Podcasts about AstraZeneca

“This is a time to reimagine public health and public health/healthcare system integration,” says Dr. Deb Houry, the former chief medical officer for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In this thoughtful Raise the Line conversation, Dr. Houry reflects on unprecedented federal action in vaccine guidance and other issues since her noteworthy resignation from the CDC in August, and sees a more decentralized landscape emerging where states and localities play a larger role in providing public health recommendations. And while she acknowledges upsides to this shift, she's also concerned what the absence of a national consensus on health standards could mean. “Diseases don't recognize borders, and it's also important that people have equitable access to preventative services, vaccines, and other things,” she tells host Lindsey Smith. Tune in for Dr. Houry's seasoned perspective on this consequential moment in public health, and her encouraging message for learners and early career providers considering a career in the sector.Mentioned in this episode:DH Leadership & Strategy Solutions If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

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.

Show Notes In this episode of Develop This!, host Dennis Fraise sits down with Jason El Koubi, President and CEO of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), to explore how Virginia has earned — and maintained — its reputation as one of the best states for business. Jason shares how Virginia's nonpartisan approach to economic development ensures continuity, focus, and accountability. He dives deep into the Virginia Talent Accelerator Program, a national model for workforce training that has helped attract global leaders like AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. From site readiness to speed-to-market, Virginia's economic playbook emphasizes agility, collaboration, and long-term talent development. Jason also discusses how the state is positioning itself for the industries of the future — including pharmaceutical manufacturing and artificial intelligence — all while doubling down on its goal to be America's Top State for Talent. If you're passionate about strategic, results-driven economic development, this episode offers a rare look inside a state model that works — and what other regions can learn from it.

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/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, 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.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This week, Isabel sits down with Carol Pitcher-Towner, Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programmes, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, to unpack the gender inequities that continue to tarnish modern healthcare. Together, they explore the realities behind unequal outcomes and the steps needed to build a more inclusive future for patients. In Part 1, Carol eveals the personal experiences that made gender inequity impossible to ignore and uncovers where today's biggest gaps still exist. From disease areas where women are routinely misdiagnosed to the persistent blind spots shaping clinical practice, this episode exposes the uncomfortable truths that are still costing lives, and why fixing them can no longer be optional. Speaker bio Carol Pitcher-Towner is Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programs at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Since joining the company in 2014 as one of its first European regulatory leaders, she has gone on to oversee patient safety, risk management and Alnylam's global development portfolio. With more than 20 years of experience, including roles at AstraZeneca, Carol brings deep expertise across regulatory affairs and clinical development. She holds a PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Warwick and was named an HBA Luminary in 2022 for her commitment to inclusive, patient-focused innovation. This content was reviewed by Alnylam UK Ltd for compliance with regulations applicable to the pharmaceutical industry only.

In this episode of AUANews Inside Tract, we celebrate 50 years of research support in urology. Since 1975, the AUA and the Urology Care Foundation have awarded nearly $40 million to over 1,000 researchers, driving innovation and improving care for millions of patients. Host Dr. Damara Kaplan sits down with Dr. Glenn Preminger, a distinguished AUA Research Scholar alumnus and pioneer in kidney stone management and minimally invasive surgery, to reflect on the legacy of AUA research, explore his groundbreaking career, and look ahead to the future of urologic innovation. Independent support for this podcast provided by AstraZeneca.  

What if the secret to transformation success isn't more budget but strong, built-in accountability?In this week's episode of the Only Constant, our guest Zee Amin discusses with Nellie Wartoft how flipping the traditional funding model transforms the transformation office into a high-impact internal consultancy. They explore co-investment strategies, building trust through realistic business cases, and why being brave enough to challenge the status quo matters more than having a mandate.Connect with:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nellie Wartoft⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CEO of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tigerhall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Chair of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Executive Council for Leading Change (ECLC)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nellie@tigerhall.com

Secretary Juan Pablo Segura joins BioTalk for a conversation about Virginia's growing position in the biohealth economy and the statewide strategy behind it. He outlines the significance of the new partnership with AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck, including up to $120 million in private investment to create a workforce development center and expand the Commonwealth's life sciences capacity. Segura talks through how Virginia approaches company recruitment, what investors are responding to, and why the state is seeing increased interest from biomanufacturing and advanced R&D companies. He also discusses Virginia's use of public-private partnerships to accelerate industry growth, strengthen the talent pipeline, and support emerging hubs across the Commonwealth. The conversation closes with a look at Virginia's role in the BioHealth Capital Region and how the regional identity helps amplify the state's message as it continues building a competitive biohealth ecosystem.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com). Juan Pablo Segura is the Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He leads 13 agencies focused on economic growth, business development, and industry expansion across the state. Before entering public service, Segura spent his career building companies in the digital health sector, most notably as a founder of Babyscripts, a widely adopted maternity care platform. His work has been recognized by Startup Health, CTIA, EY, and the White House. He is a CPA and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and he lives in Henrico, Virginia with his family.

From pandemic-speed vaccine deployment to AI-powered process control, what separates hype from real manufacturing transformation?The biotech industry faces a fundamental challenge: how do you maintain rigorous quality standards while accelerating development timelines, personalizing therapies, and adopting transformative technologies? The answer isn't found in chasing every innovation trend, it's in understanding which changes create genuine value and when to implement them across the product lifecycle.Irina Ramos brings a perspective earned through high-stakes execution. After leading the global technology transfer of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine, a project that compressed typical timelines while maintaining uncompromising quality standards, she's applying those lessons to the industry's next wave of challenges: phase-appropriate CMC strategy, the practical realities of AI integration, and building teams that bridge generational experience gaps in an era of rapid technological change.This conversation cuts through the noise. Irina discusses when continuous processing actually makes strategic sense (hint: it's not always the right answer), why AI in bioprocessing requires more human expertise rather than less, and the collaborative frameworks that enabled one of the fastest vaccine rollouts in history—lessons directly applicable to your current CMC challenges.Episode highlights:How the biotech community is constantly changing, and the importance of adaptability for future scientists (00:00)Navigating phase-appropriate CMC strategy: What to focus on in early clinical phases and which decisions set the foundation for compliance (02:36)Scenarios for switching from batch to continuous processing, including barriers and benefits for early-stage vs. established products (02:58)Lessons from leading AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine technology transfer: Collaboration, rapid regulatory communication, and mission-driven teams (05:20)Adapting lessons from the pandemic for ongoing drug development—balancing speed and risk while maintaining quality (08:24)Realistic perspectives on integrating AI in bioprocessing: demystifying its applications, emphasizing human-critical oversight, and practical use cases in manufacturing (10:40)Key skills for scientists in a biotech world shaped by AI—why foundational understanding and strong mentorship matter (13:51)Bridging experience gaps: How to foster collaboration and creativity between new and established professionals in regulated environments (15:45)Final takeaway: Start small, remain mission-driven, and remember that one size does not fit all in continuous manufacturing (17:15)Whether you're evaluating process platform decisions for Phase I programs, building cross-functional teams for tech transfer, or determining which digital tools deserve investment beyond the buzzword, this episode provides decision frameworks grounded in real-world execution at global scale.Connect with Irina Ramos:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/irinaramosNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? New on-demand CMC advisory: Get 20 expert answers/month in 1 day + monthly strategy call. → Learn more: https://stan.store/SmartBiotech/p/ondemand-cmc-expertise-for-biotech-foundersBook a 20-minute call to help you get s

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve deep into a series of transformative events that underscore the dynamic nature of our industry, where scientific innovation meets regulatory evolution and market adaptation.We begin with significant regulatory news from Medicare, which recently announced price reductions for 15 prescription drugs, including Novo Nordisk's semaglutide products, Ozempic and Wegovy. This initiative is part of the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at making essential medications more affordable. By potentially increasing accessibility to these treatments, this move highlights a growing trend towards cost containment in drug pricing within the U.S. healthcare system. It reflects a broader effort to ensure that life-saving treatments remain within reach for more patients, emphasizing the need for balance between innovation and affordability.Turning to approvals, Otsuka has secured FDA clearance for Voyxact, a first-in-class treatment targeting IgA nephropathy (IgAN). This positions Otsuka in an increasingly competitive market space populated by major players like Novartis and Vertex. The entry of Voyxact could pave the way for innovative therapeutics in kidney diseases, offering new hope to patients who have had limited treatment options until now.On the other side of the Atlantic, French authorities have conducted a raid on Sanofi's headquarters as part of a tax fraud investigation. This development sheds light on ongoing scrutiny in the pharmaceutical sector regarding financial practices and regulatory compliance. Such investigations can have far-reaching implications on corporate governance and transparency, reminding us of the importance of ethical practices in maintaining industry trust.Novo Nordisk has strategically used its FDA national priority voucher to expedite the review process for a high-dose formulation of Wegovy. This move underscores the importance of regulatory incentives in accelerating drug development timelines, allowing for quicker patient access to potentially life-changing therapies. It's a testament to how strategic navigation through regulatory pathways can significantly impact drug availability.In clinical trials, Sarepta Therapeutics received FDA clearance to conduct a study combining its gene therapy Elevidys with sirolimus in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The study aims to address liver safety issues associated with Elevidys, which had led to previous label restrictions. This reflects the industry's commitment to enhancing therapeutic safety profiles while expanding treatment indications.In oncology advancements, AstraZeneca's Imfinzi received FDA approval for use in early-stage stomach cancer, marking its third perioperative indication. This approval underscores the expanding role of immunotherapy across various cancer types and stages, offering new treatment paradigms that could improve surgical outcomes and long-term patient survival.Despite these advances, there is skepticism regarding artificial intelligence's role in regulatory compliance submissions among pharmaceutical professionals. A survey reveals that 65% express distrust towards AI-generated outputs, highlighting challenges that AI technologies face in gaining acceptance within highly regulated environments such as pharmaceuticals. However, federal recommendations to revamp U.S. biotechnology research emphasize incorporating AI into scientific processes to maintain global competitiveness. This call reflects concerns over potential declines in innovation leadership and underscores the need for strategic investment in research infrastructure.In antitrust news, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) outlined its case agaiSupport the show

