Podcasts about AbbVie

During the 67th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 6–9, 2025, Orlando, US, the Lymphoma Hub was pleased to speak with Lorenzo Falchi, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, US. We asked, What do the primary results from the EPCORE FL-1 trial tell us about epcoritamab + R2 vs R2 alone in patients with R/R FL?In this interview, Falchi highlights that epcoritamab and R2 do not have overlapping toxicities and that the combination may offer synergistic activity. He concludes that epcoritamab sets a new benchmark as a readily available treatment for patients with R/R FL.This educational resource is independently supported by AbbVie. All content was developed by SES in collaboration with an expert steering committee. Funders were allowed no influence on the content of this resource. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the 67th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 6–9, 2025, Orlando, US, the Lymphoma Hub was pleased to speak with Adelba Torres, Hospital Auxilio Mutuo, San Juan, PR. We asked, What does the latest analysis of the EPCORE NHL-6 trial tell us about the efficacy and safety of bispecific antibodies in an ethnically and racially diverse patient population? In this interview, Torres highlights how the findings from the EPCORE NHL-6 trial support the safe and efficacious administration of subcutaneous epcoritamab in the outpatient setting in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) and discusses efficacy and safety findings in an ethnically and racially diverse group of patients.This educational resource is independently supported by AbbVie. All content was developed by SES in collaboration with an expert steering committee. Funders were allowed no influence on the content of this resource. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I'm Jonathan Friedberg, editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome to JCO After Hours, where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the BRUIN CLL-314 study, and this is a phase 3 randomized trial of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with CLL or SLL who had not previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the BRUIN CLL-313 study was, in fact, the first phase 3 study with pirtobrutinib in exclusively untreated CLL patients. It was a randomized study where we challenged pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine-rituximab. At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don't have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to congratulate our two guests who presented these very influential papers at the ASH Annual Meeting, and chose to publish them in JCO, so we thank you for that, and Dr. Davids for your commentary - really appreciated. That is this episode of JCO After Hours. Thank you for your attention. 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.   Disclosures Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ Health, Plexus Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, BeiGene, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nuvalent, Inc., Galapagos NV, Schroedinger Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma, Novartis, MEI Pharma, AstraZeneca  

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice 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. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Holger Zschäpitz über das Microsoft-Barometer und seine Folgen, das Inditex-Luxusproblem und gute Stimmung bei Salesforce. Außerdem geht es um Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, UnitedHealth Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dexcom, Align Technology, ResMed, Hims & Hers, JD Health International, iRhythm Technologies, Pro Medicus, Oscar Health, Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care (WKN: A113FD), Amundi S&P World Health Care Screened (WKN: A3DSTC), Franklin Future of Health and Wellness (WKN A3EFKW), Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health (WKN A2QKQ1), Xtrackers MSCI Genomic Healthcare Innovation (WKN: DBX0R2), Agilent, Roche, Vertex, Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Salesforce, SAP, Snowflake, Inditex, H&M, Next, LVMH, Hermès, Aumovio, TKMS, Hellofresh, Gerresheimer, Ottobock, Tonies, PSI Software, Verbio, LPKF, Stratec, Thyssenkrupp Nucera, Procredit, Amadeus Fire, Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta, Formycon und PNE. Die aktuelle "Alles auf Aktien"-Umfrage findet Ihr unter: https://www.umfrageonline.com/c/mh9uebwm Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter.[ Hier bei WELT.](https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html.) [Hier] (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6zxjyJpTMunyYCY6F7vHK1?si=8f6cTnkEQnmSrlMU8Vo6uQ) findest Du die Samstagsfolgen Klassiker-Playlist auf Spotify! Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien) Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies DAPT: how short is too short Obesity and atrial fibrillation Milestones: COURAGE  Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Steffen Massberg, Prash Sanders Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2178 Want to watch that extended interview on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and shortening its optimal duration, go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2178?resource=interview   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Emer Joyce, Nicolle Kraenkel and Steffen Massberg have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Prashanthan Sanders has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board representative University of Adelaide, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, CathRx, Abbott and Pacemate as well as research grants for University of Adelaide: Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Becton Dickson. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

In this episode with Dr Robert Puckrin, we discuss the unmet needs of double-exposed patients with CLL/SLL, as well as the current and novel treatments that can address this gap. Our guestDr. Puckrin is a Hematologist and Clinician Investigator at the Arthur Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre and Alberta Blood and Marrow Transplant Program. He is also a clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Dr Puckrin has received honoraria for advisory boards and/or speaking engagements from Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BeOne, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Kite, Janssen,Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.Please provide your feedback on this episode by filling out this quick survey at the following link: https://survey.decipherinc.com/survey/selfserve/53b/g00e/2511135Funding for this episode was provided by Eli Lilly Canada.This information is intended solely for educational purposes and is not intended to promote the use of any Eli Lilly Canada medication. All materials or information provided by Eli Lilly Canada Inc. for this learning program comply with applicable regulatory standards.​Editorial control of this learning program resides with the speaker within the parameters of the Innovative Medicines Canada Code and Eli Lilly Policy.Eli Lilly Canada supports discussion of its products consistent with the approved prescribing information in the product monograph.Any off-label discussion of products represents the personal opinion of the speaker.​

Crain's residential real estate reporter Dennis Rodkin talks with host Amy Guth about the dual markets in the Chicago area, with one soaring as the other stays flat.Plus: CTU to turn over financial audits to congressional committee, Medicare negotiates discounts on two AbbVie drugs, Thoma Bravo's Realpage settles DOJ rental collusion case and Abbott to replace glucose monitors after deaths possibly linked to false readings. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message. On this week's episode, Cyril Konto, M.D., president, executive director, and CEO at Ichnos Glenmark Innovation (IGI) talks about the promise of multi-specific antibodies, funding the company during the 'biotech winter,' closing a $700 million upfront licensing deal with AbbVie, the impact of China's rising biotech sector, and the keys to successful collaboration. Cyril also discusses IGI's focus on developing innovative therapies for emerging markets, and the shift from animal models to in silico modeling in preclinical research.   Access this and hundreds of episodes of the Business of Biotech videocast under the Business of Biotech tab at lifescienceleader.com. Subscribe to our monthly Business of Biotech newsletter. Get in touch with guest and topic suggestions: ben.comer@lifescienceleader.comFind Ben Comer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bencomer/

