I was about 12. I had a skull fracture, epidural hematoma. And while I would never have said I woke up at that moment and thought I have to be a doctor, I think I became fascinated about things to do with the brain.  In parallel, something that I think tinged a lot of my childhood was a number of family members who had cancer. So both of my grandmothers had breast cancer, while I was well aware of the fact that they were sick and battling this. And two of my aunts also had cancer. And I would say it's an interesting split in my family. So about half of them are survivors and about half ultimately died of their disease.  So both of these things really motivated me or focused me on the need to do something important, but also to do something that really motivated me to get out of bed in the morning. I think I was much more to the point. I went straight to college, straight to medical school. I remember calling my parents and telling them I was applying to medical school and having them say, “Wait. You? Really?” So it wasn't necessarily the family expectation that I would do this, but I was very driven and motivated to make some of these choices and then discover my particular interests as I progressed through medical school. So I went to Georgetown for medical school and then have trained at a number of places in the US. I think that's a little bit how I took my first step on this career journey, let's say.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: So take us through what the decisions were like in your head at the end of fellowship in terms of first jobs. Dr. Faris?  Dr. Jason Faris: In terms of my choice to pursue a career in medical oncology, this goes back to medical school during an internal medicine clerkship. I had an assistant chief of service, ACS, at the time, Phil Nivatpumin. He'd go on to become a medical oncologist. He really inspired me with his optimism and bedside manner, including with multiple oncology patients on that clerkship. His enthusiasm for science and medicine, his teaching skills, and an absolutely legendary fund of knowledge. For Phil, he was just an incredible ambassador for both internal medicine and for oncology.  After medical school, I went to internship and residency at Mass General Hospital. And in one of my first rotations, I was on the oncology service, which was not so creatively called Team Three. I think they can up the ante there, but oncology services on Team Three. I was caring for many extremely ill patients battling disease progression from their metastatic cancers, or sadly, in many cases complications of their treatments. During that rotation, I was intrigued by clinical trials offering novel treatment options based on cutting edge science, but also struck by the number of patients who just didn't have any clinical trial options. I became aware of the limitations of the conventional treatments that were offered.  I was really inspired by the patience and dedication of the nurses and doctors caring for them. And I vividly recall a roughly 50-year-old woman I helped care for with AML, watching as the 7+3 chemotherapy caused lots of side effects for her and being amazed by her strength and grace, her resilience as she faced her illness, her potential mortality, and the intense chemotherapy she was undergoing. And I knew during those moments with that leukemia patient while caring for other patients on that oncology service that this was the field I would pursue. Oncology was really the perfect blend of humanism, problem solving, longitudinal follow-up and rapidly accelerating scientific progress leading to new avenues for clinical trial treatments.  Like Lauren, I was motivated and inspired by cancer diagnoses in my own family. My maternal grandmother died of pancreatic cancer during my junior year of college. My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer during my first year of fellowship. So those are all really strong motivators, I would say. And after completing my fellowship at the combined Dana-Farber MGH program, my first position out of fellowship was in the gastrointestinal cancer group at MGH. I actually had been training in genitourinary oncology after my main clinically focused year of fellowship, but I did a chief resident year in the middle of fellowship, and that was the tradition at MGH. And as I was about to return to fellowship for my senior year of fellowship, the head of the GI Group and head of the Cancer Center at the time, Dave Ryan, offered to serve as a clinical research mentor for me in GI cancers. As a senior fellow, I wrote an investigator-initiated trial of cabozantinib for patients with neuroendocrine tumors under his mentorship that went on to demonstrate encouraging results, led to a Phase III study in that cancer population, and I ultimately accepted a position at the MGH Cancer Center in the GI cancer group about 11 years ago. And that was the start of my post-training career.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: And how about you, Dr. Abrey?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: So for people who don't know, I'm actually a neurologist. I finished my training in neurology and then pursued a fellowship in neuro oncology. I would say it was really patients and observations of things that were happening with patients during my residency. I did my residency at the University of Southern California at Los Angeles. I was at the LA County Hospital, which for people who don't know, is one of the largest hospitals in the country. I had the chance to see several patients who had paraneoplastic syndromes, and got the support from different faculty members to write those cases up, and really resulting in my first independent publications. That was what kind of got me bitten by the bug to understand this link between neurology and oncology.  I very intentionally went to Memorial Sloan Kettering to have the opportunity to work with Jerry Posner. And I think I no sooner got there than I got totally bitten by the brain tumor bug, which seems a little counterintuitive. But the paraneoplastic work was kind of deep laboratory work. And I realized that I really enjoyed seeing the patients having the partnership with neurosurgeons and digging into what is still a pretty intense unmet medical need.  So it was an interesting pivot because I really thought I was going to Sloane to focus on paraneoplasia. I still think I learned so much with that interest that I think we can reflect on when we consider how immunology has finally entered into the treatment landscape today for different tumor types and understanding is there a background in paraneoplastic disorders that could help us. But I have to say it was really the brain tumor work that got me focused and the chance to work with people like Lisa DeAngelis, Phil Gutin, and others that was kind of fundamental to my choices. I stayed there for two years of fellowship and then continued as faculty for about another 15 years at Sloan Kettering. So that's really the start of my academic career and the pivot to industry came much later.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: So both of you have impressive career CVs, have been trained at very prestigious institutions. So at some point in time, take me through, what was that transition like between, 'Hmm, what I'm doing is enjoyable, but maybe there's something else out there that I want to explore.' And what I mean by that is mostly industry at this point. So that's an important question that I think a lot of junior faculty face, a lot of mid-career faculty, maybe even later-stage faculty. But I think that's a tension point for a lot of people because I think there's a lot of fear. I think there's a lot of anxiety about moving outside of the academic realm. So, tell us a little bit about what was the pull in terms of going to industry and what were some of the thought processes that were going on. Dr. Faris?    Dr. Jason Faris: I've experienced two transitions, actually, between academia and industry. I like to do things in pairs, I guess. But the first was, after multiple years at the MGH as a resident fellow and as a clinical investigator at the MGH Cancer Center. As a new attending and clinical investigator, I was attempting to balance my work priorities, providing patients with GI cancers, which is a rewarding but complex and I'd say emotionally intense experience, given the phenomenally aggressive and devastating cancers these patients grapple with such as pancreatic cancer, alongside the other responsibilities of my clinical investigator position.  Those other responsibilities included writing grants and papers and protocols, evaluating patients who were interested in open clinical trials, and serving as the principal investigator for multiple studies. I was serving on committees, mentoring and teaching. Patient care was always my top priority as it should and really must be. And I feel incredibly lucky to have had truly amazing colleagues at MGH across several disciplines, from medical oncology, nurse practitioners, practice nurses, radiation oncologists, and surgeons. It was and continues to be a dynamic place full of extremely talented and dedicated clinicians. I think we really all benefited from the coordinated teamwork in both patient care and research in a really tight-knit GI Group.  But nonetheless, for me as someone who delighted in spending large amounts of time with my patients in the clinic rooms, and I think my colleagues would agree frequently agonizing over decisions impacting their care, achieving sufficient balance to really focus on writing and overseeing clinical trials was becoming increasingly challenging for me. And it was in that context, after spending roughly a decade and the combination of residency fellowship training and as an attending in the GI cancer group all at MGH that I made a truly difficult decision to move from my beloved outpatient clinical and clinical investigator role to industry to focus more exclusively on clinical research.  And after interviewing for several industry-based roles, I accepted a position in the early-phase group at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research or NIBR as we kind of pronounced those words in Cambridge. I absolutely loved my time at NIBR. It's an incredible place with a strong history of and commitment to innovation as well as passionate, talented colleagues, many of whom I've worked with in the past. When I first started at Novartis, I was amazed at the array of experts on the teams I was helping to lead as a clinical program leader. Our teams are the definition of multidisciplinary. They're composed of what we call line function experts in multiple disciplines. This includes preclinical safety experts who design and analyze data from studies that precede the filing of an IND, research scientists, chemists, preclinical, and clinical pharmacologists, statisticians, program managers, drug and regulatory affair colleagues, who focus on the interactions with health authorities, including the FDA, operational colleagues called clinical trial leaders, and many others.  In my role as a senior clinical program leader, I also have the opportunity to collaborate frequently with research colleagues on preclinical programs, designing and writing first in human trials, followed by conducting the actual studies and in close collaboration with our academic colleagues, analyzing the clinical and translational results.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey, how about you? Was there a moment or what were the moments that led to you deciding to make this transition?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: I guess I have the other sort of story. I got pushed, I would say, in the sense that like many of us, I'm married, and my husband was the one who took a job with Novartis and said, “This would be an adventure. Let's go live in Switzerland.” So similar to Jason, he took a position at NIBR, and I think for many of the same reasons, he really wanted to delve deeply into early mechanism of action and allow himself to dedicate really a chunk of his career to developing key drugs. But moving to Switzerland changes your options suddenly. I think I had spent most of my career at Sloan Kettering doing clinical trials. That was really my comfort zone, my sweet spot. And when we moved over here, I explored briefly, could I set up an academic career here?  And very kindly, I was invited by a number of Swiss colleagues to look for opportunities to do that. But I realized what I loved was talking to patients, and that that was going to be difficult with the language barrier. And I equally loved running clinical trials. So I had a great opportunity to join Roche shortly after their merge or full acquisition of Genentech. This allowed me to continue the work I had been doing on Avastin for brain tumors.  But I think the other thing that allowed me to do, that was something I was really looking for was to broaden my scope and to no longer be niched as just a brain tumor expert. And if you're in academia and you're a neurologist, obviously, you're going to be fairly constrained in that space. But moving into a role in industry really allows you to look much more broadly and work across multiple tumor types. And I spent the next seven years at Roche running not just the Avastin teams that were developing drugs for a number of indications, but really overseeing the clinical development group based in the European sites. And they had about 14 different drugs in different stages of development as well as partnerships with their early research group that was European based.  So it was a fascinating time for me, and I feel kind of like I got thrown into the pond. I knew a lot about clinical trials. I had no idea about so many other aspects of what I needed to consider. And I think Jason started to allude to some of this with the different line function expertise and things I think we take for granted or maybe we simply have blind spots around them when we are sitting in our academic organizations. So it's been a really delightful plunge into the pool. I've continued to swim mostly. Occasionally, a little bit of drowning, but a lot of fun.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: What would you say are the major differences between an academic career and industry?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: I think, as you said, the things that are similar is that the purpose or the mission for both is in many ways the same. We would like to develop better treatments for patients with cancer. And so there's a huge focus on clinical trials. There needs to be a huge focus on patients, and that can get diluted in industry. I think the things that you don't appreciate sometimes when you're sitting on the academic side is just really the overarching business structure and the complexity of some of the very large organizations. So you suddenly are in this huge space with people focused on regulatory approvals focused on pricing, focused on manufacturing, focused on the clinical trial execution, and why you are doing it in different spots.  And so I think some of the different factors that you have to consider are things that again, we either take for granted or are super focused when you're in one organization. And I think the tradeoffs and how decisions are made, particularly in large pharma, can be frustrating. I think we are all used to applying for grants or getting the funding we need to do whatever our project or trial is. And then you just start very laser focused on getting to the end. If you're in a large organization and they have a portfolio where they're developing 14, 15, 20 different things, you might suddenly find that the project you think is most important gets de-prioritized against something that the company thinks is more critical to move forward. And that could be because there's better data, but it could also be because there's increasing competition in the space or there's a different pull for a large company. I haven't seen the early development side as much. I've seen the development. I've now seen Medical Affairs for how some of those decisions are made, but I'd be curious to hear what Jason has seen in some of his experiences as well.  Dr. Jason Faris: Comparing and contrasting a little bit between the two, because I've run early phase studies on the academic side, I'll talk more about that in a little bit in terms of another academic position that I held. So I've run early-phase studies there. I've run early-phase studies in industry as well. And they share a lot of similarities, certainly following compelling science, the excitement about new therapies that are going to be offered to patients. But I think the execution is a bit different, and I would say, when you're running clinical trials in the academic setting, you're meeting every patient that you're going to put on study or at least one of your colleagues is, if you have sub-eyes on the study, that's a major, major difference, right? You're directly taking care of a patient going on to an experimental therapy, consenting that patient, following them over time, getting the firsthand experience and data from that patient interaction, but not necessarily, unless you're running an investigator-initiated study, not necessarily having access to the data across the whole study.  You're hearing about the data across the whole study at certain time points on investigator calls, PI meetings, dose escalation meetings, those kinds of things. But you're not necessarily having access to the real-time emergence of data across the whole study from other people's patients. So you're a bit dependent on the sponsor to provide those glimpses of the data, synthesize that and present overview. So those are some operational differences, I would say, because you're not taking direct care of the patients and having your time split among different commitments in that way I have felt a greater ability to focus on the clinical research that I'm doing in my industry-based role, which I like, of course, but I also miss taking care of patients. I love taking care of patients.   So I think it's always a double-edged sword with that if we can use a sword analogy here. But I think they both offer really exciting options to pursue new therapies for patients, which for me, was one of the fundamental reasons that I pursued medical oncology in the first place. It was really this idea that the field is rapidly advancing. I wanted to be a part of that. I saw firsthand what cancer could do to my family or family members, and I took care of patients in the hospital as an intern resident and fellow where I think there's just a tremendous unmet medical need. And so having an opportunity to contribute to the development of new therapies was always a real inspiration for me.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: With that being said, what led you to go back into academia?  Dr. Jason Faris: This is an ongoing saga, I guess. So after several years of professional growth at Novartis, gaining experience with designing and conducting clinical trials on the industry side, I was actually at ASCO and I learned of an open role for the director of the early phase trials program at Dartmouth's Cancer Center. After extensive consideration, which I think you can see as my trademark at this point, I made another difficult decision to interview for the position, which was focused on helping to grow the early phase trials program at an NCI comprehensive designated cancer center that's unique in a way because it's in a rural area. And it had a new director of the Cancer Center, Steve Leach, who's a renowned laboratory scientist with a focus on pancreatic cancer and a surgeon by training.  I ultimately decided to accept the early phase director position, moving my family away from Greater Boston, where we had lived for about 15 years, to the upper valley of New Hampshire. And while at Dartmouth, I was part of exciting projects, including writing and overseeing an NCI grant called Catch Up, which was geared towards improving access to early phase clinical trials for rural patients. I opened numerous sponsor-initiated immunotherapy and targeted therapy, early phase trials. Just to say a little bit about Dartmouth's Cancer Center - I think they also benefit from tremendous collaboration, this time across Dartmouth College, the Geisel School of Medicine, the School of Public Health. I think they provide really excellent care to their cancer patients. And I was extremely proud to be part of that culture in the GI Group, which was much smaller than the one at MGH, but also an incredibly dedicated group of multidisciplinary colleagues who work tirelessly to care for their patients.  But nonetheless, less than six months into that new position, the COVID pandemic started, and that introduced some significant and new challenges on the clinical trials side in terms of staffing, infrastructure, those kinds of things. In that context, I made a decision to return to NIBR, refocus on clinical research, and hope to harness my background in running clinical trials in both settings, both academic and industry, as well as the resources and pipeline of Novartis to really maximize my impact on drug development. So for me, it was a question of where can I have the maximum impact at this crazy time, difficult time. I saw that my best option was to return to industry to work on studies to try to develop new therapies. Broadly speaking, my role as a senior clinical program leader in the translational and clinical oncology group at NIBR is to design, write, conduct, and analyze innovative clinical trials of early phase therapeutics.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Wow, that's fascinating, very, very interesting. A lot of stress. You should definitely be buying lots of presents for your family for moving them all over the place.  This concludes part one of our interview with Drs. Abrey and Faris. Thank you so much for sharing your inspiring career stories. And thank you to all our listeners for tuning into this episode of the ASCO Education Cancer Topics podcast.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Partners in cancer care – who are advanced practice providers? In the first episode of ASCO Education's podcast series on Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), co-hosts Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Dr. Stephanie Williams (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), along with guest speaker, Wendy Vogel (Harborside/APSHO), discuss who advanced practice providers are, share an overview of what they do, and why they are important to oncology care teams. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org   TRANSCRIPT Todd Pickard: Hello everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Education Podcast, episode number one of the 'Advanced Practice Providers' series, 'APPs 101: What and Who Are Advanced Practice Providers?' I'd like to introduce my co-host for this series, Dr. Stephanie Williams. My name is Todd Pickard. I'm an advanced practice provider, I'm a PA, and I work at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. I'm also the Executive Director of Advanced Practice and my clinical practice is in urology. Dr. Williams, how about you introduce yourself? Dr. Stephanie Williams: Thanks, Todd, and thanks for this opportunity to present this incredibly important topic. I am currently retired from clinical practice. I had been in practice for over 35 years both in an academic setting, a private practice, and more recently in a large institutional, multi-specialty institutional type of practice. My primary clinical care has been in stem cell transplants and cellular therapy. And we have used APPs, both PAs and NPs for a couple of decades in our particular area. Todd Pickard: Great, thanks for that. I'd also like to introduce you to our guest panelist today, Wendy Vogel from Harborside, who is a certified oncology nurse practitioner with over 20 years of clinical experience and expertise. We're excited to be chatting with Wendy today about the basics of advanced practice providers and who they are. This will be an introduction for the rest of the upcoming episodes of APP Podcasts. Wendy, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself and your practice. Wendy Vogel: Thanks, Todd. It is a pleasure to be here. I appreciate you asking me to talk. I am an oncology nurse practitioner as you said. I do a high-risk cancer clinic and do that a couple of days a month. And I am also the executive director of APSHO, the Advanced Practitioner Society for Hematology and Oncology. Todd Pickard: Great! We're looking forward to a robust and informative discussion today between the three of us. So, I'd like to get started with some basics. Wendy, do you want to always start with a definition of advanced practice registered nurse? Wendy Vogel: Okay, great question! So, APRNs or advanced practice registered nurse include nurse practitioners. It can include clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, and nurse midwives. And generally, APRNs hold at least a master's degree in addition to some initial nursing education as a registered nurse. Some APRNs have doctorates like the DNP or Doctorate of Nursing Practice. But licensure for APRNs generally falls under the State Board of Nursing.   So, we're also required to have a board certification, usually as some sort of generalist as in family medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics, women or acute care. But in oncology, many APRNs also carry oncology certification. Todd Pickard: Excellent! Thanks for that. I'll go ahead and add to the conversation by defining physician assistant. So, physician assistants are individuals who are trained in the medical model and are licensed to practice medicine in team-based settings with physicians. Very much like advanced practice registered nurses, we come from a variety of backgrounds, and our education model is really focused on thinking about the patient the same way that our physician colleagues do. We're trained in really taking a very broad look at patient care, and our education as a generalist model. PAs are certified by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants, which is one national certification that includes all of the content areas in which we will practice. Dr. Stephanie Williams: For those out there who don't know, what are the differences between a physician assistant and an APRN? Or are there differences in practical terms, in terms of how we practice our field? Wendy Vogel: That is a great question, Stephanie, thanks for asking that. We function very much the same. The main difference is just in our educational background, where nurse practitioners come from a nursing background and the nursing model of care, and I'll let Todd speak to where PAs come from, but basically, our functions are very much the same. Todd Pickard: I very much agree. If you are in a clinical setting, and for some reason, Wendy or myself failed to identify who we are, you wouldn't really detect a distinction between the care either of us provide, because we are there in that provider setting and we're really there to assess the conditions you have like appropriate history in physical examination, think through differential diagnosis or a workup, create a diagnosis and then a therapeutic plan and also to educate you as the patient or to make an appropriate referral. So, really, when APPs, PAs, and NPs work side by side, there's really not a lot of difference in what people detect in what we're doing and how we're doing things. But there are some educational differences, which are pretty minimal. So, for example, one small difference is that PAs include surgical assisting as part of our core fundamental training, and our APRN colleagues generally don't. So, in my institution, we do have nurse practitioners that go to the OR and do assisting, but in order to get there, they did a Registered Nursing First Assist Program, it's a certification. So, they learn those fundamentals of sterile technique and surgical technique. So, in essence, there's really not a whole lot of difference. Dr. Stephanie Williams: I think what I was struck with about the difference was the history and the fact that PAs came out of the Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals. To me, that was just fascinating. I think Duke was the first graduating class. Wendy Vogel: You know, the role of the APRN has really changed drastically. It began in the 1960s, because there were not enough primary care providers, particularly for children in the urban and rural areas of the US, and the first nurse practitioner program was in 1965, at the University of Colorado. So, gosh! Have we come a long way since then, both the PA role or the NP role. When was the first PA role, Todd, when was that? Todd Pickard: We were born at the same time in 1965, we just happened to be at Duke University and y'all were in Colorado. You know, I think that the most important thing about working with advanced practice providers is that you look to work with somebody who has the competencies, the skills, interpersonal communication, and the pertinent experiences because honestly, I know fantastic APRNs, I know fantastic PAs, and I know some of either profession that really just don't quite fit a particular role. And so, there is some kind of mythology around PAs and APRNs, and who should work where, like PAs should be more procedural and more in surgery, and nurse practitioners should be more in medicine in the hospital. And really, there's nothing in our training that defines that per se, I think it's just a natural progression of we're over 50 now, so our professions are middle-aged. And we're starting to really have our feet underneath us. And I think people who've worked with PAs or NPs really understand, it's about the individuals and what they bring to the table. It's not really about the initials behind our names, because honestly, that's not what makes me do good work. It's not that I have the PA or NP behind my name. It's my commitment and dedication to my patients and supporting the rest of my team. Wendy Vogel: I think Stephanie, that's why we use the term advanced practitioner, advanced practitioner provider because it doesn't single out either one of us because we are functioning in the same manner. It's easier to say than say, PAs and NPs, so we just say, APPs. Todd Pickard: Yeah. And it doesn't mean that we don't identify as individual professions, because we do. I mean, I'm a PA, but I am part of a larger group. And part of that larger group is identifying as advanced practice provider because, at my institution, there are over 1000 of us, and we are a community of providers, and that's the way that we sense how we function within the team and within the institution. And so, it's really about that kind of joint interprofessional work. And speaking of work, Wendy, tell us a little bit about what are typical things that advanced practice providers do? Wendy Vogel: It might be easier to say what we don't do. I've got a list. Do you want to hear my list? Todd Pickard: Yeah, lay it on us. Wendy Vogel: Okay, here you go. Staff and peer education, survivorship care, palliative care, hospice care, pain management, acute care clinics, case management, research, cancer patient navigator, genetic services, lung nodule clinics, quality improvement. We're writers, we're authors, we're speakers, we mentor, and we do all kinds of public education. We can have clinical roles with faculty and professional organizations. We do procedures like bone marrows, paracentesis and suturing, and all that kind of stuff. We do a lot with all the other things like diagnosing, all the things you said earlier, diagnosing, ordering lab tests, ordering chemotherapy, etc. Todd Pickard: I think what's amazing about advanced practice providers is the flexibility we have to fill in gaps on teams or in service lines, no matter what that is. You know, I like to say and I'm sure everybody thinks that they originated this, but I feel that advanced practice providers are the stem cells of the team because we differentiate into whatever is necessary. At my institution, we recently had a gap in how our peer-to-peers were handled. Many times, you order an MRI or a PET scan, and the payer will, the day of or the day before, say, ‘Oh, I need to talk to somebody.' How that gets to the clinical team and when the clinical team has time to do that, it's really hard to coordinate. So, we created a team of advanced practice providers who spend one day a week doing the regular clinical roles, but then the rest of the time, they are dedicated to facilitating these peer-to-peer conversations. They have over a 95% success rate. And the payers, the medical directors, have actually gotten to know them. And so, they'll say, ‘Hey, I want to talk to so and so because she's fantastic and knows our program, and it's really easy to have these conversations.' And so, patients are taken care of and these business needs are taken care of, and then our clinical teams can really focus on what they're there for, which is to see those patients in and out every day. So, that's the power of advanced practice, its flexibility, filling in gaps; we can bend and morph to whatever we need to do because one of the things that's in our DNA is part of PA and advanced practice RN, we're here to serve, we're problem solvers or doers, too. When we see something, we pick it up and take care of it. That's just in our nature. Stephanie, tell us a little bit about your experience working with an advanced practice provider, is what Wendy and I are saying ringing true, or what's your experience? Dr. Stephanie Williams: Oh, absolutely! As I look back on my career, I'm not certain that I could have accomplished much of what I did, without my team members and advanced practice providers, both PAs and NPs. We also use them in an inpatient setting. And I can't remember Wendy mentioned that to take care of our stem cell transplant patients, because of residency, our requirements were removed from our services, and they became the go-to's to taking care of the patients. It actually improved the continuity of care that the patients received because they would see the same person throughout their 4 to 6-week course in the hospital, they also helped run our graft versus host clinics. I hate that term physician extender because they're really part of our health care team. We are all healthcare professionals working together, as Todd beautifully mentioned, for a common goal to help that patient who's right there in front of us. And not only that, from a kind of selfish viewpoint, they help with a lot of the work, doing the notes, so that we could all split up the work and all get out on time and all have at least some work-life balance. And I think that's a very important part of any team is that we can each find our own work-life balance within the team. So, I feel that they're a very important part of the oncology healthcare team. And I would recommend that everyone who wants to take care of patients, incorporate them into their team. Wendy Vogel: Can I say something right here that you mentioned that I'm so glad you did, which was physician extender. That is a dirty, dirty word in the AP world now because we don't know what part we're extending, that is not what we do. And also, we don't want to be called mid-level providers because – you can't see but I'm pointing from my chest to my belly - I don't treat just the mid-level, nor do I treat in mid-level care. I give superior care. I just give different care. And I give care on a team. And the last one is a non-physician provider. That is also a no-no because I wouldn't describe a teacher as a non-fireman, nor would I describe you, Stephanie, as a non-nurse practitioner. So, I don't want to be a non-physician provider either. Todd Pickard: It is an interesting phenomenon that even after 50 years, so many different places, whether it's the Joint Commission, or the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, whether it's a state legislator, an individual state, an individual institution like Memorial Sloan Kettering or an MD Anderson or a Moffitt, everybody comes up with these different terms. And it's so interesting to me. Physicians are either physicians, doctor, sometimes they're called providers. But as a PA, who's an advanced practice provider, those are the two things that resonate with me: either call me PA or call me advanced practice provider. All these other names seem to just be, it's an alphabet soup, and it really doesn't carry any meaning because some places just come up with these strange terms. And I agree, physician extenders has been the one that always has amused me the most because it reminds me of hamburger helper. Am I some noodles that you add to the main meal so that you can extend that meal out and serve more people? I think what Wendy and I are really trying to get at, I know this has been with a little bit tongue in cheek, but we are part of the team. We work with physicians in a collaborative team-based setting, just like we all work with social workers and schedulers and business people and pharmacists and physical therapists. I think the main message here is that oncology care and taking care of patients with cancer is a team effort because it is a ginormous lift. It's a ginormous responsibility and our patients deserve a full team that works collaboratively and works well and has them in our focus like a laser, and I know that's what APPs do. Dr. Stephanie Williams: I think that's well said, Todd. What I enjoyed in the clinic in particular, was sitting down and discussing patient issues and problems with my APPs. And we worked together to try to figure out how to resolve issues that would come up. But we also learned from each other, you're never too old to learn something from people. I just felt the interaction, the interpersonal interaction was also very satisfying as well. Wendy Vogel: I think that the job satisfaction that comes from being a team player and working together is so much higher and that we're going to experience so much less burnout when we're working together each to the fullest scope of our practice. Todd Pickard: So, Wendy, one of the things that people ask a lot about when they work with advanced practice providers is, ‘Well, gosh! How do I know that they have this training or this experience or this competency?' And then the question arises about certification. So, let's talk a little bit about certification and what that means and what it doesn't mean. So, tell me, are advanced practice providers certified? And are they required to get a variety of certifications throughout their career? Let's talk a little bit about that. Why don't you open up the dialog. Wendy Vogel: Okay, happy to! So, to be able to practice in the United States, I have to have a board certification. And it can vary from state to state, but generally, it has to be either a family nurse practitioner certification, acute care nurse practitioner, geriatrics, women's health, pediatrics, there are about five. So, you are generally certified as one of those. There are a few oncology certifications across the US, board certifications to be able to practice at the state level, but not all states recognize those. So, most of us are educated in a more generalist area, have that certification as a generalist, and then can go on to get an additional certification. So, many nurse practitioners in oncology will also get an advanced oncology nurse practitioner certification. So, that's a little bit different. It's not required to practice. But it does give people a sense that, ‘Hey, she really knows what she's doing in oncology.' Todd Pickard: The PA profession has one national certification, and it is a generalist certification. It's probably similar to USMLE, where you really are thinking about medicine in its entirety. So, whether that be cardiology, orthopedics, family medicine, internal medicine, geriatric, psychiatry, or ophthalmology. I mean it's everything – and oncology is included as well. And that certification really is the entree into getting licensure within the states. It's basically that last examination that you take before you can get that license just to make sure that you have the basic knowledge and fundamentals to practice. And so, I always respond to this kind of question about certification, I say, ‘Well, is it really the experience and the onboarding and the training that one gets on the job and the mentoring and the coaching that one gets from our physician colleagues and other advanced practice providers that brings them the most value? Or is it going through an examination, where basically you're responding to a certain amount of information, and you either pass it or you don't, and you can get a certification? I'm not saying there's not value in that, but I'm also making the argument that if you are working with your APPs well, and they have good mentors, and they have good resources, they're going to be excellent clinicians. And having an additional certification may or may not make some huge difference. Many times I see people use it as a differentiator for privileges or something. It's really an external kind of a pressure or a desire, it doesn't really have anything to do with patient care. I mean, Wendy what has your experience been around that need for additional certification? Wendy Vogel: I've seen it used in practices to merit bonuses, which isn't really fair when a PA does not have that opportunity to have a specialty certification per se. So, I've seen it used negatively. I'm a great believer that any additional education that you can get is beneficial. However, I will say just like you said, if you are getting your mentoring, you have good practice, you're doing continuing education, then it's essentially the same thing. To be able to have an oncology certification, I had to practice for a year and I had to take a test that really measured what I should know after one year. And that's what a certification was for that. Is it beneficial, do I want it? Yeah, I want it. Do I have to have it to practice? No. Todd Pickard: I think that is a great way to segue to having a brief conversation about how you bring APPs in? I mean, just at a very high level, should people expect for an APP to come in right out of school and just hit the ground running without any additional investment? And I could ask the same question about a resident or a fellow who completes an oncology training program. Do you just put those people to work? Maybe that's an older model, and now really mentorship and that additional facilitated work is, I think, critical. So, I'll start with Stephanie, tell us a little bit about what's your experience been with advanced practice providers, or even young physicians as they enter the workforce? What's the role of onboarding or mentoring program? Dr. Stephanie Williams: So, it's important. We had a set process for bringing on our new APPs and it pretty much followed the guidelines from the American Society of Cellular Transplantation in terms of the knowledge base that they would need to know. So, it was a checklist. And we would also have them do modules from ASCO's oncology modules, as well looking at primarily hematologic malignancies, so they could get a background there. And then we would slowly bring them on board. Usually, they would start taking care of autologous patients, a certain subset of patients, and then move on to the more complicated patients. We did the same clinic, whether they were clinic or inpatient APPs. So, it took us about three to four months to onboard our APPs. In terms of a fellow becoming an attending physician, I'd like to say that there's specific onboarding there. Unfortunately, sometimes they're just, ‘Okay, these are your clinic days, this is when you start.' I mean, you're right Todd, we really need to work more on onboarding people. So, that one, they like their jobs, they're not frustrated, and they want to stay and continue to work in this field. I see many times after two or three years, if they're not onboarded properly, they just get frustrated and want to move on to a different area. Wendy Vogel: We know that most of the advanced practitioners who come into oncology don't have an oncology background, PA or NP.  