In this week's episode of the Xtalks Life Science Podcast, host Ayesha Rashid, Senior Life Science Journalist at Xtalks, spoke with Andrew Menzies-Gow, MBBS, PhD, Vice President Respiratory & Immunology, Global Biopharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, about innovations in respiratory and immunology drug development. Dr. Menzies-Gow is an expert in respiratory biologics and severe asthma research with a prolific career in respiratory medicine, combining his background as a practicing clinician with strategic leadership to advance innovative therapies that address some of the greatest unmet needs in the field. Under his leadership at AstraZeneca, the company has delivered groundbreaking studies that have shaped clinical guidelines and improved standards of care globally. Dr. Menzies-Gow has a medical degree from St George's Hospital Medical School in London and a PhD in eosinophil biology from the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College. He has served as Chair of the NICE guideline development group for Asthma: Diagnosis and Monitoring, and as National Clinical Director for Respiratory Disease for NHS England. Tune in to hear about AstraZeneca's vision in the respiratory and immunology space, the innovations shaping the future of care and how global strategies are translating into real-world impact for patients. For more life science and medical device content, visit the Xtalks Vitals homepage. https://xtalks.com/vitals/ Follow Us on Social Media Twitter: https://twitter.com/Xtalks Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/xtalks/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Xtalks.Webinars/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/xtalks-webconferences YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/XtalksWebinars/featured

The biotech industry operates under constant tension: we work with products that directly impact human lives, demanding rigorous controls and validation at every step. Yet standing still means falling behind. The question isn't whether to innovate, it's how to do it without compromising the quality and safety standards that define our industry.Irina Ramos has lived this paradox throughout her career. As a downstream processing leader who's guided CMC programs from early development through global regulatory filings, she helped orchestrate the worldwide transfer of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine—a masterclass in balancing speed, scale, and uncompromising quality standards. Now, she's championing a vision that sounds almost radical: lights-out biomanufacturing facilities where continuous processes run at steady state with minimal human intervention.In this conversation, Irina shares the unfiltered reality of building innovation cultures in conservative environments, the surprising drivers behind continuous processing adoption, and why the industry's careful nature isn't a barrier to transformation. It's the foundation for sustainable innovation.Discussion highlights:Why conservatism is vital in biotech—and how to balance it with innovation (00:00)The vision for "lights-out" manufacturing and if bioprocess facilities could run with minimal human intervention (02:50)Irina Ramos's career story and the lessons her "happy accidents" teach junior scientists (03:53)Mindset shifts: Transitioning from scientist to innovation leader in CMC development (06:29)Building an innovation culture in a conservative, highly regulated industry (08:07)Essential mindsets for scientists to thrive and innovate in biotech environments (11:22)Coordination strategies for effective communication across stakeholders, departments, and geographies (13:52)The misconceptions of continuous manufacturing and what actually drives its adoption (17:09)What's hot in continuous biomanufacturing: trends, global perspectives, and how real-time analytics can change process control (21:12)Guiding principles for choosing between hybrid or end-to-end continuous processes (23:46)Practical tips on implementing control strategies and real-time monitoring in manufacturing (25:01)If you're navigating the shift from batch to continuous processing, leading cross-functional innovation initiatives, or wondering how to advocate for new technologies without disrupting validated processes, this episode offers practical frameworks you can apply immediately.Connect with Irina Ramos:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/irinaramosNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? New on-demand CMC advisory: Get 20 expert answers/month in 1 day + monthly strategy call. → Learn more: https://stan.store/SmartBiotech/p/ondemand-cmc-expertise-for-biotech-foundersBook a 20-minute call to help you get started on any questions you may have about bioprocessing analytics: https://bruehlmann-consulting.com/call

Send us a textGood 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 impactful events and breakthroughs that are shaping patient care and drug development.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted early approval for a combination therapy using Padcev and Keytruda for the perioperative treatment of bladder cancer, a decision made months ahead of schedule. This approval represents a significant advancement in the therapeutic landscape for this type of cancer, offering new hope to patients who have had limited treatment options. The combination of these two therapies underscores the growing trend of integrating multiple mechanisms of action to tackle complex diseases like cancer more effectively. It also highlights the potential of combination therapies to provide enhanced clinical benefits by leveraging different therapeutic targets.In another notable development, Merck's partner Kelun announced successful Phase 3 trial results for an antibody-drug conjugate combined with Keytruda in treating PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival compared to Keytruda alone. This finding reinforces the expanding role of antibody-drug conjugates in oncology and emphasizes the importance of biomarker-driven therapies in personalizing cancer treatment. These advancements reflect a broader industry shift towards precision medicine, which aims to improve patient outcomes by tailoring treatments based on individual patient profiles.Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk experienced setbacks as its shares fell nearly 9% following two unsuccessful Phase 3 trials of semaglutide for Alzheimer's disease. Despite these disappointing results, this outcome highlights the persistent challenges and complexities inherent in developing therapies for neurodegenerative diseases—areas where unmet needs remain substantial. The market's reaction reflects investor sensitivity to clinical trial outcomes, particularly in high-stakes areas like Alzheimer's where breakthroughs are eagerly anticipated.Switching gears to AstraZeneca, the company is making a strategic move by expanding its manufacturing capabilities with a $2 billion investment in Maryland. This expansion reflects an ongoing trend among pharmaceutical companies to enhance their production infrastructure, driven by increasing demand for biologics and complex therapeutics. Such investments are crucial for supporting large-scale production needs and ensuring robust supply chains that are essential for meeting global health demands.In regulatory news, a collective letter from biotech CEOs addressed to FDA director Marty Makary has raised concerns about regulatory stability in the U.S., with 82% of biopharma respondents expressing apprehension over the FDA's ability to function predictably. This plea underscores how regulatory volatility can hinder innovation and emphasizes the importance of consistent policies that support long-term research and development efforts.In clinical trial updates, Bayer's oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian has shown promise in reducing stroke risk during Phase 3 trials. These findings revive interest in FXIa inhibitors as potentially blockbuster drugs after previous setbacks in this class. This development illustrates ongoing efforts to identify novel anticoagulant therapies that balance efficacy and safety, offering new hope for improved therapeutic options.Now turning our attention to Johnson & Johnson's recent setback with their anti-tau antibody posdinemab in a phase 2 trial targeting Alzheimer's disease. The trial was unable to demonstrate a significant slowing of clinical decline, leading JSupport the show

AMJ Podcast | Episode 4 Capivasertib in the Clinic: Strategies to Manage Adverse Events This content was funded by AstraZeneca, and is intended for US Healthcare Professionals. Expert opinions are shared in this program and may differ from the approved capivasertib (TRUQAP®) labeling. Please see full Prescribing Information, including Patient Information when making treatment decisions.     Indication and Usage  Capivasertib (TRUQAP®) in combination with fulvestrant is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with one or more PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on at least one endocrine-based regimen in the metastatic setting or recurrence on or within 12 months of completing adjuvant therapy.     Description In this practical, case-based discussion, a breast oncology pharmacist and nurse practitioner walk through how they anticipate and manage the most common adverse events seen with capivasertib in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Drawing on real-world clinic workflows, they share stepwise approaches to counseling, prophylaxis, and early intervention for diarrhea, rash, and hyperglycemia, including when to escalate monitoring or treatment and how to coordinate roles across the care team.  You'll hear communication scripts, tips for using tools such as stool diaries and home glucometers, and strategies to keep patients on therapy safely and confidently.   Chapters 00:00 – 03:24 | Introduction 03:24 – 05:18 | When to consider capivasertib 05:18 – 08:51 | Introducing adverse events 08:51 – 16:18 | Diarrhea management 16:18 – 20:35 | Rash management 20:35 – 25:07 | Hyperglycemia management 25:07 – 27:31 | Care team best practices 27:31 – 31:18 | Top Tips & Takeaways   Speakers: Heather Moore –  Breast Oncology Pharmacist, Duke University Medical Center Sarah Donohue – Breast Oncology Nurse Practitioner, UCSF Health Breast Care Center     Select Safety Information About capivasertib (TRUQAP®) tablets TRUQAP is contraindicated in patients with severe hypersensitivity to TRUQAP or any of its components. Serious adverse reactions include hyperglycemia, including diabetic ketoacidosis and fatal outcomes; diarrhea; and cutaneous adverse reactions. Monitor fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1C levels regularly. May cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Among the 355 patients who received TRUQAP in CAPItello-291, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were diarrhea (72%), cutaneous adverse reactions (58%), increased random glucose (57%), decreased lymphocytes (47%), decreased hemoglobin (45%), increased fasting glucose (37%), nausea and fatigue (35% each), decreased leukocytes (32%), increased triglycerides (27%), decreased neutrophils (23%), increased creatinine (22%), vomiting (21%), and stomatitis (20%). Please see full Prescribing Information, including Patient Information for TRUQAP.