Justin Nielsen and Mike Webster analyze Friday's market action and discuss key stocks to watch on Stock Market Today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Kathleen Moore discuss key studies in the evolving controversy over radical upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Linda Duska. I am a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.  On today's episode, we will explore the management of advanced ovarian cancer, specifically with respect to a question that has really stirred some controversy over time, going all the way back more than 20 years: Should we be doing radical upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, or should we be doing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? So, there was a lot of hype about the TRUST study, also called ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7, a Phase 3 randomized study that compares upfront surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery. So, I want to talk about that study today. And joining me for the discussion is Dr. Kathleen Moore, a professor also of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Oklahoma and the deputy director of the Stephenson Cancer Center, also at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences.  Dr. Moore, it is so great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for doing this. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, it's fun to be here. This is going to be fun. Dr. Linda Duska: FYI for our listeners, both of our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So let's just jump right in. We already alluded to the fact that the TRUST study addresses a question we have been grappling with in our field. Here's the thing, we have four prior randomized trials on this exact same topic. So, share with me why we needed another one and what maybe was different about this one? Dr. Kathleen Moore: That is, I think, the key question. So we have to level-set kind of our history. Let's start with, why is this even a question? Like, why are we even talking about this today? When we are taking care of a patient with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, the aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer ideally is to prolong a patient's likelihood of disease-free survival, or if you want to use the term "remission," you can use the term "remission." And I think we can all agree that our objective is to improve overall survival in a way that also does not compromise her quality of life through surgical complications, which can have a big effect. The standard for many decades, certainly my entire career, which is now over 20 years, has been to pursue what we call primary cytoreductive surgery, meaning you get a diagnosis and we go right to the operating room with a goal of achieving what we call "no gross residual." That is very different – in the olden days, you would say "optimal" and get down to some predefined small amount of tumor. Now, the goal is you remove everything you can see.  The alternative strategy to that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, and that has been the, quote-unquote, "safer" route because you chemically cytoreduce the cancer, and so, the resulting surgery, I will tell you, is not necessarily easy at all. It can still be very radical surgeries, but they tend to be less radical, less need for bowel resections, splenectomy, radical procedures, and in a short-term look, would be considered safer from a postoperative consideration. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, and also maybe more likely to be successful, right? Because there's less disease, maybe, theoretically. Dr. Kathleen Moore: More likely to be successful in getting to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. Yeah, exactly. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I agree with that. And so, so if the end game, regardless of timing, is you get to no gross residual and you help a patient and there's no difference in overall survival, then it's a no-brainer. We would not be having this conversation. But there remains a question around, while it may be more likely to get to no gross residual, it may be, and I think we can all agree, a less radical, safer surgery, do you lose survival in the long term by this approach? This has become an increasing concern because of the increase in rates of use of neoadjuvant, not only in this country, but abroad. And so, you mentioned the four prior studies. We will not be able to go through them completely. Dr. Linda Duska: Let's talk about the two modern ones, the two from 2020 because neither one of them showed a difference in overall survival, which I think we can agree is, at the end of the day, yes, PFS would be great, but OS is what we're looking for. Dr. Kathleen Moore: OS is definitely what we're looking for. I do think a marked improvement in PFS, like a real prolongation in disease-free survival, for me would be also enough. A modest improvement does not really cut it, but if you are really, really prolonging PFS, you should see that-  Dr. Linda Duska: -manifest in OS. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's talk about the two modern ones. The older ones are EORTC and CHORUS, which I think we've talked about. The two more modern ones are SCORPION and JCOG0602. So, SCORPION was interesting. SCORPION was a very small study, though. So one could say it's underpowered. 170 patients. And they looked at only patients that were incredibly high risk. So, they had to have a Fagotti score, I believe, of over 9, but they were not looking at just low volume disease. Like, those patients were not enrolled in SCORPION. It was patients where you really were questioning, "Should I go to the OR or should I do neoadjuvant? Like, what's the better thing?" It is easy when it's low volume. You're like, "We're going." These were the patients who were like, "Hm, you know, what should I do?" High volume. Patients were young, about 55. The criticism of the older studies, there are many criticisms, but one of them is that, the criticism that is lobbied is that they did not really try. Whatever surgery you got, they did not really try with median operative times of 180 minutes for primary cytoreduction, 120 for neoadjuvant. Like, you and I both know, if you're in a big primary debulking, you're there all day. It's 6 hours. Dr. Linda Duska: Right, and there was no quality control for those studies, either. Dr. Kathleen Moore: No quality control. So, SCORPION, they went 451-minute median for surgery. Like, they really went for it versus four hours and then 253 for the interval, 4 hours. They really went for it on both arms. Complete gross resection was achieved in 50% of the primary cytoreduced. So even though they went for it with these very long surgeries, they only got to the goal half the time. It was almost 80% in the interval group. So they were more successful there. And there was absolutely no difference in PFS or OS. They were right about 15 months PFS, right about 40 months OS.  JCOG0602, of course, done in Japan, a big study, 300 patients, a little bit older population. Surprisingly more stage IV disease in this study than were in SCORPION. SCORPION did not have a lot of stage IV, despite being very bulky tumors. So a third of patients were stage IV. They also had relatively shorter operative times, I would say, 240 minutes for primary, 302 for interval. So still kind of short. Complete gross resection was not achieved very often. 30% of primary cytoreduction. That is not acceptable. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, so let's talk about TRUST. What was different about TRUST? Why was this an important study for us to see? Dr. Kathleen Moore: So the criticism of all of these, and I am not trying to throw shade at anyone, but the criticism of all of these is if you are putting surgery to the test, you are putting the surgeon to the test. And you are assuming that all surgeons are trained equally and are willing to do what it takes to get someone to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: And are in a center that can support the post-op care for those patients. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which can be ICU care, prolonged time. Absolutely. So when you just open these broadly, you're assuming everyone has the surgical skills and is comfortable doing that and has backup. Everybody has an ICU. Everyone has a blood bank, and you are willing to do that. And that assumption could be wrong. And so what TRUST said is, "Okay, we are only going to open this at centers that have shown they can achieve a certain level of primary cytoreduction to no gross residual disease." And so there was quality criteria. It was based on – it was mostly a European study – so ESGO criteria were used to only allow certified centers to participate. They had to have a surgical volume of over 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year. So you could not be a low volume surgeon. Your complete resection rates that were reported had to be greater than 50% in the upfront setting. I told you on the JCOG, it was 30%. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. So these were the best of the best. This was the best possible surgical situation you could put these patients in, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Absolutely. And you support all the things so you could mitigate postoperative complications as well. Dr. Linda Duska: So we are asking the question now again in the ideal situation, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Right. Dr. Linda Duska: Which, we can talk about, may or may not be generalizable to real life, but that's a separate issue because we certainly don't have those conditions everywhere where people get cared for with ovarian cancer. But how would you interpret the results of this study? Did it show us anything different? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I am going to say how we should interpret it and then what I am thinking about. It is a negative study. It was designed to show improvement in overall survival in these ideal settings in patients with FIGO stage IIIB and C, they excluded A, these low volume tumors that should absolutely be getting surgery. So FIGO stage IIIB and C and IVA and B that were fit enough to undergo radical surgery randomized to primary cytoreduction or neoadjuvant with interval, and were all given the correct chemo. Dr. Linda Duska: And they were allowed bevacizumab and PARP, also. They could have bevacizumab and PARP. Dr. Kathleen Moore: They were allowed bevacizumab and PARP. Not many of them got PARP, but it was distributed equally, so that would not be a confounder. And so that was important. Overall survival is the endpoint. It was a big study. You know, it was almost 600 patients. So appropriately powered. So let's look at what they reported. When they looked at the patients who were enrolled, this is a large study, almost 600 patients, 345 in the primary cytoreductive arm and 343 in the neoadjuvant arm. Complete resection in these patients was 70% in the primary cytoreductive arm and 85% in the neoadjuvant arm. So in both arms, it was very high. So your selection of site and surgeon worked. You got people to their optimal outcome. So that is very different than any other study that has been reported to date. But what we saw when we looked at overall survival was no statistical difference. The median was, and I know we do not like to talk about medians, but the median in the primary cytoreductive arm was 54 months versus 48 months in the neoadjuvant arm with a hazard ratio of 0.89 and, of course, the confidence interval crossed one. So this is not statistically significant. And that was the primary endpoint. Dr. Linda Duska: I know you are getting to this. They did look at PFS, and that was statistically significant, but to your point about what are we looking for for a reasonable PFS difference? It was about two months difference. When I think about this study, and I know you are coming to this, what I thought was most interesting about this trial, besides the fact that the OS, the primary endpoint was negative, was the subgroup analyses that they did. And, of course, these are hypothesis-generating only. But if you look at, for example, specifically only the stage III group, that group did seem to potentially, again, hypothesis generating, but they did seem to benefit from upfront surgery.  And then one other thing that I want to touch on before we run out of time is, do we think it matters if the patient is BRCA germline positive? Do we think it matters if there is something in particular about that patient from a biomarker standpoint that is different? I am hopeful that more data will be coming out of this study that will help inform this. Of course, unpowered, hypothesis-generating only, but it's just really interesting. What do you think of their subset analysis? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, I think the subsets are what we are going to be talking about, but we have to emphasize that this was a negative trial as designed. Dr. Linda Duska: Absolutely. Yes. Dr. Kathleen Moore: So we cannot be apologists and be like, "But this or that." It was a negative trial as designed. Now, I am a human and a clinician, and I want what is best for my patients. So I am going to, like, go down the path of subset analyses. So if you look at the stage III tumors that got complete cytoreduction, which was 70% of the cases, your PFS was almost 28 months versus 21.8 months. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, it becomes more significant. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, that hazard ratio is 0.69. Again, it is a subset. So even though the P value here is statistically significant, it actually should not have a P value because it is an exploratory analysis. So we have to be very careful. But the hazard ratio is 0.69. So the hypothesis is in this setting, if you're stage III and you go for it and you get someone to no gross residual versus an interval cytoreduction, you could potentially have a 31% reduction in the rate of progression for that patient who got primary cytoreduction. And you see a similar trend in the stage III patients, if you look at overall survival, although the post-progression survival is so long, it's a little bit narrow of a margin.  But I do think there are some nuggets here that, one of our colleagues who is really one of the experts in surgical studies, Dr. Mario Leitao, posted this on X, and I think it really resonated after this because we were all saying, "But what about the subsets?" He is like, "It's a negative study." But at the end of the day, you are going to sit with your patient. The patient should be seen by a GYN oncologist or surgical oncologist with specialty in cytoreduction and a medical oncologist, you know, if that person does not give chemo, and the decision should be made about what to do for that individual patient in that setting. Dr. Linda Duska: Agreed. And along those lines, if you look carefully at their data, the patients who had an upfront cytoreduction had almost twice the risk of having a stoma than the patients who had an interval cytoreduction. And they also had a higher risk of needing to have a bowel resection. The numbers were small, but still, when you look at the surgical complications, as you've already said, they're higher in the upfront group than they are in the interval group. That needs to be taken into account as well when counseling a patient, right? When you have a patient in front of you who says to you, "Dr. Moore, you can take out whatever you want, but whatever you do, don't make me a bag." As long as the patient understands what that means and what they're asking us to do, I think that we need to think about that. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I think that is a great point. And I have definitely seen in our practice, patients who say, "I absolutely would not want an ostomy. It's a nonstarter for me." And we do make different decisions. And you have to just say, "That's the decision we've made," and you kind of move on, and you can't look back and say, "Well, I wish I would have, could have, should have done something else." That is what the patient wants. Ultimately, that patient, her family, autonomous beings, they need to be fully counseled, and you need to counsel that patient as to the site that you are in, her volume of disease, and what you think you can achieve. In my opinion, a patient with stage III cancer who you have the site and the capabilities to get to no gross residual should go to the OR first. That is what I believe. I do not anymore think that for stage IV. I think that this is pretty convincing to me that that is probably a harmful thing. However, I want you to react to this. I think I am going to be a little unpopular in saying this, but for me, one of the biggest take-homes from TRUST was that whether or not, and we can talk about the subsets and the stage III looked better, and I think it did, but both groups did really well. Like, really well. And these were patients with large volume disease. This was not cherry-picked small volume stage IIIs that you could have done an optimal just by doing a hysterectomy. You know, these were patients that needed radical surgery. And both did well. And so what it speaks to me is that anytime you are going to operate on someone with ovary, whether it be frontline, whether it be a primary or interval, you need a high-volume surgeon. That is what I think this means to me. Like, I would want high volume surgeon at a center that could do these surgeries, getting that patient, my family member, me, to no gross residual. That is important. And you and I are both in training centers. I think we ought to take a really strong look at, are we preparing people to do the surgeries that are necessary to get someone to no gross residual 70% and 85% of the time? Dr. Linda Duska: We are going to run out of time, but I want to address that and ask you a provocative question. So, I completely agree with what you said, that surgery is important. But I also think one of the reasons these patients in this study did so well is because all of the incredible new therapies that we have for patients. Because OS is not just about surgery. It is about surgery, but it is also about all of the amazing new therapies we have that you and others have helped us to get through clinical research. And so, how much of that do you think, like, for example, if you look at the PFS and OS rates from CHORUS and EORTC, I get it that they're, that they're not the same. It's different patients, different populations, can't do cross-trial comparisons. But the OS, as you said, in this study was 54 months and 48 months, which is, compared to 2010, we're doing much, much better. It is not just the surgery, it is also all the amazing treatment options we have for these patients, including PARP, including MIRV, including lots of other new therapies. How do you fit that into thinking about all of this? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I do think we are seeing, and we know this just from epidemiologic data that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in many of the countries where the study was done is increasing, despite a decrease in incidence. And why is that? Because people are living longer. Dr. Linda Duska: People are living longer, yeah. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which is phenomenal. That is what we want. And we do have, I think, better supportive care now. PARP inhibitors in the frontline, which not many of these patients had. Now some of them, this is mainly in Europe, will have gotten them in the first maintenance setting, and I do think that impacts outcome. We do not have that data yet, you know, to kind of see what, I would be really interested to see. We do not do this well because in ovarian cancer, post-progression survival can be so long, we do not do well of tracking what people get when they come off a clinical trial to see how that could impact – you know, how many of them got another surgery? How many of them got a PARP? I think this group probably missed the ADC wave for the most part, because this, mirvetuximab is just very recently available in Europe. Dr. Linda Duska: Unless they were on trial. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Unless they were on trial. But I mean, I think we will have to see. 600 patients, I would bet a lot of them missed the ADC wave. So, I do not know that we can say we know what drove these phenomenal – these are some of the best curves we've seen outside of BRCA. And then coming back to your point about the BRCA population here, that is a really critical question that I do not know that we're ever going to answer. There have been hypotheses around a tumor that is driven by BRCA, if you surgically cytoreduced it, and then chemically cytoreduced it with chemo, and so you're starting PARP with nothing visible and likely still homogeneous clones. Is that the group we cured? And then if you give chemo first before surgery, it allows more rapid development of heterogeneity and more clonal evolution that those are patients who are less likely to be cured, even if they do get cytoreduced to nothing at interval with use of PARP inhibitor in the front line. That is a question that many have brought up as something we would like to understand better. Like, if you are BRCA, should you always just go for it or not? I do not know that we're ever going to really get to that. We are trying to look at some of the other studies and just see if you got neoadjuvant and you had BRCA, was anyone cured? I think that is a question on SOLO1 I would like to know the answer to, and I don't yet, that may help us get to that. But that's sort of something we do think about. You should have a fair number of them in TRUST. It wasn't a stratification factor, as I remember. Dr. Linda Duska: No, it wasn't. They stratified by center, age, and ECOG status Dr. Kathleen Moore: So you would hope with randomization that you would have an equal number in each arm. And they may be able to pull that out and do a very exploratory look. But I would be interested to see just completely hypothesis-generating what this looks like for the patients with BRCA, and I hope that they will present that. I know they're busy at work. They have translational work. They have a lot pending with TRUST. It's an incredibly rich resource that I think is going to teach us a lot, and I am excited to see what they do next. Dr. Linda Duska: So, outside of TRUST, we are out of time. I just want to give you a moment if there were any other messages that you want to share with our listeners before we wrap up. Dr. Kathleen Moore: It's an exciting time to be in GYN oncology. For so long, it was just chemo, and then the PARP inhibitors nudged us along quite a bit. We did move more patients, I believe, to the cure fraction. When we ultimately see OS, I think we'll be able to say that definitively, and that is exciting. But, you know, that is the minority of our patients. And while HRD positive benefits tremendously from PARP, I am not as sure we've moved as many to the cure fraction. Time will tell. But 50% of our patients have these tumors that are less HRD. They have a worse prognosis. I think we can say that and recur more quickly. And so the advent of these antibody-drug conjugates, and we could name 20 of them in development in GYN right now, targeting tumor-associated antigens because we're not really driven by mutations other than BRCA. We do not have a lot of things to come after. We're not lung cancer. We are not breast cancer. But we do have a lot of proteins on the surface of our cancers, and we are finally able to leverage that with some very active regimens. And we're in the early phases, I would say, of really understanding how best to use those, how best to position them, and which one to select for whom in a setting where there is going to be obvious overlap of the targets. So we're going to be really working this problem. It is a good problem. A lot of drugs that work pretty well. How do you individualize for a patient, the patient in front of you with three different markers? How do you optimize it? Where do you put them to really prolong survival? And then we finally have cell surface. We saw at ASCO, CDK2 come into play here for the first time, we've got a cell cycle inhibitor. We've been working on WEE1 and ATR for a long time. CDK2s may hit. Response rates were respectable in a resistant population that was cyclin E overexpressing. We've been working on that biomarker for a long time with a toxicity profile that was surprisingly clean, which I like to see for our patients. So that is a different platform. I think we have got bispecifics on the rise. So there is a pipeline of things behind the ADCs, which is important because we need more than one thing, that makes me feel like in the future, I am probably not going to be using doxil ever for platinum-resistant disease. So, I am going to be excited to retire some of those things. We will say, "Remember when we used to use doxil for platinum-resistant disease?" Dr. Linda Duska: I will be retired by then, but thanks for that thought. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I will remind you. Dr. Linda Duska: You are right. It is such an incredibly exciting time to be taking care of ovarian cancer patients with all the opportunities.  And I want to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us on this podcast today and for your great work to advance care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Likewise. Thanks for having me. Dr. Linda Duska: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the TRUST study and other studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. 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. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Linda Duska  @Lduska Dr. Kathleen Moore Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest:    Dr. Linda Duska:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma  Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn  Dr. Kathleen Moore: Leadership: GOG Partners, NRG Ovarian Committee Chair Honoraria: Astellas Medivation, Clearity Foundation, IDEOlogy Health, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook, Curio Science, Plexus, University of Florida, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Congress Chanel, BIOPHARM, CEA/CCO, Physician Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice, Med Learning Group, Peerview, Peerview, PeerVoice, CME Outfitters, Virtual Incision Consulting/Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Verastem/Pharmacyclics, AADi, Caris Life Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, zentalis, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, BioNTech SE, Immunocore, Seagen, Takeda Science Foundation, Zymeworks, Profound Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Third Arc, Loxo/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Tango Therapeutics, Abbvie, T Knife, F Hoffman La Roche, Tubulis GmbH, Clovis Oncology, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Whitehawk, OnCusp Therapeutics, Natera, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Debiopharm Group, Foundation Medicine, Novocure Research Funding (Inst.): Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Merck, Regeneron, Verasatem, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Immunocore, Torl Biotherapeutics, Allarity Therapeutics, IDEAYA Biosciences, Zymeworks, Schrodinger Other Relationship (Inst.): GOG Partners