They just don't, and we don't get a lot of that in school. So, it takes months, it would probably, I dare say, take 12 months of full-time practice to feel comfortable in the role. But how many practices particularly in the area that I've practiced in you get this AP, and you throw them in there, and in four weeks, you're supposed to be seeing patients. How can you make those decisions when you haven't been properly mentored? So, absolutely important to have a long onboarding time till that APP feels comfortable. Todd Pickard: Yeah, I think that it is critically important that we set up all of our team members for success, whether they be physicians, or PAs, or nurse practitioners or nurses, or pharmacists, and I think that is the role of onboarding and mentoring, having people who will invest time and energy in what you're trying to accomplish. You know, Wendy is spot on. Advanced practice providers have specific types of training within their educational program. As a PA, my focus in oncology was to screen for and detect it. So, to understand when a patient presents with a mass or some symptoms that may make you think that, oh gosh, maybe they've got acute leukemia or something else and looking at those white counts and, and understanding. But that transition from identifying and screening and diagnosing cancers is very different than how do you care for specific types of tumors and specific disciplines, whether it be radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, cancer prevention. There's a lot that folks need to be brought up to speed about the standards of what do we do in this practice and how do we care for these types of cancers? And that really is the role for the onboarding and mentoring. You know, you may be lucky, you might get an advanced practice provider who used to work at a big academic cancer center in the same field, whether it be breast medical oncology or GI, and yeah, that's a much easier task. That person probably really needs mentoring about the local culture, how we get things done, what are the resources, and which hospitals do we refer to. But for the most part, working with an advanced practice provider means that you've got a PA or an NP, who has a strong foundation in medical practice. They know how to care for patients, they know how to diagnose, they know how to do assessments, they know how to critically think, they know how to find resources, and they know how to educate. But they may not know how long does a robotic radical prostatectomy patient going to be in the hospital? And how long does it take to recover and what are some of the things you need to be considering in  their discharge and their postoperative period? That is very detailed information about the practice and the local resources. Every advanced practice provider is going to need to have that kind of details shared with them through mentorship, and a lot of it is just how do we team with each other? What are the roles and responsibilities? Who does what? How do we have backup behaviors to cover folks? So, a lot of this really is just deciding, ‘Okay, we've got a team. Who's doing what? How do they work together and how do we back each other up?' Because at the end of the day, it's all about the team supporting each other and that's what I love about advanced practice. Wendy Vogel: Very well said, yes. I had an AP student yesterday in clinic, who told me - I was asking about her education in oncology and what she got - and she said, ‘Well, so for lymphoma, we treat with R-CHOP. So, a student, of course, raised their hand and said, ‘What's R-CHOP? She's like, ‘Well, the letters don't really line up with what the names of the drugs are, so, just remember R-CHOP for the boards.' So there you go. That's kind of what a lot of our education was like specific to oncology. And again, I'm a little tongue in cheek there also. But Todd, are you going to tell everybody about the ASCO Onboarding tool that's now available? Todd Pickard: Absolutely! ASCO has done a really great job of trying to explore what advanced practice is, and how teams work together. All of us are part of the ASCO Advanced Practice Task Force. One of the things we did was really to look at what are some best practices around onboarding, orientation, scope of practice, and team-based cancer care, and we created a resource that is available on the ASCO website, and I think that it is a great place to start, particularly for practices, physicians, or other hospital systems that don't have a lot of experience with advanced practice. It's a  great reference, it talks about the difference between orientation and onboarding. It gives you examples of what those look like. It talks about what are the competencies and competency-based examinations. So, how you assess people as they're going through the onboarding period. It has tons of references, because ASCO has done a lot of great research in this field, around collaborative practice and how patients experience it, and how folks work on teams, and what do those outcomes look like. So, I highly recommend it. Wendy, thank you for bringing that up. It's almost like you knew to suggest that. Well, this has been a really, really good conversation. I'm wondering, what are some of those pearls of wisdom that we could all provide to the folks listening? So, Stephanie, what are some of your observations that, you know, maybe we haven't just thought about, in your experience working as a physician with advanced practice providers? Dr. Stephanie Williams: One, it's important to integrate them into the team, and, as Wendy mentioned, to mentor them – mentor anybody correctly, in order for them to feel that they're contributing the most that they can to the care of the patient. I think there are other issues that we'll get into later and in different podcasts that come up that make physicians hesitant to have nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Some of those are financial, and I think we'll discuss those at a later time. But really, that shouldn't keep you from employing these particular individuals for your team. It really is a very rewarding type of practice to have. You're not alone. You're collaborating with other providers. I think it's just one of the great things that we do in oncology. Todd Pickard: I wanted to share a moment as a PA, advanced practice provider, when I most felt grateful for the opportunity to work as an advanced practice provider. My clinical practice has been in urology for the past 24 years for the main part. I've had a few little other experiences, but mainly urology, and I'll never forget a patient who was a middle-aged lady who had been working with transitional cell bladder cancer. It was superficial. So, the treatment for that is BCG and repeat cystoscopies and surveillance. And I walked into the room and I was going to give her BCG installation, and she was so angry. I wanted to know what was going on. I thought, gosh, should I make her wait too long or something else? So, I asked her, I said, ‘How are you doing today? You seem to be not feeling well.' And she said, ‘Well, I'm just so tired of this. I don't understand why y'all don't just fix me. Why don't y'all just get this right? Why do I have to keep coming back?' And as I looked at the medical record, this patient had had superficial bladder cancer for years. And I thought, ‘Has nobody ever really kind of sat down and mapped this out for her?' So, I asked her to get off the examining table, and I pulled the little paper forward, so I had someplace to draw. And I drew a big square and I said, ‘This is a field, just think of any big field anywhere near you. And it's full of weeds.' And I drew some weeds on there. And I said, ‘You know we can pull them out and we can pluck them, and we can put some weed killer in that field,' I said,  ‘do you think that if you come back in three months and there will be any weeds on that field?' She said, ‘Of course, there will be. There are always weeds because they always come back. It's very hard to get rid of.' And I said, ‘Well, this field is your bladder. And the type of cancer you have are like these weeds, and we have to constantly look for them, remove them, and then put this treatment down, that's why you come.' And she started crying. And I thought, ‘Well, I've blown it.' Because this was in the first couple of years of working as a PA in urology. And I said, ‘I'm so sorry. I really apologize.' She said, ‘Don't you dare apologize to me.' I said, ‘Man, I've really blown it now.' She said, ‘Todd, I've had this disease now for this many years. This is the first time I've ever fully understood what's happening to me. I am so grateful to you.' I will never forget this patient. I will never forget this experience. And I'm extraordinarily proud. It's not because I'm the smartest person in the world. I just happened to investigate, take the time, and I drew it out. I explained it in the simplest of terms because I wanted her to understand. And then whenever she came back, she always wanted to see me. So, it was great. I really developed a really lovely relationship with this patient. It was very rewarding. Wendy, can you think of a story that you have about an advanced practice provider that makes you particularly happy or where some big lesson was learned? Wendy Vogel: Yeah. I love your analogy. That's a great analogy. I think that part of what I love to do is similar to you, Todd, in that I like to make things understandable because I consider myself an East Tennessee southern simple person, I want to understand things in the language that I understand. So, I like using a language that a patient understands. I think if I was to say about some of the proudest things, or what makes me so excited about oncology is what we've seen in our lifetime. So, Todd, you and I practice probably about the same number of years and we could say we remember when Zofran came out, and how that revolutionized chemotherapy nausea and vomiting – Stephanie's nodding here, too. We all know that. And then wow! When we found out that we could maybe cure CML, that we're having patients live normal lives in our lifetime, that we've seen non-small cell lung cancer patients living past a year that are metastatic – Oh my gosh! This is such an exciting field and we learn something every day. There's new drugs, there's new treatments, there's new hope, every single day, and that's what makes me proud to be a part of that. Todd Pickard: Yeah, I think that oncology and the work that we get to do as a team is so incredibly rewarding. It's challenging, and we have losses, but we also have wins, and those wins are amazing, and transformative, not only for us but for our patients. So, some final pearls of wisdom. I'll share and then Wendy, I'll turn it over to you. One thing that I really want to convey to folks is to know about the state that you work in and what are the practice acts for advanced practice providers. Because, unlike our physician colleagues who have a very standard scope of practice across the country, advanced practice can drastically change from state to state and place to place even from institution to institution. So, be aware of that, so that you can build your team-based practice around what are the constraints, what is the scope of practice, and you can comply with that. It just takes a little bit of pre-work at the beginning. It's not daunting. These things are written in English. We're all smart folks. We can understand them and we can build our teams in the right way. So, just keep that in the back of their mind. It is not an obstacle. It's the instruction manual of how to build your team. That's all it is if you just think about it simplistically like that. So, Wendy, what's one or two things that you would say you really want our listeners to understand about advanced practice? Wendy Vogel: I loved what you said, Todd, both of our PA Associations and our Nurse Practitioner Associations have that information online, so it's very easy to find. But I think I would say, don't be afraid to stand up for yourself as an advanced practitioner or as a physician who wants an advanced practitioner. Don't be afraid to stand up for yourself and your scope of practice, know what you can do, know what you can't do, know and demand the respect that you deserve. I would always say that just don't forget that ‘no' is the first step to a ‘yes,' and keep on trying. Todd Pickard: I think we can all appreciate that sentiment, whether we be a PA an NP or a physician. Many times, we're advocating for our patients within our systems or our practices or with our payers or insurance providers. And yeah, sometimes you start from a place of ‘no' and then you work until you get to that ‘yes', or at least a compromise, if you can get to a 'maybe,' that's a good place too. Stephanie, any particular last words of wisdom or wrap us up with our conclusion? Dr. Stephanie Williams: Thanks, Todd and Wendy, for sharing your insights today. It's always a pleasure chatting with you both. Stay tuned for upcoming episodes where we plan to dig deeper into the various types of APPs, how they are trained, what a day in the life looks like for an oncology APP, their scope of practice, and the importance of team-based care, especially in oncology. Thank you to the listeners as well. Until next time. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product , service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In part one of this ASCO Education Podcast episode, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence Dr. Richard Pazdur talks with hosts Dr. David Johnson and Dr. Patrick Loehrer about his upbringing in Indiana, his family, and his circuitous route to oncology. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm the director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dr. David Johnson: I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Pat, great to be back with another episode of Oncology, Etc, an ASCO educational podcast. We have a very special guest today, Dr. Richard Pazdur, from the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence. I'm really looking forward to this conversation. Dr. Pat Loehrer: This will be terrific. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah. You were telling me before we got started about a little event that occurred this week, maybe you want to elaborate on that for us. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, we always start out this by talking about books, and one of the books I'm drawn to today is a book called, The Emperor of All Maladies, which was written by Dr. Mukherjee several years ago. I want to read a little bit from this because it has pertinence. This is about a guy named John Cleveland. Dr. Mukherjee writes, he goes, ‘In 1973 Cleveland was a 22-year-old veterinary student in Indiana. In August that year, two months after his marriage, he discovered a rapidly enlarging lump in his right testis. He was whisked off to the operating room for surgery and returned with a scar and he was diagnosed with metastatic testis cancer. This was right around the time that Larry Einhorn came to Indiana University where he was treated with a three-drug cocktail of actinomycin-D, bleomycin, and oncovin ABO. And then he had a brief remission progressing and was treated with mithramycin mithrymicin. And then in October of 1974, he once again developed progressive disease, and Larry approached him about a new cocktail with the drug cisplatin, that had never been used before in combination, and Larry's thought was to put it together with another couple of drugs.” So, I'll just finish reading this. “In October 7, 1974, Cleveland took the gamble, he enrolled as patient zero for BVP, an acronym for the new regimen containing Bleomycin, Vinblastine and cisplatin. 10 days later, he returned for routine scans and the tumors in his lungs had vanished. He was ecstatic and mystified. He called his wife from the hospital phone. I can't remember what he said, but I told her the results. So, John was the first one cured of testis cancer. Back then it was a 5% cure rate. Today, it's 95%. He is really the hero of heroes. Last week, at this time, John had asked me to come to his hospital room because he was diagnosed with metastatic cancer of a different type. He knew that this was basically the final hours of it. And so he wanted to say goodbye to me, and it was the most touching reunion I had. Two days ago, John passed away. So, my thoughts are with him, especially his family. But also, when we think about heroes, John was one of them, and if it wasn't for him, and his first treatment, Larry might not have gone on and treated other patients with this regimen. This drug cisplatin was experimental back then it caused a lot of nausea and vomiting and didn't work in many tumors, but this was a drug that was really highlighted and approved for the treatment of bladder cancer so Hubert Humphrey could get treated, and then in testis cancer, and it's really one the really success stories of all success stories in terms of oncology, and it started out with this experimental drug from the NCI that was approved by the FDA.” So, this leads us to our guest today, Rick Pazdur who I've known for many years. He grew up in Calumet City, Illinois, which is famous as the home of the Blues Brothers and Rick Pazdur. He got his bachelor's degree from Northwestern, his medical degree from Loyola Stritch Medicine, and then did his hematology-oncology fellowship, initially his oncology fellowship at Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's, where I first met Rick, and then later finished his Heme-Onc fellowship at the University of Chicago. From there, he went to Wayne State, served on the faculty there for about five or six years, and then joined the faculty at MD Anderson. He was there from 1988 to 1999. Then, we'd like to hear about this, but for some reason, it got in his head that he wanted to go to the FDA and so he moved to the FDA where he was Director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products, from 1999 to 2005, when they created the Office of Hematology Oncology Products, and he became the Director of this. More recently, he's been made the director of the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence. He still serves as the acting director for this OHOP. Rick is an extraordinary individual. He's been awarded a number of awards. From ASCO, he got the Service Recognition Award and the Public Service Award in 2013. And the AACR also awarded him the Public Service Award in 2015. He's received numerous awards and he is probably one of the most respected oncologists that I know in this society. It's such a great pleasure to have you here today, Rick. Dr. Richard Pazdur: My pleasure, Pat. My pleasure entirely. I look forward to the conversation. Dr. David Johnson: Pat, you left out one award. He got so many awards that you can't list them all, but I was impressed that he got this award for the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center's – The 100 list. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, we made the cut-off. Dr. David Johnson: I have no idea what that is. Dr. Pat Loehrer: We were on the 1001 list. We made that one. The only thing I want to throw into is that when I first met Rick, when I was a resident or an intern, I think, he was on the service with Phil Bonomi, who is very important for me for my thymoma research, but there was an oncology nurse on the service, Mary Lind, who was a terrific oncology nurse as they all are. But it turned out there was more chemistry that went on. So, Rick ended up marrying Mary, and I'm sure he'll tell some stories. We'll come back to that in a little bit, too. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, this is really exciting. So, let's get started. Rick, maybe you could tell us a little bit about your background and what got you into medicine in the early part of your career. Dr. Richard Pazdur: I had an interesting story. Pat had mentioned Calumet City home as a Blues Brothers. That was the orphanage in the movie. It was located in Calumet City. But what you don't know about Calumet City is that the real kind of nickname for Calumet City in the 50s 60s 40s was 'Sin City'. It has the honor of having the greatest number of liquor licenses in the United States. And in Calumet City, which was on the border of Hammond, Indiana, and Calumet City, they're kind of Sister Cities. They're one in Illinois, Calumet City. And Hammond is in Indiana, obviously, there was this strip, and it was called ‘The Strip' and it had all of these bars and floor shows with Sally Rand and gambling. If you walk down there, which I never did as a kid, but drove down there with my father some time just traversing the city, those lights were so bright, it was just like Las Vegas, basically. So, you had that Strip and that went on for maybe three, four, or five blocks. And then you have the rest of the city that I grew up in, which was primarily a Polish Catholic city, which I am kind of a representative of being 100% polish. There were scattered bars throughout the city. In fact, my fondest memory is sleeping in bed at 3 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning, awakening to people running out of a bar, which was 50 feet or 100 feet from my bedroom window. They were screaming and yelling and cursing and everything and throwing beer bottles at each other. And in those days, obviously, as you remember, in the 60s, there was no air conditioning. So, the bar was called The Tropical Inn. Let me tell you this, there was nothing tropical about it and there was nothing 'in' about it. Dr. David Johnson: That background might have driven…. Dr. Richard Pazdur: That was not what I would call a highbrow area, but I enjoyed it. It was a fabulous childhood that I had. Most people don't know this. So, I will share this with you because it really had an indelible mark on my life and something that really transformed my childhood and my high school years and my college years, and my medical school years. When I was about in seventh or eighth grade, my father who was basically a blue-collar factory worker, developed glaucoma, and he went blind at a very early age. And that threw the family into not only emotional turmoil but also economic turmoil. I survived basically by getting Social Security dependent income and had to work at a very early age. I started as a dishwasher. My mother lied about my age so I could start working at a crummy restaurant in Calumet City as a dishwasher and I worked throughout school, but that experience really made me grow up really fast if I could say so. You didn't have a childhood, you had to be responsible because there was really no security blanket to fall back on. Although my parents didn't have a lot of money, they really had very good emotional support for me and both my father and my mother came from very large, Polish families. My mother had nine children in her family. She was right in the middle. And so, I had many cousins and many aunts and uncles and my father had seven children in his family and he was the oldest boy. So, there was a lot of support there, but obviously not a lot of financial support. So, it really made me grow up relatively quickly and really come to some of life's lessons, relatively fast like discrimination against disabled people, which I will always remember. When I was a boy, I remember going with my father walking and obviously he had a white cane, but walking down the street, people would actually cross the street to avoid us. They just didn't want to confront that anxiety. I don't know if it was discrimination or if they just felt uncomfortable dealing with it. When you go to a restaurant, people raise their voices, like the man was mentally impaired and that wasn't the case. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I'm sorry to interrupt you just for a second because I read this somewhere and I think it's important to throw in. So, you graduated from high school in three years? Dr. Richard Pazdur: Yes, that's what I was gonna say. I graduated and I worked during that time also. These jobs were not like jobs that kids have now as consultants or internships, these were like real jobs as a janitor, a gardener, or a packer in a grocery store. You had to do it and you had to compartmentalize your life to get things done, basically. But you were driven to do things and I'm thankful for that experience really. I even use it now when I'm facing turmoil in my life. I look back at that time and say to myself, Rick, if you did it then as a 12-year-old kid, a 14-year-old kid, you could do anything. So, it really fostered a sense of responsibility, self-awareness, and the need to do things for yourself and get going on yourself. because nobody's going to help you in a sense. I'm very grateful for that. Dr. David Johnson: Rick, at what point did you decide to become a physician? How did that experience really drive you into that field? Dr. Richard Pazdur: Well, I spent a great deal of time in the lobby of the University of Chicago hospital with my father. I was the primary caregiver and went with him to his doctor's appointments. I can't tell you the number of hours I spent in the lobby of that hospital. I was very interested in science. I was very interested in really helping people because of that background. I really had a great deal of clarity, though. I remember, when I was maybe a freshman or sophomore in high school, I wrote for the Northwestern Medical School catalog, because I thought I would be going to Northwestern undergraduate, I already decided in my own mind that that's where I wanted to go. I just got their medical school catalog and I was thumbing through it, and I remember this vividly sitting on my bedroom floor next to the window that was 50 feet away from the bar, basically, and was looking through the medical school catalog and seeing all these names of this doctor, head of neurology, assistant professor, associate professor. I said, “Hell, if I'm going to be a doctor, I want to be one of these people. I want to be the best doctor. I want to be teaching the physician here and doing research.” So, unlike most kids today that have to find themselves, like, ‘I'm going to take 8 years to complete college or something like that and take a year off to find myself.' I had to be very, very focused on what I wanted to do. So, I really worked very hard during it through time. I don't regret it, as I say. I went to Northwestern undergraduate and had a fantastic experience there. I graduated in three years as I mentioned. I had a special interest there that most people don't know about. The people at the FDA know about it. I did these pre-med courses but I had a really special interest in the field of sociology, and actually was toying with the idea if I didn't get into medical school to pursue a Ph.D. in Sociology and become an academic sociologist. If you remember and both of you are of this age. Dr. Pat Loehrer: David is, not me. Dr. Richard Pazdur: Okay. David might know of the Vietnam War. This was right around the time of Kent State and closing down the schools, I'm sure you remember that, for the colleges, etc. Nobody went into business or anything like that. It was a sociology, psychology, and anthropology type of things people were interested in. My love was this field, and I did a lot of research on it. I remember one of the professors that probably had the most influence on me, a woman called Zena Smith Blau, who was a sociologist, and I did multiple research projects and independent studies. The first thing when I took her first course, she assigned us a paper and she said, write about yourself, ‘What makes you unique? I went to see her and I said, ‘I really don't know exactly what you mean by this.' She said, ‘Well, how different are you?' And I said, ‘Well, my parents are children of Polish immigrants, and I really know the Polish community in Chicago fairly well.' She said, ‘That's it Rick, that's what your specialty will be.' I did multiple research projects on this area with her. Some of them were like the assimilation of Polish immigrants with regard to urban-rural origin. Another one was working-class youth in Chicago, and mobility based on education and high school part-time employment. So, that was a fantastic experience that is totally outside of what I did in my future. Dr. David Johnson: We asked our listeners to submit questions because we knew you were coming on. We did get a question that perhaps is appropriate to ask at this time. It comes from a younger trainee, who wants to know what advice you would give to a trainee aspiring to have a clinical investigative career in oncology? What sort of preparation should they have? Obviously, you've got to learn all of the techniques of clinical trial designs, statistics, etc. But what other advice would you give a trainee hoping to pursue a career in clinical investigation? Dr. Richard Pazdur: I think one's career always has to go back to the basics and have a patient focus. So, what is your interest in the patient, so to speak? And that is what advice I would give them. Are you interested in a supportive care issue? Are you interested in a specific disease? I think you have to follow a passion and that is what is most important to me. What is your passion in life? Because as physicians, we spend a great deal of time preparing for our careers and then subsequently afterward, in our designated careers, and you really can't approach this as a job. It has to be a passion. So, if you do have this, what are the questions that you really want to answer? What is the field that you want to go into and make an indelible mark in? So, that's what I come from, and that's something that I tell our staff is: what do you really want to do? What makes you happy? What would make you a success in your mind? Not defining yourself by somebody else. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Finish the story a little bit. Was it a patient then that turned you on to oncology? What brought you into oncology? Dr. Richard Pazdur: I had a very circuitous circular route to oncology. Oh my God! I don't know if you have enough time to hear this story, but let me start though. I originally went to medical school because of my background in sociology. I wanted to become a psychiatrist because here again, I thought psychiatry, sociology, and psychology, these are kinds of things I was interested in until I took my first rotation in psychiatry. It was nothing like I thought it was going to be. I saw my first patient that got ECT (Electroconvulsive Therapy) and I said, 'I ain't doing this.' So, I was then interested in cardiology. Loyola at that time where I was going to medical school and where I did my internship and residency, had a huge cardiology program that was like CAST city, USA. Everybody was just coming into the hospital getting CAST and going out of the hospital. Dr. Pat Loehrer: [Unintelligible 18:13] was there, right? Dr. Richard Puzdar: Yes. Mary Kate [Unintelligible 18:18]'s father was the head of medicine there. And it had a huge cardiology program and an excellent cardiology program. I really did like Clinical Oncology, and I was all signed up for a cardiology fellowship, the Ts were crossed, the dots were placed, the contract signed, and everything. And somebody said, ‘Rick, why don't you take a rotation while you're a resident in the cath lab? We have an opening and this would be a great time and opportunity for you to jumpstart your fellowship. So, you can come and work for us in the middle of your third year of residency for about two or three months.' So, I did that and I hated it. I just dreaded it. I couldn't stand it. It was the most boring thing. I would think of every opportunity to escape the Cath lab. It was the same thing over and over and over again, inject the dye, turn on the [Unintelligible19:16] machine, and follow the coronary arteries. So, I happened to go to a community hospital, St. Francis in Evanston, Illinois, and I met an oncologist there that had just finished her fellowship. I really was very impressed by her clinical skills. She had finished her fellowship at the University of Chicago and worked with her there and was just amazed by really the quality of care that the oncologist gave patients with cancer. Previous to that, I had an interest also in oncology. At Loyola at that time, we had an oncologist his name was Ketty Badrinath, and he was an excellent clinical teacher. Now that I decided that I'm not going into cardiology, the first problem I have is to find a job and to find a fellowship in oncology. So, I started investigating oncology programs at St. Francis Hospital there. I went down to the gift shop and I said, I want $10 worth of quarters. I went to a payphone, closed the door of the payphone, dialed information, and got every oncology program that I could think of from Mayo Clinic to all of the programs in Chicago. One of my last phone calls was to Rush Presbyterian. I found that program director, Jules Harris, I don't know if you remember him, and he said, “We have an opening.” So, I accepted the position. At the end of June, whatever it was, June 27, 1979. I started my oncology fellowship program. Now Oncology at that time in Chicago, to give you a picture of it, the largest program in oncology was at Rush. It had a total of 12 people. And the therapy started at Rush around solid tumors really in the endocrine therapies of prostate cancer and breast cancer. So, it was a different program than most programs throughout the United States that were offshoots of Hematology programs and the treatment of acute leukemia and lymphomas. So, it had a really kind of different orientation. So, I started my fellowship. And on the first day, I met Phil Bonomi, who had a tremendous influence and still has an influence over me. I know no doctor that I respect most more than Phil. I think the greatest compliment that one could give a doctor is to refer your own family to him. And I've done it on numerous occasions with various cousins and aunts and uncles, etc. But as you mentioned, Pat, I also had the opportunity to meet my wife. And I met her and at first, we were very good friends and there was no romantic relationship. And then, as time proceeded, we knew that there was something special there. My wife was just a wonderful person. Like myself, my wife was pretty much a self-made person. She was one of eight children, the oldest daughter. As the oldest daughter, she had to assume a lot of childcare responsibilities, cooking, etc, for all of her brothers and sisters and took care of the younger children. But she was an excellent student. She graduated first in her class. She was a national merit finalist. I often asked my wife, ‘Mary, you're a nurse, are you interested in going into medicine? I'll be happy to work with you to get you into medical school.' And she said, ‘No, you want to go into medicine, I want to go into nursing.' That was her orientation toward other people. It wasn't about the buck. It wasn't about the title. It was about the work of helping other people. I really have to honor her mother and father who gave her that orientation. Of interest, all of her sisters are nurses. Her mother was actually a school nurse, and an original graduate of Rush. She went to Rush Nursing School in the 50s but had to leave because at that time in the 1950s, if you got married, you can't be in nursing school, they kicked you out. So, it shows you how times have changed.   Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Dr. Richard Pazdur who is the director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence. Stay tuned for part two of this conversation where we'll hear how cancer has touched his life personally and will explore the initiatives and programs, he started to improve patient care globally.   Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO education podcast where we'll talk about just about everything and anything. If you have an idea for a topic or guests you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. Have a good week.   Unknown Speaker: Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes. Please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

In this ASCO Education episode moderated by Dr. Rami Manochakian (Mayo Clinic), two-time cancer survivor and patient advocate Ms. Samantha Watson and medical oncologist Dr. Lidia Schapira (Stanford) discuss the multifaceted impact of high cancer care cost on patients and survivors. They also review communication strategies and resources oncology providers can offer to help alleviate financial toxicity. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rami Manochakian: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Education Podcast Series. My name is Dr. Rami Manochakian. I'm a thoracic medical oncologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. As today's host, I'll be moderating a discussion on what I believe is a very important topic when it comes to cancer care and its financial toxicity. I am very excited to have two wonderful guest speakers who are joining us today. Dr. Lidia Schapira, who's a medical oncologist with a focus and specialty in breast cancer and cancer survivorship. She's a professor of medicine and oncology and director of the Cancer Survivorship Program at Stanford University. We also have with us, Miss Samantha Watson. She's a two-time cancer survivor, patient advocate, and Managing Director of Stewardship at Expect Miracles Foundation, which is an organization dedicated to providing emotional and financial assistance to people with cancer. It's a pleasure to have you both with us today. Samantha Watson: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Miss Watson, I'm going to start with you. Your story that I got to learn about is very inspiring. You had cancer twice as a young adult. You've gone through a lot. Can you tell us what was it like to go through that journey with two cancers, and a lot of treatments? Also, during that journey, definitely, you must have experienced a lot of financial and other social challenges. I'd like to hear more about that, please. Samantha Watson: So, I was a senior in college, and I'd had recurring knee pain that nobody could really diagnose for any reason. And it would come and go throughout my years of college. And finally, when I was a senior in college, I had extensive testing and they found Ewing sarcoma, which I had never heard of. My mom actually was an oncology nurse at Memorial Sloan Kettering. And so, I don't think it was on anybody's radar screen, but she understood the language way better than I did. What I came to learn was that Ewing sarcoma was typically diagnosed in boys under 20. And I was female and 21 at that time, and it was diagnosed about 300 times a year. So, I had no frame of reference for this. I had been around Sloan Kettering when I was a kid because my mom worked there, but I didn't know what it meant. I didn't know what cancer felt like. And I certainly did not know anybody else who had gone through it. But at that age and life stage, I was getting ready for my future. I was looking forward to graduating from college, I was looking forward to living on my own and everything stood still. So, the cancer was in my leg. When I was diagnosed, I went through nine months of high-dose chemotherapy. I went through a 12-hour surgery. I had to relearn how to walk and did a lot of PT. In that time, my friends graduated and they started moving forward and they started creating their lives. And I sat back and watched. I spent about four months at home after my treatment for Ewing's and I did my physical therapy. And I tried to figure out where to place cancer in my life as a young adult. And I went back to school and I had one semester left and I started to catch every cold that went around and strep. Just everything that goes around a college campus, I was constantly down and my doctors kept saying, ‘Don't worry, your immune system just has been devastated by this chemo and you just need time to recover.' The day before my 23rd birthday, they did a bone marrow biopsy and found that I had Myelodysplastic syndrome, which was a very early form of leukemia. And a month before I graduated from college, I was told that I needed a bone marrow transplant. Thankfully, because the search was long, and did not really involve me as a patient, I was able to go back to school and graduate from college. I sort of closed that chapter and had a bone marrow transplant about three months later in August of 2001. And so, again, I was stuck in the hospital for months and months and months, watching all of my friends, again, graduate, go forward, get their jobs, and go on dates. And I sat back and watched and so my recovery, the second time, was very different because when I was freed from the hospital and able to sort of take my steps forward, I didn't really have anywhere to go. I had already graduated from school, I had not yet started working, and I have a very, very wonderful network of support from friends and family. But I wasn't really sure who I was and what I wanted to do. So, to make a long story a little bit shorter. I started working for a nonprofit organization feeling like there was something more I was supposed to be doing. One of the things I started to become aware of, in my own survivorship experience, was that the aftermath was really hard. And it was uniquely challenging as a young adult without very much financial stability, or no experience, really in the healthcare system on my own. But also, I didn't have any peers. Everyone that I had gone through treatment with had passed away with the exception of me being one person. So, I didn't have anyone to ask about this issue of young adult cancer and how to get my self-esteem back when I looked and felt different. And as I was sort of navigating these things, I got a bill in the mail for $275,000, which is an absurd number, anytime. But as a 24-year-old, who didn't really have any money in the bank. I mean, that was just completely impossible. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Absolutely. Wow! Samantha Watson: Yeah! So, very, fortunately, again, my mom was my best advocate. She spent two years fighting that bill, but I started to put the pieces together and realize that not only is survivorship hard, but it's financially challenging when you're on your own. And so, I put those two pieces together and created an organization called the Samfund to provide financial support to young adults once treatment has finished because what I kept hearing was that we all share this experience of feeling like we got pushed off a cliff. And then they threw all sorts of bills on top of us while we were down there. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Wow! Thank you. We're so glad you're with us after this many years. And you're doing well. That's wonderful, but definitely, I think what you've experienced on the other side, is what's after treatments. Dr. Schapira, we hear that term a lot, we as treating physicians, what does it mean to have financial toxicity and to go through it? Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, first of all, I do think that Sam's story is so inspiring, and really illustrates what the lived experience is for so many people treated for and living with and beyond cancer. I think of financial toxicity as sort of an umbrella term that refers to the harm caused by the cost of receiving treatment for cancer. And the way that people are penalized with all of these bills that reflect a really difficult and broken healthcare system. I think of it in terms of the pain and suffering in a way caused by the burden of cost. So, there can be material aspects, such as new debt accumulation, selling or refinancing a home, a decline in income, having to take loans to pay for cancer treatments, and even bankruptcy. But there can also be psychological aspects, such as worrying about paying for treatment and being distressed. And there can be behavioral aspects, such as avoiding care or skipping doses of medications to save money. That is a story that we also hear as cancer clinicians. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Absolutely. I think you mentioned it, and I couldn't agree more with the burden. I mean, the patients have so much to worry about, the patients and the caregivers, about their journey, fighting cancer, going through treatment, and then adding that extra burden and worrying about day-to-day life, their kids, and their future. Definitely, that's a lot. Miss Watson, with you with the society or the organization that you're leading, you're getting a lot of calls from a lot of patients who need help. How are we doing in the last decade or so in this field, in this aspect? Samantha Watson: On the one hand, I take it as a very promising sign that we're talking about it, because when I got that $275,000 bill in the mail, if my mom had not been a nurse and known that system enough to navigate the appeals process and all of that, I would still be paying that bill off, if I hadn't already declared bankruptcy. Nobody was talking about it back then. Financial toxicity was not a term that anyone brought it. Nobody talked to us about our bills. So, I do think that conversations like this, and many others like it are very hopeful signs that we are headed in a good direction. That said, the costs are only getting higher and the economy is only getting harder, and I think we're starting to see the many ways in which this plays out for anyone who's touched by cancer. At the Samfund, we were focused on the young adult population. Two and a half years ago, we merged with an organization called Expect Miracles Foundation, and we still provide Samfund grants to young adults. But we also provide funding for innovative cancer research and hear from thousands of people every year who are diagnosed with all sorts of cancer diagnoses at all ages. One of the things that have become very clear to me is that young adults face financial toxicity in a unique way because they have a lot of things stacked on top of each other given their age and their life stage. But the issues really aren't unique to young adults at all. I think what we have seen is that financial toxicity affects essentially anybody who is diagnosed with cancer and/or as you said, is that the caregiver or family member and is directly impacted in that way too. So, I think, on the one hand, the problem is getting worse, but I do think it's hopeful that we're getting closer to finding solutions and at least a willingness to talk about this. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Thank you! Dr. Schapira, we live in an era of hope for patients with cancer. The number of drugs, the number of procedures or advancements in science, the research, and education really are great, and we're helping many patients live better and live longer. But that's of course, coming at a cost. I'm a lung cancer specialist. Half of our patients now with advanced cancer have their cancer harbor mutation that we prescribe some great treatments, very effective, but very expensive bills. I think when we talk about financial toxicity, there are so many aspects, there are the drugs, the pills, the infusion, the scan, and employment, can I keep up my bills? What can you tell us about the different aspects of financial toxicity? Dr. Lidia Schapira: As you say a lot of innovation is associated with a high price tag, and rising healthcare costs are being increasingly offloaded to patients by ways of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs. So, when you talk about targeted treatments that bring a lot of hope, we also have to remember that with a rising number of prescriptions, some of the drug plans have tiered formularies, where expensive specialty drugs typically fall into the highest tier. And so, patients are often responsible for a percentage of the total cost of the drug, as opposed to a fixed co-payment. So, if we get more granular about this, we can say some of these drugs may cost in excess of $10,000 a month and are covered through some of these outpatient prescriptions as part of a health insurance plan. But in such cases, a patient who has a tiered formulary that requires a 20% coinsurance for a $10,000 oral cancer drug may have an out-of-pocket cost of about $2,000 a month. I'm just putting some figures to this because these numbers are very hard to manage for so many of our patients, and we're all in a bind. We all want this to be different. But this is the reality that we as oncology clinicians, and our patients and families face every day. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Absolutely. Thank you. We want and the patient wants the most effective treatment, regardless of cost. But then how can we integrate that into our shared treatment decision planning or making? Samantha Watson: I do think that there are things that we can do, I think it's really important to recognize that this is the responsibility of a group. It is not just a provider's responsibility to bring it up, because then as Dr. Schapira was saying, you have to know the details of every individual patient's insurance situation, and income situation, there are just so many variables that can affect people. And it's unreasonable to expect any one oncologist to keep track of all of that. So, as a patient, I recognize how big that ask is. At the same time on the patient side, I think it's one of these situations where patients don't know what we don't know. And as someone who is diagnosed with cancer, especially at an age when I have never had to advocate for myself before, I wouldn't have even known what questions to ask, I think when your doctor says, here's the drug I'm prescribing, you take it. And I think that even now, with all of the research that's been done, and all of the focus on financial toxicity, still most patients' inclination is to trust their doctor and not ask, is there a more affordable option, because there's still this perception, as you said that the most effective treatment is also the most expensive and nobody wants to sacrifice their chances of survival to save money. And so, I think in the end, this is a group discussion. I think there need to be financial navigators or patient navigators, if they are available to the patient. I also think that patients, caregivers, partners, parents, children sometimes, depending, can also be part of that conversation because, in everything that I have learned in the last 20-plus years, I still think that had someone tried to talk to me about my bills too early, I probably would have tuned it out. But that's not to say those conversations aren't important and sometimes somebody else in the room who can hear it better. And so, I think if this is a collaborative effort on the part of patients and providers and family members, and other professionals within the hospital, then absolutely it should play a part because there may be other ways to either manage the high cost of treatment or lower the cost altogether. And sometimes it requires getting creative, knowing if somebody is going to need to take time off work for these treatments or to deal with the side effects that could have a devastating effect because, in the end, financial toxicity isn't just about the cost of treatment. It's about the full financial impact with many moving parts and employment is one of them. So, I think it's really important also that this is an ongoing conversation, this is not a one-time conversation and people's situations change, and the ability to hear, and process information changes depending on where the patient is and how they're feeling on that day. And so, I think this is certainly an ongoing effort, but also has to include more people than just the provider and the patient alone. Dr. Rami Manochakian: I love it! I couldn't agree more. Here is a caveat or challenge, which I'm going to ask Dr. Schapira. As an oncologist. I couldn't agree more with what you're saying, but I don't know and maybe a majority of oncologists, Dr. Schapira, we don't know a lot about the cost, at least upfront, we know the drug is cost like this, or the scan or what's going to happen, but an individual, we don't know what's the patient insurance plan. I feel sometimes that I'm not able or equipped to discuss the cost of care up front. And that sometimes could create friction, because maybe we owe it to our patients to discuss. So, what do we do as oncologists or as oncology healthcare providers as a team? Dr. Lidia Schapira: You ask a wonderful, multifaceted question. So, the first thing I would say, and what I've spent my entire career doing is we need to be empathic listeners. And we need to create a safe space in our consultation and exam rooms so people can tell us what's on their mind. So, we may not be able to fix it but we need to be able to talk about this, if it is burdening our patient, just as we talk about any other toxic effect of the diagnosis and treatment. That's one thing we can do. We can do that by routinizing the conversation by asking at multiple points when somebody is ready, or before they're ready, perhaps talking to somebody in the family, we need to be thinking about it. But I think that it's complicated for us too because we are also stakeholders and we also are committed to treating patients with beneficence and advocating for justice, and we see all the harm that's been caused by the system where all of these burdens are placed on people at their most vulnerable time. And we all think it's not particularly fair. So, I think that part of the conflict for us is that we feel we could do more for each patient. We feel we would like to do more collectively for all of the patients under our care and the care of our colleagues. So, I think that part of that sensation, a feeling that we don't have sufficient power to fix it, may get in the way of us really collaborating in an open and empathic way with our patients who are experiencing these issues every day. We can think about what tests we order. We can think about the co-payments for the imaging tests. We can think about talking about whether or not they can afford those ancillary medications that we prescribe with great intentions to make their life more bearable. So, there's a lot we can do. There's a lot we can do. I think we need to support each other. We need to link arms and advocate together for a more just system, but we can't not do anything about it. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Thank you. This is, I think, very important. It really struck me when you say, look, even if we don't know, well, we're going to talk later on about resources and referring patients. But I do think that patients would like to see their oncologist or hear their oncologist or their treatment providers, or caring providers bring up the cost. I think just like we asked them about their side effects and about how are you doing and what's happening and quality of life. I think bringing that up, making them feel that we are with them on this journey, even in these details, which often don't come and I'm sure many of our listeners are interested in asking what resources are out there? Of course, each institution may have its own resources. But, generally speaking, what should we tell our patients? Where should they start from the patient caregiver? What resources are available to avoid or reduce financial toxicity? Samantha Watson: I think in order to answer that, I also want to reiterate something that Dr. Schapira said from the patients' side, because I think that oncologists don't have to have the answers, that is obviously asking way too much. I think sometimes just bringing it up or acknowledging that there is a cost to this and that it is going to have an impact on someone's life is exactly the validation that a patient needs because culturally, we don't really like to talk about money. We're not really all that comfortable talking about illness either. And so, when you put those two things together, it is a conversation that nobody wants to have. And so, what we hear from thousands of patients every year is that they are so ashamed by all of this. They feel like they have done something wrong. They feel like their doctors aren't going to get paid if they have an outstanding balance. And there's so much just misperception about how all of this works. I think just to bring it up to a patient to acknowledge it is so critically important. As one example, when we were trying to find ways to tell the story of young adult cancer and financial toxicity at the Samfund, we ended up using 'Cancer isn't free', as our tagline. And when the team of volunteers who came up with that presented it to me, I actually cried, they will tell you that I cried in a meeting when they told me that because it was exactly what we needed. I think, especially in the survivorship. Everyone, patients, family members, and friends assume that you're cancer free, and that, therefore you're fine. And so, to flip the script a little bit and say, ‘Well, wait for a second, cancer isn't free,' opened up so many conversations. We certainly didn't get any closer to lowering the cost of cancer, but not carrying around the weight of this shame and just fundamental discomfort in asking for help after treatment especially, it just opened up more conversations, and we saw so many young adults and other people take a deep breath. And so, I think bringing up these conversations, even if they don't lead to immediate solutions is a really important first step. And so, with that in mind, I would say that any nonprofit hospital has to have a financial assistance program. They don't always advertise it very well and they don't always make it very easy to find on the websites. Some hospitals do a better job than others, but these programs are there. The parameters vary, as you said, depending on the hospital and its resources. But I think as a starting point, anyone who's interfacing with that patient should at least say, ‘If you're struggling financially, if a bill comes in that you don't know how to handle, please give a call to this.' It can either be the patient assistance program, a financial navigator, whatever your particular hospital calls it, and just give the person the resources that they can access it when they're ready. So, I think that's a really important first step and a doable one, because it's a referral, nobody has to become an expert in that particular program just to know that it exists and to share that contact information. The other thing I would say is that there are many, many more patient advocacy groups now than there were 10 years ago, and certainly than there were 20 years ago. And so many of the people that find us as one example, find us in a Google search. So, anyone that is looking for help with finances, help with bills, cancer bills, I mean, there are all sorts of combinations of words they can search for, they will find the groups that they need. They just don't always know that they're supposed to search for it. I think, again, bringing up this conversation, whether it's put in clinical terms like financial toxicity, or more informally, like, ‘Hey, how are you doing? How's your job? How's your stress level?' Trying to gauge what their biggest challenge is, can sort of inspire them to go home and seek out the resources they need. But until these conversations even start, they don't know what they don't know. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Absolutely, thank you! These are very helpful. Dr. Schapira, on our end, the providers, what tools and resources can we go to help us, clinicians, discuss financial toxicity more comfortably with patients? Dr. Lidia Schapira: First, I would say to be comfortable in just talking about it and being open and receptive. The second is to build some expertise in the team. We don't have to carry this. We need to be part of the solution but we don't have to have all the fixes. I think the idea of financial navigation is gaining traction with our colleagues. There are some people who actively are embarking on research, including a very interesting randomized control trial of a financial navigation intervention that's currently underway. So, I think that we need to have people who are available to us that we can call, who can help patients understand their bills, who can help patients find sources, perhaps that can help them with payment, to find the nonprofits or charitable organizations, that can help them fill out forms, help them with legal aid, if that's what they need, help them apply for pharmaceutical assistance or health insurance. All of these are very concrete tasks, and we need to have some capacity in a cancer team to deliver these. And I think for us, as oncologists, what I would love to leave us with is the idea that we can't wait. There is an urgency of getting all these things implemented. And we can do it in any number of ways, but it's something we absolutely need to deliver to our patients. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up. As you both mentioned, it's very good that we're talking about it more. I'm remembering a patient of mine who told my social worker, and kudos to all the wonderful social workers and case managers out there, these patients advocates out there are a very important part of the team, not just the doctors, the nurses, the others. They're looking after the patient in so many aspects. I remember my social worker telling me, well, the patient did say, ‘Please don't bring this into much detail to Dr. Manochakian.' And when she asked her why? And she said, ‘Well, because I don't want him to worry about that part. Let us worry about this part.' That struck me. The patient doesn't want me to worry about her or his financial toxicity. I mean, of course, we need to but I don't want to make it sound like the sky is blue. That, yes, that should be something easy. No, it's not easy. An important challenge is time. A lot of time the social worker would tell us, ‘Well, we also understand that you don't have time for it. Your visit with the patient is 30 minutes or an hour. We do know that in the community, sometimes visits are shorter, you don't want to just ask and then change the topic. And if you ask for a candid conversation about financial toxicity, it's gonna take time. Where do you have that time?' So, I don't know. Dr. Schapira, if you have a solution for that, or an idea because it is, I think a major challenge is time and this is maybe where the social worker and other people help. But this conversation needs time and there is in this day and age in health care, there is not much time. Dr. Lidia Schapira: My short answer to that is we need to build teams that have the capacity to absorb these issues, just as we've learned to deal with other difficult conversations and other difficult topics that are such an important part of people's lives. And remember that this just doesn't affect cancer care. There may be other specialists, there may be primary care physicians who were also there trying to assist patients and families, and there may be other decisions that are linked to whether or not they receive cancer care, or what kind of cancer care they receive. So, I think that we're all in this together and my take home is that we all need to have this capacity in our settings wherever we deliver cancer care. Samantha Watson: One thing I would add also is that cancer is not a single appointment, right? We all know that. I probably spent more hours in the clinic, the years of my treatment, than I did in my own house. So, we have a lot of opportunities to do this. I'm thinking about the many days either inpatient or outpatient, when, for example, a nutrition specialist would come and see me because I couldn't eat and my weight was dropping, and everybody was concerned about that. And on some days, I just didn't want to hear it, I wasn't hungry, I couldn't stomach whatever she was trying to give me. But on other days, I took it and was ready to try and put the weight back on and take her suggestions, and I was just in a different frame of mind. And so, I think that if there is a social worker, a financial navigator, somebody who can make some of these referrals to organizations and to assistance programs within the hospital, that even joins one of the appointments for the last five minutes, or pokes their head in every so often to check-in. We have a lot of different opportunities to do that because most people also are spending time inpatient. And so, I think this probably also is a learning opportunity, right? We see what works. And we see we will learn from this because we're figuring this out in real-time. And hopefully, five years from now, 10 years from now, we will look back on this time when we started to have these conversations and try out different strategies and get to the root causes of some of these issues, and we will have figured out solutions. But I think for right now we just need to try. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Well, thank you. This has been really very insightful from both of you. I really appreciate everything you share today. As we are reaching the end of this podcast, I'd like to ask each one of you to give all these wonderful patients and caregivers, anyone who's involved in cancer care out there, a final message. I'll start with you, Miss Watson. Samantha Watson: One of the things that we have touched on in this conversation is that financial toxicity is not limited to the cost of treatment, and therefore the experience is not only felt while someone undergoes treatment. It extends well into survivorship. It extends to employment issues. It extends especially for young adults to family building challenges, which can be very expensive. And this is an ongoing issue but the thing that I would leave people with is that there is a way through it. I have done this work for 20 years. I have heard thousands upon thousands of very similar stories, not just about profound financial struggle, but about resilience and about determination. And if this is just a matter of connecting the dots, and we know that there are some resources out there, we have to make sure patients know about them. We have to arm providers, social workers, and other professionals with the confidence and the information to share but I think if we can do that well, and when we do that well, we have already seen that, especially in the young adult community, which is the one that I know best, so many of these incredible patients go on to live very happy and wonderful lives. And if I have an example, I had my bone marrow transplant almost 21 years ago. I have dealt with plenty of side effects and a lot of bills. I've been happily married for 15 years. I have a career that I love, and I'm a mom to two beautiful children. So, with the right support, and with the right mechanisms and conversations in place, people absolutely can move forward through this. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Thank you! Dr. Schapira? Dr. Lidia Schapira: My final comment is that we have learned a lot through research and through conversations, we know that there are some who are at greater risk for financial toxicity and harm, and those who are the younger patients are the ones with lower income, particularly black rural patients. So, we need to redouble our efforts. We need to do this with compassion. We need to do this as part of the work that we do. We need to involve people who have special expertise in this and bring them into our cancer team. And we too, I think, need to feel that this is a general fight that we all need to get involved in to make cancer treatments, and particularly the novel, cutting edge cancer treatments more accessible for everybody who comes to our care, and without burdening them for the rest of their life with the consequences of treatment. Dr. Rami Manochakian: Thank you! You couldn't have said it any better. I do like to mention here also since this is an ASCO podcast, I'd like to highlight the efforts by ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and many other societies to be fair out there in their advocacy efforts with Congress, with the government about what can be done more also at a higher level to try to increase access in more effective, more affordable health care. And this was very insightful. I'm positive, it's very helpful for many listeners, patients, and caregivers out there. As you both mentioned, to further highlight the importance of keep talking about these topics, to tell every patient out there that help is there. But you need sometimes to remind yourself to ask for help. Don't be ashamed of talking about financial toxicity, bring it up. We as healthcare providers know we're not doing a great job yet at it, but we need to help each other patients and healthcare providers, and all the team members to talk about this topic more and see how we can help. The conversation needs to be continued about financial toxicity for patients, cancer survivors, continue to communicate, share the resources, and definitely, I think the future will be better. It needs time, but hopefully, we can get there slowly. Thank you so much, both of you Dr. Schapira and Miss Watson. Thank you so much to our wonderful ASCO staff. Thank you to our listeners. We appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Have a good day everyone. Unknown Speaker: Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In the second of this two-part conversation Drs. Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson sit down with Dr. Deborah Schrag, the current Chair of the Department of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to continue the discussion of her roles as a leader, researcher, oncologist, public health expert, and more. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.     TRANSCRIPT Dr. Dave Johnson: Hi everyone, welcome back to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO educational podcast. My name is Dave Johnson. I'm at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. And I'm here with my good friend Dr. Pat Loehrer who serves as a director of Global Oncology and Health Equities at Indiana University. In the second half of our conversation with Dr. Deborah Schrag, the current chair of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. In part one, we heard about Dr. Schrag's early life and background, as well as the importance of affordable cancer care and much more. Let's jump back into the conversation and hear about her current goals and initiatives at Memorial Sloan Kettering. I have a question for you. Jumping ahead a little bit. But I mean, you're such a role model for all of us. But you're now in a very powerful position as head of medicine at the preeminent cancer center in the world. So, I'd be interested in knowing what are your top initiatives? What did you come to this role wanting to do short-term and long-term? I'd be curious to hear from you about that. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Yeah. So, I have lots of specific initiatives, all the things that are probably very similar across medical cancer centers. We have to figure out the role of immuno-oncology. We have to figure out the role of CAR T-cell Therapy. There are lots of specific things, but let me tell you about three sort of overarching principles and things that I think we need to think about. So, one of the reasons why I decided to leave my job where I really focused on training researchers and building a research program to lead a department of medicine that has a mix of clinicians, educators, and investigators is that there's really a profound sense of exhaustion and disconnection. I'll use the word even burnout or people get the sense of losing the joy in the practice of medicine. And as corny as it sounds, and I know I'm going a little corny here, Dave. But I really want to help bring back and connect people to the joy in the practice of medicine. It's the joy that we experience when we crack a tough case, when we help a patient, when our patients make us laugh, when our patients and their families make us cry, when they drive us bananas, when they cook us food that is inedible, just reconnecting us to the joy, to the stories. I really wanted to try to be a different kind of leader because I felt that I could make a contribution to the field of academic medicine in general and oncology in particular, by working with faculty to set them up to tap into that joy, because I know they all started with it. I know they all went into medicine because they care about those human stories, because they do want to make a difference. This past week, a fellow intern of mine who you may know, passed away. His name was Paul Farmer. He was the head of Partners in Health and he was an infectious disease physician. There's a book about him by Tracy Kidder that's really moving. There's also a documentary about him called, Bending the Arc, which I would highly recommend. Paul was an incredible inspiration, just incredible, but he brought so much joy to the practice of medicine. I remember when Paul was going to some of the poorest places on the planet, specifically Cange, Haiti. He got an idea that he needed to bring chemotherapy because there were large cancers that were untreated. And he wanted to get leftover chemotherapy from the Dana-Farber. So, in the 1990s, when I was a fellow, he would ask me whether I could get him any leftover Taxol. I was like, ‘Paul, I can't do that. It's not safe. You can't take leftover Taxol to Cange'. And he said, ‘Deb, just wait, the drugs will be oral soon, and then I'll get it'. But guess what? Paul came back to me in 1999, and capecitabine had been approved. The oral equivalent of 5-FU. He held my feet to the fire. He said, ‘Every time you have a dead patient, if there's any leftover capecitabine, I want you to get it for me'. Inspirational leadership, connecting people to the joy in the practice of medicine. I would say that's number one. There's no one simple formula or way to do that. It's hard work. It requires a team I think a lot more teamwork into the practice of medicine. I think we're coming out of a hard two years where we've been confined to Zoom boxes. But it's a lot easier when we can sit together in a room and have a pizza and a beer on a Friday afternoon. But we have to figure this out, and we will, step by step. The other big thematic area, I think, has to do with the patient experience. Dave, I mean, when I started out as a fellow, patients with advanced lung cancer were living for 10 months, 10-12 months, that was a pretty good run with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Well, these days, it's 2-3 years, and there's even quite a tale of patients who were living 4-5 years. And that is a long journey. It's no longer the 800-meter sprint, it's a half marathon, turning into a marathon and even an ultra-marathon. So, the way we deliver care needs to change. So, we're really rethinking here, how we deliver care. So, as an example of some, if you go back to the 80s and 90s, cancer chemotherapy was something that happened in the hospital. And in the last quarter century, we've transitioned that to an outpatient practice. I think in the next quarter century, we won't transition all of it, but we will transition a lot of it to home. As an example, I'm struck by when patients undergo IVF, they get handed some Lupron and are taught how to self-administer Lupron every day, so they can undergo a fertility cycle. But when those same women get breast cancer, they have to come into the clinic and sit and wait and take half a day off of work to get the same Lupron. The same is true for men with prostate cancer. Why is that? It's because of policies, and it's not safety, it's not patient-centered. So, I think we have an opportunity to change the patient experience. I think we'll be able to give immunotherapy at home, and HER-2 agents at home. We have to do the trials and make sure that it's safe, but we have to make cancer care more patient-centric and improve the experience. And that's just essential when it's a marathon that we're asking our patients to run, not these 12-month sprints. Families need this also. So, those are a few of the challenges that I want to take on. Joy in medicine, patient experience, and of course, the physician-scientist pathway needs to be strengthened. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I love it. You can imagine between Dave and me, I think that resonates so much about having joy in medicine. I've not heard other people talk about that, but I really think that's an important vocation. But I'm going to ask you something else too because, in the efforts of being joyful and being a role model for that, there's the other side of it, where you can't actually let your hair down, and really be depressed, if you will, or down because you can't let the other side see that. And so, who do you lean on if you will, your confessor that you can talk to when you're feeling down when you're trying to fight the anti-joy part of your job? Dr. Deborah Schrag: I have lots of friends outside of medicine. And I've always found that that's really helpful to make time for friends outside of medicine. They help connect me to humor and other things. I'm coming up on a big high school reunion. My high school classmates and I still meet for picnics in Central Park. And there are about 120 in our graduating class. And I think we'll have about 110 of us getting together. We still have picnics with 40-50 people attending. So, there's nothing like old friends from childhood who now do all kinds of different things. So, that's really helpful. But I've also found that my mentors and colleagues who trained me and who know me really well, are a great source of advice. So, leaders in academic medicine, and I've always found that I've been able to get advice from people who were senior and leaders, people such as Dr. Mayer, Dr. Benz, Dr. Jim Griffin, and also junior colleagues. I now increasingly as I get old, I rely more and more on my trainees and my mentees. So, some of the folks I know best are people who I trained. So, I'll just give you one example. Many of you may know Ethan Basch. We worked together when we were both just coming up. I was an assistant professor. He was a couple of years behind me. I mentored him. Well, he's now chief of the Division of Oncology at UNC. He and I have written lots of grants together. We're really partners now. But it's been a lifelong professional friendship. Sometimes when I just need to let my hair down, I get on the phone with Ethan, and yeah, there's a little bit of commiserating. But I'll give you an example that runs through Dave. Some really valuable experiences had to do with being asked to serve on committees. I think it's great. I just want to give a shout-out to ASCO. Some of my earliest professional relationships were with superstars that I met through ASCO. So, people like Joe Simone, reading his Simone's Maxims everyone needs to read Simone's Maxims if you haven't. There was a guy by the name of Christopher Desh, who sadly passed on. But he was an ASCO member who practiced at the Virginia Commonwealth University back in the late 1990s. Boy, did that guy understand the joy in medicine, some of the early folks who started QOPI. Being introduced to those individuals who practiced in different parts of the country and who had different kinds of challenges - having that sort of rich network has been incredible. At some point, I think through such a connection, maybe it was through Dr. Mayer, I was referred to Dr. Johnson, who was then running the American Board of Internal Medicine committee that wrote the oncology exam. I participated in that for a few years that was led by Dr. Johnson. And I met incredible people on that committee, including Dr. Johnson, just Dr. Johnson's stories could inspire anyone and get them back on track just in terms of the humor and the joy and the love, and really the pride in the profession. But I met Jamie Von Roenn that way, who's now leading educational efforts at ASCO, she was on that committee. Lynn Schuchter became a good friend of mine as a result of that. So, I would just say, sometimes you need to get out of your own space. And sometimes I need to get out of Dodge, as they say, I need to get out of New York, get out of Boston, and being connected to colleagues across the country has been so rewarding. I have a network of friends at other institutions who I rely on. Serving on external advisory boards is a great place to meet people. Study section, if anyone has the opportunity to be on study section. That's a fabulous opportunity. So, I think participating in peer review, showing up at meetings, serving on ASCO committees, or ASH or AACR. These are really important experiences. And I will say in my leadership role, I'm really trying to make it clear to faculty that I encourage them to take time to participate in these activities and attend these events and even travel because the traveling is important, too. I could not have gotten the same dose of Dave Johnson, if I had not actually gone to the meeting, spent all day writing board review questions, and then having a nice meal afterward. That was part of the experience. I don't know what you would say, Dave, but that was my view. Dr. Dave Johnson: So, one of the things that Osler talked about was the fellowship of the profession, and how important it is to have those relationships. Even if one can't physically be with that individual, developing that spiritual relationship is really critically important. I'm so glad you brought this up and expanded on it in the way you did because I think it's absolutely critical to retain the joy of medicine. It's our colleagues, as well as our patients that make it such a marvelous, majestic profession, in my view. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I was going to just add something if I could. So, Deb, replace me on the ABIM, just to let you know, because we had certain slots on there. One of the not sure if it was the rules or guidelines that were mandated is that everyone needed to take the oncology boards, even though we wrote the questions, we had to take the test. And you knew that and you had such unbridled enthusiasm for this. I still remember this deeply, and that not only did you recertify for the oncology board, but you also studied to take the medicine boards too. Your love of medicine is so contagious. And I'm sure everyone at Memorial benefits from this. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Thank you. That's very nice to say. I do, I love the stories. I've been rounding with the house staff on the inpatient service. I think both of you know, inpatient oncology, as we're able to do more and more in the outpatient setting, our inpatients are very, very sick. And we often get a front-row seat to what I would call the social determinants of health challenges. In other words, if you've got relatives and resources, you may be able to be at home. But if you have severe pain or symptoms, and you lack the relatives, or you live on a fifth floor, walk-up, or just don't have the resources to get the home care that you need, you're more likely to be in our hospital. But as I round with the house staff, I find myself asking them to tell me more about the patient stories. Because when I round and they tell me that it's a 74-year-old with peritoneal carcinomatosis, jaundice, and abdominal pain. I'm so old that I've seen so many hundreds of those patients and the management hasn't changed very much. But what's really the privilege is to understand the journeys that got people where they are, and to learn a little bit about who these people are. I try to do that when I round with house staff and I find that it makes the experience better for them. I have to say that I do worry about how we train young physicians in oncology because what they see on the inpatient side is really the hardest of the hard, that's obviously less true in a leukemia service, where they're delivering lots of curative therapy or a stem cell transplant service. But in solid tumor oncology, it's really hard. I think it's something we have to have to tackle. We have to rethink education and medical oncology. I'm hoping that we're going to do that. That's also on the bucket list, by the way. I think we have to do that as a profession. And I know both of you are passionate champions and advocates for education, as is ASCO. But I think it's really imperative that we do that if we are to keep attracting talent. And then I just want to make one more point, which is that New York City is one of the most diverse places in the United States. I don't know about the planet, because I don't know the whole planet. But in the United States, we are incredibly diverse. But the oncology workforce does not yet look like that. So, we have a lot of work to do to train a much more diverse workforce. We're doing well with respect to gender, very well. We're literally about 50/50, we may even have a little bit higher proportion of women on the faculty here at MSK. And I think that's true nationally as well. But with respect to Blacks and Hispanics, and other underrepresented communities, Native Americans, we've got a long way to go. And we have a pipeline problem. And that's going to be hard. But it's hard work that we have to do, and I know you guys are working on that in your own centers as well. Dr. Dave Johnson: Let me follow up on that. What attributes are you looking for in trainees and newly hired faculty? Whether they be junior or senior faculty? What are the characteristics or attributes you seek that you think predict, or certainly you want your individuals to possess? Dr. Deborah Schrag: We all want people who have everything, but I would say creativity, the willingness to take risks, and the ability to ask a question. I say this to the trainees, frankly, I say it to my own children as well. ‘It's okay, take a harder course. Yes, you may get a B minus by trying something new and different, that doesn't play to your strengths. But try something new. Take risks. Yes, the trial may fail. Yes, you may not get that grant.' But I think a willingness to take risks, a willingness to put yourself out there, a willingness to stretch. I'm also looking for people who can work in teams because there is no aspect of medical care that happens in MSK, I suspect that it's also true that maybe medicine in Antarctica, but even medicine in Antarctica is probably a team sport. Medicine has become a very complicated team sport. It's a very complicated dance with pharmacists, nurses, and APPs. It takes a village to give a course of immunotherapy. It is very complicated. And so, when people like to control things and like to do everything themselves, they're going to have a hard time. And that's true I find for teaching, laboratory investigation, wet lab, dry lab, most good, impactful, important science in oncology these days, clinical trials, wet, dry, all of it gets done in teams. Teams that have people with different levels of training, different skill sets, early stage, late stage, people who are quantitative, people who can write, people who can program, people who can do lab experiments, and people who know what an organoid is. People who know how to program an in R. All different kinds of skill sets but they have to be able to work in teams. People who can't do that are going to struggle to achieve maximum impact. I'm not saying that there isn't room at the end for the occasional genius person who likes to work solo. But that's not really what we need to move the needle. So, I need team players. I think there is a big emphasis on collegiality. Of course, we want smart and we want brilliance. But sometimes a drop less brilliance and a drop more collegiality and being able to work together in a team, it goes a long way and it's the difference between doing something impactful and not. That's what I look for. I also think that it takes all different kinds of people. And no one has to excel at everything, but it's great for people to be able to excel at something. So, passion, drive, and ability to ask questions, and not being afraid to occasionally fail and having some tolerance for that and trying to make sure that leaders are able to tolerate that, too. We have to be able to. Dr. Dave Johnson: Yeah, I think those are great suggestions. We're getting near the end of our time today, and we have a lot more questions to ask. But what's your biggest fear, as the head of the Department of Medicine, looking to the future, what causes you to lose sleep at night? Dr. Deborah Schrag: I think the business of medicine. If medicine turns into something that feels just like [inaudible] work, and losing physicians, if we don't respect physicians' need to take care of themselves, to take care of their families, and yeah, to find that joy, then we will not attract the top talents. I think we need great minds and great hearts and people from all walks of life to enter the profession, because that's the talent that we need, to quote my friend, Paul Farmer, ‘Bend the arc'. And you know, we need to bend Kaplan-Meier curves in the right direction. And we need the talent to come into the profession, and if they see that we are not happy and not thriving, the next generation is going to go elsewhere. I don't want to begrudge my wonderful endocrinology colleagues. We need people to tackle diabetes, and we need great surgeons and great anesthesiologists, too. So, it's not just oncology. In medicine, I'm responsible for all kinds of discipline. And boy, we need a lot of cardio-oncologists because we've created all kinds of new challenges. So, it's all of the sub-disciplines of medicine, but I think physician well-being and attracting talent to the field is really essential and making sure that the business side of medicine doesn't take over and destroy the core promise and premise of academic medicine. It is a spectacular profession and calling, and it has led to so many advances that have really changed the world. And we have to, I think, preserve the good in that. My fear is that that gets further eroded. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Just one last question from me. Thank you for all your wonderful comments. But I think I have to ask this because it's such an unusual thing as they brought up at the beginning that you're the first female Head of Medicine at Memorial and Lisa DeAngelis is the first Physician in Chief. And so, although there is gender equity in medicine, there is not gender equity and leadership around the academic world. And this is a very unique situation there. Can you reflect a little bit about the significance of this and perhaps, lessons learned, particularly if you're speaking to a younger version of yourself or a young woman who's thinking about a career? What are the lessons between you and Dr. DeAngelis mean? Dr. Deborah Schrag: I'm not sure I've been at it long enough to have lessons. I'm just so grateful. So, I'm not in the generation that was a trailblazer. I'm a beneficiary. So, I've had the privilege of being trained by Dr. Jane Weeks, by Dr. Judy Garber. I, myself, had so many great mentors who were women. I would say to women, that you can have it all. You just may not be able to have it all at once. Women and men have to make choices. Can you have a lab and be a laboratory investigator? Yes. Can you do that and have a family? Yes. I think running a high-power lab and having a gigantic clinical practice and running clinical trials, I think the three-legged stool and the so-called triple threat is really, really hard. But I think it's hard for women and men. What I would also say to women is you don't have to be the boys - be yourself. I think the best advice I can give to leaders is to be authentic. Because everyone, men, women, people smell a phony and no one likes to phony. So, I think if you know how to partner, you understand that it's a team sport. I think women do that really well. So, I think being authentic, and I think women need to hear that, you don't have to emulate male role models. You have to be yourself. I would love to emulate the two of you. I have to thank both of you because the Indiana Miracle and Dave from his Vanderbilt days, Vandy, as Dave likes to call it, from his Vanderbilt days to his Texas days, like, the two of you are such incredible thought leaders and inspirational leaders in oncology, but I can't be you. The best we can be is sort of the best version of ourselves but we can be inspired by the great qualities that we see in other leaders and carry a little bit of that with us. So, I think that goes for women and for men. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Thank you! Well said, and I appreciate the thoughts. We've kind of gone through this and we're going to have to wrap it up. One of the questions that we often times ask our visitors is if there's a book that they're reading, a documentary that they're watching, a movie they're seeing, or anything you'd recommend? Dr. Deborah Schrag: That's a good question. So, yes, actually. One of the ways that I learn about leadership that I find, actually a fun way that's both relaxing and educational, is to read a biography. I love reading biographies. I'm going to name two. And these are popular books - for scholars these may not be. First really fun book is ‘The Splendid and the Vile', by Erik Larson. It's a book about Winston Churchill in 1940, and how he has to try to persuade the United States to enter World War Two, but it's really about a particular year in history and Winston Churchill. Dr. Dave Johnson: It's a great book. Dr. Deborah Schrag: It's called, The Splendid and the Vile. I just learned so much about leadership from that book and the decisions that Winston Churchill makes in his bathtub. So, just read that book and think about what Winston Churchill does in his bathtub. I can't lead from my bathtub, I live in a New York City apartment, but that's one. Then more recently, I guess there's a little German theme happening here, is, The Chancellor. It's about the life of Angela Merkel. It's long, I haven't finished it yet. But it's incredible. What a story, East Germany, her leadership style, how she studies chemistry, how she rises. It's a fantastic book. It's called, The Chancellor. So, I will recommend that one. Then the last one, my beloved nephew who's like a son to me. He's about 36 years old, and he has ALS. And he's completely paralyzed. He is on a vent and he has two little kids. But he released a documentary that actually won at the Tribeca Film Festival called, Not Going Quietly, which is about a cross-country trip that he made. He's a pretty inspirational character, despite the fact that my nephew was completely locked in, he communicates only with his eyes. He is living a remarkable life. I think that documentay, I know this is a shameless plug for my nephew, but he's a pretty inspirational character. I don't necessarily agree with 100% of his policy prescriptions and recommendations. But there are lots of ways to make meaning in the world. So, that's another documentary. Dr. Pat Loehrer: That's incredible. Thank you so much for sharing that. I'm going to look it up. People think cancer is the worst thing you can get but there are worse diseases to have. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Yeah, I think this one might change your idea. And then I would also say Paul Farmer's Bending the Arc. I think for young physicians who haven't seen that movie, I would recommend Bending the Arc. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Thank you. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Thank you! It's been great to chat with you. Dr. Pat Loehrer: It's great. So, that's all the time we have for today. And I really want to thank you, Deb, for joining us and for all your insight. It's been wonderful. I also want to thank all our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Education podcast where we'll talk about just about anything and everything, if you've heard. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to see on the show or a host that you would like not to see on the show, just email us at education@asco.org. Thanks again. And Dave, I just have a riddle for you here. How do you make an octopus laugh? Dr. Dave Johnson: Show him your picture. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Ten-tickles. That's all we have for today. You guys have a good evening. Take care.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In part one of a two-part conversation, Drs. Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson sit down with Dr. Deborah Schrag to discuss her roles as a leader, researcher, oncologist and public health expert. The current Chair of the Department of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Schrag discusses the joy and passion she has found throughout her career, and more. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm the Director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dr. David Johnson: Yes. And hello, I'm David Johnson. I'm at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Pat Loehrer: And welcome to another version of Oncology, Etc. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, great guest today, before we get started with our guests, though, Pat, what are you reading these days? What can you recommend to me? Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, I'm reading Jamie Raskin's book, which is about his son and about the insurrection. It's really a wonderful read so far, particularly I think about the family nature and how much he deeply respected his son who unfortunately committed suicide. Dr. David Johnson: Right before one of the impeachment trials as I recall, right? Dr. Pat Loehrer: It was right before the January 6 insurrection. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, terrible situation. I have a book I've been meaning to recommend for a while. It's one that I've given to all the chief residents I've worked with over the last several years. And today's guests made me think about this book. It's entitled, Osler: Inspirations from a Great Physician. It's written by Charles Bryan, who's the former Chair of Medicine at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Dr. Pat Loehrer: You trained with Osler, didn't you? Dr. David Johnson: I was a couple of years behind him. He was my senior resident. For anyone who's an Oslerphile, it's a great book to have. But even if you're not, it's got some wonderful lessons to be learned about how to interact with one's colleagues, and a lot of information about leadership, which is why it made me think of today's guest, Dr. Deborah Schrag who we're really excited to welcome to Oncology, Etc. Dr. Schrag is the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She's a highly accomplished healthcare leader, clinician-researcher, and expert in public health and population science. Deborah received her medical degree from Columbia University and completed her residency in internal medicine at Brigham and Women's. She obtained her medical oncology training at Dana-Farber in Boston and also received an MPH degree from the Harvard School of Public Health. After a brief stint on the faculty at DFCI and Brigham and Women's, she joined the division of gastrointestinal Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering, where she was an associate member and Associate Professor of Public Health and Medicine. In 2007, I believe it was, she returned to Dana-Farber and Brigham, where she continued her work focused on improving the delivery, quality, and effectiveness of cancer care. While there, she served as chief of the Division of Population Sciences until this past year when she returned to Memorial to chair the Department of Medicine. I also think she's the first woman to hold this position, but we'll learn about that momentarily. Deb is internationally recognized as a pioneer for her work engaging patients in reporting outcomes as a way to improve care. She has led pragmatic trials using informatics strategies to optimize patient and clinician wellbeing, efficiency and quality, and equity of care. In short, she's a true superstar, leading the department, the major department, in one of the world's foremost Cancer Institutes. Deb, welcome to Oncology, Etc. Thank you so much for accepting our invitation. This is a relatively new oncology podcast, but already, we're known for our incisive, deeply penetrating questions. So, I have a question for you to start off. Do you have any carpentry skills? Dr. Deborah Schrag: Absolutely none whatsoever, Dave. None. Dr. David Johnson: I'm disappointed. It's my understanding that Schrag is German for cross or a slant and people who build cross-legged tables. So, I was hoping, my house was destroyed recently, and I'm looking for replacement furniture, and I was hoping you might be able to help me. Dr. Deborah Schrag: I apologize. But I'm not going to be able to help. The name, you're correct, though, David, is a German name. So, my family does hail from Germany and they made malt, which is the major ingredient in beer. I'm not sure where the name comes from. But they ran malt factories and shipped malt all over to all the beer, before there were craft beer distilleries, that's what they did. Dr. Pat Loehrer: That may come in handy by the end of this podcast, by the way. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Could be. Dr. David Johnson: Well, speaking of your family, tell us a little bit about your background and where you were raised, and your family members. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Sure! I'm glad you asked that because I really have been very influenced by where I grew up. And as I think about it, experiences that go back to first grade got me where I am today. So, I am from New York City. I grew up in Manhattan in the 1970s. And as you may know, that was a pretty rough time in the history of New York, what's often referred to as the 'bad old days', although it didn't feel that way to me. But I started out attending New York City public schools. And at that time in my neighborhood on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, my first-grade class had about 45 students, and one teacher, there were about five or six of us who spoke English, and everyone else was a recent Puerto Rican immigrant. I pretty much sat in the corner and read to myself. Now I didn't stay in the public school system for long, but I saw in first grade, how things weren't fair. And I saw and felt my own privilege, acutely. And even as a little kid, I had that sense. Eventually, my parents transferred me to private school later on. And there were kids in the neighborhood who didn't have the same privileges that I did. But living in New York, you walk around, you're confronted with disparities every day. We still see it today with homelessness on the streets. At that time, there was a lot of alcoholism and the use of drugs. And they were two blocks north that were safe to walk and two blocks east that were not safe to walk. So, this really stuck with me from a very early age. As a student in summer jobs, I worked lots of interesting jobs. I started at 14 scooping ice cream at Baskin Robbins, I worked at a famous Deli in New York called Zabar's, selling coffee. Lots of interesting jobs that I worked during holidays and vacation times. But one of my first jobs was working in an organization called the Floating Hospital, which was a big old ferry boat that circumnavigated Manhattan, and it provided a summer camp. And we would take 1800 people on a boat around Manhattan every day. And my job was to do lead testing. And I learned how to stick kids, test them for lead because there were incredible amounts of lead poisoning in New York City in the early 1980s. And then we would work on tracing the kids and these were toddlers, two-year-old, three years old. There were many families who were living in homeless shelters in New York City in the early 1980s. And that was really the beginning of my interest in public health and inequities. And really the marriage of medicine and public health. That had a deep and long-lasting impression on me and really stayed with me throughout my career. That early experience, I think it propelled me into medicine and to medical school and also to marry medicine and public health. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Tell me a little bit, Deb, about your parents. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Sure! My mother was born in the United States. She was a teacher who many years later after having three children went to law school and she became a litigator. And actually, her boss was Rudolph Giuliani. My father is a child of World War II. He was a child of German Jewish parents who had to flee the Nazis. Probably the most interesting story is that my paternal grandfather was an OB-GYN. So, I am a fifth-generation physician. My paternal grandfather was an OB-GYN at Charité, which is a very famous Hospital in Berlin. He was the head of OB-GYN there in the 1930s. But he had, I think he was half Jewish, and the Gestapo asked him to leave and he had to leave. He was an expert in version, which is essentially flipping babies and the setting of placenta previa. He then left for Lebanon, where he was in the French Resistance and had a thriving OB-GYN practice in Beirut, Lebanon, during World War II. And at night, there was a curfew, and he was part of the resistance and passed secrets around from the Russians to the French, so very dramatic. My father was born in this setting, and arrived as a new immigrant to the United States in the 1940s, where it was very hard to be a child whose parents had a German accent, given the prejudice against Germans at that time, but also went to New York City public schools, had a tremendous opportunity. It's really kind of the classic New York immigrant success story. You know, arrived in the United States with the shirts on their back and managed to work their way to a better life and achieve success and good education through public education for all their offspring. I will also say that my father had a public health stint. He worked in North Carolina as an alternative to going and serving in the Vietnam War, he was in the Public Health Service. And he worked in North Carolina in the textile mills and worked on a disease called byssinosis, which is also known as the brown lung. It's an occupational health disease that affects textile mill workers. As a child, I spent many dinners, hearing about byssinosis and brown lung, and black lung. I think at an early age I really came to understand how the world wasn't fair, and how it was instilled in me early on that it was important to work to try to make things better, particularly for people who didn't have privilege. And I think when you come from an immigrant family, and you realize how much privilege has been bestowed on you, that really leaves an indelible mark. I have to say, as Chair of Medicine at MSK, it is staggering to me the proportion of faculty here at MSK, but also at Dana-Farber, where I worked previously, we have lots and lots of immigrants who've been able to accomplish just amazing things through just motivation and drive and energy and creativity. And so, I'm a big believer in how much immigrants have powered this country. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Deborah, are your parents still alive? Dr. Deborah Schrag: My parents are still alive. They're both in their early 80s. And they both still live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. So, I'm very privileged and fortunate to have living parents. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I can imagine the pride that they have for you. Dr. David Johnson: I just want to jump in and let our listeners know that Deb mentioned Charité in Berlin. That's the home of multiple Nobel laureates that all of us would know like Ernst Chain, who was one of the individuals involved in the development of penicillin, but Paul Ehrlich, Robert Koch, Hans Krebs, and for cancer doctors, Otto Warburg, among others. So, it truly is a world-renowned institution. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Well, my paternal grandfather was famous for this technique called version, which essentially involves putting your stethoscope next to the uterus, figuring out where the placenta was, and then essentially trying to flip the baby without disrupting the placenta or causing any harm, which required incredible skills with a stethoscope because you had to appreciate, I guess, the placental vessels. I'm not aware that this skill is still in existence, it was an important skill to have in the 1930s. When, if you did a C-section, there was a high probability of endometritis. So, you could save the baby, but you would often lose mom to endometritis. Or you could save mom, but you might not save the baby. So, at that time it was a big deal, but thankfully no longer. Dr. David Johnson: This is why we call it an Oncology, Etc. Our listeners didn't know that we're gonna get OB information in this particular podcast. Dr. Deborah Schrag: Or a digression on the history of medicine. I do find that, you know, I am inspired by the generations that came before me. I think it's also true that there are many physicians who are first-generation physicians in their families and some of us are privileged to have lots of healthcare professionals and sort of feel it as a calling. Dr. David Johnson: I think of you with many, many talents. But one of the things that I think stood out to me is, many years ago, you were in the van, talking about the financial cost of health care. I remember a very influential paper you wrote in the New England Journal, talking about the cost of treating GI cancer, colon cancer in particular. But where did your interest in that particular aspect of health care begin? What was the stimulus there? I mean, obviously you had a lot of stimulus from your family. What else? Dr. Deborah Schrag: That's really interesting. This is a little bit of a history of oncology. At that time, I was an assistant professor and assistant attending in the GI oncology service, seeing lots of patients with colorectal cancer. And we were working on a clinical trial of a drug called ImClone C225. And that was the name of the protocol. And we were putting patients in that clinical trial. And you know what? This drug was working. We were getting excited and the drug was moving ahead. We looked at the Phase 1 data and we launched Phase 2. We had meetings with the research protocol nurse and the research assistants, team meetings, and I would say there were about 50 people who were aware between the GI oncologists and the nurses and all the research assistants. You guys know that it takes a village and even though the villages were smaller then and it wasn't a particularly large trial, there are many, many people involved and everyone had the sense that this drug might be working. Just for context for our younger listeners, this is back in the early aughts, and basically, the drug that we had to treat colorectal cancer was 5-FU in many different formats and Irinotecan. And that was it. Some people thought mitomycin might work a little bit, but it was so horrible that it really barely worked. But that was what we had in our bag of tricks. So, the fact that we had this ImClone drug that eventually came to be known as Cetuximab, was remarkable. So, here's what happened. It turned out that this is the drug made by the company ImClone. And there were some shenanigans, some insider trading. And one of the people caught up in insider trading, in addition to some people involved with the company itself was none other than Martha Stewart, sort of the famous homemaker who still publishes magazines to this day. And you may know that she actually did some time in federal prison as a result of insider trading on this drug. I remember being a junior attending, and all the people involved in the trial and all the cancer professionals, we all knew this was working. But everyone respected the confidentiality of the situation, of the patients, and all the integrity that goes into academic medicine. And I remain inspired by the integrity of all the professionals, the doctors, the residents. These were not affluent people. I can tell you. we were not paying research assistants a whole hunk of money. They investigated every trade made by this company. There were absolutely no shenanigans or improprieties from the hard-working folks who helped bring this drug to market. So, as this was going on, we had many patients who were not eligible for the trial who were interested in getting the trial. So, of course, we followed as this drug got FDA approved and came to market. You could check me but I believe it was February 2004, it was FDA approved. It came out with a huge price tag. It was approximately $10,000 per month. I was mad because I was taking care of regular New Yorkers at that point. I had public school teachers, I had patients on Medicare and they couldn't afford the 20% copay. Because $10,000 a month for Cetuximab, if you have a 20% copay and you're New York City, public school cafeteria worker, is not yet eligible for Medicare with a typical plan that a New York City public school system employee would have, that was $2,000 a month. And that did not work for one of my patients who is essentially what we used to call a lunch lady. I was so mad that I decided to channel that anger into writing what I think is a perspective for the New England Journal called, “The Price Tag on Progress”. I wrote that piece. I know that many, many people and many of my esteemed colleagues have continued to work in that area and do research on the economics of drug pricing and there are many, many experts. I didn't stick with that. Not that it's not interesting, and not that it's not important. It's incredibly interesting and important, but I felt that the solution needed to happen in the legislature, state legislature, federal legislature. I think that this is about social policies, and we need to advocate for appropriate health insurance programs to make it possible for people to get coverage when they have catastrophic illnesses, and we need to think about the entire approach to drug pricing in this country. I still think that's important. I'm not convinced that what we need is more research on the topic. I think we need more policymaking and laws on the topic. I think we're still dealing with this. I'm sad to say that it's been nearly 20 years since I wrote that perspective. But I think it was motivated by frustration, not being able to get my patient what she needed, and many patients thereafter. And just the incongruity between some people benefiting from insider trading and all the good people who were doing the right thing. Dr. Pat Loehrer: I just want to throw in one thing if I can. Len Saltz, who's one of your partners, it was a piece of that trial that he presented at ASCO talking about ImClone C225. And ironically, it had a 22.5% response rate. And Len said, it's a bummer that ImClone didn't call it C995. Dr. Deborah Schrag: You have no idea how often we used to talk about that, joke about that in the clinic. I have another good story about that drug, which I think really illustrates something I believe and I think it's actually something that Osler said but it's also something I have to say I learned from both of you. And it has to do with listening to your patient. So, I had a patient named Matthew, who was a young man, 34 years old. He walked into my clinic with a diagnosis of diffuse metastatic colorectal cancer with multiple bilateral pulmonary metastases, which came to light when his tennis game was off. He was, at that time, an early employee of a newly started company called Google. And he was working on advertising algorithms, and Matt got the drug Cetuximab. And unfortunately, he was on it for quite some time. He was on it for about five or six months. But eventually, it was pretty clear that we were coming to the end of the road. And he and his wife planned a vacation. This was part of his end-of-life process planning. It was their fifth wedding anniversary in the Berkshires. We worked so hard to get Matt to the Berkshires to a beautiful inn, and on Saturday night, my pager goes off, and Matt cannot sit up. He's weak. And he'd been complaining of terrible fatigue for weeks, to me, and I really hadn't quite figured out why Matt was so fatigued. I mean, I just didn't understand it. And we get into this inn and I get a call from the Berkshire Medical Center, a small community hospital, 'Dr. Schrag, your patient is here. He's so weak and he can't sit up.' 'What's going on?' The ER doctor says, 'Well, he has a Chvostek sign', which is a sign of severe hypocalcemia. 'So, call me back with the calcium.' The calcium is low. Well, I think those of your listeners who are closer to medical school know that when the calcium is low, you have to check the mag. And Matt's magnesium was 0.2. And he got some magnesium in the Berkshire Medical Center. And all of a sudden, he felt great. He was able to go on and enjoy the second half of his fifth anniversary weekend at the Berkshire Inn and he came back. And I felt terrible because he'd been complaining to me of fatigue for six weeks and I hadn't checked his magnesium. I was like, 50 bilateral pulmonary metastases on chemotherapy. That's a fatigue explanation. Suffice it to say that we went on to start checking magnesium on everyone getting Cetuximab. Now mind you, the drug is FDA approved and FDA labeled at this point. So, we started checking magnesium, and we find that it was low. I start getting on the phone and calling my mentors. I called Dr. Bob Mayer, who was the head of my fellowship director and was like a revered mentor to me. 'Hey, Bob, does anyone up there in Boston have low magnesium from Cetuximab?' 'We don't check magnesium.' I said, 'But can you check?' I started calling around and that's a great example of the community of oncology. We are a community. I just started working the phones and calling friends and saying 'You guys checking magnesium for any of these folks on Cetuximab?' Suffice it to say, we figured out that their EGFR receptors in the ascending loop of Henle - so, again, back to biology and pathophysiology - the drug Cetuximab was blocking reabsorption of magnesium in the kidney, and it was Cetuximab that caused a terrible magnesium wasting. Oral magnesium did not work. You had to give it intravenously, repeatedly. And we helped eliminate fatigue for a bunch of patients. About six months later, I showed up at ASCO with these little cardboard slides and a little poster back in the corner and put up our little case series, very little. But I'm proud to say that we changed the label of Cetuximab and it's now on the label that it causes hypomagnesemia. It might be one of my more cited papers, paradoxically. But I think it's a principle that really has stuck with me, and I've tried to impart it to all the students and residents and fellows, 'Listen to your patients because - I think it comes from Osler- they're telling you something. We have to pay attention.' Again, I have never forgotten that. But really listening and trying to figure out how we can use our understanding of pathophysiology and what our patients tell us to ask questions and not just accept dogma and try to figure out what we can do. And you know, I couldn't have figured that out on my own. I happened to find a really smart nephrologist who happened to be able to sort of go to animal models and knew the right studies and the right people to talk to. Dr. David Johnson: It's one of the reasons why we are a multidisciplinary specialty. And we use the expertise of our colleagues. I think that's such a wonderful example of listening to one's patient and it really profoundly impacted our understanding of how that drug works and renal physiology, actually. That wraps up part one of our interview with Dr. Deborah Schrag, Chair of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We hope you've enjoyed learning about her background and her early career. In part two of our conversation, Dr. Schrag will discuss her programmatic goals at Memorial Sloan Kettering, the importance of mentorship and leadership, and what it means to have joy in the profession of medicine, and, frankly, much more. So, please be sure to join us. As always, we want to thank you for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO educational podcast, where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So, if you have an idea for our topic or a guest, please email us at education@asco.org. Unknown Speaker: Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Drs. David Johnson (University of Texas) and Patrick Loehrer (Indiana University) host the second half second half of their Oncology, Etc. interview with Mr. Paul Goldberg, the editor and publisher of the world-renowned publication The Cancer Letter. In part two, Mr. Goldberg talks about literary works he has developed outside of The Cancer Letter, his perspective on the Russian/Ukrainian conflict, and more. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with David Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. This is the second half of our two-part Oncology, Etc. A conversation featuring Paul Goldberg, who's the editor of the prestigious oncology publication, The Cancer Letter. While, part one focuses more closely on Mr. Goldberg's early life - his introduction to writing and ecology and his work with The Cancer Letter - in part two, we're going to learn more about the literary works of Mr. Goldberg which are developed outside of The Cancer Letter. We'll also learn about his insight into the Russian Ukrainian conflict. We'll pick the conversation back up with Dave asking Paul about the most important changes he's seen in oncology throughout his career. Dr. David Johnson: What changes in oncology have you seen that have been most impressive in your mind, apart from therapeutic advances? What other changes have taken place that you've witnessed in your role as editor of Cancer Letter that you think really made a difference? Paul Goldberg: I think there's a lot less of this kind of, I have more friends now than I've ever had before, maybe I'm just getting old and I like a lot of people. There were a lot of people that I did not like early on. For me, culturally that's a difference. I think a lot of people are thinking along the same lines. There's a language of oncology. There's an understanding of the importance of clinical trials. People are arguing about whether to randomize. It wasn't that long ago that people were wondering about whether that's even a good thing. You mentioned Rick Pazdur. I don't know if it rises to the level of being able to say that I coined the term but the language of oncology, to some extent, is Pazdur-esque because he has gotten everybody on the same wavelength, and people do understand what it takes to get a drug to develop most of the time. So, that would be my first observation. There's less to argue about the fundamentals. And also, a lot of the kids I came up with are now cancer center directors. Dr. Pat Loehrer: In one of the friendships, I think it's been really strong has been you and Otis Brawley was crucial. You guys wrote a book together. And I think part of that book, which was very interesting was the title says, First do no harm. There are a lot of things we do in medicine that we think we're doing well, but yet, by over-testing and overtreatment, we actually don't, in the long run, help the patients or help society. Tell me a little bit about that. You're not working on this project without us on the history of oncology. And so, the perspective of that and what are some of the most interesting historical stories that you know about? Paul Goldberg: I think he just at one point at one of the NCI meetings might have had something to do with NSABP, he started explaining to me, the NIH Reauthorization Act of 1993, and how women and minorities' language was bizarre in there, and the definition of minorities and definition of race. So, here's this guy who is explaining stuff to me, which I wouldn't have really slowed down to think about because journalists generally don't slow down to think about things unless you tell them to, at least I didn't at the time. And then I said, well, this guy has been explaining stuff to me and I've been explaining stuff to him occasionally. So, it's been going on and we've been talking probably, give or take, once a day for 30 years or so. That produced the book and the book was really funny, the first book with him. We were both wondering, where do we begin? And then I said, well, why don't we just begin with the older mastectomy? You know, the spontaneous mastectomy of a patient and he said, yeah, let's do that. So, it was like, I knew his story with which to begin. It was that kind of weird, but it was kind of fun. Dr. David Johnson: Whose idea was the book? Was it yours or his? Was it a joint decision? Paul Goldberg: We had been talking about that for maybe 20 years prior. And then at one point, it was very obvious because my agent even said, I think your friend and you should write a book. I think the time is now. Then I called Otis that day. But that's not a rare occasion and asked Otis to write the book and Otis said, yeah, it's time to write the book. So, we decided that we would do it. Dr. Pat Loehrer: After 20 years, you jumped on it? Paul Goldberg: Yeah, it was exactly like that. Dr. David Johnson: Paul, this is a silly question. Do you actually write or do you dictate? Paul Goldberg: I write. Dr. David Johnson: Do you manually write or do you type? Paul Goldberg: Yes, I type on the computer. I absolutely do. Dr. Pat Loehrer: What do you do, Dave? Dr. David Johnson: I actually write. I'm not a typist. I do the two-finger thing, you know? Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, I write out and then I'll type, but I write with a pencil. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, that's what I do as well. That's really old-fashioned. Paul Goldberg: The young people I work with think it's pretty hilarious that I don't type correctly. But that's just not my bottleneck. My bottleneck is thinking. It's not typing. So, I'd never really learned to type properly. Dr. David Johnson: So, you've written a lot about a wide array of different subjects. I mean, you have pointed out at the beginning, that you've written some fiction, some very successful books, it seems I came across something that you wrote on the internet. I thought it was kind of interesting, and I knew nothing about it. But you wrote a piece entitled, why every progressive should read The Good Soldier Svejk. Paul Goldberg: Yeah, that is me. Dr. David Johnson: I had no idea about The Good Soldier, Svejk. Maybe you could tell us about this. Paul Goldberg: Yeah, it's kind of the fundamentals of Eastern European humor. It's also the fundamentals of all humor. It's also the fundamentals of, I would have to say, catch 22 is really impossible without Svejk. It's basically a loosely structured novel. It's set in Prague. Svejk is the Czech national hero, kind of the Don Quixote of Prague, especially Prague. He tells old stories of, well, what it really comes down to is that he is conscripted into World War One. And he either is a complete idiot or he pretends to be a complete idiot. And that makes him a very sane person in many ways. So, it's kind of like only a madman could survive this. But the beauty of this is that we've never really learned that he is really an idiot. And actually, he does say this, I have the honor to report that I'm a complete idiot. So, his adventures are absolutely hilarious, and before he is conscripted, he catches dogs and sells them and just takes a mongrel dog and turns it into a terrier, by painting it black and chopping off half of its tail, that kind of stuff. So, my mother started reading it to me, preparing me for life in the Soviet Union before there was a chance to get out. My first reading of Svejk was totally age inappropriate. And politically somewhat inappropriate. It's not an illegal sort of book. It's allowed, which is sort of a joke in and of itself because, in a totalitarian state, a book like Svejk has bragged more dissent than Bush can, who is also... Dr. Pat Loehrer: Let me ask you this Paul, just because you brought it up and to bring it more timely to what's going on, now give us a little insight into what you think mothers and children are talking about, not only in Ukraine but also in Russia right now with this invasion that's going on? What are some of your thoughts, whatever your concerns, and just ruminate a little bit about what is in your mind? Paul Goldberg: I keep thinking about 1968 in Moscow, in August 68, when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia. I was nine years old, but boy I just sat down and listened, I was glued to the radio, basically listening to the voice of America and others, but I didn't know a single person who really supported that. It's this deep feeling of shame and there's no way to hide that from anybody, children, or whoever, which is also right. At that time, actually, my mother was reading Svejk to me, which is a very appropriate book for 68. I think she started before that but here as an independent state and our leadership has decided to send tanks. I can tell you that in 1969, during the Hockey Championship, I routed the Czechs so much. I mean, the Czech were us, they weren't them, Americans were us too. So, I was rooting for the Americans, but the Soviets beat us. But when the Czechs won against the Russians, that was the happiest day of my life, and I was like, not quite, 9. So, it's an incredible feeling of shame and we all grew up with that. And right now, there are children all over Russia who are growing up with it. I don't know anybody who voted for Putin. I know a lot of people in Russia. Nobody I know. Maybe I never ran into anybody like that. It's just not us. It's them. So, I guess I might as well just sort of, I grew up among the Moscow intelligence act. So, if I grew up and we had a small provincial town, maybe, definitely the feeling would be very different in the provinces over. So, it's also, like, I'm listening to Zelenskyy speak and Russia and to the Russian people. His Russian is so much better than Putin's because Zelenskyy has read many books and Putin may have read one that was written under his name. These are the fat-faced idiots of the new nuclear bureaucracy. It's really shameful, really shameful. There is no difference, really, that I know of between my friends there, and my friends here. Not even in age. Actually, as part of my historical stuff, I met two of the participants in the demonstration on Red Square in 1968. And I knew them fairly well, so actually, just very recently, it's my audio archive of interviews with Soviet dissidents of that time. Say, I didn't really deliberately put together that archive, I put it together to write a book but there it was, and still is. Yeah, it hasn't changed from 1960s. It's just that there are more people, more outrage, and it's not going to go well for anybody. But Putin is one of the people for whom it's not going to go well because in Ukraine, you might be able to take Kyiv, but you're not going to be able to hold the whole of Ukraine. No way. These people are, I mean, these people my brothers culturally. Dr. David Johnson: You wrote a book entitled, “The Yid”. Paul Goldberg: Yeah. Dr. David Johnson: Tell us about that. Is that from this experience that you had had? Paul Goldberg: Slightly different, I have just finished the book that's from that experience. That's the one I've just turned in. It's called the dissident and that's coming out next year. But Yid was an interesting project for me. I was a kid and in Moscow hanging out with my grandfather, and his various friends and my own friends, and they all spoke Yiddish, but they were all Red Army veterans. So, they're these old Jewish guys walking around with my grandfather, talking about what happened in 1943. Telling stories like, well, I took two machine gunners and we went through the swamp for three days. Then we found ourselves in the center of Leningrad, that kind of stuff. It was just truly amazing. So, I started thinking of a way of imagining something that Stalin actually did plan to do, which was to deport all Jews. It was a kind of a holocaust that he was planning of his own. And I thought, well, what would these guys have done? So, I wrote the comedy about Stalin's death. It begins with KGB and NKVD trying to arrest an old Jewish actor. My grandfather was a pharmacist, he was not an actor, but he did give that guy our apartment or communal flat in the center of Moscow. So, he kind of got arrested in that place. But the problem is that the arrest doesn't take place the way they usually do take place. Ths guy kills three NKVD. Dr. David Johnson: To protect his hero he does sort of almost Spider Man-like, given your… Paul Goldberg: Yeah, small swords number which he develops on stage. So, and then I actually, also weirdly, I was very lucky that part of my material is that my aunt comes from a very famous Jewish Intelligentsia family. And in fact, her grandfather started the Moscow Hebrews Theater, which became now the National Theatre of Israel. He was sort of a very major ethno-musicologist. Her maiden name is Dobrushin, and that was one of the Moscow Yiddish theater playwrights. So, I was able to kind of hear the stories of my aunt telling me the stories about having seen Solomon Mikhoels, and after his trip to America, the legendary things, and they put it all together into this novel, imagining a kind of alternative history. But really, Stalin did die when Stalin died. It's just that they changed the mechanism of his death, and it's a comedy. So, it's kind of a Yiddish comedy. Dr. David Johnson: You also wrote a book entitled, “The Chateau”, but this was more contemporary, I think, right? What was the inspiration for that book, which takes place in Florida, right? Paul Goldberg: Right. It was my stab at Florida realism. Actually, what I did was, the characters are all fictional, and the protagonist is a journalist at the Washington Post, a little bit of a nebbish, not a little bit but very much a nebbish, gets fired for insubordination at the Washington Post, then goes over to try to write a book about his college roommate who dies mysteriously. So, it's kind of a murder mystery. It's a kind of Florida realism. In the end, it's kind of a kleptocracy story about condo boards, which was really in America at the time. And the timeframe is right before Trump's inauguration. So, it's like Trump supporting the Soviet Jews. There's the sort of a din of, “here it comes”. And it was an interesting book to write. I don't think I ever want to write a current - and I will write a nonfiction book - but I don't want to really write anymore about something that happens now. My model for that was Turgenev it was Fathers and Sons, so I planted it in Florida and kind of played on my fantasy of what it would be if my father was not anything like my father actually is. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Before we wind up. Can I ask you a quick question? This comes from one of our viewers or one of our listeners. I remember when I was first dating, I would get really sweaty and nervous just calling up who would eventually turn out to be my wife. I would get that same feeling years later when I was calling a babysitter to see if she would go to take care of our kids. But the third point of terror is being interviewed by you and The Cancer Letter, and you would get sweaty palms and get really nervous. What advice would you have for someone who's being interviewed? Paul Goldberg: I'm not a ferocious person. I just ask questions like you just did, actually, it's very strange but I wouldn't even know how to be anything but polite. Well, there are situations where you probably wouldn't want to take my calls. But you know what those situations are. So, it's completely sort of like, not an issue. I have more friends than I have enemies by a factor of maybe 1000. It really shows, I don't think I've ever like screwed up in that way of just going after, this was the one case where I really screwed up. But this was very early, this would have been very early in my career. And now I would have just figured it out very quickly and said, oh, what the hell was I doing? But no, I mean, I have so much respect for the people who do this work and for both of you. I have so much respect for people who serve ODAC or NCAAB, or the President's Cancer Panel, and any of these incredible groups. I have so much respect for the cooperative group system for the methodology of clinical trials. I mean, you start messing with the methodology of clinical trials. Yeah, you're gonna get me on. It wouldn't be pleasant. But you would know you're doing it. Dr. David Johnson: I think we all agree that you've done a wonderful job of helping our field advance in so many ways, uncovering some things that aren't so good and helping us correct those mistakes. I personally want to thank you for that. I know Pat feels the same way. Paul Goldberg: Thank you. I think I get entirely too much credit for The Cancer Letter, but it's not really been just me for a very long time. Right now, we also have the Cancer History Project and my co-editor on that is Otis Raleigh. Then The Cancer Letter operations are run by Katie Goldberg, who also happens to be my daughter, but she is also the illustrator. Katie is the inspiration really for all the operations and she's working with Mona Mirmortazavi who's also very, very talented. On my editorial side, Matt Ong has been here for eight years. And he knows his way around oncology. Many people have dealt with him in many stories. And then there's Alice Tracy, who is an engineer, also a writer by training, and she is just a journalist with incredible talent. Then there's, of course, Alex Carolan, who is working with the Cancer History Project. She's the staff for it. And then, of course, the web designer, David Koh, and the graphics designer, Jackie Ong. It's a big crew. It takes a lot to produce The Cancer letter and it's also really a blast. Dr. David Johnson: One final question for you. We've asked all of our guests. We've talked a lot about your writings and your books, but if you read something recently that you could recommend to our listeners or perhaps a documentary that you've seen that you think is worthy of our time, what would you recommend to us and to our listeners? Paul Goldberg: Well, I'm just gonna reach for a book that's sitting in front of me right now, The Man Who Sold America. It's a story of Albert Lasker and the creation of the advertising century. It's very interesting because one of his creations was Mary Lasker, who created the National Cancer, and it took her a while to figure it out but he taught her. He was long gone by the time this was done, but without him and the mirrors that were erected, and he taught her how to erect those mirrors and how to make it happen. It's kind of a story of lies, lies, and lies, but then, human genius gets in there, the methodology gets put together, and everything starts happening. I mean, when they got started in this field, and this is not the book, but everybody would have a monoclonal antibody and everybody was laughing at people that had monoclonal antibodies, you know, immunology, yeah, right. Whom has Steve Rosenberg ever cured? Human genius stepped in. Dr. David Johnson: I just clicked on Amazon to have it sent to me. It should be here by tomorrow afternoon. Paul Goldberg: It's an interesting book about a guy with bipolar disorder, who does a bunch of weird and brilliant things. Dr. David Johnson: Paul, thank you so much for your time this afternoon. It's been a real blast to have this opportunity to chat with you. Paul Goldberg: Well, thank you. I'm sorry if I was being nonlinear. Dr. David Johnson No, we appreciate your nonlinearity. Let me take the moment now and thank our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast, where we will talk about anything and everything. If you have a suggestion for a guest, you would like us to interview, please send your suggestion to education@asco.org. Thanks again. And remember, Pat is not a Russian dissident. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Thanks, Paul. It was terrific having you, and Dave, not so much. Thank you for listening to the ASCO education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes. Please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information visit the comprehensive education center at education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guess statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO the mention of any product service organization activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.