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ece Cali Daylan interviews author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley about the article, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer" by Bradley, et al published October 13, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss the manuscript, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study." The PACIFIC-2 study was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of simultaneous durvalumab with concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab to the concurrent chemoradiation followed by placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized 2:1 to durvalumab and placebo, respectively. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet its primary endpoint. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two arms. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 53% of the patients in the durvalumab arm compared to 59% of the patients in the placebo arm. Of note, the frequency of pneumonitis was similar in the two arms. Approximately 28% of patients in each arm developed pneumonitis, and about 5% of the pneumonitis observed in each arm was grade 3 or higher in severity. Treatment discontinuation rates secondary to the adverse events were higher in the durvalumab arm, 25% compared to 12%. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and death were more frequently seen in the durvalumab arm during the first four months of the treatment, which corresponds to the simultaneous administration of chemoradiation and durvalumab. Dr. Bradley, before we delve into the results, can you please explain the rationale for this study design and how this concept fits into the current treatment landscape? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, this trial came on the heels of PACIFIC after there was a progression-free survival benefit showed in PACIFIC that in the locally advanced unresectable population that consolidation immunotherapy, in this case durvalumab, had a progression-free survival benefit. A number of us in the clinical trial space thought to add concurrent immunotherapy in addition to consolidation immunotherapy that that would also improve outcomes for patients. So a number of trials were launched to follow up of PACIFIC. In this case, this is a phase III trial where the control arm was placebo. There was no overall survival results yet from PACIFIC, just a PFS benefit, and a number of countries across the world had not approved maintenance durvalumab in this space. So this trial looked at the experimental arm, which was concurrent immunotherapy, durvalumab, and chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab versus placebo. Dr. Ece Cali: And if we were to focus on the safety profile first, an increased pneumonitis risk was a theoretical concern when immunotherapy is given concurrently with radiation. Do we see any major differences in the safety profile between the two arms in this trial? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: No, and we were concerned about the addition of concurrent immunotherapy and chemoradiation, like you said, towards concern about increased pneumonitis rate, but we did not see increased pneumonitis in the experimental arm over placebo. And the grade 3 or higher, as you said, it was roughly 5%, more or less, in both arms, so we didn't see increase in pneumonitis toxicity with concurrent IO and chemoradiation. Dr. Ece Cali: But interestingly though, despite the lack of significantly increased toxicity with durvalumab, unfortunately, administering immunotherapy simultaneously with chemoradiation therapy did not improve survival. Lack of superiority of this treatment regimen, as you mentioned, is further confirmed across multiple similar negative trial readouts such as ECOG-ACRIN 5181 and CheckMate 73L. Dr. Bradley, in your view, what are some potential explanations for why this strategy did not pan out in clinical trials? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Regarding toxicity, let me go back and point out that we did see an increased number of immune-mediated adverse events. It was 34.7% in the concurrent immunotherapy arm versus 15.7% in the placebo arm. So that led to a higher number of discontinuations of immunotherapy which I think probably had an effect. So we didn't... there was an increased pneumonitis toxicity, but there were expected immune-mediated toxicities that caused people to stop giving immunotherapy. You can see that in the PFS curves. They were, you know, they crossed over after like a month, but initially there was lower PFS for the experimental arm, and then the experimental arm got better after we divided into four months, before four months and after four months. Dr. Ece Cali: For one reason or another, it looks like the simultaneous administration did not really improve outcomes. We now know that simultaneously giving them another concurrent radiation should really no longer be pursued in clinical trials for this patient population. Can you share with our audience what strategies are being studied in this setting and what trials to watch out for in the future? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Sure, I think when you add concurrent radiation to immunotherapy, there were more central tumors in this trial, I think you're killing lymphocytes and negating the effect of immunotherapy. So I think that's the smoking gun for this trial, for the ECOG trial, for the small cell trial that NRG reported, LU005, and other trials. So correct, I don't think there's any need to continue to pursue concurrent immunotherapy in this space of lung cancer. But that's not to say there aren't many other trials that are either ongoing, have accrued and awaiting results, or being planned for the next phase of clinical trials. We have a trial within NRG Oncology called NRG-LU008. It's a randomized phase III trial that is using an SBRT boost to a peripheral primary and chemoradiation to the nodes, because the primary tumor is the one that fails more often than the lymph nodes, and that's compared to PACIFIC in the control arm. PACIFIC-9 is another trial in the same line as the other PACIFIC trials. That one is using dual checkpoint inhibition versus the control arm being PACIFIC. So there are three arms in that trial, durva and oleclumab, durva and monalizumab versus the PACIFIC arm. And that trial is completed accrual, but we have no results from that study yet. Johnson & Johnson has a trial open looking at a nanoparticle. That's a radiosensitizer where bronchoscopy is used to inject the primary tumor and the lymph nodes with a radiosensitizer. That's a randomized phase ll trial that's ongoing. It's got three arms, two different doses of this radiosensitizing drug and then a control arm without injection at all. The control arm is again the PACIFIC arm. And then those of us within the NCI-based clinical trials evaluation program, CTEP, are proposing an intergroup trial that would compare induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemoradiation followed by maintenance immunotherapy versus PACIFIC in a phase III study. So I think there's other trials that are either completed, ongoing completed, or on the horizon to assess in this patient population. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, we definitely have an unmet need to improve survival outcomes for stage III patients, and it's great to hear that there are so many efforts looking at different strategies to improve outcomes for these patients.  Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley, for this informative discussion and for sharing your insights. Any last thoughts? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, we need something, you know. PACIFIC was first reported in 2017, and we really haven't made progress in terms of changing that standard of care control for the last eight years. So we need progress in this area. Dr. Ece Cali: Yep, definitely. Thank you so much for joining, Dr. Bradley.  And thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit 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. Bradley Honoria: Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Varian, Inc, Genentech, Inc. Research Funding: Varian Medical Systems Dr. Cali Research Funding Company: BeiGene, Nuvalent, Inc., Astra Zeneca 

Welcome back to Ozempic Weight Loss Unlocked, the show where we break down the latest developments in weight loss medications and what they mean for your health. I'm your host, and today we're diving into some exciting new data and industry shifts that you need to hear about.Let's start with what's happening right now in the weight loss medication world. A recent systematic review of over forty thousand adults found that semaglutide and tirzepatide significantly outperform older medications in achieving meaningful weight loss. In clinical trials, semaglutide resulted in a fourteen point nine percent reduction in body weight over sixty eight weeks, while tirzepatide led to a twenty point nine percent reduction. That's substantial progress compared to earlier options like liraglutide, which delivered only four to five percent weight loss.But here's something important our listeners need to understand: clinical trial results don't always match real world outcomes. When researchers looked at actual users after one year, those taking semaglutide lost seven point seven percent of their body weight, and those on tirzepatide lost twelve point four percent. Why the difference? About fifty percent of patients discontinued treatment during that first year, and eighty percent took lower dosages than prescribed.Speaking of usage, the numbers are staggering. Approximately one in eight American adults, or around twelve percent, have used a glucagon like peptide one medication at some point. Among people diagnosed with diabetes, that number jumps to forty three percent. The average age of users in the United Kingdom is forty four years old, with people aged forty to fifty nine making up more than half of all users.Now let's talk money, because cost remains a major barrier. The monthly out of pocket cost for Ozempic in the United States can reach as high as twelve hundred dollars for uninsured individuals. This pricing has created a competitive marketplace. In November twenty twenty five, Pfizer won a bidding war with Novo Nordisk to acquire obesity drug developer Metsera, giving them injectable and oral glucagon like peptide one candidates expected to enter clinical trials soon.But there's even more competition coming. Research indicates that several pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Zealand Pharma, Roche, and Amgen are expected to enter the glucagon like peptide one market with multiple drug launches planned between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty two.Interestingly, a new alternative is emerging. A medication called eloralintide, which targets a different hormone called amylin instead of glucagon like peptide one, showed promising results. In a phase two clinical trial with two hundred sixty three participants, those receiving eloralintide experienced average weight loss between nine and twenty percent after forty eight weeks, compared to only zero point four percent in the placebo group. Up to ninety percent of participants on eloralintide improved by at least one body mass index category, and the study showed improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors including waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood sugar management.Our listeners should know that not everyone responds equally to these medications. Past studies show that as much as seventeen percent of glucagon like peptide one users may be non responders to the medication. This is why having multiple treatment options with different mechanisms of action matters so much.One final note worth mentioning: the rise in glucagon like peptide one use has sparked increased demand for cosmetic surgeries to remove loose skin following significant weight loss. Procedures like arm lifts, thigh lifts, and tummy tucks have all seen increased demand.Thank you so much for tuning in to Ozempic Weight Loss Unlocked. Please make sure to subscribe so you don't miss our next episode covering even more developments in this rapidly evolving space. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Written editions of Charlottesville Community Engagement often begin with a historical anecdote to mark the day and tie stories to a greater sense of the world. But what about this newsletter's history?* The first November 22 edition came out in 2021 as you can see and hear here.* The November 22 version from 2023 was the only one made that week. Go look!* Last year? November 22 rounded out a full week of newsletters!This edition is a podcast version where 92.3 percent of the material has already gone out in print form but now the stories can be heard as if you were listening to public radio.What's in this edition?* Albemarle's Economic Development Authority gets an update on AstraZeneca's investment at Rivanna Futures (learn more)* Officials celebrate one transportation project while another gets underway* Jaunt CEO Mike Murphy briefs Charlottesville City Council (learn more)* With one quarter down, Charlottesville currently projected for $921K surplus for FY2026 (learn more)* Albemarle Supervisors take a look at the five-year financial plan as budget planning accelerates for fiscal year 2027 (learn more)Sponsorship demonstration: Westwind FlowersFall is in full bloom at Westwind Flowers! With the crisp autumn air settling in, they're celebrating the season with fresh, local blooms perfect for every occasion.And as the holidays approach, let Westwind Flowers bring local beauty to your celebrations. Dress up your Thanksgiving table with seasonal blooms, gift your host or hostess with a gorgeous indoor plant, or join us for one of our Holiday Wreath Workshops on November 29th or December 6th. Create your own festive wreath, from the base to the finishing touch, with expert guidance and fresh, locally grown greenery.Westwind Flowers offers sustainably grown, thoughtfully curated cut flowers, perfectly suited to the season and the special moments in your life. They believe the blooms in your vase should be just as fresh, and just as local, as the food on your table. Visit their website to learn more!Thoughts at the end of #960-AThis is the first podcast edition in two weeks. The reason there was none last week? Last Saturday I published a text edition instead based on differing accounts of the forced resignation of University of Virginia President Jim Ryan.For a while I was posting these on Mondays, but the gravity of my workflow means they come out best on Saturday mornings. I've been an audio producer for most of my journalism career dating back to 1995 and an internship at WVTF Public Radio. Recording audio is how I've always conducted interviews, though I've not done that for a while.I would like to do so, though. Since beginning this newsletter in the summer of 2020, I've mostly relied on harvesting government meetings and information releases. For me that is efficient approach because it can be much more time consuming to process those interviews and turn them into finished pieces. The nature of my business plan is to be as prolific as possible.I'm a journalist first. Being a business person ranks lower, though I've added a lot of over the past five and a half years. I'm excited to look ahead to 2026 and trying out some new things as I can. Maybe I'll finally finish that media kit! Let me know if you want to see a preview. For now it is time to finish this up and move on with the day. Below is an image from one of the stories this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

“My most powerful content is when I lead with my voice as a mom because I have the same concerns about keeping my kids safe as my audience does. It's a powerful and effective way to find common ground with people,” says Dr. Jess Steier, a popular public health scientist and science communicator seeking to bridge divides and foster trust through empathetic, evidence-based communication. Dr. Steier has several platforms from which to do this work, including  Unbiased Science --  a communication hub that uses multiple social media platforms and other communications channels to share validated health and science information -- and as executive director of the Science Literacy Lab, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reaching a diverse audience seeking clarity and reliable information on scientific topics. “The science is less than half the battle,” she explains. “It's about how to communicate with empathy.”Join Raise the Line host Lindsey Smith for a valuable conversation that explores:What sources Dr. Steier relies on to validate informationHow she uses “escape room” exercises to train clinicians on empathetic communicationWhy tailored, story-driven messages reach audiences more effectively than facts.Mentioned in this episode:Unbiased Science If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

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

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.