Sandra Walker is CEO, Viacern Group, and Venture Partner at Hard Climate, a seasoned and inspirational pharma and biotech executive leading Commercial, Medical Operations and Excellence, Government Affairs, Global Strategy and Product Planning at companies such as Genentech, Roche, Eli Lilly and Abbvie. She delivered a state-of-the-art, candid, and intriguing keynote presentation that forces you to reflect on the language and process you use to make decisions in medicine, healthcare, and how you can challenge your current approaches and biases using neuroscience-based practical, real-world solutions to make bolder decisions with evidence to drive innovation forward.3:10 Speaker Introduction4:12 Turning Innovation into OutcomesThree Common recurring Decision PatternsExplaining Biases in Decision-makingPractical Solutions to Transform DecisionsThe Bolder WayDecision Audit5:56 Three Invisible Decision Patterns6:37 Status Quo Bias8:51 Countermoves You Can Use vs Status Quo Bias9:29 Confirmation Bias11:54 10-Minute Challenge Round To use Vs. Confirmation Bias 13:09 Completion Bias - Relief of Feeling Done16:30 Explaining the Brain under Pressure with Neuroscience 18:50 How to Quiet the Noise in BiasLabel the state – identify the bias, problem, riskExternalize thinking – move ideas onto paper to createpublic reasoningTeach the cheerleader to celebrate learning not justfinishing.Train for Learning not Finishing21:01 The Bolder Way - 6 steps to turn Awareness into ActionB - Bias and Blind Spots visualization (see the invisible)O - Observe: Disciplined CuriosityL - Learn: Broadened PerspectivesD - Decide with clarity and transparencyE - Empower: Trust with ContextR - Recalibrate: Boldness into Learning27:11 Bolder Way Framework Aligned to the Scientific Method 28:02 Language You Use is Key to Decision Outcome28:38 The Decision Audit to Deliver Clarity in 5 Minutes31:09 How Speed of Decision Impacts the Outcome

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies 'ChatGPT, MD?' - Large Language Models at the Bedside Management decisions in myocarditis Statistics Made Easy: Mendelian randomisation Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Folkert Asselbergs, Massimo Imazio Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, Massimo Imazio, Emer Joyce, and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Folkert Asselbergs Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails.  Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, Emer Joyce, and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. E mma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson. Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Authors Drs. Jessica Ross and Alissa Cooper share insights into their JCO PO article, "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-Like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas"  Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Ross and Cooper discuss the landscape of Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) and seizure-related homolog protein 6 (SEZ6) across NECs from eight different primary sites. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO PO and an Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, I'm excited to be joined by Dr. Jessica Ross, third-year medical oncology fellow at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, as well as Dr. Alissa Cooper, thoracic medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School. Both are first and last authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 or SEZ6 Protein Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas." At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Jessica and Alissa, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thanks very much for having us. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Thank you. Excited to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It's interesting, a couple of days before I decided to choose this article, one of my GI oncology colleagues actually asked me two questions. He said, "Rafeh, do you know how you define DLL3 positivity? And what is the status of DLL3 positivity in GI cancers, GI neuroendocrine carcinomas?" The first thing I looked up was this JCO article from Martin Wermke. You might have seen it as well, on obrixtamig, a phase 1 study, a DLL3 bi-specific T-cell engager. And they had some definitions there, and then this article came along, and I was really excited that it kind of fell right in place of trying to understand the IHC landscape of two very interesting targets. Since we have a very broad and diverse audience, especially community oncologists, trainees, and of course academic clinicians and some people who are very interested in genomics, we'll try to make things easy to understand. So my first question for you, Jessica, is: what is DLL3 and SEZ6 and why are they important in neuroendocrine carcinomas? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, good question. So, DLL3, or delta-like ligand 3, is a protein that is expressed preferentially on the tumor cell surface of neuroendocrine carcinomas as opposed to normal tissue. It is a downstream target of ASCL1, and it's involved in neuroendocrine differentiation, and it's an appealing drug target because it is preferentially expressed on tumor cell surfaces. And so, it's a protein, and there are several drugs in development targeting this protein, and then Tarlatamab is an approved bi-specific T-cell engager for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the second line. SEZ6, or seizure-like homolog protein 6, is a protein also expressed on neuroendocrine carcinoma cell surface. Interestingly, so it's expressed on neuronal cells, but its exact role in neuroendocrine carcinomas and oncogenesis is actually pretty poorly understood, but it was identified as an appealing drug target because, similarly to DLL3, it's preferentially expressed on the tumor cell surface. And so this has also emerged as an appealing drug target, and there are drugs in development, including antibody-drug conjugates, targeting this protein for that reason. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Over the last 10 to 15 years or so, there's been an increasing focus on precision oncology, finding specific targets that actually drive the cancer to grow, not just within lung cancer but in multiple other primary cancers. But specifically, at least speaking from a thoracic oncology perspective, the field of non-small cell lung cancer has completely exploded over the past 15 years with the discovery of driver oncogenes and then matched targeted therapies. Within the field of neuroendocrine carcinomas, including small cell lung cancer but also other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, there has not been the same sort of progress in terms of identifying targets with matched therapies. And up until recently, we've sort of been treating these neuroendocrine malignancies kind of as a monolithic disease process. And so recently, there's been sort of an explosion of research across the country and multiple laboratories, multiple people converging on the same open questions about why might patients with specific tumor biologies have different kind of responses to different therapies. And so first this came from, you know, why some patients might have a good response to chemo and immunotherapy, which is the first-line approved therapy for small cell lung cancer, and we also sort of extrapolate that to other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. What's the characteristic of that tumor biology? And at the same time, what are other targets that might be identifiable? Just as Jesse was saying, they're expressed on the cell surface, they're not necessarily expressed in normal tissue. Might this be a strategy to sort of move forward and create smarter therapies for our patients and therefore move really into a personalized era for treatment for each patient? And that's really driving, I think, a lot of the synthesis of this work of not only the development of multiple new therapies, but really understanding which tumor might be the best fit for which therapy. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation, Alissa. And as you mentioned, these are emerging targets, some more further along in the process with approved drugs, especially Tarlatamab. And obviously, DLL3 was something identified several years back, but drug development does take time, and readout for clinical trials takes time. Could you, for the sake of our audience, try to talk briefly about the excitement around Tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, especially data that has led to the FDA approval in the last year, year and a half? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Sure. Yeah, it's really been an explosion of excitement over, as you're saying, the last couple of years, and work really led by our mentor, Charlie Rudin, had identified DLL3 as an exciting target for small cell lung cancer specifically but also potentially other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies. Tarlatamab is a DLL3-targeting bi-specific T-cell engager, which targets DLL3 on the small cell lung cancer cells as well as CD3 on T cells. And the idea is to sort of introduce the cancer to the immune system, circumventing the need for MHC class antigen presentation, which that machinery is typically not functional in small cell lung cancer, and so really allowing for an immunomodulatory response, which had not really been possible for most patients with small cell lung cancer prior to this. Tarlatamab was tested in a phase 2 registrational trial of about 100 patients and demonstrated a response rate of 40%, which was very exciting, especially compared with other standard therapies which were available for small cell lung cancer, which are typically cytotoxic therapies. But most excitingly, more than even the response rate, I think, in our minds was the durability of response. So patients whose disease did have a response to Tarlatamab could potentially have a durable response lasting a number of months or even over a year, which had previously not ever been seen in this in the relapsed/refractory setting for these patients. I think the challenge with small cell lung cancer and other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies is that a response to therapy might be a bit easier to achieve, but it's that durability. The patient's tumors really come roaring back quite aggressively pretty quickly. And so this was sort of the most exciting prospect is that durability of response, that long potential overall survival tail of the curve really being lifted up. And then most recently at ASCO this year, Dr. Rudin presented the phase 3 randomized controlled trial which compared Tarlatamab to physician's choice of chemotherapy in a global study. And the choice of chemotherapy did vary depending on the part of the world that the patients were enrolled in, but in general, it was a really markedly positive study for response rate, for progression-free survival, and for overall survival. Really exciting results which really cemented Tarlatamab's place as the standard second-line therapy for patients with small cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed on first-line chemo-immunotherapy. So that has been very exciting. This drug was FDA approved in May of 2024, and so has been used extensively since then. I think the adoption has been pretty widespread, at least in the US, but now in this global trial that was just presented, and there was a corresponding New England Journal paper, I think really confirms that this is something we really hopefully can offer to most of our patients. And I think, as we all know, that this therapy or other therapies like it are also being tested potentially in the first-line setting. So there was data presented with Tarlatamab incorporated into the maintenance setting, which also showed exciting results, albeit in a phase 1 trial, but longer overall survival than we're used to seeing in this patient population. And we await results of the study that is incorporating Tarlatamab into the induction phase with chemotherapy as well. So all of this is extraordinarily exciting for our patients to sort of move the needle of how many patients we can keep alive, feeling functional, feeling well, for as long as possible. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Very exciting session at ASCO. I was luckily one of the co-chairs for the session that Dr. Rudin presented it, and I remember somebody mentioning there was more progress seen in that session for small cell lung cancer than the last 30, 35 years for small cell, very exciting space and time to be in as far as small cell lung cancer. Now going to this project, Jessica, since you're the first author and Alissa's the last, I'm assuming there was a background conversation that you had with Alissa before you embarked on this project as an idea. So could you, again, for other trainees who are interested in doing research, and it's never easy to do research as a resident and a fellow when you have certain added responsibilities. Could you give us a little bit of a background on how this started and why you wanted to look at this question? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So, as with many exciting research concepts, I think a lot of them are derived from the clinic. And so I think Alissa and I both see a good number of patients with small cell, large cell lung cancer, and then high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. And so I think this was really born out of a basic conversation of we have these drugs in development targeting these two proteins, DLL3 and SEZ6, but really what is the landscape of cancers that express these proteins and who are the patients that really might benefit from these exciting new therapies. And of course, there was some data out there, but sort of less than one would imagine in terms of, you know, neuroendocrine carcinomas can really come from anywhere in the body. And so when you're seeing a patient with small cell of the cervix, for example, like what are the chances that their cancer expresses DLL3 or expresses SEZ6? So it was really derived from this pragmatic, clinically oriented question that we had both found ourselves thinking about, and we were lucky enough at MSK, we had started systematically staining patients' tumors for DLL3, tumors that are high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, and then we had also more recently started staining for SEZ6 as well. And so we had this nice prospectively collected dataset with which to answer this question. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. And Alissa, could you try to go into some of the details around which patients you chose, how many patients, what was the approach that you selected to collect the data for this project? Dr. Alissa Cooper: This is perhaps a strength but also maybe a limitation of this dataset is, as Jesse alluded to, our pathology colleagues are really the stars of this paper here because we were lucky enough at MSK that they were really forethinking. They are absolute experts in the field and really forward-thinking people in terms of what information might be needed in the future to drive treatment decision-making. And so, as Jesse had said, small cell lung cancer tumor samples reflexively are stained for DLL3 and SEZ6 at MSK if there's enough tumor tissue. The other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, those stains are performed upon physician request. And so that is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of the tumor samples we were able to include in this dataset because, you know, upon physician request depends on a number of factors, but actually at MSK, a number of physicians were requesting these stains to be done on their patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers of of other histologies. So we looked at all tumor samples with a diagnosis of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of any histology that were stained for these two stains of interest. You know, I can let Jesse talk a bit more about the methodology. She was really the driver of this project. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So we had 124 tumor samples total. All of those were stained for DLL3, and then a little less than half, 53, were stained for SEZ6. As Alissa said, they were from any primary site. So about half of them were of lung origin, that was the most common primary site, but we included GI tract, head and neck, GU, GYN, even a few tumors of unknown origin. And again, that's because I think a lot of these trials are basket trials that are including different high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas no matter the primary site. And so we really felt like it was important to be more comprehensive and inclusive in this study. And then, methodologically, we also defined positivity in terms of staining of these two proteins as anything greater than or equal to 1% staining. There's really not a defined consensus of positivity when it comes to these two novel targets and staining for these two proteins. But in the Tarlatamab trials, for some of the correlative work that's been done, they use that 1% cutoff, and we just felt like being consistent with that and also using a sort of more pragmatic yes/no cutoff would be more helpful for this analysis. Dr. Alissa Cooper: And that was a point of discussion, actually. We had contemplated multiple different schemas, actually, for how to define thresholds of positivity. And I know you brought up that question before, what does it mean to be DLL3 positive or DLL3 high? I think you were alluding to prior that there was a presentation of obrixtamig looking at extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas, and they actually divvied up the results between DLL3 50% or greater versus DLL3 low under 50%. And they actually did demonstrate differential efficacy certainly, but also some differential safety as well, which is very provocative and that kind of analysis has not been presented for other novel therapies as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, that was sort of the first time that we saw a systematic presentation of considering patients to be, quote unquote, "high" or "low" in these sort of novel targets. I think it is important because the label for Tarlatamab does not require any DLL3 expression at all, actually. So it's not hinging upon DLL3 expression. They depend on the fact that the vast majority of small cell lung cancer tumors do express DLL3, 85% to 90% is what's been demonstrated in a few studies. And so, there's not prerequisite testing needed in that regard, but maybe for these extra-pulmonary, other histology neuroendocrine carcinomas, maybe it does matter to some degree. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely agree that this evolving landscape of trying to understand whether an expression for something actually really does correlate with, whether it's an immune cell engager or an antibody-drug conjugate is a very evolving and dynamically moving space. And one of the questions that I was discussing with one of my friends was whether IHC positivity and the level of IHC positivity, as you've shown in one of those plots where you have double positive here on the right upper corner, you have the double negative towards the left lower, whether that somehow determines mRNA expression for DLL3. Obviously, that was not the question here that you were looking at, but it does kind of bring into question certain other aspects of correlations, expression versus IHC. Now going to the figures in this manuscript, very nicely done figures, very easy to understand because I've done the podcast for quite a bit now, and usually what I try to do first is go through the figures before I read the text, and and a lot of times it's hard to understand the figures without reading the text, but in your case, specifically the figures were very, very well done. Could you give us an overview, a quick overview of some of the important results, Jessica, as far as what you've highlighted in the manuscript? Dr. Jessica Ross: Sure. So I think the key takeaway is that, of the tumors in our cohort, the majority were positive for DLL3 and positive for SEZ6. So about 80% of them were positive for DLL3 and 80% were positive for SEZ6. About half of the tumors were stained for both proteins, and about 65% of those were positive as well. So I think if there's sort of one major takeaway, it's that when you're seeing a patient with a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, the odds are that their tumor will express both of these proteins. And so that can sort of get your head thinking about what therapies they might be eligible for. And then we also did an analysis of some populations of interest. So for example, we know that non-neuroendocrine pathologies can transform into neuroendocrine tumors. And so we specifically looked at that subset of patients with transformed tumors, and those were also- the majority of them were positive, about three-quarters of them were positive for both of these two proteins. We looked at patients with brain met samples, again, about 70% were positive. And then I'd say the last sort of population of interest was we had a subset of 10 patients who had serial biopsies stained for either DLL3 or SEZ6 or both. In between the two samples, these patients were treated with chemotherapy. They were not treated with targeted therapy, but interestingly, in the majority of cases, the testing results were concordant, meaning if it was DLL3 positive to begin with, it tended to remain DLL3 positive after treatment. And so I think that's important as well as we think about, you know, a patient who maybe had DLL3 testing done before they received their induction chemo-IO, we can somewhat confidently say that they're probably still DLL3 positive after that treatment. And then finally, we did do a survival analysis among specifically the patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinomas. We looked at whether DLL3 expression affected progression-free survival on first-line platinum-etoposide, and then we looked at did it affect overall survival. And we found that it did not have an impact or the median progression-free survival was similar whether you were DLL3 positive or negative. But interestingly, with overall survival, we found that DLL3 positivity actually correlated with slightly improved overall survival. These were small numbers, and so, you know, I think we have to interpret this with caution, for sure, but it is interesting. I think there may be something to the fact that five of the patients who were DLL3 positive were treated with DLL3-targeting treatments. And so this made me think of, like in the breast cancer world, for example, if you have a patient with HER2-positive disease, it initially portended worse prognosis, more aggressive disease biology, but on the other hand, it opens the door for targeted treatments that actually now, at least with HER2-positive breast cancer, are associated with improved outcomes. And so I think that's one finding of interest as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely proof-of-concept findings here that you guys have in the manuscript. Alissa, if I may ask you, what is the next important step for a project like this in your mind? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Jesse has highlighted a couple of key findings that we hope to move forward with future investigative studies, not necessarily in a real-world setting, but maybe even in clinical trial settings or in collaboration with sponsors. Are these biomarkers predictive? Are they prognostic? You know, those are still- we have some nascent data, data has been brewing, but I think that we we still don't have the answers to those open questions, which I think are critically important for determining not only clinical treatment decision-making, but also our ability to understand sequencing of therapies, prioritization of therapies. I think a prospective, forward-looking project, piggybacking on that paired biopsy, you know, we had a very small subset of patients with paired biopsies, but a larger subset or cohort looking at paired biopsies where we can see is there evolution of these IHC expression, even mRNA expression, as you're saying, is there differential there? Are there selection pressures to targeted therapies? Is there upregulation or downregulation of targets in response not just to chemotherapy, but for example, for other sort of ADCs or bi-specific T-cell engagers? I think those are going to be critically important future studies which are going to be a bit challenging to do, but really important to figure out this key clinical question of sequencing, which we're all contemplating in our clinics day in and day out. If you have a patient, and these patients often can be sick quite quickly, they might have one shot of what's the next treatment that you're going to pick. We can't guarantee that every patient is going to get to see every therapy. How can you help to sort of answer the question of like what should you offer? So I think that's the key question sort of underlying any future work is how predictive or prognostic are these biomarkers? What translational or correlative studies can we do on the tissue to understand clinical treatment decision-making? I think those are the key things that will unfold in the next couple of years. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: The last question for you, Alissa, that I have is, you are fairly early in your career, and you've accomplished quite a lot. One of the most important things that comes out from this manuscript is your mentorship for somebody who is a fellow and who led this project. For other junior investigators, early-career investigators, how did you do this? How did you manage to do this, and how did you mentor Jessica on this project with some of the lessons that you learned along the way, the good and other things that would perhaps help other listeners as they try to mentor residents, trainees, which is one of the important things of what we do in our daily routine? Dr. Alissa Cooper: I appreciate you calling me accomplished. Um, I'm not sure how true that is, but I appreciate that. I didn't have to do a whole lot with this project because Jesse is an extraordinarily smart, driven, talented fellow who came up with a lot of the clinical questions and a lot of the research questions as well. And so this project was definitely a collaborative project on both of our ends. But I think what was helpful from both of our perspectives is from my perspective, I could kind of see that this was a gap in the literature that really, I think, from my work leading clinical trials and from treating patients with these kinds of cancers that I really hoped to answer. And so when I came to Jessica with this idea as sort of a project to complete, she was very eager to take it and run with it and also make it her own. You know, in terms of early mentorship, I have to admit this was the first project that I mentored, so it was a great learning experience for me as well because as an early-career clinician and researcher, you're used to having someone else looking over your shoulder to tell you, "Yes, this is a good journal target, here's what we can anticipate reviewers are going to say, here are other key collaborators we should include." Those kind of things about a project that don't always occur to you as you're sort of first starting out. And so all of that experience for me to be identifying those more upper-level management sort of questions was a really good learning experience for me. And of course, I was fantastically lucky to have a partner in Jesse, who is just a rising star. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thank you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, excellent. It sounds like the first of many other mentorship opportunities to come for you, Alissa. And Jessica, congratulations on your next step of joining and being faculty, hopefully, where you're training. Thank you again, both of you. This was very insightful. I definitely learned a lot after I reviewed the manuscript and read the manuscript. Hopefully, our listeners will feel the same. Perhaps we'll have more of your work being published in JCO PO subsequently. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Hope so. Thank you very much for the opportunity to chat today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yes, thank you. This was great. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so as you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Disclosures: Dr. Alissa Jamie Cooper Honoraria Company: MJH Life Scienes, Ideology Health, Intellisphere LLC, MedStar Health, Physician's Education Resource, LLC,  Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis,  Research Funding: Merck, Roche, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Abbvie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences

Tucked inside the massive bill to end the government shutdown, a ban on hemp-derived THC products. Crain's cannabis reporter John Schroyer discusses the fallout from the ban with host Amy Guth.Plus: Johnson unveils amended budget to a skeptical City Council, AbbVie reportedly exits $1.5 billion longevity drug deal with Calico, big Chicago systems win out as three hospitals slide to F grades in Leapfrog report and Michelin just stripped Alinea of its three-star status. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Personal Development Trailblazers Podcast! In today's episode, we're helping driven women climb without the crash of burnout.Sophia Mikelionis is a Life & Career Coach who  helps ambitious women stop outsourcing their self-worth to their résumés. As the founder of Gearing Together, she supports high-achieving professionals, especially first-gen success stories and mission-driven leaders, who are ready to lead with clarity, not burnout.With 15+ years of corporate finance experience across companies like AbbVie, Kellogg, Ferrero, & Kraft, Sophia understands the pressure to stay productive, polished, and permanently “on.” She's walked that tightrope herself, with an MBA from Syracuse University, a BBA from Howard University, and a long track record in high-stakes finance and analytics roles. Today, she brings that same strategic edge to her coaching, and workshops just without the burnout.  Now, Sophia specializes in helping clients reconnect to purpose, navigate career pivots, and build boundaries that stick. Through keynotes, workshops, and private coaching, she guides professionals to redefine success in a way that honors both ambition and wholeness.Connect with Sophia Here: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@GearingTogetherLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sophia-mike/Website: https://www.gearingtogether.com/Grab the freebie here:https://subscribepage.io/Zg3UZQ===================================If you enjoyed this episode, remember to hit the like button and subscribe. Then share this episode with your friends.Thanks for watching the Personal Development Trailblazers Podcast. This podcast is part of the Digital Trailblazer family of podcasts. To learn more about Digital Trailblazer and what we do to help entrepreneurs, go to DigitalTrailblazer.com.Are you a coach, consultant, expert, or online course creator? Then we'd love to invite you to our FREE Facebook Group where you can learn the best strategies to land more high-ticket clients and customers. QUICK LINKS: APPLY TO BE FEATURED: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/podcast-guest-applicationDIGITAL TRAILBLAZER: https://digitaltrailblazer.com/

One of biopharma's most memorable bidding wars finally came to an end on Friday—with Metsera right back in the arms of its original suitor, but with Pfizer paying around $10 billion for the rights to the obesity biotech, a nearly $3 billion increase over its original bid. But while Novo Nordisk may have bowed out of that race, the company still made headlines this past week, with CEO Maziar Mike Doustdar joining Eli Lilly head David Ricks at the White House on Thursday to announce a deal that will see their GLP-1 drugs offered at about $350 per month.   This marks a significant discount to the current list prices of $1086 and $1350 for Lilly's obesity drug Zepbound and Novo's comparator Wegovy, respectively. No matter how low they go, however, the GLP-1 leaders can still be undercut by compounders, Steven Grossman, policy and regulatory consultant and author of the FDA Matters blog, told BioSpace this week.   Speaking of Lilly, the Indianapolis-based pharma had a busy week, reporting 20% weight loss in a mid-stage study of its amylin agonist eloralintide that William Blair analysts said “validates [the] amylin agonist class.” Lilly also netted two new partners, inking a $1.2 billion RNAi pact with SangeneBio to target metabolic diseases and licensing a genetic eye disease therapy from MeiraGTx Holdings for up to $475 million.   On the regulatory front, the FDA awarded the second round of priority review vouchers under its new Commissioner's National Priority Vouchers program. Unlike the first cohort of vouchers, which was announced in October, this group mostly consisted of products already on the market—with the exception of Lilly's orforglipron.   Finally, BioSpace dives into one the hottest trends in the immunology and inflammation (I&I) space—pipeline-in-a-product. Possibly motivated by blockbuster drugs like AbbVie's Skyrizi and Rinvoq and Regeneron and Sanofi's Dupixent, companies are optimizing shots on multiple goals in this lucrative space.  