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.

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into the dynamic landscape of the industry, exploring significant scientific advancements, regulatory changes, clinical trial outcomes, and strategic investments that are shaping the future of healthcare.Starting with strategic investments, Regeneron is making a bold move with a $2 billion investment to transform a former magazine factory in Saratoga Springs, New York, into a state-of-the-art drug manufacturing plant. This investment reflects a broader industry trend towards enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities to ensure supply chain resilience. Similarly, CSL is channeling $1.5 billion into U.S. plasma-based manufacturing over the next five years. These investments are critical as plasma-derived therapies continue to play a vital role in treating various conditions, necessitating robust manufacturing infrastructure to meet growing demand.In clinical research, Merck's Winrevair has shown promising results in a proof-of-concept study for heart failure patients. This advancement highlights ongoing efforts to address one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide—heart failure. The study paves the way for further exploration of activin signaling inhibitors in cardiovascular therapies.On the regulatory front, Eli Lilly has expanded its market reach with the approval of its Alzheimer's medication for distribution in India. This milestone represents progress in tackling the global Alzheimer's disease burden, an ailment that presents significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide.The FDA's recent critique of AstraZeneca's Farxiga advertisement underscores the importance of accuracy in pharmaceutical marketing. The agency's concerns about potential misleading impressions emphasize ongoing regulatory vigilance to align marketing practices with approved therapeutic uses and ensure patient safety.Shifting to business strategies, Zymeworks' transition towards becoming a 'royalty-driven organization' marks an evolution in biotech business models. By leveraging successful licensing frameworks, Zymeworks aims to enhance revenue streams while focusing on innovation without the traditional constraints of direct commercialization.In cardiovascular therapeutics, Cytokinetics is positioning itself strategically by funding a heart registry, signaling an intensifying competitive landscape as companies vie for leadership in this critical area of healthcare.Roche's development of giredestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), has achieved success in a phase 3 adjuvant breast cancer trial. This positions Roche to capture an unoccupied niche within the competitive breast cancer treatment market and highlights a trend towards targeted therapies with potentially significant patient outcomes.Addressing side effects associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists, Vanda Pharmaceuticals is making strides with tradipitant to mitigate nausea and vomiting induced by Wegovy. As GLP-1 agonists gain traction for their metabolic benefits, adjunct therapies addressing side effects are becoming increasingly pertinent.In digital health initiatives, Humana's collaboration with Epic aims to automate insurance verification and patient check-ins, aligning with federal interoperability goals. This represents a broader industry shift towards digital solutions designed to streamline administrative processes and enhance patient experience.Meanwhile, Lonza's expansion at its Stein facility in Switzerland underscores ongoing capacity-building efforts among contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs). Such expansions are crucial as they provide biopharmaceutical companies with the neSupport the show

Learn how AstraZeneca builds powerful employee advocacy, even in highly regulated pharma. Agata Qanadilo shares her playbook.Agata Qanadilo, Employer Brand and Recruitment Marketing Manager at AstraZeneca, is a true pioneer. She built AstraZeneca Poland's employer branding function and employee advocacy program from the ground up, navigating strict compliance while fostering authentic employee voices.In this episode, Agata reveals her strategies for empowering employees to become authentic brand advocates, from setting up a LinkedIn Academy to balancing strict regulations with genuine, employee-generated content. Discover how this "playground" approach to employer branding drives talent acquisition, enhances brand reputation, and boosts internal employee engagement, moving beyond just recruitment metrics.Many senior marketers and employer brand leads face challenges launching advocacy in regulated sectors. Agata's real-world insights offer a proven blueprint to overcome these hurdles, transforming employees into powerful, compliant brand storytellers and cultivating a thriving employer brand from within.

Trump, Epstein belgelerine dair tutum değiştirdi ve dosyaların yayımlanması yönünde oy kullanma çağrısı yaptı. Bangladeş'te eski Başbakan Şeyh Hasina idam cezasına çarptırıldı.Bu bölüm AstraZeneca hakkında reklam içermektedir. AstraZeneca Türkiye Türk Tıbbi Onkoloji Derneği işbirliği ile hayata geçirdiği “Belirti Yoksa da Yok Sayma” farkındalık kampanyasıyla akciğer kanserinde erken tanının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Kampanya filmini buradan izleyebilirsiniz.

Send us a textImagine walking into a crisis room with a complete first-draft playbook—roles, spans of control, holding lines, and a 48-hour plan—ready in minutes. That's the promise we explore with Chris Hamilton and Peter Heneghan, veterans of 10 Downing Street, BP, and AstraZeneca, and now the co-founders of Albie.ai. Their take isn't hype: it's a grounded, human-first approach to using AI as a co-pilot that speeds up the work without sacrificing judgment, empathy, and trust. If you're a comms professional, you won't want to miss this very grounded discussion around incorporating AI into your resource mix.We talk about why AI in communications is different from past tech shifts. The web and social took years to mature; AI is arriving on top of mature infrastructure and accelerating everything at once. Chris and Peter argue that general-purpose tools like Copilot, Gemini, and Claude have a place, but comms teams also need domain-specific workflows that reflect how we plan, align, and respond—especially under pressure. They unpack their 20‑60‑20 method: set up with context and guardrails, let AI generate structured drafts fast, then apply rigorous human review to ensure accuracy, tone, and strategic fit.Whether you're in corporate affairs, media relations, or issues management, you'll leave with usable ideas to future-proof your function and keep humans at the helm. If this episode sparks ideas or pushback, we want to hear it—subscribe, share with your team, and send us your questions or experiences so we can build on them next time.Reach Chris Hamilton or Peter Heneghan at https://www.albie.ai/contactWe'd love to hear from you. Email the show at Tom@leadinginacrisis.com.

This accredited continuing education program is supported by an educational grant from Sanofi. Credit for the program can be obtained by visiting https://checkrare.com/learning/p-consider-rare-suspecting-and-diagnosing-cidp/ . This program, led by Jeffrey Allen, MD, Professor of Neurology at the University of Minnesota provides an overview on the diagnostic delays that often occur in patients with CIDP as well as best practices to suspect and diagnose this rare condition more efficiently. This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of physicians specializing in family medicine, pediatrics, and neurology. Other members of the care team may also participate.Learning ObjectivesAfter participating in the activity, learners should be better able to:Describe the early symptoms of CIDP.List best practices which can be used to diagnose CIDP more efficiently.Faculty Jeffrey Allen, MDProfessor of NeurologyDepartment of NeurologyDivision of Neuromuscular MedicineUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MNDisclosure StatementAccording to the disclosure policy of the Academy, all faculty, planning committee members, editors, managers and other individuals who are in a position to control content are required to disclose any relationships with any ineligible company(ies). The existence of these relationships is not viewed as implying bias or decreasing the value of the activity. Clinical content has been reviewed for fair balance and scientific objectivity, and all of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.Disclosure of relevant financial relationships are as follows:Faculty Educator/PlannerDr. Scott discloses Consultant/Educational talks: Annexon, Alexion, Amgen, CSL Behring, Takeda,BioCryst, Grifols, Argenx, Sanofi, Immunovant, ImmunoAbs, Octapharma, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Dianthus, Johnson & Johnson, Laboratoire Français du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies, Nuvig, Akcea Therapeutics, ImmunoPharma,Pfizer.Community Faculty/Patient (Christine Eleeson): No relevant financial relationships with any ineligible companies.Other Planners for this activity have no relevant financial relationships with any ineligible companies.This activity will review off-label or investigational information.The opinions expressed in this educational activity are those of the faculty, and do not represent those of the Academy or CheckRare CE. This activity is intended as a supplement to existing knowledge, published information, and practice guidelines. Learners should appraise the information presented critically, and draw conclusions only after careful consideration of all available scientific information.Accreditation and Credit DesignationIn support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by American Academy of CME, Inc. and CheckRare CE. American Academy of CME, 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.PhysiciansAmerican Academy of CME, Inc., designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Other HCPsOther members of the care team will receive a certificate of participation.There are no fees to participate in the activity.  Participants must review the activity information including the learning objectives and disclosure statements, as well as the content of the activity. To receive CME credit for your participation, please complete the pre-and post-program assessments. Your certificate will be emailed to you within 30 days.PrivacyFor more information about the American Academy of CME privacy policy, please access http://www.academycme.org/privacy.htm  For more information about CheckRare's privacy policy, please access https://checkrare.com/privacy/ContactFor any questions, please contact: CEServices@academycme.orgCopyright© 2025. This CME-certified activity is held as copyrighted © by American Academy of CME and CheckRare CE. Through this notice, the Academy and CheckRare CE grant permission of its use for educational purposes only. These materials may not be used, in whole or in part, for any commercial purposes without prior permission in writing from the copyright owner(s).