In this week's episode of Dividend Talk we kick off with Kimberly-Clark's surprise move to buy Kenvue, asking if it's a smart acquisition or a future balance-sheet headache. Then we review Q3 earnings from Novo Nordisk, Wolters Kluwer, and Ahold Delhaize, three European dividend powerhouses facing very different challenges.Novo Nordisk's obesity drugs, valuation reset, and dividend safety dominate the discussion, while Wolters Kluwer's high-PE sell-off and the impact of AI on research businesses spark debate on fair value and buybacks. We also look at Snap-on's double-digit dividend hike and Simon Property Group's steady income growth for REIT investors.Later, we revisit our “Monthly Dividend Portfolio” challenge from 2022, checking how picks like Altria, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Realty Income, Shell, and Texas Instruments performed with lessons on dividend growth, yield, and diversification.In the listener Q&A, we cover:Dividend tax strategies and EU exit taxes How to handle rising wealth taxes as a dividend investor Fair-value analysis vs Morningstar valuations Our take on Volkswagen, General Mills, GreenCoat UK, ExxonMobil vs Chevron, and the global renewable-energy transition Thoughts on Unilever's upcoming Magnum spinoff SEE YOU ON THE INSIDE!!Tickers discussed: KMB, KVUE, NVO, LLY, PFE, WKL.AS, AD.AS, SNAP-ON, SPG, MO, ABBV, JNJ, O, TXN, SHEL, GIS, XOM, CVX, UKW.LJoin us:[Facebook] – Https://www.facebook.com/groups/dividendtalk⁠[Twitter] – @DividendTalk_ , @European_DG[Discord] – ⁠https://discord.gg/nJyt9KWAB5⁠[Premium Services] – ⁠https://dividendtalk.eu/download-your-free-samples/⁠[Malmo Meetup] – ⁠https://t.co/STgV1nMWKj

This episode covers: Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies Lp(a) - What to expect in the very near future Myocardial infarction in older and frail adults Mythbusters: is beetroot good for your heart? Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: JP Carpenter, Vijay Kunadian, Erik Stroes Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177 Want to watch that extended interview on Lp(a), go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177?resource=interview   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails.    Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Rick Grobbee, Nicolle Kraenkel, Vijay Kunadian and Erik Stroes have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Many of the top stories of 2025 are currently being written. We're on the edge of our keyboards, watching and waiting as Pfizer and Novo Nordisk duke it out over the right to acquire glittery obesity startup Metsera. In the latest development, Pfizer raised its original bid of around $7.27 billion to about $8.1 billion on Monday—only to be usurped again by the indefatigable Novo, which upped its own bid to a cool $10 billion.  Meanwhile, the unprecedented drama in the uppermost ranks of the FDA—another top story of 2025—continues as CDER Director George Tidmarsh exits the agency. Tidmarsh reportedly resigned Sunday after being placed on administrative leave amid an investigation into his “personal conduct” at the agency. On Monday, however, Tidmarsh told Endpoints News that he was “second-guessing” his decision.  Speaking of the FDA, the regulator appears to have done its own 180—on uniQure's investigational gene therapy for Huntington's disease, three-year data from which sent the biotech's stock into the stratosphere just five weeks ago. Despite previous agreements on protocols and statistical analyses, the agency “no longer agrees” that Phase I/II data for AMT-130 are adequate to provide primary evidence for the application, uniQure said, throwing the timeline for the BLA into question.  Another gene therapy player, Sarepta Therapeutics, took a hit this week, as two of its Duchenne muscular dystrophy drugs, Vyondys 53 and Amondys 45, failed a confirmatory trial. Sarepta still plans to file for full approval of the two exon-skipping therapies, however, based on what it called “encouraging trends” in efficacy. Finally, on the genetic medicine front, CBER director Vinay Prasad teased an upcoming paper that will detail the regulator's thinking and a new approach to gene editing approvals.  On top of all that, Q3 earnings continue to roll in, with Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Vertex, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and more reporting results.  One more thing: Have you ever wanted to know more about the inner workings of the Biogen-Eisai Alzheimer's partnership? Check out this profile on BioSpace 40 under 40 honoree Neena Bitritto-Garg, Eisai alum and current CEO of Ensho Therapeutics. 

Bonus Episode for Nov. 4. The weight-loss-drug arms race is only heating up, as Novo Nordisk attempts to snatch drugmaker Metsera away from Pfizer. But can either company compete with Zepbound seller Eli Lilly? WSJ reporter Peter Loftus discusses what earnings from Big Pharma, including AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck, say about the future of the industry and how companies are responding to President Trump's drug-pricing plans, including TrumpRx. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist David Wainer hosts this special bonus episode of What's News in Earnings, where we dig into companies' earnings reports and analyst calls to find out what's going on under the hood of the American economy. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter. Further Reading: Novo Nordisk Sweetens Offer for Metsera - WSJ Pfizer Sues Seeking to Block Novo Nordisk's Effort to Undo Weight-Loss Drug Deal Why Pfizer Can Still Prevail in the Obesity Fight With Novo Nordisk The Day Pharma's Weight-Loss Gold Rush Intensified Pfizer Profit Falls Amid Lower Covid-19 Drug Demand Novo Nordisk Seeks to Outmuscle Pfizer With $9 Billion Bid for Metsera Novo Nordisk to Shake Up Board After Obesity-Market Challenges Mounjaro Powers Eli Lilly to Bumper Quarter of Earnings AbbVie Lifts Profit Outlook as Sales Rise Bristol Myers Squibb Profit Soars, Raises Revenue Guidance Merck Profit Rises on Strong Keytruda Demand GSK Lifts Guidance After Specialty Medicines Boost Sales Novartis Expects to Ride Out Patent Losses With Sales, Profit Growth Ahead Biogen Cuts Full-Year Earnings Guidance, Despite Third-Quarter Profit Rise J&J Lifts Full-Year Sales Outlook, Fueled by Pharma, Med-Device Gains Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Neighborhood development throughout the city continues to be lopsided. Crain's assistant managing editor Cassandra West joins host Amy Guth to talk about the most recent Forum's focus on equitable development.Plus: Chicago school board approves controversial $175 million pension payment to the city, AbbVie raises outlook on strong sales of mainstay drugs, New York firm picks up Niles shopping center for $40 million and Cameo sues OpenAI over trademarked name. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into a series of fascinating advancements and strategic movements that are shaping the landscape of drug development and patient care.Starting with a significant milestone in precision oncology, China has approved its first EGFR-targeted antibody-drug conjugate. This approval marks a pivotal moment in the industry's shift towards targeted therapies, which promise more precise treatment options with potentially fewer side effects than traditional chemotherapy. Targeted therapies are at the forefront of personalized medicine, where treatments are tailored to individual genetic profiles, offering hope for more effective cancer care.In the realm of HIV prevention, Gilead Sciences has reported impressive sales for its new long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis medication, Yetztugo. Since its launch in June 2025, Yetztugo has generated $54 million in U.S. sales, underscoring the demand for long-term HIV prevention solutions. This development is part of Gilead's broader strategy to strengthen its HIV franchise as it advances its pipeline with promising candidates like GS-3242 alongside lenacapavir. The aim is to develop treatments that require less frequent dosing, which could significantly improve patient adherence and outcomes. Despite challenges within its HIV portfolio and declining Veklury sales, Gilead Sciences is actively seeking growth opportunities through strategic partnerships and pipeline advancements—an essential approach for navigating patent cliffs while sustaining long-term growth.On the financial front, AbbVie has increased its revenue forecast by $400 million to a staggering $60.9 billion, driven by robust sales from its immunology drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq. These treatments address chronic inflammatory conditions like psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, reflecting AbbVie's strong positioning in this therapeutic area despite competitive pressures. AbbVie continues to report strong earnings from Skyrizi and Rinvoq, reinforcing its dominance in the immunology market and highlighting the profitable nature of successful biologics in treating chronic inflammatory diseases.Biogen continues to bolster its multiple sclerosis franchise by focusing on both legacy treatments and new product launches. This strategy highlights the importance of balancing innovation with lifecycle management to maintain market strength against generic competition—a common challenge in the industry.Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a cautious stance by not endorsing leucovorin for autism treatment due to insufficient evidence. This decision emphasizes the critical need for rigorous, evidence-based practices in developing clinical guidelines for complex disorders like autism.Internationally, CSL Seqirus has partnered with Saudi Arabia to supply cell-based influenza vaccines and support local production capabilities. This move aligns with global efforts to enhance pandemic preparedness and healthcare resilience through local manufacturing initiatives.The volatile nature of the biotech sector is evident with reports of 16 companies ceasing operations in 2025 due to high R&D costs and regulatory challenges. Despite these closures, such volatility opens doors for new innovations that could address unmet medical needs.Turning our attention to obesity treatment, Eli Lilly stands at a crucial juncture with its novel obesity medication, orforglipron. The company aims to make this weight loss pill accessible while maintaining financial viability for future R&D—a balancing act faced by many pharmaceutical companies as they strive to deliver affordable yet innovative treatments amid growing global health concerns. However, not all R&D efforts reach fruition. Eli Lilly has decided to discontinue its mid-stage program Support the show

In this week's episode of Dividend Talk, we're back with a jam-packed Dividend Announcements & Earnings deep dive.We kick things off with PayPal initiating its first-ever dividend (welcome to the club, Monkey!), Hershey holding flat to stay off the aristocrat chopping block, and a wild stat on revenue-per-employee (OnlyFans crushes tech giants at $37.6M per head). Then it's over to dividend hikes from Iberdrola (+8.2%), Rockwell Automation, AbbVie, and ExxonMobil, before diving into earnings: Nestlé's volume rebound in China, Schneider Electric riding data-center tailwinds, Altria's cash-rich but growth-poor reality, UnitedHealth's margin squeeze, T. Rowe Price outflows, and Shell's $10B FCF buyback machine.In the Q&A, we tackle benchmarking vs. S&P 500, dollar-cost-averaging into falling knives, estate tax broker moves, covered-call ETFs, Finnish gems, Evolution's permanent pivot, and stock-specific takes on Novo Nordisk, APD, Qualcomm, and more.SEE YOU ON THE INSIDE!!Tickers discussed: PYPL, HSY, GOOGL, MSFT, EBAY, AMZN, IBM, MCD, IEP, IBDR.MC, MUM.DE, SIE.DE, APD, LIN, NOVO-B.CO, EVO.ST, QCOM, ARE, ADC, MO, BATS.L, PM, UNH, TROW, SHEL, XOM, TTE, ITW, ABT, ADP, SCHN.PA, ROC.AX, NOVN.SW, NESN.SW, MCD, APH, DHR, TXN, VFC, RELAS, VWS.CO, WSO, GRG.LJoin us:[Facebook] – Https://www.facebook.com/groups/dividendtalk[Twitter] – @DividendTalk_ , @European_DG[Discord] – https://discord.gg/nJyt9KWAB5[Premium Services] – https://dividendtalk.eu/download-your-free-samples/[Malmo Meetup] – https://t.co/STgV1nMWKj

Further positive trade rhetoric from the US, mega-cap earnings in focus; AMZN +12.9% after-hours, AAPL +2.7%European futures point to a slightly softer open, US futures rebounded from the Powell pressure amid earnings, NQ leadsDXY paused for breath, EUR/USD beneath 1.16, Antipodeans lackluster after a disappointing Chinese Manufacturing PMIFixed benchmarks subdued, weighed on in part by sizable Meta supplyCrude futures lacked demand, XAU tested the USD 4k/oz mark to the downside, base metals rangeboundLooking ahead, highlights include German Import Prices (Sep), Retail Sales (Sep), EZ Flash HICP (Oct), Italian CPI, Dallas Fed (Sep), Chicago PMI (Oct), (Suspended Releases: US PCE, Employment Costs), ECB Bulletin, Speakers including Fed's Logan, Bostic, Miran & Schmid, Earnings from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, AbbVie, AON & Intesa SanpaoloClick for the Newsquawk Week Ahead.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

European bourses are on the backfoot; US equity futures mixed, with the NQ boosted by post-earning strength in AMZN +12.8 & AAPL +1.7%.AMZN beat and boosted on strong cloud growth; AAPL strong results and predicts holiday boom in iPhone sales.DXY remains firm post-FOMC. AUD lags post-Chinese PMI.Commodities trade muted as crude awaits OPEC+ meeting.Bonds are under modest pressure given the earnings-driven US risk tone & Meta issuance, Fed speak looms.Looking ahead, Dallas Fed (Sep), Chicago PMI (Oct), (Suspended Releases: US PCE, Employment Costs), ECB Bulletin, Speakers including Fed's Logan, Bostic, Miran & Schmid, Earnings from AbbVie, AON & Intesa Sanpaolo.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a dynamic landscape of scientific breakthroughs, regulatory shifts, and strategic maneuvers reshaping the industry.BioMarin's recent decision to divest from its hemophilia A gene therapy, Roctavian, has garnered significant attention. Despite being the sole approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, Roctavian has struggled with sales since its launch two years ago. This move underscores the complex challenges in commercializing gene therapies, highlighting that even groundbreaking treatments can face hurdles in market penetration. It reflects broader implications for the commercialization strategies of innovative therapies and emphasizes that market acceptance is as crucial as clinical efficacy.In manufacturing and regulatory affairs, Regeneron is navigating hurdles with its Eylea HD due to persistent manufacturing issues. The FDA's complete response letter points to ongoing problems at a Novo Nordisk plant. This situation illustrates the critical role of manufacturing standards in securing regulatory approvals and ensuring consistent product availability. Regeneron's efforts to seek alternative manufacturing solutions emphasize the importance of compliance and quality assurance in the pharmaceutical landscape.Roche is advancing its kidney disease portfolio with a Phase 3 trial success for Gazyva against idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Building on previous approvals for lupus nephritis, this achievement underscores Roche's strategic focus on expanding indications for existing biologics. It highlights the value of lifecycle management strategies in maximizing therapeutic potentials and extending the reach of established drugs.A significant shift in pharmacy benefit management is underway as Cigna's Evernorth division moves away from PBM rebates through Express Scripts. This transition towards a rebate-free model may influence industry-wide practices, addressing growing scrutiny over rebate structures criticized for their lack of transparency and their impact on drug pricing.CSL's decision to delay the spinoff of its flu vaccine unit amid declining U.S. immunization rates illustrates market challenges in vaccine uptake. The anticipated drop, particularly among older populations, raises public health concerns and underscores the necessity for enhanced outreach and education to improve immunization coverage.On the investment front, AbbVie, Regeneron, and Sanofi have collectively invested $80 million in ZAG Bio's Series A funding round. This company is developing thymus-targeted medicines for autoimmune diseases, reflecting continued interest in novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical needs within the biotech space.Catalent's rebranding initiative signifies a strategic effort to align corporate identity with mission-driven objectives, emphasizing "missions that matter" as it approaches an anniversary milestone with Novo Nordisk's acquisition. Such rebranding efforts are critical for differentiating service offerings and reinforcing corporate values within competitive markets.The competitive landscape within diabetes and obesity treatment markets is experiencing a potential paradigm shift following the results from Innovent and Eli Lilly's Phase 3 trial of mazdutide. This dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist outperformed Novo Nordisk's semaglutide, offering improved outcomes in weight reduction and glycemic control. Mazdutide's dual mechanism could redefine treatment protocols, offering patients enhanced therapeutic benefits.MapLight Therapeutics has successfully raised $250 million through an IPO to advance its schizophrenia treatment candidate, Cobenfy. This funding supports further clinical development and potential commercialization efforts, reflecting investor confidence in innovative neurologSupport the show

Wrapping up our live ESMO 2025 coverage from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review pivotal kidney cancer data, including RAMPART's results, emerging first-line combinations from KEYMAKER-U03 and more, offering a forward-looking view of where RCC research is heading next.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Live from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review ESMO 2025's bladder cancer headlines, from the evolving role of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to ctDNA-guided adjuvant therapy and antibody-drug conjugates redefining metastatic management.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Live from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review the major ESMO 2025 prostate cancer studies, including ENZARAD, EMBARK, CAPItello-291, PSMAddition, and PR21. Together, they unpack their clinical impact and how evolving biomarkers, imaging, and treatment sequencing are redefining standards of care.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Arrhythmias in cardiac amyloidosis Taking the 'O' out of HOCM: managing LVOT obstruction Snapshots Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Stephanie Schwarting, Ahmad Masri Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176 Want to watch that extended interview on Arrhythmias in Cardiac Amyloidosis? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Ahmad Masri has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Pfizer, Ionis, Attralus, Cytokinetics and Janssen. Consulting fees from Cytokinetics, BMS, BridgeBio, Pfizer, Ionis, Lexicon, Attralus, Alnylam, Haya, Alexion, Akros, Edgewise, Rocket, Lexeo, Prothena, BioMarin, AstraZeneca, Avidity, Neurimmune, and Tenaya. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Stephanie Schwarting has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board for Alnylam, Bayer, Pfizer; principal investigator in trials sponsored by Alexion, Novo Nordisk and Intellia. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Stephanie Schwarting Want to watch the episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176 Want to watch the extended interview on Arrhythmias in Cardiac Amyloidosis? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests:  Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Stephanie Schwarting has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board for Alnylam, Bayer, Pfizer; principal investigator in trials sponsored by Alexion, Novo Nordisk and Intellia. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Justin Nielsen and Mike Webster analyze Friday's market action and discuss key stocks to watch on Stock Market Today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm thrilled to share some incredible insights from our latest episode featuring Sandeep Dayal, a top marketing strategist and managing director of Sorrenti Marketing Group. Sandeep's journey from engineering to consulting with global giants like Pfizer and McKinsey, and his expertise in cognitive branding, offers a treasure trove of wisdom for anyone interested in leadership, marketing, and human behavior.Here are the key takeaways from our conversation:

Ahead of ESMO 2025 in Germany, Dr. Monty Pal sits down with Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Chris Wallis to discuss what the oncology community can expect to see at this year's Congress. From groundbreaking bladder cancer therapies to the newest approaches in prostate and kidney cancer, this episode explores various abstracts and presentations set to be shared in Berlin. The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Today's guest is Christo Siebrits, Senior Associate and General Counsel at AbbVie. With over 20 years of experience in global pharmaceutical legal and compliance leadership, Siebrits leads AbbVie's AI initiatives and provides strategic guidance on AI-related legal and regulatory matters. Christo joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to discuss how enterprise legal teams can adopt generative AI safely, balance internal versus external data use, and implement human-in-the-loop workflows to manage risk. Siebrits also shares practical strategies for matter-centric processes, measuring AI-driven efficiencies, and making informed decisions on AI investments across internal and external legal operations. We'd like to note for our audience that the views expressed by Christo on today's program do not reflect those of AbbVie or its leadership. Have a story about AI adoption you're ready to share with fellow enterprise leaders? Visit emerj.com/expert2 to explore the opportunity to be a featured guest on the ‘AI in Business podcast'. This episode is sponsored by Clarivate. Learn how brands work with Emerj and other Emerj Media options at emerj.com/ad1.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Rudolf de Boer Want to watch that extended interview on AI in echocardiography? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2175?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Rudolf de Boer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: the institution of Rudolf de Boer has received research grants and/or fees from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NovoNordisk, and Roche; Rudolf de Boer has had speaker engagements with and/or received fees from and/or served on an advisory board for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, NovoNordisk, Roche, and Zoll; Rudolf de Boer received travel support from Abbott and NovoNordisk. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Visceral adiposity: paradigm shift in HFpEF management Artificial Intelligence in echocardiography Milestones: ISIS-2 Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Milton Packer, Rudolf de Boer Want to watch the episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2175 Want to watch the extended interview on AI in echocardiography? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2175?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Rudolf de Boer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: the institution of Rudolf de Boer has received research grants and/or fees from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NovoNordisk, and Roche; Rudolf de Boer has had speaker engagements with and/or received fees from and/or served on an advisory board for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, NovoNordisk, Roche, and Zoll; Rudolf de Boer received travel support from Abbott and NovoNordisk. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Milton Packer has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: 89bio, Abbvie, Actavis, Altimmune, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Ardelyx, ARMGO, AstraZeneca, Attralus, Biopeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caladrius, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Imara, Lilly, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pharmacocosmos, Regeneron, Roche, Salamandra. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Holger Zschäpitz über ein Oracle-Beben, eine Tesla-Enttäuschung und eine gekürzte Prognose bei BMW. Außerdem geht es um Seagate, Western Digital, Coreweave, Arista Networks, Vertiv, Dell, Tesla, BMW, Aurubis, Trilogy Metals, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Absci, Oracle, Pfizer, Biontech, Moderna, AMD, IBM, L&G Pharma Breakthrough UCITS ETF (WKN: A2H9XR), Xtrackers MSCI Genomic Healthcare Innovation (WKN: DBX0R2), Aurubis, IBM, Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squib, Innocare, Incyte und Pharming Group, Lonza, AbbVie, Danaher, Vertex, VanEck Quantum Computing ETF (WKN: A418QM), VanEck Quantum Computing ETF (WKN: A418QM), Rigetti, Quantum Computing, D-Wave, IonQ, WisdomTree Quantum Computing ETF (WKN: A419HV), Alphabet, Honeywell, Microsoft und Deutsche Telekom. Wir freuen uns über Feedback an aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article104636888/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/Todd Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comBe confident in your portfolio with Bulwark! Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review. Go to KnowYourRiskPodcast.com today. Bizable https://GoBizable.comUntie your business exposure from your personal exposure with BiZABLE.  Schedule your FREE consultation at GoBizAble.com today. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/toddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Magic Words have been effective in modern politics for a long time. For example, ‘vaccine' drew no criticism for a time. ‘Racism' still holds a lot of magic. Those who freed themselves from these spells can't help but see that those who cast them are trapped under them.Episode Links:Netflix made this video about their corporate culture. The video has @Netflix denouncing neutrality on divisive issues and promoting transgenderism, BLM and more so they can "transform" culture. Netflix is a social engineering company, not an entertainment company.OMG. Children's @Netflix show "Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City" is promoting transgender drag queens to CHILDREN.Netflix is grooming kids.Mom shares her toddler came out as trans at just 18 months old.Netflix: A major shareholder of Netflix is Capital Research Global Investors (CRGI). CRGI, worth approximately $3 trillion, also has invested large sums in AbbVie, the makers of "puberty blockers."WATCH: Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger REFUSED to answer my question on does she support biological males using female locker rooms and bathrooms and competing in women's sportsgood PSA on kids with smart phones