The Friday Five for November 14, 2025: iPhone Pocket Brings Back… Pockets. CMS Rural Health Transformation Program Government Shutdown Update Most-Favored Nation Drug Pricing CMS GENEROUS Model   Get Connected:

PFDK, 120 futbolcuya bahis oynadıkları gerekçesiyle hak mahrumiyeti cezası verdi. Düşen askerî kargo uçağındaki 20 askerin naaşları Türkiye'ye getirilirken Millî Savunma Bakanlığı, C-130 uçuşlarının tedbiren durdurulduğunu açıkladı.Bu bölüm AstraZeneca hakkında reklam içermektedir. Bugün Dünya Diyabet Günü. AstraZeneca Türkiye, “Diyabete Karşı Sağlıkta İnecek Var” kampanyasıyla diyabet hastalığına karşı harekete geçmeye davet ediyor. Kampanya filmini izlemek için buraya tıklayabilirsiniz.Bu bölüm Boyner hakkında reklam içermektedir. Yılın o zamanı geldi, 11.11 indirimleri başladı. Olay ürünler ve olay indirimler Boyner'de. Alışverişe başlamak için buraya tıklayabilirsiniz.

“I realized that rather than talking one-to-one with patients in the exam room, you could talk one-to-many on social media,” says Dr. Kevin Pho, explaining the origins of KevinMD, the highly influential information sharing site he created for physicians, medical students and patients twenty years ago. Since then, KevinMD has become a valuable space for clinicians and patients to share stories and perspectives on topics from burnout and moral injury to technology and trust. In this conversation with Raise the Line host Michael Carrese, Dr. Pho reflects on the dual paths that have defined his career: as a practicing internal medicine physician and as one of healthcare's most trusted online voices. And despite the challenges of doing so, Dr. Pho encourages other medical providers to follow his lead. “Patients are going online, and if physicians are not there, they're going to get information that's perhaps politically-driven or simply inaccurate.”This thoughtful conversation also explores: How social media has reshaped health communicationThe risks and rewards for clinicians of having an online presence Why medical schools should teach negotiating skillsMentioned in this episode:KevinMDEstablishing, Managing and Protecting Your Online Reputation If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

Oliver Patel has built a sizeable online following for his social media posts and Substack about enterprise AI governance, using clever acronyms and visual frameworks to distill down insights based on his experience at AstraZeneca, a major global pharmaceutical company. In this episode, he details his career journey from academic theory to government policy and now practical application, and offers insights for those new to the field. He argues that effective enterprise AI governance requires being pragmatic and picking your battles, since the role isn't to stop AI adoption but to enable organizations to adopt it safely and responsibly at speed and scale. He notes that core pillars of modern AI governance, such as AI literacy, risk classification, and maintaining an AI inventory, are incorporated into the EU AI Act and thus essential for compliance. Looking forward, Patel identifies AI democratization—how to govern AI when everyone in the workforce can use and build it—as the biggest hurdle, and offers thougths about how enteprises can respond. Oliver Patel is the Head of Enterprise AI Governance at AstraZeneca. Before moving into the corporate sector, he worked for the UK government as Head of Inbound Data Flows, where he focused on data policy and international data transfers, and was a researcher at University College London. He serves as an IAPP Faculty Member and a member of the OECD's Expert Group on AI Risk. His forthcoming book, Fundamentals of AI Governance, will be released in early 2026. Transcript Enterprise AI Governance Substack Top 10 Challenges for AI Governance Leaders in 2025 (Part 1)  Fundamentals of AI Governance book page  

** AWS re:Invent 2025 Dec 1-5, Las Vegas - Register Here! **SnapLogic CTO Jeremiah Stone reveals how they evolved from open-source to AI-powered integration platform, doubled AI adoption with one UX change, and delivers measurable enterprise ROI.Topics Include:SnapLogic CTO shares their decade-long journey building AI-powered integration with AWS partnership.SnapLogic drives "human cost of integration to zero" for thousands of global companies.Started as open-source project, pivoted to cloud in 2015 with AWS infrastructure.Began AI workloads in 2018, predicting next steps in integration workflows using models.Became AWS Bedrock launch partner, completely reinventing their product for generative AI era.SnapLogic lives through transformations first, then credibly helps ISV customers do same.Helped Adobe migrate entire CRM from Salesforce to Microsoft over single weekend.Built normalized data architecture using S3, Iceberg, Glue for analytics-ready enterprise data.SnapGPT copilot converts plain language prompts into complete integration pipelines in minutes.Live demo shows generating Salesforce-to-Redshift pipeline with filters using natural language commands.Small UX tweak adding helpful header doubled monthly active users of SnapGPT.Changed legal agreements in 2017 to capture metadata, enabling AI features years later.Agent Creator delivers ROI across customers: Inspirant, Core Plus, AstraZeneca use cases.SnapLogic's own finance team cut order reconciliation from 40 hours monthly to 90 minutes.Key lessons: governance first, understand business impact, use AWS native patterns consistently.Participants:Jeremiah Stone – Chief Technical Officer, SnapLogicOlawale Oladehin – Managing Director, NAMER Technology Segments, Amazon Web ServicesSee how Amazon Web Services gives you the freedom to migrate, innovate, and scale your software company at https://aws.amazon.com/isv/

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily, the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a series of groundbreaking changes and innovations reshaping the landscape of drug development, clinical trials, and regulatory affairs.In a major move, Pfizer has successfully outbid Novo Nordisk to acquire Metsera for $10 billion. This strategic acquisition aims to bolster Pfizer's presence in the obesity treatment market by leveraging Metsera's GLP-1 receptor agonist technology. This acquisition underscores the continuing trend of consolidation within the pharmaceutical industry, enhancing competitive market positioning and reflecting a broader quest for novel therapeutic solutions.Eli Lilly has entered into a $1.2 billion collaboration with Sangenebio to advance RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics targeting metabolic diseases. This partnership marks a pivotal shift towards utilizing RNAi technology to silence disease-causing genes, representing significant progress in metabolic disease treatment. The focus on innovative delivery mechanisms and targeted interventions is critical for accelerating drug development and enhancing therapeutic efficacy.Onchilles Pharma's recent Series A1 funding round, securing $25 million, marks a notable advancement in oncology therapeutics. The company's focus on dual-action cancer biologics targeting the ELANE pathway offers promising insights into immune activation in solid tumors. This investment exemplifies the growing interest in biologic therapies that provide targeted cancer treatments, potentially leading to more effective options for patients.Regulatory advancements are also making headlines. Chongqing Precision Biotech has received approval for Pujiolunxi, a treatment for pediatric relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), broadening therapeutic options for this challenging pediatric condition. Furthermore, Alembic Pharmaceuticals' generic version of Dasatinib tablets has gained FDA approval for Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia, increasing accessibility to treatment.Several promising clinical trial results have emerged recently. Summit Therapeutics and Akeso Biopharma's Ivonescimab showed a 26% overall survival benefit in phase 3 trials for non-small-cell lung cancer. The potential of bispecific antibodies in combination therapies is gaining attention for its efficacy in difficult-to-treat cancers. Additionally, Regeneron's Dupixent has achieved phase 3 success in treating allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, reinforcing its role as a versatile treatment option across various inflammatory diseases.Advancements in cardiovascular therapeutics also continue to unfold. Merck & Co.'s Enlicitide Decanoate demonstrated over 50% LDL cholesterol reduction in a phase 3 study focused on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease through PCSK9 inhibition. AstraZeneca's Baxdrostat showed significant blood pressure reduction in trials targeting treatment-resistant hypertension, highlighting the potential impact of aldosterone synthase inhibitors on cardiovascular health.The investment landscape remains robust with substantial fundraising activities such as Elephas Biosciences' $40 million Series B-2 for commercializing their live tumor profiling platform and Iambic's over $100 million series focused on AI-driven drug discovery. These investments underscore the industry's commitment to integrating advanced technologies like AI and live tumor profiling to enhance precision medicine capabilities.FDA regulatory updates are pivotal as well, notably with the decision to lift warning labels from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) products following an expert review that found previous warnings were based on misinformation regaSupport the show

“We've created this ecosystem where the vast majority of information on social media, particularly in nutrition science, is inaccurate or misleading,” says Dr. Jessica Knurick, a registered dietitian and Ph.D. in nutrition science specializing in chronic disease prevention. As you'll learn on this episode of Raise the Line with host Lindsey Smith, countering that trend has become Dr. Knurick's focus in the past several years, and her talent for translating complex scientific information into practical guidance has attracted a large following on social media. Beyond equipping her audience with the tools to think critically and make informed choices for themselves, she also wants them to make the connection between the generally poor health status of most Americans with public policies on food and health and advocate for more beneficial approaches. “We can create systems that put the most people in the position to succeed versus putting the most people in the position to fail.” Tune in to learn from this trusted voice on nutrition, food policy, and public health as she shares her perspectives on: Strategies for risk reduction and behavior changeWhat can rebuild trust in medical information How you can cut through the noise and spot misinformation onlineMentioned in this episode:Dr. Knurick's WebsiteTikTok ChannelInstagram FeedFacebook Page If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

November 11, 2025 | What is the next modality to focus on in the next 10 years? For Bahija Jallal, CEO of Immunocore, it would be T-cell engagers. In this episode of The Chain, host Rakesh Dixit speaks with Jallal on the potential advantages of bispecific T-cell engager therapy versus T-cell receptor therapy, biggest anticipated changes in drug discovery and development in the next 10 years, and how AI is going to impact the next generation of scientists. Plus, Jallal shares her experiences as the previous president of MedImmune and at AstraZeneca, what her most rewarding project was, and the transformations and achievements that occurred under her leadership. Links from this episode:  Immunocore 

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. In today's rapidly evolving landscape, we witness significant strides shaping the future of drug development, patient care, and global market dynamics.Merck & Co. has made a notable advancement in cholesterol management with a PCSK9-targeted pill. This pill has achieved reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) comparable to existing injectable therapies. Such innovation represents a significant step forward by potentially offering a more convenient oral alternative for patients. The development underscores the industry's ongoing efforts to enhance patient compliance and therapeutic outcomes through novel drug delivery mechanisms.In a strategic corporate move, Pfizer has successfully acquired Metsera, an obesity biotech company, for a substantial $10 billion. This acquisition, which followed an intense bidding war with Novo Nordisk, exemplifies Pfizer's aggressive expansion in the obesity treatment market—a growing global health challenge. The strategic buyout positions Pfizer to leverage Metsera's expertise, potentially accelerating the development and commercialization of innovative obesity treatments.Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk is enhancing its presence in India by partnering with Emcure Pharmaceuticals to expand access to Wegovy, its weight-loss treatment. This collaboration is particularly significant given India's escalating obesity rates and highlights the importance of regional partnerships in enhancing drug accessibility and addressing public health issues.Regulatory developments continue to influence industry dynamics as well. The FDA has postponed its decision on expanding Rhythm Pharmaceuticals' Imcivree for additional indications. These regulatory delays highlight the complexities and unpredictabilities inherent in drug approval processes, underscoring the need for companies to strategically navigate these challenges.Regeneron and AstraZeneca have reported clinical trial successes with their respective anti-inflammatory drugs, Dupixent and Fasenra. These positive outcomes were showcased at the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology's annual meeting, bolstering the companies' aspirations for FDA approvals. Successful clinical outcomes not only pave the way for expanded therapeutic options but also demonstrate the industry's commitment to addressing complex inflammatory conditions.October has seen a surge in TV advertising spending, led by Johnson & Johnson's campaign for Tremfya. The campaign highlights the power of patient community engagement in bringing attention to conditions like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), emphasizing how patient advocacy can reduce isolation among sufferers.In oncology, Cogent Biosciences is on track for an FDA submission following successful phase 3 trials of its cancer asset bezuclastinib. This development illustrates the critical role of rigorous clinical research in advancing oncology treatments and potentially improving patient outcomes.Turning our attention to technological frontiers within pharmaceutical R&D, Eli Lilly has been particularly active in cementing its commitment to artificial intelligence (AI) and gene therapy through several strategic collaborations. The company has entered into a $100 million-plus research agreement with Insilico Medicine to leverage AI for drug discovery. This partnership aims to expedite the identification of novel therapeutic targets and enhance drug development efficiency—a reflection of a broader industry trend towards integrating AI into pharmaceutical processes.Additionally, Lilly has made a notable move in gene therapy by acquiring rights from MeiraGTx for a retinal disease therapy that has shown Support the show