Kelly Green,  @DownDogsandDividends  is a dividend investing expert, and she absolutely roasted my portfolio. I showed her all 21 of my holdings - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and she didn't hold back. We talked about my heavy allocation to funds like VTI and VSGAX, my non-dividend payers, BDCs like ARCC and HTGC, MLPs including EPD, and individual stocks like McDonald's, AbbVie, Harrow, and more. If you're building a dividend portfolio or wondering if yours actually makes sense, this honest conversation is for you. Kelly breaks down what's working, what's not, and what I should probably fix. No fluff, just real portfolio feedback from someone who knows their stuff.Sign up for Kelly's Dividend Digest FREE weekly newsletterSubscribe to Kelly's YT channel: @DownDogsandDividends  Check out the ⁠⁠⁠YouTube Video⁠⁠⁠!⁠⁠⁠Blossom Investor Tour⁠⁠⁠, where Russ will be a speaker!Email Russ:

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/SYK865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE credit will be available until October 4, 2026.Committing to Advances for CLL Care: Conversations on Modern Standards of Care and Next-Gen Innovation In support of improving patient care, Medical Learning Institute Inc is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partner, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeOne Medicines.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/SYK865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE credit will be available until October 4, 2026.Committing to Advances for CLL Care: Conversations on Modern Standards of Care and Next-Gen Innovation In support of improving patient care, Medical Learning Institute Inc is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partner, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeOne Medicines.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/SYK865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE credit will be available until October 4, 2026.Committing to Advances for CLL Care: Conversations on Modern Standards of Care and Next-Gen Innovation In support of improving patient care, Medical Learning Institute Inc is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partner, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeOne Medicines.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Experts Dr. Jeffrey Curtis and Dr. Kevin Winthrop discuss best practices for shared decision-making, how to talk with patients about the risks of poorly controlled RA, and ways to use a new tool for visualizing the long-term safety of a JAKi.

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Robert Storey Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2092?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi.  Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Robert Storey has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Cytosorbents, and personal fees from Abbott, Afortiori Development/Thrombolytic Science, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb/Johnson & Johnson, Chiesi, Idorsia/Viatris, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio and Tabuk. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Strategic decisions in valvular heart disease Optimising drug therapy in chronic coronary syndromes Mythbusters: Does wearing a white coat make you smarter? Host: Susanna Price Guests: John-Paul Carpenter, Fabien Praz, Robert Storey Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2092 Want to watch that extended interview on Optimising drug therapy in chronic coronary syndromes ? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2092?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel, Fabien Praz and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Robert Storey has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Cytosorbents, and personal fees from Abbott, Afortiori Development/Thrombolytic Science, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb/Johnson & Johnson, Chiesi, Idorsia/Viatris, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio and Tabuk. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

In this episode, Subhi Saadeh sits down with Alan Stevens, CAPT, to break down the concept of five nines (99.999% reliability) in medical devices. They cover where the standard came from, why FDA introduced it in their 2020 draft guidance, and what it means for life-saving products like epinephrine and naloxone injectors.Alan explains how manufacturers can demonstrate reliability through fault tree analysis, robust process controls, and challenge testing—without needing impossible sample sizes.If you work in pharma, medtech, or quality, this episode will help you understand what “five nines” really means and how to meet FDA expectations while ensuring patient safety.Chapters00:00 – What is Five Nines Reliability?Intro to 99.999% and why it matters for medical devices.00:33 – FDA Guidance & Common Misconceptions2020 draft guidance, sample size myths, and industry confusion.01:17 – How to Demonstrate ReliabilityFeasibility, practical approaches, and FDA expectations.02:31 – High-Stakes Use CasesEpinephrine, naloxone, glucagon injectors.04:00 – Fault Tree Analysis ExplainedBreaking down failures and linking to design/manufacturing.05:25 – Why FDA Chose Five NinesBalancing feasibility, safety, and ISO 14971 influences.09:02 – Verification vs. ReliabilityDesign verification testing vs. true reliability demonstration.23:16 – Key Takeaways for IndustryClosing thoughts on meeting and maintaining reliability standards.Alan Stevens CAPT is the Global Head of Complex Devices and Drug Delivery Systems at AbbVie within the RA Emerging Technologies, Devices and Combination Products team. Prior to joining AbbVie, Alan spent 20 years at the FDA/CDRH leading premarket review and policy development for drug delivery devices and combination products.Subhi Saadeh is a Quality Professional and host of Let's Combinate. With a background in Quality, Manufacturing Operations and R&D he's worked in Large Medical Device/Pharma organizations to support the development and launch of Hardware Devices, Disposable Devices, and Combination Products for Vaccines, Generics, and Biologics. Subhi serves currently as the International Committee Chair for the Combination Products Coalition(CPC) and as a member of ASTM Committee E55 and also served as a committee member on AAMI's Combination Products Committee.For questions, inquiries or suggestions please reach out at letscombinate.com or on the show's LinkedIn Page.

On this Live Greatly podcast episode, Kristel Bauer sits down with Greg Smith, the General Manager of Executive Coaching at FranklinCovey.  Kristel and Greg discuss how to deal with feelings of imposter syndrome, how to navigate changing relationships in the workplace, mindset shifts to support inner confidence and lots more. Tune in now!  Key Takeaways From This Episode: How to deal with imposter phenomenon Tips to deal with feelings of loneliness as a leader Navigating shifting relationships in the workplace Suggestions to help with transitions to new roles in the workplace The importance of thinking about how people percieve you as a leader Navigating high pressure situations as a leader Mindset shifts to support inner confidence ABOUT GREG SMITH: Greg Smith brings over 25 years of extensive experience managing large, comprehensive leadership and assessment client engagements. These include global leadership succession, high potential development, executive coaching, executive team effectiveness, and acceleration initiatives. Greg serves as General Manager for FranklinCovey's Executive Coaching practice, where the coaching success rate exceeds 97%.Greg has held leadership roles in Human Resources, Business Development, and Consulting, providing unique insights to leaders and talent partners. Greg's client relationships have included Walmart, Deloitte, International Paper, Starbucks, FedEx, Robert Half, Walt Disney, Abbot, AbbVie, Dollar General Stores, and many others across all industries. Greg holds a Master's degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from The University of Tulsa. Greg is also a contributing writer for Forbes Coaches Council. Connect with Greg Smith Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregsmith-fc/  FranklinCovey Executive Coaching: https://www.franklincovey.com/coaching/executive-coaching/  About the Host of the Live Greatly podcast, Kristel Bauer: Kristel Bauer is a corporate wellness and performance expert, keynote speaker and TEDx speaker supporting organizations and individuals on their journeys for more happiness and success. She is the author of Work-Life Tango: Finding Happiness, Harmony, and Peak Performance Wherever You Work (John Murray Business November 19, 2024). With Kristel's healthcare background, she provides data driven actionable strategies to leverage happiness and high-power habits to drive growth mindsets, peak performance, profitability, well-being and a culture of excellence. Kristel's keynotes provide insights to “Live Greatly” while promoting leadership development and team building.   Kristel is the creator and host of her global top self-improvement podcast, Live Greatly. She is a contributing writer for Entrepreneur, and she is an influencer in the business and wellness space having been recognized as a Top 10 Social Media Influencer of 2021 in Forbes. As an Integrative Medicine Fellow & Physician Assistant having practiced clinically in Integrative Psychiatry, Kristel has a unique perspective into attaining a mindset for more happiness and success. Kristel has presented to groups from the American Gas Association, Bank of America, bp, Commercial Metals Company, General Mills, Northwestern University, Santander Bank and many more. Kristel has been featured in Forbes, Forest & Bluff Magazine, Authority Magazine & Podcast Magazine and she has appeared on ABC 7 Chicago, WGN Daytime Chicago, Fox 4's WDAF-TV's Great Day KC, and Ticker News. Kristel lives in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida area and she can be booked for speaking engagements worldwide. To Book Kristel as a speaker for your next event, click here. Website: www.livegreatly.co  Follow Kristel Bauer on: Instagram: @livegreatly_co  LinkedIn: Kristel Bauer Twitter: @livegreatly_co Facebook: @livegreatly.co Youtube: Live Greatly, Kristel Bauer To Watch Kristel Bauer's TEDx talk of Redefining Work/Life Balance in a COVID-19 World click here. Click HERE to check out Kristel's corporate wellness and leadership blog Click HERE to check out Kristel's Travel and Wellness Blog Disclaimer: The contents of this podcast are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Always seek the guidance of your physician for any recommendations specific to you or for any questions regarding your specific health, your sleep patterns changes to diet and exercise, or any medical conditions.  Always consult your physician before starting any supplements or new lifestyle programs. All information, views and statements shared on the Live Greatly podcast are purely the opinions of the authors, and are not medical advice or treatment recommendations.  They have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration.  Opinions of guests are their own and Kristel Bauer & this podcast does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements made by guests.  Neither Kristel Bauer nor this podcast takes responsibility for possible health consequences of a person or persons following the information in this educational content.  Always consult your physician for recommendations specific to you.