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Aditya Bagrodia discuss the evolving landscape of testicular cancer survivorship, the impact of treatment-related complications, and management strategies to optimize long-term outcomes and quality of life. TRANSCRIPT:  Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We all know that testicular cancer is a rare but highly curable malignancy that mainly affects young men. Multimodal advances in therapy have resulted in excellent cancer specific survival, but testicular cancer survivors face significant long term treatment related toxicities which affect their quality of life and require surveillance and management. With that, I'm very happy today to be joined by Dr. Aditya Bagrodia, a urologic oncologist, professor, and the GU Disease Team lead at UC San Diego[KI1]  Health, and also the lead author of the recently published paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Key Updates in Testicular Cancer: Optimizing Survivorship and Survival." And he's also the host of the world-renowned BackTable Urology Podcast. Dr. Bagrodia, I'm so happy that you're joining us today. Welcome. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Thanks, Pedro. Absolutely a pleasure to be here. Really appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: Absolutely.  So, just to say that our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Let's get things started. I'm really excited to talk about this. I'm biased, I do treat testicular cancer among other GU malignancies and so it's a really, really important topic that we face every day, right? Fortunately, for most of these patients, we're able to cure them. But it always comes up the question, "What now? You know, scans, management, cardio oncology, what survivorship programs we have in place? Are we addressing the different survivorship piece, psychology, fertility, et cetera?" So, we'll try to capture all of that today. Aditya, congrats again, you did a fantastic job putting together the insights and thoughts and what we know today about this important topic. And so, let's get focused specifically about what happens when patients get cured. So, many of us, in many centers, were fortunate enough to have these survivorship programs together, but I find that sometimes from talking to colleagues, they're not exactly the same thing and they don't mean the same thing to different people, to different institutions, right? So, first things first. What do you tell a patient perhaps when they ask you, "What can happen to me now that I'm done with treatment for testicular cancer?" Whether it's chemotherapy or just surgery or even radiation therapy? "So, what about the long term? What should I expect, Doctor, that might happen to me in the long run?" Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think that question's really front and center, Pedro, and really appreciate you all highlighting this topic. It was an absolute honor to work with true thought leaders and the survivorship bit of it is front and center, in my opinion. It's really the focus, you know, we, generally speaking should be able to cure these young men, but it's the 10, 15, 20 years down the way that they're going to largely contend with. The conversation really begins at diagnosis, pre-education. Fortunately, the bulk of patients that present are those with stage one disease, and even very basic things like before orchiectomy, talking about a prosthetic; we know that that can impact body image and self esteem, whether or not they decide to receive it or not. Actually, just being offered a prosthetic is important and this is something, you know, for any urologist, it's kind of critical. To discussing fertility elements to this, taking your time to examine the contralateral testicle, ask about fertility problems, issues, concerns, offer sperm banking, even in the context of a completely normal contralateral testicle, I think these things are quite important.  So if it's somebody with stage one disease, you know, without going too far down discussing adjuvant therapy and so forth, I will start the conversation with, "You know, the testes do largely two things. They make testosterone and they make sperm." By and large, patients are going to be able to have acceptable levels of testosterone, adequate sperm parameters to maintain kind of a normal gonadal state and to naturally conceive, should that be something they're interested in. However, there's still going to be, depending on what resource you look at, somewhere in the order of 10-30% that are going to have issues. Where I think for the stage one patients, it's really incumbent upon us is actually to not wait for them to discuss their concerns, particularly with testosterone, which many times can be a little bit vague, but to proactively ask about it every time. Libido, erectile quality, muscle mass maintenance, energy, fatigue. All of these are kind of associated symptoms of hypogonadism. But for a lot of kids 18-20 years old, it's going to be something insidious that they don't think about. So, for the stage one patients, it absolutely starts with gonadal function. If they are stage two getting surgery, I think the counseling really needs to center around a possibility for ejaculatory dysfunction. Now, for a chemotherapy-naive, nerve-sparing RPLND, generally these days we should be able to preserve ejaculatory function at high volume centers, but you still want to bring that up and again kind of touch base on thinking about sperm banking and so forth before the operation, scars, those are things I think worth talking about, small risk of ascites. Then, I think the intensity of potential long term adverse effects really ramps up when we're talking about systemic therapy, chemotherapy. And then there's of course some radiation therapy specific elements that come up. So, for the chemotherapy bits of it, I really think this is going to be something that can be a complete multi-system affected intervention. So, anxiety, depression, our group has actually shown using some population resources that even suicidality can be increased among patients that have been treated for germ cell tumor. You know, really from the top down, tinnitus, hearing changes, those are things that we need to ask about at every appointment. Neuropathy, sexual health, that we kind of talked about, including ED (erectile dysfunction), vertigo, dizziness, Raynaud's phenomenon, these are kind of more the symptoms that I think we need to inquire about every time. And what we do here and I think at a lot of survivorship programs is use kind of a battery of validated instruments, germ cell tumor specific, platinum treated patient specific. So we use a combination of EORTC questions and PROMIS questions, which actually serves as like a review of systems for the patient, also as a research element. We review that and then depending on what might be going on, we can dig into that further, get them over to colleagues in audiology or psychology, et cetera.  And then of course, screening for the hypertension, hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome with basically you or myself or somebody kind of like us serving, many times it's the role of the PCP, just making sure we're checking out, you know, CBC, CMP, et cetera, lipid parameters to screen for those kind of cardiac associated issues along with secondary malignancies. Dr. Pedro Barata: So that's super comprehensive and thorough. Thank you so much. Actually, I love how you break it down in a simple way. Two functions of the testes, produce testosterone and then, you know, the problem related to that is the hypogonadism, and then the second, as you mentioned, produce sperm and of course related to the fertility issues with that.  So, let's start with the first one that you mentioned. So, you do cite that in your paper, around 5-10% of men end up getting, developing hypogonadism, maybe clinical when they present with symptoms, maybe subclinical. So, I'm wondering, for our audience, what kind of recommendations we would give for addressing that or kind of thinking of that? How often are you ordering those tests? And then, when you're thinking about testosterone replacement therapy, is that something you do immediately or are there any guidelines into context that? How do you approach that? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: So, just a bit more on digging into it even in terms of the questions to ask, you know, "Do you have any decrease in sexual drive? Any erectile dysfunction? Are your morning erections still taking place? Has the ejaculate volume changed? Physically, muscle mass, strength? Have you been putting on weight? Have you noticed increase in body fat?" And sometimes this is complicated because there's some anxiety that comes along with a cancer diagnosis when you're 20, 30 years old, multifactorial, hair loss, hot flashes, irritability. Sometimes they'll, you know, literally they'll say, "You know, my significant other or partners noticed that I'm really just a little bit labile." So I think, you know, there's the symptoms and then checking, usually kind of a gonadal panel, FSH, LH, free and total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, that's going to be typically pretty comprehensive. So if you've got symptoms plus some laboratory work, and ideally that pre-orchiectomy testosterone gives you some delta. If they started out at an 800, 900, now they're 400, that might be a big change for them. And then, when you talk about TRT (Testosterone Replacement Therapy) recommendations, you know, Pedro, yourself, myself, we're kind of lucky to be at academic centers and we've got men's health colleagues that are ultra experts, but at a high level, I would say that a lot of the TRT options center around fertility goals. Exogenous testosterone treats the low T, but it does suppress gonadal function, including spermatogenesis. So if that's not a priority, they can just get TRT. It should be done under the care of a urologist, a men's health, an endocrinologist, where we're checking liver chemistries and CBCs and a PSA and so forth. If they're interested in fertility preservation, then I would say engaging an endocrinologist, men's health expert is important. There's medications even like hCG, Clomid, which works centrally and stimulate the gonadal access. Niche scenarios where they might want standard TRT now, and then down the way, 5, 7 years, they're thinking about coming off of that for fertility purposes, I think that's really where you want to have an expert involved because there's quite a bit of nuance there in recovery of actual spermatogenesis and so forth.  To kind of summarize, you got to ask about it. Checking it is, is not overly complicated. We do a baseline pre-orchiectomy and at least once annually, you can tag it in with the tumor markers, so it's not an extra blood draw. And if they have symptoms of course, kind of developed, then we'll move that up in the evaluation. Dr. Pedro Barata: Got it. And you also touch base on the fertility angle, which is truly important. And I'm just curious, you know, a lot of times many of us might see one, two patients a year, right, and we forget these protocols and what we've got to do about that.  And so I'm interested to hear your thoughts about when you think about fertility, and how proactive you get. In other words, who do you refer for the fertility clinic, for a fertility preservation program? You know, do all cases despite getting through orchiectomy or just the cases that you're going to, you know you're going to seek chemotherapy at some point? What kind of selection or it depends on the chemo, like how do you do that assessment about the referral for preservation program that you might have available at UCSD? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, I mean I feel really fortunate to sit on the NCCN Testis Cancer Guidelines. It's in there that fertility counseling should be discussed prior to orchiectomy. So 100% bring it up. If there are risk factors, undescended testicles, previous history of fertility concerns, atrophic contralateral testicle, anything on the ultrasound like microlithiasis in the contralateral testicle, you kind of wanna get it there. And then again, there's kind of niche scenarios where you're really worried, maybe get a semen analysis and it doesn't look that good, arrange for the time of orchiectomy to have onco-testicular sperm extraction from the, quote unquote, "normal" testis parenchyma. You know, I think you have to be kind of prepared to go that route and really make sure you're doing this completely comprehensively.  So pre-orchiectomy all patients. Don't really push for it too hard if they've got a contralateral testicle, if they've had no issues having children. There's some cost associated with this, sperm banking still isn't kind of covered even in the context of men with cancer. If they've got risk factors, absolutely pre-orchiectomy. Pre-RPLND, even though the rates of ejaculatory dysfunction at a high-volume center should be low single digits, I'll still offer it. That'd be a real catastrophe if they were in that small proportion of patients and now they're going to be reliant on things like intrauterine insemination, where it becomes quite expensive.  Pre-chemo, everybody. That's basically a standard these days where it should be discussed and it's kind of amazing currently, even if you don't have an accessible men's health fertility clinic, there are actually companies, I have no vested interest, Fellow is one such company where you can actually create an account, receive a FedEx semen analysis and cryopreservation kit, send it back in, and all CLIA certified, it's based out of California. The gentleman that runs it, is a urologist and very, very bright guy who's done a lot of great stuff for testis cancer. So, even for patients that are kind of in extremis at the hospital that kind of need to get going like yesterday, we still discuss it. We've got some mechanisms in place to either have them take a semen analysis over to our Men's Health clinic or send it off to Fellow, which I think is pretty cool and that even extends to some of our younger adolescent patients where going to a clinic and providing a sample might be tricky.  So, I think bringing it up every stage, anytime there's an intervention that might be offered, orchiectomy, chemo, surgery, radiation, it's kind of incumbent on us to discuss it. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha. That's super helpful. And you also touch base on another angle, which is the psychosocial angle around this. You mentioned suicidal rates, you mentioned anxiety, perhaps depression in some cases as well as chronic fatigue, not necessarily just because of the low testosterone that you can get, but also from a psychological perspective. I'm curious, what do the recommendations look like for that? Do these patients need to see a social worker or a psychologist, or do they need to answer a screening test every time they come to see us and then based on that, we kind of escalate, take the next steps according to that? Do they see a psychologist perhaps every so often? How should that be managed and addressed? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: It's an excellent question and again, these can be rather insidious symptoms where if you don't really dig in and inquire, they can be glossed over. I mean, how easy to say, "Your markers look okay, your scans look okay. See you in six months," and keep it kind of brief. First off, I think bringing it up proactively and normalizing it, that, "This may be something that you experience. Many people do, you're not alone, there's nothing kind of wrong with you." I also think that this is an area where support groups can be incredibly useful. We host the Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation support group here. They'll talk about chemo brain or just like a little bit of an adjustment disorder after their diagnosis. Support groups, I think are critical. As I mentioned, we have a survivorship program that's led by a combination of our med oncs, myself on the uro-onc side, as well as APPs, where we are systematically asking about essentially the whole litany of issues that may arise, including psychosocial, anxiety, depression, suicidality. And we've got a nice kind of fast path into our cancer center support services for these young men to meet with a psychologist. If that isn't going to be sufficient, they can actually see a psychiatrist to discuss medications and so forth. I do think that we've got to screen for these because, as anticipated from diagnosis, those first 2 years, we see a rise. But even 10, 15 years out, we note, compared to controls, that there is an increased level of anxiety, depression, suicidality that might not just take place at that initial acute period of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Super important.  So I guess if I were to put all these together, with these really amazing advances in technology, we all know AI, some of us might be more or less aware of biomarkers coming up, including microRNA for example, and others, like as I think of all these potential long term complications for these patients, look at the future, I guess, can we use this as a way to deescalate treatment where it's not really necessary, as a way to actually prevent some of these complications? Like, how do we see where we're heading? As we manage testicular cancer, let's say, within the next 5 or 10 years, do you think there's something coming up that's going to be different from what we're doing things today? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think it's as exciting as a time as there's ever been, you know, maybe notwithstanding circa 1970s when platinum was discovered. So microRNAs, which you mentioned, you know, there's a new candidate biomarker, microRNA-371. We are super excited here at UCSD. We actually have it CLIA-certified available in our lab and are ordering these tests for patients kind of in their acute stage, you know, stage one and surveillance, stage two, post-RPLND, receiving chemotherapy. And essentially this is a universal germ cell tumor specific biomarker, except for teratoma, suffice it to say 90% sensitive and specific. And I think it's going to change the way that we diagnose and manage patients. You know, pre-orchiectomy, that's pretty straightforward. Post-orchiectomy, maybe we can really decrease the number of CT scans that are done. Maybe we can identify those patients that basically have occult disease where we can intervene early, either with RPLND or single cycle chemo. Post-RPLND, identify the patients who are at higher risk of relapse that may benefit from some adjuvant therapy. In the advanced setting, look at marker decline for patients in addition to standard tumor markers. Can we modulate their systemic therapy?  So, the international interest is largely on modifying things. There's really cool clinical trials that we have for stage one patients, that treatment would be prescribed based on a post-orchiectomy microRNA. I think the microRNAs are really exciting. Teratoma remains an outstanding question. I think this is where maybe ctDNA, perhaps some radiomics and advanced imaging processing and incorporating AI may allow us to safely avoid a lot of these post-chemo RPLNDs. And then identification using SNPs and so forth of who might be most susceptible to some of the cardiac toxicity, autotoxicity and personalizing things in that way as well. Dr. Pedro Barata: Super exciting, right, what's about to come? And I agree with you, I think it's going to change dramatically how we manage this disease.  This has been a pleasure sitting down with you. I guess before letting you go, anything else you'd like to add before we wrap it up? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, first off, again, just want to thank you and ASCO for the opportunity. And it's easy enough to, I think, approach a patient with the testicular germ cell tumor as, "This is an easy case. We're just going to do whatever we've done. Go to the guidelines that says do X, Y, or Z." But there's so much more nuance to it than that. Getting it done perfectly, I think, is mandatory. Whatever we do is an impact on them for the next 50, 60, 70 years of their life. And I found the germ cell tumor community, people are really passionate about it. If you're ever uncertain, there's experts throughout the country and internationally. Ask somebody before you do something that you can't undo. I think we owe it to them to get it perfect so that we can really maximize the survivorship and the survival like we've been talking about. Dr. Pedro Barata: Aditya, thanks for sharing your fantastic insights with us on this podcast. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: All right, Pedro. Fantastic. Appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: And also, thank you to our listeners for your time today. I actually encourage you to check out Dr. Bagrodia's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We'll post a link to the paper in the show notes. Remember, it's free access online, and you can actually download it as well as a PDF. You can also find on the website a wealth of other great papers from the ASCO Educational Book on key advances and novel approaches that are shaping modern oncology.  So with that, thank you everyone. Thank you, Aditya, one more time, for joining us. Thank you, have a good day. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:         Dr. Pedro Barata  @PBarataMD   Dr. Aditya Bagrodia @AdityaBagrodia Follow ASCO on social media:         @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)         ASCO on Bluesky        ASCO on Facebook         ASCO on LinkedIn         Disclosures:      Dr. Pedro Barata:  Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical  Honoraria: UroToday  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon  Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck   Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Consulting or Advisory Role: Veracyte, Ferring  

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Philipp Vetter über wacklige KI-Börsen, den neuen Plan für Siemens Healthineers und was diese Woche sonst noch wichtig wird. Außerdem geht es um Palantir, Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft, ASML, SAP, Infineon, Volkswagen, Siemens, Altair, Rumble, Northern Data, Merck & Co., Amgen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Robinhood und Walmart. 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

Could studying the DNA of extinct animals – or even bringing them back to life – help us save today's endangered species and inform modern medicine?  That may sound like the premise for a Hollywood movie, but it's work that our Raise the Line guest, Dr. Beth Shapiro, is actually engaged in as Chief Science Officer at Colossal Biosciences, which describes itself as the world's first and only de-extinction company.  “It's not just about learning about the past. It's learning about the past so we have more validated scientific information that we can use to predict what we can do to better influence the future,” she tells host Michael Carrese. An internationally-renowned evolutionary molecular biologist and paleogeneticist, Dr. Shapiro is a pioneer in ancient DNA research and has successfully sequenced genomes, like that of the dodo, to study evolution and the impact on humans. At Colossal Biosciences, she leads teams working to bring back traits of extinct species such as the mammoth, not for spectacle, but to restore ecological balance. “When species become extinct, you lose really fundamental interactions between species that existed in that ecosystem. By taking a species that's alive today and editing its DNA so that it resembles those extinct species, we can functionally replace those missing ecological interactions.” Tune into this utterly fascinating conversation to hear about what Jurassic Park got wrong, the positive ecological impact of reintroducing giant tortoises to Mauritius, and the ethics of using gene editing and other biotechnologies. Mentioned in this episode:Colossal Biosciences If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message.Episode 115 of Cell & Gene: The Podcast features Host Erin Harris' talk with Aliya Omer, Vice President and Global Head of Hematology and Cell Therapy at AstraZeneca. Omer shares valuable insights from her rich experience leading cell therapy development across multiple top companies. She highlights the critical importance of collaboration by breaking down silos across research, manufacturing, regulatory, and commercial teams to deliver innovative therapies efficiently. She also discusses AZ's diverse and ambitious cell therapy portfolio, encompassing autologous CAR-T, TCR-T, in vivo gene therapies, and regulatory T-cell therapies. She candidly addresses current challenges in manufacturing scalability, patient access, and healthcare system readiness and describes how AZ is prioritizing fast manufacturing platforms and ecosystem-wide partnerships to surmount these hurdles. Subscribe to the podcast!Apple | Spotify | YouTube Visit my website: Cell & Gene Connect with me on LinkedIn

Global markets stabilize following the valuation-fueled tech rout, though the outlook for A.I. adoption remains mixed. In the U.S., the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over the legality of President Trump's sweeping tariff agenda, with legal scholars split over the likely outcome. In the U.K., focus is back on the Bank of England ahead of today's rate decision, with analysts split over the path forward given the recent spate of weaker data. It's another busy day on the earnings front – Commerzbank reported a surprise fall in third quarter profit, though raised its revenue outlook with CEO Bettina Orlopp telling CNBC net interest income is improving. Meanwhile, the UK's most valuable company, AstraZeneca, reported a strong set of results, beating on revenue and EPS while reiterating its full year guidance.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.

APAC stocks were higher as the region took impetus from the rebound on Wall St, where all major indices gained amid dip buying.European equity futures indicate an uneventful cash market open with Euro Stoxx 50 futures relatively flat after the cash market closed with gains of 0.2% on Wednesday.DXY traded rangebound after having recently snapped a 5-day rally, despite firmer-than-expected ADP and ISM Services data, while catalysts were quiet overnight10yr UST futures saw some slight reprieve after slumping yesterday; Bund futures languished near the prior day's lows.US President Trump is scheduled to make an announcement at 11:00EST/16:00GMT on Thursday.Looking ahead, highlights include German Industrial Production, EZ Retail Sales, Canadian Leading Index, US Chicago Fed Labour Market Indicators, US Challenger Layoffs, BoE, Banxico & Norges Bank Policy Announcements, Speakers including Fed's Williams, Barr, Hammack, Waller, Paulson & Musalem, ECB's Lane, Nagel, Schnabel & de Guindos, BoE's Bailey, BoC's Macklem, Rogers & Kozicki, Supply from Spain & FranceEarnings from Continental, Commerzbank, AstraZeneca, Sainsbury's, Airbnb, ConocoPhillips & Warner Bros.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

According to the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, women make up 70% of the global healthcare workforce but hold only about 25% of leadership positions. Our guest today on Raise the Line, Dr. Roopa Dhatt, has been a leading voice in the movement to correct that imbalance through co-founding an organization called Women in Global Health (WGH), which has established chapters in over 60 countries since it started a decade ago. Dr. Dhatt is also pursuing that agenda and addressing other pressing issues in healthcare as a Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum. “We're changing the equation so women delivering health are also viewed and valued as leaders,” says the internal medicine physician and assistant professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine. Beyond leadership equity, Dr. Dhatt is also seeking to address systemic pay inequities and high levels of violence and harassment experienced by women in the health sector, issues that were highlighted in research conducted by WGH. Although WGH has seen high-level success influencing policy at the World Health Organization and United Nations, Dr. Dhatt says the heart of its success is local. “Women community health workers have begun to see themselves as leaders and the heroines of health in their communities. That's profound change.” Join host Michael Carrese for a probing conversation that identifies the structural barriers blocking advancement for women and that explains why the health of communities and the planet depend on inclusive leadership.Mentioned in this episode:Women in Global HealthWHO Report: Delivered By Women, Led By MenDr. Roopa Dhatt on LinkedIn If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

This episode of the Scope of Things features an exclusive panel at SCOPE Europe 2025 covering regulatory requirements for AI literacy training, featuring industry executives Jonathan Crowther, head of the operational design center at Merck KGaA; Janie Hansen, global development information management, business systems transformation at Daiichi Sankyo; Francis Kendall, head of statistical programming, digital and data sciences at Biogen; and James Weatherall, vice president and chief data scientist of biopharmaceuticals R&D at AstraZeneca. Plus, host Deborah Borfitz gives the latest news on efforts to reduce excess data collection in studies, whole genome sequencing of breast cancer, a virus cocktail to combat superbugs, and more. Show Notes News Roundup   Collaborative study on data collection in trials News posted on the TransCelerate website Heart benefits of semaglutide Study in The Lancet Whole genome sequencing of breast cancers Study in The Lancet Oncology Pan-cancer immunotherapy heads to trials Research article in Cell Article in Bio-IT World Promising NAD+ “youth molecule” Review article in Nature Aging  Virus cocktail to combat superbugs Article in Nature Microbiology AI annotates medical images News posted on the MIT website Fitbits aid precision health American Life in Realtime study in PNAS Nexus Latest from the Human Epilepsy Project Study in JAMA Neurology Imposter study participants Editorial in The BMJ Guests Jonathan Crowther, Ph.D., Head, Operational Design Center, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany Janie Hansen, Global Development Information Management, Business Systems Transformation, Daiichi Sankyo Francis Kendall, Head of Statistical Programming, Digital and Data Sciences, Biogen James Weatherall, Ph.D., Vice President & Chief Data Scientist, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca  The Scope of Things podcast explores clinical research and its possibilities, promise, and pitfalls. Clinical Research News senior writer, Deborah Borfitz, welcomes guests who are visionaries closest to the topics, but who can still see past their piece of the puzzle. Focusing on game-changing trends and out-of-the-box operational approaches in the clinical research field, the Scope of Things podcast is your no-nonsense, insider's look at clinical research today.

"The value isn't in giving them the coffee beans and hoping they take that away and make a cup of coffee – what they need is a drink. So instead of giving them the data, do the extra steps and pull out the insights for them." - Satvinder Panesar, Data and Analytics Strategy Director, AstraZeneca Procurement leaders are surrounded by data, but turning numbers into true business impact is a new kind of challenge.  As AI and analytics tools promise even more information, the real differentiator is knowing how to interpret, validate, and act on those outputs… before your competitors do. Satvinder Panesar, Data and Analytics Strategy Director at AstraZeneca, joined Philip Ideson at ProcureTEX in London. Philip was there at the invitation of Beroe to speak with some of their customers about turning data into actionable insights. In this conversation, Sat breaks down the evolution of procurement analytics, explains why data literacy is a must-have skill, and points out how any leader or team can begin building those muscles, starting with the tools they already have. Expect a practical, honest conversation about the skills gap, the dangers of outsourcing data thinking, and how procurement teams can take charge in a world of increasingly complex analytics: Why "insights" matter more than raw data in procurement How to bridge gaps between data, category, and analytics teams  Practical first steps to improve procurement data literacy What AI can (and can't) do for procurement professionals Links: Satvinder Panesar on LinkedIn AOP Provider Directory: Beroe Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, WJNO's Brian Mudd fills in for Mark. It's chilling that anti-American Senate Democrats voted against pay for military and essential workers amid the 31-day government shutdown. These Democrats are making them political pawns. President ​Trump ​is doing what he can - he ​ordered ​​all ​available ​funds ​to ​be ​identified ​and ​allocated ​to ​cover ​the ​$5.3 ​billion ​​payday. The average American hasn't felt this shutdown and Republican polling has surged during it. This ​is ​the ​second ​longest shutdown, ​closing ​in ​on ​those ​35 ​days ​of ​the ​longest ​that ​we ​had ​back ​in ​2019 ​during ​Trump's ​first ​term. ​You ​don't ​even ​remember ​that and 2019 was a great year. Later, two federal judges expect the Trump administration wave a magic wand and come up with money to pay SNAP, which expires Saturday. It's also chilling that Jack Smith weaponized the DOJ by issuing 197 subpoenas to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, targeting records of over 430 Republicans and entities creating an "enemies list.” This government overreach against political opposition is unsurprising after the Trump-Russia hoax and impeachments. Afterward, in the past 31 days, Trump has neutralized nearly a third of drug-running boats entering the US, secured $5 billion in tariffs and most-favored-nation status, negotiated AstraZeneca's prescription drug pricing to save Americans over $15 billion annually while attracting $50 billion in domestic R&D investments, finalized a Chinese trade deal ending the US soybean embargo and promising a fentanyl crackdown, and lifted the estimated economic growth rate to 3.9% per the Atlanta Fed GDP tracker. What have the Democrats done? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

“They say it takes a village to raise a child. I really think it takes a village to treat a patient,” says Dr. Lanae Mullane, a naturopathic doctor and clinical strategist who has spent years at the forefront of bridging functional medicine, nutraceutical development, and digital health. In this episode of Raise the Line, host Lindsey Smith explores Dr. Mullane's view that naturopathic medicine complements conventional care by expanding -- not replacing -- the clinical toolkit, and that collaboration should be the future of medicine. “At the end of the day, collaboration and connection create the best outcomes for the people we serve,” she says. Their in-depth conversation also spans the shifting landscape of women's hormone health, including the perimenopausal transition and long-overdue calls for research equity. “We're not just smaller versions of men. We need to have dedicated research for us.” Tune in to learn about the importance of grounding health in sustainable habits, rethinking midlife care for women, and how to help patients take ownership of their health.Mentioned in this episode:Joi + BlokesSuppCoDr. Mullane's Clinical Website If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast