Podcasts about cancer care

In this episode of The Hem Onc Pulse, Dr. Rahul Banerjee is joined by Dr. Michelle Longmire, CEO and co-founder of Medable, for a compelling discussion on drug accessibility in cancer care. Together, they explore how decentralized clinical trials and digital tools can help bridge the gap between cutting-edge therapies and the patients who need them most. Dr. Longmire shares how Medable is expanding access to clinical research, particularly in rural and underserved communities, by reimagining how trials are conducted. The conversation also examines the systemic and financial challenges that often prevent patients from accessing approved cancer therapies—even after regulatory success. With an eye toward equity, Drs. Banerjee and Longmire unpack the barriers in traditional oncology care and highlight innovative, patient-centered approaches that promise a more inclusive future. Tune in for a thought-provoking look at the intersection of innovation, policy, and compassion in cancer treatment access.

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point.  So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely.  Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose    Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Dr. Brad Diephuis, COO & President of Thyme Care, joins Kellogg MBA student Joy Basinger to unpack how wraparound, value-based oncology care is transforming the cancer experience—especially for high-risk, MA populations. They explore how Thyme Care is going beyond the doctor's office to deliver proactive, tech-enabled symptom monitoring and reduce avoidable ER visits and hospitalizations.From standardizing care team workflows through the Thyme Box platform to deepening integration with partners like Oak Street Health, this episode dives into the value of structured, longitudinal support in oncology. Timestamps:00:00 Introduction to Thyme Care and Dr. Brad Diephuis04:57 The Thyme Care Model: Supporting Cancer Patients12:41 Technology Integration in Care Delivery20:15 Thyme Care's Business Model and Revenue Generation22:57 Measuring Outcomes and Quality of Care27:42 Focus on Medicare Advantage Population30:35 Partnerships and Collaborations in Value-Based Care (e.g., Oak Street)34:48 Future Growth and Service Expansion LinkedIn: Dr. Brad Diephuis, COO & President of Thyme Care⁠Joy Basinger, Kellogg MBA ('25)⁠ 

Behind every cancer journey is a quiet force of resilience, the caregiver. In this heartfelt and eye-opening conversation, Kaumudi Bhawe, Founder and Principal at YOM Consulting Services, joins host Madhavi to shine a light on the emotional, physical, and financial challenges caregivers often face but rarely voice. From identifying signs of burnout to exploring how healthcare systems and communities can better support those who care for cancer patients, this interview offers both insight and inspiration. Tune in to TALRadio English on Spotify & Apple Podcast for The Silent Strength Behind Cancer Care, an exclusive episode dedicated to awareness, healing, and honoring the invisible heroes among us.Host: MadhaviGuest: kaumudi BhaweYou Can Reach Kaumudi Bhawe @linkedin.com/in/kaumudi-bhawe-ph-d-7a8114b#TALRadioEnglish #CancerCaregivers #SilentStrength #CancerAwareness #HealingTogether #SupportCaregivers #CaregiverBurnout #EmotionalWellbeing #BehindTheScenesCare #YOMConsulting #MentalHealthMatters #InvisibleHeroes #TALRadioInterviews #TouchALife #TALRadio

In this episode of Voices of Otolaryngology, Maie St. John, MD, PhD, the Thomas A. Calcaterra, MD Endowed Chair at UCLA's Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, shares her extraordinary journey from a pivotal childhood moment in Egypt to becoming a world-renowned surgeon-scientist. Learn how she developed innovative intraoperative cancer detection systems and polymer delivery technologies that are transforming precision surgery. Discover her strategies for successful grant writing, building multidisciplinary cancer care teams, and leading UCLA's otolaryngology department to its historic #1 national ranking. She reveals insights on the surgeon-scientist model, saying "yes" to opportunities, and her philosophy of "transformational translational impact for patients." The conversation with Rahul K. Shah, MD, MBA, AAO-HNS/F Executive Vice President and CEO, explores her vision for AI-driven personalized medicine and offers invaluable guidance for trainees and faculty pursuing research careers while maintaining clinical excellence. More Ways to Listen: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3UeVLtFdLHDnWnULUPoiin  Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/voice-of-otolaryngology/id1506655333   Connect the AAO-HNS: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aaohns  X (Twitter): https://x.com/AAOHNS  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AAOHNS  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-academy-of-otolaryngology/  Website: https://www.entnet.org  Shop AAO-HNS Merchandise: https://www.otostore.org  Help Us Improve Future Episodes: Share your feedback and topic suggestions at https://forms.office.com/r/0XpA83XNBQ  Subscribe to Voices of Otolaryngology for more insights from leading voices in ENT. New episodes released every Tuesday.

In this episode of the Real Health Podcast, we welcome back Dr. Kirsten West, ND, LAc, FABNO—an integrative oncology expert at Riordan Clinic—alongside special guest Jenn Nolan, BS, MS, ONC, TAP, owner and oncology nutrition consultant at Remission Nutrition. Together, they address your questions and share valuable insights from their experience supporting patients through integrative cancer care.Learn more about the hosts:•Dr. Kirsten West, ND, LAc, FABNO : https://riordanclinic.org/staff/kirsten-west-nd-lac-fabno/•Jen Nolan: https://www.remissionnutrition.com/jennolanRead the transcript:https://realhealthpodcast.orgLearn more about Riordan Clinic:https://riordanclinic.org/Interested in becoming a Patient:https://riordanclinic.org/request-an-appointment/*Disclaimer*The information contained on The Real Health Podcast and the resources mentioned are for educational purposes only. They are not intended as, and shall not be understood or construed as medical or health advice. The information contained on this podcast is not a substitute for medical or health advice from a professional who is aware of the facts and circumstances of your individual situation. Information provided by hosts and guests on The Real Health Podcast or the use of any products or services mentioned does not create a practitioner-patient relationship between you and any person affiliated with this podcast.

On this episode of the Integrative Cancer Solutions podcast Dr. Karlfeldt interviews Dr. Francisco Contreras. Dr. Contreras shares his background, explaining that his father founded their clinic in 1963, introducing a holistic approach to cancer treatment that addresses emotional and spiritual needs alongside physical ones. He recounts significant success stories, including a patient with advanced breast cancer who improved dramatically using alternative therapies. Dr. Contreras received training in Vienna and follows his father's intuitive approach of combining conventional and non-conventional methods. The discussion highlights the complexity of cancer as a disease and the importance of addressing the immune system for long-term treatment success. Dr. Contreras explains various therapies used at the Oasis of Hope, including dendritic cell vaccines, natural killer cells, and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. He emphasizes the non-toxic nature of cell therapies and their cost-effectiveness in Mexico compared to the United States. The conversation also covers the combination of conventional and alternative treatments, such as low-dose chemotherapy to make tumors more visible to the immune system, along with additional therapies like high-dose vitamin C, vitamin B17, and hyperthermia. Dr. Contreras concludes by explaining the patient consultation process and offering his book "The Art and Science of Undermining Cancer" as a resource for listeners.Dr. Francisco Contreras discusses his family's pioneering work in integrative cancer treatment at Oasis of Hope, founded by his father in 1963, combining conventional medicine with holistic approaches.The podcast emphasizes treating cancer as a metabolic disease rather than just targeting genetic mutations, with special focus on strengthening the immune system for long-term success.Dendritic cell therapy and other cell-based treatments are highlighted as effective, non-toxic approaches that can be more affordable in Mexico than similar treatments in the United States.Dr. Contreras explains how low-dose metronomic chemotherapy can be strategically combined with immune therapies to make tumors more visible to the immune system while reducing regulatory T cells.Additional therapies discussed include high-dose vitamin C, vitamin B17, and hyperthermia, which have contributed to improved five-year survival rates for stage four cancer patients at their clinic.----Grab my book A Better Way to Treat Cancer: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding, Preventing and Most Effectively Treating Our Biggest Health Threat - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CM1KKD9X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860 Unleashing 10X Power: A Revolutionary Approach to Conquering Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/unleashing-10x-power-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST1Healing Within: Unraveling the Emotional Roots of Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/healing-within-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST2----Integrative Cancer Solutions was created to instill hope and empowerment. Other people have been where you are right now and have already done the research for you. Listen to their stories and journeys and apply what they learned to achieve similar outcomes as they have, cancer remission and an even more fullness of life than before the diagnosis. Guests will discuss what therapies, supplements, and practitioners they relied on to beat cancer. Once diagnosed, time is of the essence. This podcast will dramatically reduce your learning curve as you search for your own solution to cancer. To learn more about the cutting-edge integrative cancer therapies Dr. Karlfeldt offer at his center, please visit www.TheKarlfeldtCenter.com

As the national conversation around HR1, Medicaid and health care access continues, Catholic health care continues to affirm its belief that everyone deserves access to high-quality, affordable care. As this episode's guest highlights, that includes those in rural communities.Luis A. Rojas, MD, FACOG, Clinical Vice President of Oncology Service Line at Avera, joins the show to discuss the system's efforts at serving cancer patients in their most rural communities. Dr. Rojas highlights both Avera's procedures and investment in innovative technology, and their belief in the mission of Catholic health care as a way to serve everyone, no matter where they live.  

Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis discuss challenges in lung cancer screening and potential solutions to increase screening rates, including the use of AI to enhance risk prediction and screening processes. Transcript Dr. Nate Pennell: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series for ASCO Education that features engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center. I'm also the editor-in-chief for the ASCO Educational Book.  Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and most cases are diagnosed at advanced stages where curative treatment options are limited. On the opposite end, early-stage lung cancers are very curable. If only we could find more patients at that early stage, an approach that has revolutionized survival for other cancer types such as colorectal and breast cancer.  On today's episode, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis, a professor of medicine and thoracic medical oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, to discuss her article titled, "Broadening the Net: Overcoming Challenges and Embracing Novel Technologies in Lung Cancer Screening." The article was recently published in the ASCO Educational Book and featured in an Education Session at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Cheryl, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thanks, Nate. It's great to be here with you. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, I'd like to just start by asking you a little bit about the importance of lung cancer screening and what evidence is there that lung cancer screening is beneficial. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thank you. Lung cancer screening is extremely important because we know that lung cancer survival is closely tied to stage at diagnosis. We have made significant progress in the treatment of lung cancer, especially over the past decade, with the introduction of immunotherapies and targeted therapies based on personalized evaluation of genomic alterations. But the reality is that outside of a lung screening program, most patients with lung cancer present with symptoms related to advanced cancer, where our ability to cure the disease is more limited.  While lung cancer screening has been studied for years, the National Lung Screening Trial, or the NLST, first reported in 2011 a significant reduction in lung cancer deaths through screening. Annual low-dose CT scans were performed in a high-risk population for lung cancer in comparison to chest X-ray. The study population was comprised of asymptomatic persons aged 55 to 74 with a 30-pack-year history of smoking who were either active smokers or had quit within 15 years. The low-dose CT screening was associated with a 20% relative risk reduction in lung cancer-related mortality. A similar magnitude of benefit was also reported in the NELSON trial, which was a large European randomized trial comparing low-dose CT with a control group receiving no screening. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, this led, of course, to approval from CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) for lung cancer screening in the Medicare population, probably about 10 years ago now, I think. And there are now two major trials showing an unequivocal reduction in lung cancer-related mortality and even evidence that it reduces overall mortality with lung cancer screening. But despite this, lung cancer screening rates are very low in the United States. So, first of all, what's going on? Why are we not seeing the kinds of screening rates that we see with mammography and colonoscopy? And what are the barriers to that here? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: That's a great question. Thank you, Nate. In the United States, recruitment for lung cancer screening programs has faced numerous challenges, including those related to socioeconomic, cultural, logistical, and even racial disparities. Our current lung cancer screening guidelines are somewhat imprecise and often fail to address differences that we know exist in sex, smoking history, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. We also see underrepresentation in certain groups, including African Americans and other minorities, and special populations, including individuals with HIV. And even where lung cancer screening is readily available and we have evidence of its efficacy, uptake can be low due to both provider and patient factors. On the provider side, barriers include having insufficient time in a clinic visit for shared decision-making, fear of missed test results, lack of awareness about current guidelines, concerns about cost, potential harms, and evaluating both true and false-positive test results.  And then on the patient side, barriers include concerns about cost, fear of getting a cancer diagnosis, stigma associated with tobacco smoking, and misconceptions about the treatability of lung cancer. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think those last two are really what make lung cancer unique compared to, say, for example, breast cancer, where there really is a public acceptance of the value of mammography and that breast cancer is no one's fault and that it really is embraced as an active way you can take care of yourself by getting your breast cancer screening. Whereas in lung cancer, between the stigma of smoking and the concern that, you know, it's a death sentence, I think we really have some work to be made up, which we'll talk about in a minute about what we can do to help improve this.  Now, that's in the U.S. I think things are probably, I would imagine, even worse when we leave the U.S. and look outside, especially at low- and middle-income countries. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, globally, this issue is even more complex than it is in the United States. Widespread implementation of low-dose CT imaging for lung cancer screening is limited by manpower, infrastructure, and economic constraints. Many low- and middle-income countries even lack sufficient CT machines, trained personnel, and specialized facilities for accurate and timely screenings. Even in urban centers with advanced diagnostic facilities, the high screening and follow-up care costs can limit access. Rural populations face additional barriers, such as geographic inaccessibility of urban centers, transportation costs, language barriers, and mistrust of healthcare systems. In addition, healthcare systems in these regions often prioritize infectious diseases and maternal health, leaving limited room for investments in noncommunicable disease prevention like lung cancer screening. Policymakers often struggle to justify allocating resources to lung cancer screening when immediate healthcare needs remain unmet. Urban-rural disparities exacerbate these challenges, with rural regions frequently lacking the infrastructure and resources to sustain screening programs. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, it's certainly an intimidating problem to try to reduce these disparities, especially between the U.S. and low- and middle-income countries. So, what are some of the potential solutions, both here in the U.S. and internationally, that we can do to try to increase the rates of lung cancer screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: The good news is that we can take steps to address these challenges, but a multifaceted approach is needed. Public awareness campaigns focused on the benefits of early detection and dispelling myths about lung cancer screening are essential to improving participation rates. Using risk-prediction models to identify high-risk individuals can increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening programs. Automated follow-up reminders and screening navigators can also ensure timely referrals and reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment. Reducing or subsidizing the cost of low-dose CT scans, especially in low- or middle-income countries, can improve accessibility. Deploying mobile CT scanners can expand access to rural and underserved areas.  On a global scale, integrating lung cancer screening with existing healthcare programs, such as TB or noncommunicable disease initiatives, can enhance resource utilization and program scalability. Implementing lung cancer screening in resource-limited settings requires strategic investment, capacity building, and policy interventions that prioritize equity. Addressing financial constraints, infrastructure gaps, and sociocultural barriers can help overcome existing challenges. By focusing on cost-effective strategies, public awareness, and risk-based eligibility criteria, global efforts can promote equitable access to lung cancer screening and improve outcomes.  Lastly, as part of the medical community, we play an important role in a patient's decision to pursue lung cancer screening. Being up to date with current lung cancer screening recommendations, identifying eligible patients, and encouraging a patient to undergo screening often is the difference-maker. Electronic medical record (EMR) systems and reminders are helpful in this regard, but relationship building and a recommendation from a trusted provider are really essential here. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, there are technology improvements. For example, our lung cancer screening program at The Cleveland Clinic, a few years back, we finally started an automated best practice alert in our EMR for patients who met the age and smoking requirements, and it led to a six-fold increase in people referred for screening. But at the same time, there's a difference between just getting this alert and putting in an order for lung cancer screening and actually getting those patients to go and actually do the screening and then follow up on it. And that, of course, requires having that relationship and discussion with the patient so that they trust that you have their best interests. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Exactly. I think that's important. You know, certainly, while technology can aid in bringing patients in, there really is no substitute for trust-building and a personal relationship with a provider. Dr. Nate Pennell: I know that there are probably multiple examples within the U.S. where health systems or programs have put together, I would say, quality improvement projects to try to increase lung cancer screening and working with their community. There's one in particular that you discuss in your paper called the "End Lung Cancer Now" initiative. I wonder if you could take us through that. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Absolutely. "End Lung Cancer Now" is an initiative at the Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center that has the vision to end suffering and death from lung cancer in Indiana through education and community empowerment. We discuss this as a paradigm for how community engagement is important in building and scaling a lung cancer screening program.  In 2023, the "End Lung Cancer Now" team decided to focus its efforts on scaling and transforming lung cancer screening rates in Indiana. They developed a task force with 26 experts in various fields, including radiology, pulmonary medicine, thoracic surgery, public health, and advocacy groups. The result of this work is an 85-page blueprint with key recommendations that any system and community can use to scale lung cancer screening efforts. After building strong infrastructure for lung cancer screening at Indiana University, they sought to understand what the priorities, resources, and challenges in their communities were. To do this, they forged strong partnerships with both local and national organizations, including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and others. In the first year, they actually tripled the number of screening low-dose CTs performed in their academic center and saw a 40% increase system-wide. One thing that I think is the most striking is that through their community outreach, they learned that most people prefer to get medical care close to home within their own communities. Establishing a way to support the local infrastructure to provide care became far more important than recruiting patients to their larger system.  In exciting news, "End Lung Cancer Now" has partnered with the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center and IU Health to launch Indiana's first and only mobile lung screening program in March of 2025. This mobile program travels around the state to counties where the highest incidence of lung cancer exists and there is limited access to screening. The mobile unit parks at trusted sites within communities and works in partnership, not competition, with local health clinics and facilities to screen high-risk populations. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that sounds like a great idea. Screening is such an important thing that it doesn't necessarily have to be owned by any one particular health system for their patients. I think. And I love the idea of bringing the screening to patients where they are. I can speak to working in a regional healthcare system with a main campus in the downtown that patients absolutely hate having to come here from even 30 or 40 minutes away, and they'd much rather get their care locally. So that makes perfect sense.  So, under the current guidelines, there are certainly things that we can do to try to improve capturing the people that meet those. But are those guidelines actually capturing enough patients with lung cancer to make a difference? There certainly are proposals within patient advocacy communities and even other countries where there's a large percentage of non-smokers who perhaps get lung cancer. Can we expand beyond just older, current and heavy smokers to identify at-risk populations who could benefit from screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, I think we can, and it's certainly an active area of research interest. We know that tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer worldwide. However, other risk factors include secondhand smoke, family history, exposure to environmental carcinogens, and pulmonary diseases like COPD and interstitial lung disease. Despite these known associations, the benefit of lung cancer screening is less well elucidated in never-smokers and those at risk of developing lung cancer because of family history or other risk factors. We know that the eligibility criteria associated with our current screening guidelines focus on age and smoking history and may miss more than 50% of lung cancers. Globally, 10% to 25% of lung cancer cases occur in never-smokers. And in certain parts of the world, like you mentioned, Nate, such as East Asia, many lung cancers are diagnosed in never-smokers, especially in women. Risk-prediction models use specific risk factors for lung cancer to enhance individual selection for screening, although they have historically focused on current or former smokers.  We know that individuals with family members affected by lung cancer have an increased risk of developing the disease. To this end, several large-scale, single-arm prospective studies in Asia have evaluated broadening screening criteria to never-smokers, with or without additional risk factors. One such study, the Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial, was a multicenter prospective cohort study at 17 medical centers in Taiwan. The primary outcome of the TALENT trial was lung cancer detection rate. Eligible patients aged 55 to 75 had either never smoked or had a light and remote smoking history. In addition, inclusion required one or more of the following risk factors: family history of lung cancer, passive smoke exposure, history of TB or COPD, a high cooking index, which is a metric that quantifies exposure to cooking fumes, or a history of cooking without ventilation. Participants underwent low-dose CT screening at baseline, then annually for 2 years, and then every 2 years for up to 6 years. The lung cancer detection rate was 2.6%, which was higher than that reported in the NLST and NELSON trials, and most were stage 0 or I cancers. Subsequently, this led to the Taiwan Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer, a national screening program that was launched in 2022, targeting 2 screening populations: individuals with a heavy history of smoking and individuals with a family history of lung cancer.  We really need randomized controlled trials to determine the true rates of overdiagnosis or finding cancers that would not lead to morbidity or mortality in persons who are diagnosed, and to establish whether the high lung detection rates are associated with a decrease in lung cancer-related mortality in these populations. However, the implementation of randomized controlled low-dose CT screening trials in never-smokers has been limited by the need for large sample sizes, lengthy follow-up, and cost.  In another group potentially at higher risk for developing lung cancer, the role of lung cancer screening in individuals who harbor germline pathogenic variants associated with lung cancer also needs to be explored further. Dr. Nate Pennell: We had this discussion when the first criteria came out because there have always been risk-based calculators for lung cancer that certainly incorporate smoking but other factors as well and have discussion about whether we should be screening people based on their risk and not just based on discrete criteria such as smoking. But of course, the insurance coverage for screening, you have to fit the actual criteria, which is very constrained by age and smoking history. Do you think in the U.S. there's hope for broadening our screening beyond NLST and NELSON criteria? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: I do think at some point there is hope for broadening the criteria beyond smoking history and age, beyond the criteria that we have typically used and that is covered by insurance. I do think it will take some work to perhaps make the prediction models more precise or to really understand who can benefit. We certainly know that there are many patients who develop lung cancer without a history of smoking or without family history, and it would be great if we could diagnose more patients with lung cancer at an earlier stage. I think this will really count on there being some work towards trying to figure out what would be the best population for screening, what risk factors to look for, perhaps using some new technologies that may help us to predict who is at risk for developing lung cancer, and trying to increase the group that we study to try and find these early-stage lung cancers that can be cured. Dr. Nate Pennell: Part of the reason we, of course, try to enrich our population is screening works better when you have a higher pretest probability of actually having cancer. And part of that also is that our technology is not that great. You know, even in high-risk patients who have CT scans that are positive for a screen, we know that the vast majority of those patients with lung nodules actually don't have lung cancer. And so you have to follow them, you have to use various models to see, you know, what the risk, even in the setting of a positive screen, is of having lung cancer.  So, why don't we talk about some newer tools that we might use to help improve lung cancer screening? And one of the things that everyone is super excited about, of course, is artificial intelligence. Are there AI technologies that are helping out in early detection in lung cancer screening? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, that's a great question. We know that predicting who's at risk for lung cancer is challenging for the reasons that we talked about, knowing that there are many risk factors beyond smoking and age that are hard to quantify. Artificial intelligence is a tool that can help refine screening criteria and really expand screening access. Machine learning is a form of AI technology that is adept at recognizing patterns in large datasets and then applying the learning to new datasets. Several machine learning models have been developed for risk stratification and early detection of lung cancer on imaging, both with and without blood-based biomarkers. This type of technology is very promising and can serve as a tool that helps to select individuals for screening by predicting who is likely to develop lung cancer in the future.  A group at Massachusetts General Hospital, represented in our group for this paper by my co-authors, Drs. Fintelmann and Chang, developed Sybil, which is an open-access 3D convolutional neural network that predicts an individual's future risk of lung cancer based on the analysis of a single low-dose CT without the need for human annotation or other clinical inputs. Sybil and other machine learning models have tremendous potential for precision lung cancer screening, even, and perhaps especially, in settings where expert image interpretation is unavailable. They could support risk-adapted screening schedules, such as varying the frequency and interval of low-dose CT scans according to individual risk and potentially expand lung cancer screening eligibility beyond age and smoking history. Their group predicts that AI tools like Sybil will play a major role in decoding the complex landscape of lung cancer risk factors, enabling us to extend life-saving lung cancer screening to all who are at risk. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that that would certainly be welcome. And as AI is working its way into pretty much every aspect of life, including medical care, I think it's certainly promising that it can improve on our existing technology.  We don't have to spend a lot of time on this because I know it's a little out of scope for what you covered in your paper, but I'm sure our listeners are curious about your thoughts on the use of other types of testing beyond CT screening for detecting lung cancer. I know that there are a number of investigational and even commercially available blood tests, for example, for detection of lung cancer, or even the so-called multi-cancer detection blood tests that are now being offered, although not necessarily being covered by insurance, for multiple types of cancer, but lung cancer being a common cancer is included in that. So, what do you think? Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, like you mentioned, there are novel bioassays such as blood-based biomarker testing that evaluate for DNA, RNA, and circulating tumor cells that are both promising and under active investigation for lung cancer and multi-cancer detection. We know that such biomarker assays may be useful in both identifying lung cancers but also in identifying patients with a high-risk result who should undergo lung cancer screening by conventional methods. Dr. Nate Pennell: Anything that will improve on our rate of screening, I think, will be welcome. I think probably in the future, it will be some combination of better risk prediction and better interpretation of screening results, whether those be imaging or some combination of imaging and biomarkers, breath-based, blood-based. There's so much going on that it is pretty exciting, but we're still going to have to overcome the stigma and lack of public support for lung cancer screening if we're going to move the needle. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Yes, I think moving the needle is so important because we know lung cancer is still a very morbid disease, and our ability to cure patients is not where we would like it to be. But I do believe there's hope. There are a lot of motivated individuals and groups who are passionate about lung cancer screening, like myself and my co-authors, and we're just happy to be able to share some ways that we can overcome the challenges and really try and make an impact in the lives of our patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, thank you, Dr. Czerlanis, for joining me on the By the Book Podcast today and for all of your work to advance care for patients with lung cancer. Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Thank you, Dr. Pennell. It's such a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you. Dr. Nate Pennell: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to Dr. Czerlanis' article in the transcript of this episode.  Please join us again next month for By the Book's next episode and more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, and our deep dives on approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:     Dr. Nathan Pennell    @n8pennell   @n8pennell.bsky.social Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Nate Pennell:        Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron       Research Funding (Institution): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi    Dr. Cheryl Czerlanis: Research Funding (Institution): LungLife AI, AstraZeneca, Summit Therapeutics

When a loved one is sick and caregiving gets exhausting, it can be powerful to have someone give you permission to take a break.Should you need their permission? Of course not. But the voices in your mind can be critical and bossy and insist that you continue to work or take care of other people until you're completely exhausted, stressed and depleted.This week we discuss the power of permission when we offer it to other people and also when we offer it to ourselves.What permission can you offer this week?Delia Delia Chiaramonte, MDCoping Courageously: A Heart-Centered Guide for Navigating a Loved One's Illness Without Losing Yourself is available here: www.copingcourageously.com A free guide for physicians to help reclaim your joy at work and in life https://trainings.integrativepalliative.com/pl/2148540010Please review this podcast wherever you listen and forward your favorite episode to a friend! And be sure to subscribe!Sign up to stay connected and learn about upcoming programs:https://trainings.integrativepalliative.com/IPI-stay-in-touchI'm thrilled to be listed in Feedspot's top 15 palliative podcasts!https://blog.feedspot.com/palliative_care_podcasts/

Expanding access to clinical trials in community oncology settings is essential to improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in cancer research. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with clinical research coordinator, Oluwakemi “Kemi” Oladipupo, MSHS, MPH, BSN, RN, CCRP, whose cancer center recently participated in a foundational oncology clinical trials course, developed by ACCC and the Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) to help cancer programs expand availability of trials to traditionally underserved communities. Oladipupo shares how this training prepared their center for the challenges of a growing research program, the progress they've made, and the pivotal role of clinical research coordinators in expanding research programs and improving patient access to clinical trials.   Oluwakemi “Kemi” Oladipupo, MSHS, MPH, BSN, RN, CCRP Clinical Research Coordinator Touro-Cancer Center New Orleans, LA   “We know that diversity is a big point, not only as per new FDA guidance, but [to] ensure that every participant is given an equal opportunity to hear about the study. [Our] approach is not to target a certain group of individuals. Really the approach is to target any individual that looks potentially eligible.” - Oluwakemi “Kemi” Oladipupo   Resources:  Community Oncology Can Close the Gap in Cancer Research Increasing Clinical Trial Accrual Through the Implementation of a Clinical Trials Navigator The Role of the Clinical Trials Navigator — [MINI PODCAST] EP 129 Human-Centered Design: A Possible Solution to Rural Clinical Trial Enrollment

Send us a textRegulation might sound like the least exciting topic in massage therapy, but it's actually the battleground where our professional identity and future are being decided.Massage therapy regulation is far more than bureaucratic red tape; it's a dynamic system that establishes professional standards, protects the public, and helps define who controls the massage profession's territory. We break down the complex regulatory landscape, explaining how licensing affects practice rights and why it matters to every therapist.If you found this episode helpful, consider donating to Healwell at healwell.org/donate. Even small donations make a big difference in helping us continue these important conversations about the massage therapy profession.Support the showSend us an email: podcast@healwell.orgLeave us a voice message: 703-468-1799 Check out our interview-style podcast: InterdisciplinaryYou can support Healwell and the cool things we make by donating here!Ways join in: Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts Subscribe to our Substack: "More Than Hands" Check Healwell's live and online classes Continue the conversation with a free 3-day trial of the Healwell Community Find a copy of Rebecca Sturgeon's book: "Oncology Massage: An Integrative Approach to Cancer Care" Thank you to ABMP and AMTA for sponsoring us!Healwell is a 501(c)(3) non-profit based out of the Washington DC area. Check us out at www.healwell.org

When people with cancer are treated with ototoxic drugs and interventions, they may experience hearing loss and tinnitus. The audiologist's role in addressing the needs of cancer patients can be critical to fostering awareness and preventing hearing loss. On this podcast, a panel of three audiologists discuss the services they deliver, the interprofessional collaboration at the heart of their care, and what counseling can offer at a time of uncertainty for a patient. Plus, one of our guests shares a personal story of cancer survival and hearing loss. Learn more:ASHA Voices: Audiologists Take on Ototoxicity  A Communication Lifeline for Hospitalized ChildrenASHA Voices: What to Know About Opioids and Hearing LossWhat's New in Ototoxicity Management?Transcript

Guest: Jorge Nieva, MD As immunotherapy becomes a cornerstone for treating a growing number of solid tumors, reducing the logistical burden of in-office care is essential. Fortunately, the at-home administration of subcutaneous formulations of immunotherapy agents like atezolizumab could help transform the way we care for patients with cancer. Learn more with Dr. Jorge Nieva, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.

Samira, a breast cancer survivor and CEO of Manta Cares, discusses the latest advancements in cancer treatment with Dr. Doug Blayney at the ASCO conference. They explore the significant impact of exercise on cancer treatment tolerance and survival, the de-escalation of chemotherapy, the introduction of new therapies like SERDs and antibody drug conjugates, and the role of circulating tumor DNA in monitoring cancer recurrence. The conversation emphasizes the importance of patient convenience and self-advocacy in cancer care.About Our Guest:Douglas W. Blayney, MD is a Professor of Medicine (Oncology), Emeritus, former Medical Director of Stanford Cancer Center, and specializes in the treatment of breast cancer. He has a special interest in the quality and value of cancer care. Dr. Blayney is a past president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a founder of the ASCO Quality Symposium, a co-author of the ASCO value framework descriptions, and instigated the ASCO clinical "big data" effort, which is now CancerLinQ. He received the inaugural Ellen Stovall Award for Leadership in Patient Centered Care from the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship in 2016. He was previously a Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, and prior to that practiced and led Wilshire Oncology Medical Group, Inc. a physician owned multidisciplinary oncology practice in southern California. He has expertise on clinical trial development, use of oncology drugs in clinical practice, reimbursement and marketing strategies and information technology use.Chapter Codes00:00 The Impact of Exercise on Cancer Treatment02:00 Interview at ASCO Starts06:00 Advancements in Cancer Treatment: De-escalation and AI11:52 Emerging Therapies: SERDs and Antibody Drug Conjugates18:11 Circulating Tumor DNA: A New Frontier in Monitoring24:01 Convenience in Cancer Care: A Patient-Centric ApproachTakeaways- Regular exercise can increase tolerance to cancer treatments.- Data shows exercise has tangible benefits on survival rates.- De-escalation of chemotherapy is a key focus in cancer treatment.- AI is being integrated into cancer treatment guidelines.- Patients can take proactive steps to improve their health.- Oral SIRDs are emerging as a more convenient treatment option.- Antibody drug conjugates target cancer cells with fewer side effects.- Circulating tumor DNA can help detect cancer recurrence earlier.- Convenience in treatment is becoming a priority for patients.- Competition among treatments may help reduce costs for patients.Tags & Keywords:cancer treatment, ASCO, exercise, AI, SIRDs, antibody drug conjugates, circulating tumor DNA, patient care, chemotherapy, cancer survival, health technologyConnect with Us:Enjoyed this episode? Make sure to subscribe, rate, and review! Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, or Linkedin @mantacares and visit our website at mantacares.com for more episodes and updates.Listen Elsewhere: Website: https://mantacares.com/pages/podcast?srsltid=AfmBOopEP5GJ-Wd2nL-HYAInrwerIVhyJw67salKT-r9Qb_gadBvbHie YouTube: https://youtu.be/UjsAtpbedA8 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7HwhjXHZU0ZWWVkXrCSV7V?si=d5e986f0885a4bbb Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cervical-cancer-and-hpv-what-you-need-to-know/id1622669098?i=1000710235401 Disclaimer:All content and information provided in connection with Manta Cares is solely intended for informational and educational purposes only. This content and information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.

On this episode of Five to Thrive Live, our guest, Dr. Dugald Seely, ND, FABNO will share some of the newest findings on the health benefits of exercise for people with cancer. We will learn what kind, how much, how often to exercise, and Dr. Dugald will offer tips on motivating you to buff up your exercise program.Five To Thrive Live is broadcast live Tuesdays at 7PM ET and Music on W4CS Radio – The Cancer Support Network (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com).Five To Thrive Live Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.

What if the key to better cancer outcomes lies not just in surgery or chemotherapy, but also in mindfulness, movement, and diet? In this episode of the BackTable Tumor Board, host Dr. Aditya Bagrodia interviews urologic oncologist Dr. Viraj Master, Professor of Urology at Emory University, about his role in developing the integrative oncology and survivorship service line at Winship Cancer Institute. --- This podcast is supported by: Ferring Pharmaceuticals https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackclk/N2165306.5658203BACKTABLE/B33008413.420220578;dc_trk_aid=612466359;dc_trk_cid=234162109;dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;gdpr=${GDPR};gdpr_consent=${GDPR_CONSENT_755};gpp=${GPP_STRING_755};gpp_sid=${GPP_SID};ltd=;dc_tdv=1 --- SYNPOSIS They discuss the evidence-based use of complementary therapies alongside conventional cancer treatments, touching on various integrative methods including diet, exercise, mindfulness, acupuncture, yoga, and supplements. Dr. Master emphasizes the importance of physicians being open to these practices and understanding their potential benefits for improving patient outcomes and quality of life, even in highly acute cases like muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The conversation covers the importance of honesty and understanding across patient journeys–from initial diagnosis to survivorship–highlighting the value of holistic approaches in cancer care. ---TIMESTAMPS00:00 - Integrative Oncology: Definitions and Basics06:28 - Exercise and Its Impact on Cancer Treatment08:12 - Physician Perspectives on Complementary Medicine20:58 - Acupuncture and Acupressure in Cancer Care25:28 - Practical Implementation of Integrative Approaches31:30 - Supplements and Immuno Nutrition36:25 - Cannabis, CBD, and Ayurveda in Cancer Care44:39 - Conclusion and Final Thoughts --- RESOURCES Society of Urologic Oncologyhttps://suonet.org/home.aspx

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible.  Starting with LBA9500, this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the RELATIVITY-098 trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the RELATIVITY-047 trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the AMPLITUDE trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in LBA5006, were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the MAGNITUDE study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today's presentations is Abstract 7504, presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called MagnetisMM-6 trial part 1. Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level ‘G', comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Dr. Jordan Vaughn estimates 15M Americans face long COVID or vaccine injuries, with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causing symptoms like brain fog, strokes, and – according to a new paper in the “Brain, Behavior, and Immunity” medical journal – even neuroinflammation in “brain regions relevant to Parkinson's disease.” Dr. Nicole Saphier, a board-certified radiologist with fellowship training in breast and oncologic imaging, is a NYT best-selling author and host of Wellness Unmasked on iHeartRadio. She authored Panic Attack: Playing Politics with Science in the Fight Against COVID-19 and the children's book That's What Family's For. More at https://x.com/nbsaphierMD and https://nicolesaphiermd.com Dr. Jordan F. Vaughn, a physician and clinical researcher, is a Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine and Founder of The Microvascular Research Foundation. He focuses on microvascular health and vaccine-related injuries. More at https://x.com/jfvaughnmd09 and https://mvresearch.org 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ACTIVE SKIN REPAIR - Repair skin faster with more of the molecule your body creates naturally! Hypochlorous (HOCl) is produced by white blood cells to support healing – and no sting. Get 20% off at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/skinrepair⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Susan Pinsky (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/firstladyoflov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research on maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today's selection features reports of 3 randomized trials in very different clinical settings: maintenance therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, and a supportive care intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The first of these studies, Abstract 8006, was presented by Dr. Luis Paz-Ares from the University Hospital [October 12] in Madrid, Spain, and reports the primary results of the IMforte trial. This was a phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Despite some improvements in the first-line treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, most of the patients experience early disease progression and long-term survival remains very limited. This provides a rationale for considering a maintenance intervention. Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent and transcription inhibitor [that is] already approved in the United States for patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic SCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been shown to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors in pre-clinical studies and has also been evaluated in early-phase clinical trials. The IMforte trial is a global, randomized trial in which patients are initially treated with atezolizumab, and those patients who do not progress on induction therapy are then randomized to maintenance therapy with atezolizumab alone or atezolizumab with lurbinectedin. The primary endpoints of the study were progression-free and overall survival. Four hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized and at a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival for patients who received the combination was 5.4 months and the median overall survival was 13.2 months. This compares with 2.1 and 10.6 months, respectively, in patients who received atezolizumab only. The lurbinectedin and atezolizumab combination was generally well-tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety signals. The benefit was consistent in magnitude across all the relevant patient subgroups. This is the first phase 3 study to show a progression-free and overall survivial improvement with first-line maintenance in extensive stage SCLC and the result is likely to be practice-changing, establishing a new standard of care in this tough-to-treat disease. Next up is LBA5500, presented by Dr. Sven Mahner from LMU University in Munich, Germany. This describes the results of the TRUST study, a randomized trial of upfront surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. As background, total macroscopic tumor resection with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The optimal timing of such surgery remains controversial, whether it's more beneficial as a primary cytoreductive surgery before chemotherapy or in the form of interval cytoreductive surgery after 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Previous studies have addressed this issue, but results have been confounded by issues of patient and center selection. The TRUST study is a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 trial that compares the outcomes of the timing of surgery in surgically fit patients with seemingly resectable FIGO stage IIIB/IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To ensure consistent and adequate surgical quality, participating centers in the trial were required to obtain accreditation and undergo an onsite quality assurance review. This included assessment of infrastructure, surgical proficiency, complete resection rates, and surgical volume. Seven hundred and ninety-seven patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomized to undergo surgery prior to therapy with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab and a PARP inhibitor, or to have the surgery between the third and fourth cycle of the same systemic therapy. Of the initial 797 patients, 688 comprised the intent-to-treat population, of whom 345 received primary cytoreductive surgery and 343 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery.  The results show that patients undergoing primary surgery had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who had interval cytoreductive surgery (median progression-free survival was 22.1 months versus 19.7 months). No difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 arms of the study.  This is the first study to show a benefit for primary cytoreductive surgery, although the progression-free survival improvement was not reflected in an overall survival difference. A subgroup analysis for patients who underwent complete cytoreduction suggests a progression-free survival and survival benefit, although it isn't clear to me that the study was powered for this endpoint. Nevertheless, these are very difficult studies to perform, and the investigators should be congratulated for this robustly conducted clinical trial. Today's final abstract is 1504, presented by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo from Harvard Medical School. The trial evaluated BMT-VR, a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This randomized trial included adult patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation. The BMT-VR platform included, among others, modules addressing psychoeducation, coping, acceptance, and gratitude. BMT-VR patients were provided with VR headsets and completed all modules during their hospitalization. Patient-reported outcomes were then assessed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-BMT. Use of the VR tool was tracked during hospitalization. Control patients received usual care during their hospital stay and were then assessed at the same intervals post-BMT.  Eighty evaluable patients were randomized, 39 to BMT-VR and 41 to usual care. Completion rates for the BMT-VR modules were high [at] around 70-75%.  Patients who received the BMT-VR intervention experienced significantly improved anxiety, quality of life, and coping at 4 weeks post-BMT. In the longer term, sustained benefits were seen at 24 weeks for some endpoints including quality of life, with some benefits, including for depression and PTSD symptoms, improving longitudinally over the study period. These data are preliminary and will need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies, but this trial demonstrates the feasibility of using virtual interventions in our patients and also provides intriguing preliminary data that they may be effective. Thanks for listening to today's report and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from the final day of ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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.     Find out more about today's speaker:     Dr. John Sweetenham       Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter     @ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose 

At the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, Dr. Katie Schmitz chaired a session on ways to ensure that exercise is part of every cancer treatment plan. She also talked about how results of the CHALLENGE trial in colon cancer might apply to breast cancer. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Schmitz explain: strategies doctors can use to make exercise an integral part of cancer care how people can afford and stay motivated to exercise the results of the CHALLENGE trial, which found that three years of exercise after colon cancer treatment improved disease-free survival (how long people lived without the cancer coming back) and overall survival (how long people lived whether or not the cancer came back)

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies on novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies exploring novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first abstract is number 4505. This study, led by Dr. Toni Choueiri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describes the final analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which compared the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab with sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The ipi-nivo combination is approved for the frontline treatment of intermediate and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the primary analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which demonstrated a higher response rate and longer overall survival compared with sunitinib. Today's presentation provided the final safety and efficacy results for the trial with long-term follow-up of more than 9 years.  The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in this trial comprised 550 patients randomized to nivo and ipi versus 546 who received sunitinib. The final analysis showed sustained long-term benefit for the combination therapy. Patients given nivolumab plus ipi had a 29% reduction in the risk for death compared with sunitinib. For patients with intermediate or poor-risk disease, there was a 31% reduction in the risk of death.   The probability of remaining in response through 8 years was more than doubled with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in the ITT population at 48% versus 19%, and in the intermediate and poor-risk population at 50% versus 23%. The other important observation is that patients with favorable-risk disease appeared to have a 20% reduction in the risk for death at 9 years and more durable responses. This suggests a possible delayed benefit for ipi and nivo in this group since these differences were not seen in the earlier analysis.   No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up, and the results confirm the use of ipi and nivo as a standard front-line combination therapy in this disease. Since this combination has been in widespread use for some years, the results are not surprising although the subgroup analysis suggesting benefit in favorable-risk patients is likely to inform practice in the future.   Today's second abstract is number is 8506, which was presented by Dr. Tony Mok from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, describing results from the phase 3 HERTHENA-Lung02 trial. This trial compared the antibody-drug conjugate patritumab deruxtecan with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer following a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).  Patritumab deruxtecan, also known as HER3-DXd, comprises a fully human anti-HER3 IgG3 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor payload, and showed activity in a previous phase 2 trial in patients relapsing after EGFR TKI and chemotherapy.   In this phase 3 study, this agent was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in eligible patients with an EGFR-activating mutation who had previously received 1 or 2 EGFR TKIs, at least one of which was a third-generation drug, with relapse or progression after this therapy. Five hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint.  The primary analysis showed a 9-month progression-free survival of 29% for the experimental arm compared with 19% for platinum-based chemotherapy, for a hazard ratio of 0.77 and a P value of 0.011. With higher progression-free survival rates at 6 months and 12 months, HER3-DXd also had a better objective response rate (35.2% versus 25.3%) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), and HER3-DXd also extended intracranial progression-free survival compared with PBC in patients with brain metastases, with a hazard ratio of 0.75. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 73% of patients treated with HER3-DXd and 57% of patients who received PBC. HER3-DXd had a higher rate of grade or more 3 thrombocytopenia, and drug-related interstitial lung disease occurred in 5% of patients in the HER3-DXd arm.   The follow-up will need more time to mature since no overall survival data are currently available, but definitely an agent to watch with interest. Moving on to today's final abstract, 8500, was presented by Dr. Pasi Jänne from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describing results from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. This study is exploring the use of a potent KRAS inhibitor, adagrasib, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic KRASG12C- mutated non-small cell lung cancer.  Adagrasib has already received accelerated approval in the U.S. for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a KRASG12C mutation. A previous report from the KRYSTAL-7 study demonstrated encouraging activity in combination with pembrolizumab in the frontline setting for this patient group who also had more than 50% expression of PD-L1. The presentation today described efficacy and safety data for this drug combination across all PD-L1 expression levels.  One hundred and forty-nine patients with a median age of 67 years were treated with the combination, 104 of whom had PD-L1 expression level results available, representing the so-called biomarker population in this trial. The overall response rate for the entire study population was 44%. In the biomarker population, the overall response rate ranged from 36% in those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression to 61% for those with more than 50% expression. For all patients, the median response duration was just over 26 months, and the median progression-free and overall survival rates were 11 and 18.3 months respectively.    For the biomarker population, the median progression-free and overall survival were highest in those patients with more than 50% PD-L1. No new safety issues emerged from this analysis; the most frequent toxicities were nausea, diarrhea, and increases in transaminases. Immune-related toxicities included pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis. These are important results and the results of the phase 3 portion of KRYSTAL-7, which compares first-line therapy with adagrasib plus pembro versus pembro alone in the KRASG12C mutated/PD-L1 more than 50% group, will be informative. For those patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression, the authors suggest that the treatment escalation may be beneficial, possibly including the addition of chemotherapy.  That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence.  Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group.   For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group.  The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases.  The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them.  The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks.  Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination.  These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report.  The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.   Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis.  Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%.  The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.  This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context.  Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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. Find out more about today's speaker:   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   No relationships to disclose  

In the first episode of a special daily series during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. John Sweetenham discusses the results of 2 studies on the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer plus an additional study exploring the association of Medicaid expansion with cancer survival outcomes. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'll be bringing you brief analysis on selected abstracts from each day of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today, I'll be reviewing three abstracts, the first two of which address the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Today's first study is Abstract 3501. These data were presented by Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz from the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and report on the expanded analysis of the CheckMate-8HW trial. This was a phase 3, international, multicenter trial in patients with MSI-high/MMR-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, who were randomized between nivolumab (nivo) alone, nivolumab plus ipilumomab (ipi) or investigators' choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. The study showed that nivo plus ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in the first-line setting and superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone across all lines of therapy. These results led to the approval of nivo + ipi in the first-line setting in patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the U.S., the EU, and many other countries.  In today's presentation, Dr. Lenz reported on the expanded analyses of nivo plus ipi versus nivo across all lines of therapy and longer follow-up results for nivo and ipi versus chemo in the first-line setting. With longer follow up (the median is now at 47 months) nivo and ipi continued to show progression-free survival benefit compared with chemotherapy with a median PFS of 54.1 months versus 5.9 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.21.  Additionally, the analysis of the effects on PFS2, defined as the time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, start of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death, showed that compared with chemotherapy, first-line nivo and ipi was associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of death or disease progression, despite the fact that 71% of those who progressed following chemotherapy crossed over to receive subsequent immunotherapy. The study also showed that across all lines, nivo and ipi demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with nivo alone, the median not reached versus 39.3 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.62. No new toxicity signals emerged after further analysis. Most treatment-related adverse events with possible immune etiology were observed within the first six months of therapy. The results for PFS2 are particularly significant. Up to now, there has been some reluctance to use nivo and ipi as first-line therapy, partly because of its toxicity profile and based on the rationale that it would be active after other frontline therapies. The observation in this study that the beneficial effects of nivo and ipi are maintained downstream is compelling. The results suggest that delaying the use of this combination to the second line or later may compromise subsequent PFS and supports the use of nivo and ipi as a standard-of-care frontline option for MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. Moving on, the next study I'm featuring today is Abstract 3503, presented by Dr. Jeanne Tie from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Walter and Eliza Hall Medical Institute of Medical Research from Melbourne, Australia. This study reported the impact of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant chemotherapy escalation in stage III colon cancer, focused on the primary analysis of the ctDNA-positive cohort from the randomized DYNAMIC-III trial. As background, about 30% of patients with stage III colon cancer will recur following standard-of-care adjuvant therapy with oxaliplatin-based regimens. And current data show that for those patients with high-risk disease, 6 months of chemotherapy is associated with a lower recurrence rate than 3 months. Circulating tumor DNA following initial surgery has been shown to be a strong independent prognostic factor for these patients, but questions remain about how ctDNA can be used for adaptation of treatment. Questions regarding treatment adaptation were addressed in the DYNAMIC-III trials – specifically, does treatment escalation benefit those who are ctDNA positive following surgery, and can therapy be de-escalated for those who are ctDNA negative. The first of these 2 questions – treatment escalation in the positive group – is the subject of this report. One thousand and two patients were randomized in this study, between ctDNA-informed therapy (502) or standard management (500). Of those patients included in the intent to treat cohorts, 129 were ctDNA positive in the ctDNA-informed arm compared with 130 in the standard management arm. Various pre-planned treatment escalation protocols were used, depending on the choice of first-line therapy. With a median follow up of 42.2 months, there was no difference in 3-year relapse free survival between the ctDNA informed group (48%) and the standard management group (52%). There was, however, a highly significant difference in relapse-free survival for patients who cleared ctDNA by the end of treatment compared with those who didn't. The authors concluded that the recurrence risk for this group remains high, at about 50%, after adjuvant therapy and that it increases with higher ctDNA burden, but treatment escalation didn't appear to reduce the recurrence risk. Clearance of ctDNA was associated with a favorable outcome, suggesting that as more effective treatments are developed in the future for this group, ctDNA will likely prove to have major utility. Changing gears now, my final selection for today is Abstract 11006, presented by Dr. Elizabeth Shafer from the American Cancer Society. This study explored the association of Medicaid expansion with 5-year survival after a cancer diagnosis.  Dr. Schafer began her presentation by providing some historical perspective on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on reducing the number of uninsured adults aged less than 65 years in the United States. She then reviewed some recent data on the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer care, including improved screening rates, improved access to cancer surgery, and an increase in earlier cancer diagnosis. The current study builds on earlier data from the American Cancer Society which showed improved 2-year overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed cancer following Medicaid expansion. The new study reported by Dr. Schafer examined 5-year cause-specific survival in individuals with cancer since Medicaid expansion, analyzed according to cancer type and various demographic and social factors. Using data from more than 813,000 individuals from 26 states that expanded Medicaid compared with more than 610,000 from 12 states that did not, the authors reported that similar improvements in 5-year cause-specific survival were observed in the expansion and the non-expansion states, but when analyzed by other factors, differences in outcome emerged. For example, although similar improvements in survival between expansion and non-expansion states were seen in urban communities, there was a significant improvement of 2.55 percentage points in survival for individuals in rural communities in expansion states compared with those in non-expansion states. Similar trends were observed in high poverty areas, where improvements in survival were superior in expansion versus non-expansion states.  When examined by cancer type, the authors observed greater improvements in 5-year survival for those with pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer, possibly due to improvements in screening and early access to treatment.  The authors concluded that those residing in rural and high-poverty areas experienced the most improvement in cause-specific cancer survival following Medicaid expansion. In summary, it's encouraging to see an improving trend in cancer mortality overall, independent of Medicaid expansion, but it's also important to remember that this is yet another study which confirms how implementation of the ACA has improved cancer outcomes and begun to address some of the disparities in cancer care. Join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. And if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember 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.     Find out more about today's speaker:  Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  No relationships to disclose 

Shannon Salvador, MD, MSc, FRCSC - Advancing Frontline Endometrial Cancer Care: Translating the Latest Advances in Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy Regimens to Practice

In this episode we are exploring two publications related to cancer care. In our first segment we talk to 2 authors about their research on genetic counselors and identification of patients for high-risk pancreatic cancer screening. In our second segment, Khalida interviews a genetic counselor about their study to evaluate surgical patient perspectives of genetic testing provided by a non-genetics professional.  Segment 1: “Practices and perspectives of genetic counselors about high-risk pancreatic cancer screening: A cross-sectional survey study” Amy Wiegand is a board-certified genetic counselor who specializes in cancer genetics. She graduated with her Master's in Genetic Counseling in 2017 from from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and has worked as a cancer genetic counselor at the Smilow Cancer Genetics and Prevention Program at Yale-New Haven Health since 2017 where she has seen over 2500 patients for a variety of hereditary cancer indications. Her research interests include hereditary pancreatic cancer and alternative delivery care models for genetic testing. Aparna is a senior genetic counseling assistant (GCA) at Smilow Cancer Genetics and Prevention Program at Yale New Haven Health where she has worked since 2019, and she has over 6 years of experience as a GCA. She holds a Master's degree in Biomedical Genetics and a Bachelor's degree in Biotechnology. She also has a varied background in administration, finance and customer service. She is a high-performing individual and was recently recognized by her colleagues as ‘Employee of the Quarter' and honored by the organization as ‘Smilow Star' for consistently going above and beyond for the patients and the co-workers and for exemplifying the health system's values. She contributes to the program in a variety of other ways outside of her role and works collaboratively with the team to create a patient centered environment. She has a strong interest in Cancer Genetics and is passionate about research. She is currently working on another research project, the abstract of which was selected for presentation in a Poster Session at 2025 ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) annual meeting. She enjoys being part of a collaborative and dynamic team at Smilow Cancer Genetics and Prevention program and is excited about the upcoming research initiatives in the program. In this segment we discuss: - The significance of pancreatic cancer surveillance for high-risk individuals and why early detection plays a critical role in improving outcomes. - How genetic counselors are uniquely positioned to identify and refer individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer, emphasizing their role in screening efforts. - An overview of the 2019 CAPS (Cancer of the Pancreas Screening) consensus guidelines and how they are applied to identify high-risk individuals for surveillance - The finding that nearly 70% of genetic counselors accurately identified individuals eligible for screening and discussed the factors that may have contributed to this high rate. - The association between provider comfort level and accuracy in identifying high-risk individuals, and discussed strategies to improve provider confidence and access to screening programs.   Segment 2: “Patient experiences of cancer genetic testing by non-genetics providers in the surgical setting” Katie Fiallos is a board-certified genetic counselor who earned her Master of Science in Genetic Counseling from the Johns Hopkins University/National Human Genome Research Institute Genetic Counseling Training program in 2017 and worked for seven years as a cancer genetic counselor at Johns Hopkins. She joined the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at Indiana University in August 2024. She is fluent in Spanish and provides genetic counseling in English and Spanish to participants with Parkinson's disease enrolled in the PD GENEration study. She has authored several academic papers related to genetic counseling, and her current research interests include provision of genetic counseling to Latine individuals, alternate service delivery models, and patient experiences with genetic testing and their informational desires. She lives in Michigan with her family and enjoys staying active, particularly practicing aerial silks. The research for the paper we're discussing was done while she was at Johns Hopkins and was funded by the Jennifer L. Brager Memorial Research award through the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center.   In this segment we discuss: - Why hereditary cancer genetic testing is becoming increasingly important for patients with breast cancer, especially in relation to surgical decision-making. - The findings that patients preferred genetic testing at an existing appointment shortly after diagnosis, and explored how this timing affects their overall experience. - How many patients had already considered or wanted genetic testing before it was offered, shedding light on patient awareness and readiness. - Why patients were primarily motivated by concern for relatives and a desire for complete information, rather than surgical decision-making. - Gaps in patient-provider communication identified in the study and suggested ways for providers to address these issues in clinical practice.   Would you like to nominate a JoGC article to be featured in the show? If so, please fill out this nomination submission form here. Multiple entries are encouraged including articles where you, your colleagues, or your friends are authors.   Stay tuned for the next new episode of DNA Dialogues! In the meantime, listen to all our episodes Apple Podcasts, Spotify, streaming on the website, or any other podcast player by searching, “DNA Dialogues”.    For more information about this episode visit dnadialogues.podbean.com, where you can also stream all episodes of the show. Check out the Journal of Genetic Counseling here for articles featured in this episode and others.    Any questions, episode ideas, guest pitches, or comments can be sent into DNADialoguesPodcast@gmail.com.  DNA Dialogues' team includes Jehannine Austin, Naomi Wagner, Khalida Liaquat, Kate Wilson and DNA Today's Kira Dineen. Our logo was designed by Ashlyn Enokian. Our current intern is Sydney Arlen.

Never miss another webinar. Sign up here: https://imahealth.org/weekly-webinars/ Learn more: https://imahealth.org/cancer-research-innovationCancer diagnoses continue to rise—affecting younger people more than ever before. This week, join IMA Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Paul Marik and IMA Senior Fellow Dr. Mollie James for a timely webinar focused on cancer, recurrence, and the research helping to make sense of this troubling trend.Dr. Marik will present curated findings from the latest cancer research, while Dr. James brings firsthand clinical insight from the frontlines—together offering a powerful look at how science and real-world experience are shaping new guidance for patients and providers. With growing concern that the mRNA vaccine rollout may be contributing to the surge in cases and relapses, this discussion couldn't be more urgent.This conversation is central to IMA's commitment to addressing chronic disease and builds on the research curated in Dr. Marik's comprehensive Cancer Care guide:- Available free to DL: https://imahealth.org/research/cancer-care/ - Or to purchase: https://a.co/d/9QT8zKH• Donate: https://imahealth.org/donate/• Follow: https://imahealth.org/contact/• Webinar: https://imahealth.org/category/weekly-webinars/• Treatment: https://imahealth.org/treatment-protocols/• Medical Disclaimer: https://imahealth.org/about/terms-and-conditions/About IMA (Formerly FLCCC Alliance)The Independent Medical Alliance™ is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization and coalition of physicians, nurses, and healthcare professionals united by a mission to restore trust and transparency in healthcare. The organization's mission is one driven by Honest Medicine™ that prioritizes patients above profits and emphasizes long-term wellness and disease prevention through empowerment of both physicians and their patients. With a focus on evidence-based medicine, informed consent, and systemic reform, IMA is driving a movement to create a more compassionate and effective healthcare system.For more information about the Independent Medical Alliance, visit www.IMAhealth.org

In this episode of the Real Health Podcast, we welcome back Dr. Kirsten West, ND, LAc, FABNO—an integrative oncology expert at Riordan Clinic—alongside special guest Jenn Nolan, BS, MS, ONC, TAP, owner and oncology nutrition consultant at Remission Nutrition. Together, they address your questions and share valuable insights from their experience supporting patients through integrative cancer care.Learn more about the hosts:•Dr. Kirsten West, ND, LAc, FABNO : https://riordanclinic.org/staff/kirsten-west-nd-lac-fabno/•Jen Nolan: https://www.remissionnutrition.com/jennolanRead the transcript:https://realhealthpodcast.orgLearn more about Riordan Clinic:https://riordanclinic.org/Interested in becoming a Patient:https://riordanclinic.org/request-an-appointment/*Disclaimer*The information contained on The Real Health Podcast and the resources mentioned are for educational purposes only. They are not intended as, and shall not be understood or construed as medical or health advice. The information contained on this podcast is not a substitute for medical or health advice from a professional who is aware of the facts and circumstances of your individual situation. Information provided by hosts and guests on The Real Health Podcast or the use of any products or services mentioned does not create a practitioner-patient relationship between you and any person affiliated with this podcast.

In this thought-provoking and heartfelt episode of Metabolic Matters, host Dr. Nasha Winters welcomes Dr. Nathan Goodyear, a leading voice in integrative oncology and a passionate advocate for patient-centered cancer care. Dr. Goodyear shares his extraordinary journey from conventional OB/GYN pelvic floor surgery to becoming a pioneer in metabolic and integrative cancer therapies. Through personal experience, clinical insights, and a steadfast commitment to innovation, he explores how the landscape of oncology is transforming toward precision, empowerment, and healing.Key Topics:From Surgeon to Integrative Oncologist: Dr. Goodyear recounts his early career in pelvic floor surgery and the pivotal moments—including his own health crisis—that catalyzed his shift into integrative medicine.Redefining Healing: A deeply personal conversation on what it means to “heal into dying,” featuring reflections on end-of-life care, patient autonomy, and the emotional realities of oncology.The Future of Cancer Therapies:Microbiome & Fecal Transplants: Why the tumor microbiome might be a game-changing biomarker—and therapeutic target—for cancer.Cannabinoid Medicine: Exploring the anti-cancer potential of CBD, the stigma around cannabis, and its immunological implications.Immune Modulation & Vitamin C: Highlighting high-dose IV vitamin C, LDN, and strategies to enhance immune surveillance.Repurposed Medications: Dr. Goodyear discusses the growing momentum behind off-label drug use in cancer care, including ivermectin and propranolol, and the critical need for bridging conversations between conventional and integrative oncologists.Bridging Paradigms: A passionate call for collaboration across disciplines to dismantle silos and build patient-centered, innovation-driven cancer care.

En este episodio, conocemos a Sara Grisales Jaramillo, trabajadora social, gerente de Insight y del Centro de Llamadas de CancerCare.… The post Atención Médica: Su Derecho de Abogar first appeared on The Bloodline with LLS.

In this episode of Curing with Sound, we speak with Eli Vlaisavljevich, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Virginia Tech and a renowned innovator in histotripsy, the first completely noninvasive and nonthermal ablation method for treating cancer.  The conversation explores histotripsy's expanding applications across multiple conditions, from its FDA-approved use in liver tumors to promising research in pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, sarcomas, and more. Dr. Vlaisavljevich also discusses the innovative work his lab is conducting in veterinary medicine, treating dogs, cats, and horses with naturally occurring tumors, which in turn accelerates the development of human applications. Discussion highlights: Revolutionary Technology: Dr. Vlaisavljevich explains how histotripsy uses focused ultrasound pulses to generate cavitation bubbles that mechanically break down targeted tissue while preserving critical structures like blood vessels and nerves - a capability that sets it apart from traditional ablation methods. Interdisciplinary Innovation: Discover the collaborative nature of focused ultrasound research, bringing together engineers, clinicians, and immunologists to develop customized devices for different clinical scenarios. Next-Generation Approaches: Explore cutting-edge developments including nanoparticle-mediated histotripsy that can target specific cancer cells and combination therapies that enhance immune responses against metastatic disease. EPISODE TRANSCRIPT ---------------------------- QUESTIONS? Email podcast@fusfoundation.org if you have a question or comment about the show, or if you would you like to connect about future guest appearances.  Email info@fusfoundation.org if you have questions about focused ultrasound or the Foundation.  FUSF SOCIAL MEDIA LinkedIn X Facebook Instagram TikTok YouTube FUSF WEBSITE https://www.fusfoundation.org SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE NEWSLETTER https://www.fusfoundation.org/newsletter-signup/ READ THE LATEST NEWSLETTER https://www.fusfoundation.org/the-foundation/news-media/newsletter/ DOWNLOAD "THE TUMOR" BY JOHN GRISHAM (FREE E-BOOK) https://www.fusfoundation.org/read-the-tumor-by-john-grisham/

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss top abstracts that will be presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including research on tech innovations that could shape the future of oncology. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Hamilton is also the chair of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program, and she's here to tell us about some of the key abstracts, hot topics, and novel approaches in cancer care that will be featured at this year's Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, it's great to have you on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Dr. Hamilton, the Presidential Theme of the Annual Meeting this year is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and that's reflected in many of the sessions that will focus on action-oriented guidance to improve care for our patients. And as always, there'll be great presentations on practice-changing abstracts that will change treatment paradigms and transform care. Can you tell us about some of the hot topics this year and what you're particularly excited about? Dr. Erika Hamilton: You're right. Dr. Robin Zon's theme is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and you're going to see that theme really interlaced throughout the ASCO program this year. We had a record number of submissions. Over 5,000 abstracts will be published, and there'll be about 3,000 presentations, either in oral format or poster presentations. We have 200 dynamic sessions. Many of the discussants will be highlighting key takeaways and how we can translate action-oriented guidance to better treat our patients to build a better future. Our state-of-the-art science will include a Plenary Session. This will feature presentations as well as discussion of each of the presentations for clinical late-breaking abstracts. We have Clinical Science Symposia that I'm particularly excited about this year. These will feature key abstracts as well as discussions and a foundational talk around the subject. We're covering novel antibody-drug conjugate targets, turning “cold” tumors “hot” to include CAR T, as well as the future of cancer detection. There'll be rapid oral abstracts, case-based panels, and this will also feature interactive audience polling and case discussions. I also want to highlight the community connection opportunities. There will be 13 Communities of Practice that will be meeting on-site during ASCO, and there's also really a plethora of networking opportunities for trainees and early-career professionals, a Women's Networking Center, a patient advocate space, and I'm happy to report there will also be live music out on the terrace this year at ASCO. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, that's going to be a really great addition. I have to say, I think this is always a special time of year because excitement starts to mount as the meeting gets closer and closer. And once the abstracts are out there, I certainly personally feel that the excitement builds. Talking of abstracts, let's dive into some of the key abstracts for this year's meeting. I'd like to start out by asking you about Abstract 505. This reports on 15-year outcomes for women with premenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in the SOFT and TEXT trials. It assesses the benefits of adjuvant exemestane and ovarian function suppression or tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression. So, could you talk us through this and tell us what you think the key takeaways from this abstract are? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Absolutely. This is essentially the SOFT and TEXT trials. They are trials that we've been following for quite some time, evidenced by the 15-year outcome. And I think it really answers two very important questions for us regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that are facing hormone receptor-positive disease. The benefit of ovarian function suppression for one, and then second, the benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen, which is our SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator]. So, in terms of the SOFT trial, when we talk about distance recurrence-free interval, which I really think is probably the most meaningful because secondary cancers, et cetera, are not really what we're getting at here. But in terms of distant recurrence-free interval, certainly with tamoxifen, using tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression adds a little bit. But where we really get additional benefits are by moving to exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor with the ovarian function suppression. So, for example, in SOFT, for distant recurrence-free interval for patients that have received prior chemotherapy, the distance recurrence-free interval was 73.5% with tamoxifen, bumped up just a tiny bit to 73.8% with ovarian function suppression. But when we used both ovarian function suppression and switched to that aromatase inhibitor, we're now talking about 77.6%. It may seem like these are small numbers, but when we talk about an absolute benefit of 4%, these are the type of decisions that we decide whether to offer chemotherapy based on. So, really just optimizing endocrine therapy really can provide additional benefits for these patients. Just briefly, when we turn to TEXT, similarly, when we look at distance recurrence-free interval for our patients that are at highest risk and receive chemotherapy, tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression, 79%; 81% with exemestane and ovarian function suppression. And when we talk about our patients that did not receive chemotherapy, it increased from 91.6% up to 94.6%—very similar that 3% to 4% number. So, I think that this is just very important information when counseling our patients about the decisions that they're going to make for themselves in the adjuvant setting and how much we want to optimize endocrine therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks so much for your insight into that. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's turn to hematologic malignancies. Abstract 6506 reports exciting results on the new agent ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. This is a phase 1b clinical activity study and safety results. This was the pivotal KOMET-001 study. And my question is, will this new agent fulfill an unmet need in this NPM1 space? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great question. And I think the answer is almost certainly ‘yes'. So, just as some brief background, NPM1 mutation is known to be a driver of leukemogenesis in around 30% of patients with AML, and it's a poor prognostic factor. And typically, about 50% of these patients will relapse within a year of their first-line therapy, and only around 10% of them will get a subsequent complete remission with salvage therapy. Menin inhibitors, which disrupt the interaction between menin and KMT2A, are known to be active in NPM1-mutated as well as in KMT2A-rearranged AML. And ziftomenib is a selective oral menin inhibitor, which in this study was evaluated at a dose of 600 mg once a day, as you mentioned, a phase 1b/2 study, which is multicenter and presented by Dr. Eunice Wang from Roswell Park. It's a relatively large study of 112 patients who were treated with this standard dose with relatively short median follow-up at this time. The median age was 69 years, and median prior therapies were two, but with a range of one to seven. And I think very importantly, 60% of these patients had previously been treated with venetoclax, and 23% of them had had a prior transplant. Looking at the results overall for this study, the overall response rate was 35%, which is actually quite impressive. Specifically for those patients in the phase 2 part of the study, around 23% achieved a CR [complete remission] or CRh [complete remission with partial hematologic recovery]. What's very interesting in my mind is that the response rates were comparable in venetoclax-naive and venetoclax-exposed patients. And the drug was very well tolerated, with only 3% of patients having to discontinue because of treatment-related adverse events. And I think the authors appropriately conclude that, first of all, the phase 2 primary endpoint in the study was met, and that ziftomenib achieved deep and durable responses in relapsed and refractory NPM1-mutated AML, regardless of prior venetoclax, with good tolerance of the drug. And so, I think putting all of this together, undoubtedly, these data do support the potential use of this agent as monotherapy and as a new option for those patients who have relapsed or refractory NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. So, let's move on a little bit more now and change the subject and change gears completely and talk about circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]. This has been a hot topic over a number of years now, and at this year's meeting, there are quite a few impactful studies on the use of ctDNA. We have time to focus on just one of these, and I wanted to get your thoughts on Abstract 4503. This is from the NIAGARA trial, which looks at ctDNA in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who receive perioperative durvalumab. Could you tell us a little bit about this study? Dr. Erika Hamilton: So, this was the phase 3 NIAGARA trial, and this is literally looking for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that are cisplatin-eligible, and the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So here, this is a planned exploratory analysis of ctDNA and the association with clinical outcomes from NIAGARA. So, this is really the type of study that helps us determine which of our patients are more likely to have a good outcome and which of our patients are more likely not to. There were 1,000 randomized patients in this study, and 462 comprised the biomarker-evaluable population. There were about half in the control arm and half in the durvalumab arm. And overall, the ctDNA-positive rate at baseline was about 57%, or a little over half, and that had decreased to about 22% after neoadjuvant treatment. ctDNA clearance rates from baseline to pre-radical cystectomy was about 41% among those with durvalumab and 31% among those in control. And the non-pCR rate was 97% among patients with pre-cystectomy ctDNA-positive status. So, this really gives us some information about predicting who is going to have better outcomes here. We did see a disease-free survival benefit with perioperative durvalumab, and this was observed in post-cystectomy ctDNA-positive as well as the ctDNA-negative groups. Shifting gears now to GI cancer, Abstract 3506 is a long-term safety and efficacy study of sotorasib plus panitumumab and FOLFIRI for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. And this is the CodeBreaK-101 study. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. A very interesting study, and this abstract builds upon the phase 3 CodeBreaK-300 trial, which I think has just been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This showed that the combination of sotorasib and panitumumab improved clinical outcomes in patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The current abstract, as you mentioned, reports the CodeBreaK-101 trial. And this was a phase 1b trial where FOLFIRI therapy was added to sotorasib and panitumumab in previously treated patients with KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The abstract reports the overall and progression-free survival results, as well as some updated safety and response data. So, in this study, patients with this particular mutation who had received at least one prior systemic treatment but were KRAS G12C inhibitor-naive were enrolled into an expansion cohort of the CodeBreaK-101 protocol. And these patients received what apparently now recommended as the standard phase 2 dose of sotorasib of 960 mg daily, plus panitumumab and a standard dose of FOLFIRI. And the primary endpoint of the study was safety, and secondary endpoints included confirmed response, overall response, and progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigator. And by November of last year, 40 patients had been enrolled into this study. Common treatment-related adverse events were cutaneous; some patients developed neutropenia, and stomatitis was fairly widespread. Discontinuation of sotorasib because of adverse events was only seen in 1% of patients, although patients did have to discontinue because of toxicity from some of the other agents in the combination. Looking at the results of this study, the updated objective response rate was 57.5%, and the disease control rate was estimated at 92%, going on 93%, with a median time to response of 1.6 months and a median response duration of 6 months. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months, and the overall survival 17.9 months. So, the authors have concluded that this combination, including sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI, does appear to show quite promising long-term efficacy in pretreated patients with this specific mutation. The ongoing phase 3 study they mentioned, CodeBreaK-301, is aiming to evaluate this combination against the standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. So, promising results, and we'd be very interested to see how this particular combination performs in the frontline. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing that. Let's shift gears again and really talk about digital technology. I feel that we're all going to have to get much better with this, and really, there are a lot of promises for our patients coming here. There are a lot of abstracts at ASCO that are focusing on innovations in digital technology, including a really interesting psychosocial digital application for caregivers of patients that are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? It's Abstract 11000. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. This abstract certainly caught my eye, and I think it's intriguing for a number of reasons, partly because it's app-based, and partly also because it specifically addresses caregiver burden and caregiver needs in the oncology setting, which I think is especially important. And although the context, the clinical context of this study, is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, I think it has potential applications way beyond that. We all know that caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation have significant quality-of-life struggles. They are well-documented to have significant psychological and emotional strain before, during, and after stem cell transplantation. And this abstract describes an application called BMT-CARE, which is aimed at improving caregivers' quality of life, caregiver burden, mood symptoms, and coping skills, and so on. So, this was a single-center, randomized trial from MGH [Massachusetts General Hospital] of this app for stem cell transplant caregivers, compared with usual care in those individuals. And the eligible patients, or eligible individuals, were adults caring for patients with heme malignancy undergoing either an autologous or an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients were randomly assigned either to use the app or for usual care. And the app itself—and I think it'll be interesting to actually see this at the meeting and visualize it and see how user-friendly and so on it is—but it comprises five modules, which integrate psychoeducation, behavior change, stress management, and they're delivered through a kind of interactive platform of educational games and videos. And then participants were self-reporting at baseline and then 60 days after transplant. So, around 125 patients were enrolled in this study, of around 174 who were initially approached. So, just over 70% uptake from caregivers, which is, I think, relatively high, and evenly distributed between the two randomized arms. And the majority of the participants were spouses. And at 60 days post-stem cell transplant, the intervention participants reported a better quality of life compared with those who received usual care. If you break this down a little bit more, these participants reported lower caregiving burden, lower incidence of depression, fewer PTSD symptoms, and overall better coping skills. So, the authors conclude that this particular app, a digital health intervention, led to pretty substantial improvements in quality of life for these caregivers. So, intriguing. As I said, it'll be particularly interesting to see how this thing looks during the meeting. But if these kind of results can be reproduced, I think this sort of application has potential uses way beyond the stem cell transplant setting. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I find that just so fascinating and very needed. I think that the caregiving role is often underestimated in how important that is for the patient and the whole family, and really giving our caregivers more tools in their toolbox certainly is quite helpful. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, the meeting is getting closer, and as I mentioned earlier, I think anticipation is mounting. And I wanted to say thanks so much to you for chatting with me today about some of the interesting advances in oncology that we're going to see at this year's meeting. There is a great deal more to come. Our listeners can access links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I'm also looking forward, Dr. Hamilton, to having you back on the podcast after the Annual Meeting to dive into some of the late-breaking abstracts and some of the other key science that's captured the headlines this year. So, thanks once again for joining me today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Be sure to catch my “Top Takeaways from ASCO25.” These are short episodes that will drop each day of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. So, subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, and join me for concise analyses of the meeting's key abstracts.   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. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose  Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

In this episode of the DAV Podcast, host Brian Buckwalter speaks with Dr. Ben Park, Director of the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, about the critical state of cancer research and its direct impact on military veterans. Dr. Park highlights the groundbreaking progress in cancer treatment, including innovative cellular therapies performed at the Nashville VA Hospital, and expresses grave concerns over recent, unprecedented funding cuts. He emphasizes that these cuts not only jeopardize patient lives and the continuation of life-saving research but also hinder the training of future medical professionals, ultimately undermining the commitment to provide veterans with the best possible care they deserve.

Many cervical cancers are linked to the HPV virus. However, thanks to screening advancements, early detection of the cancer resulting in effective treatment is possible. Toni Kilts, DO, discusses screening guidelines and cervical cancer prevention.You can also watch the video recording on our Vimeo channel here.For more health tips & news you can use from experts you trust, sign up for Sarasota Memorial's monthly digital newsletter, Healthe-Matters.

Dr. Steven Suter, a leading veterinary oncologist with a DVM and PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Suter shares his journey into the world of veterinary medicine and oncology, revealing how he became a pioneer in canine and feline molecular oncology diagnostics.Listeners will dive deep into the fascinating world of stem cell therapy, bone marrow transplants, and apheresis. Dr. Suter explains the intricacies of these treatments, their applications in curing conditions like lymphoma, and what pet owners can expect when considering these advanced options for their furry companions.Join us as we explore the emotional and scientific aspects of treating pet cancer, the role of genetics in animal health, and the challenges of veterinary medicine today. With a perfect blend of expertise and humor, Dr. Suter also discusses his own pets, their quirky personalities, and the joys of being a veterinarian.This episode is a must-listen for pet owners, veterinary professionals, and anyone interested in cutting-edge animal care. Tune in to discover how innovative treatments are changing the landscape of veterinary oncology and offering hope to pets and their families.Don't miss this engaging and informative conversation that highlights the potential to cure and improve the lives of our beloved pets!https://www.thectac-usa.com/team/steven-suter---Support our sponsor for this episode Blue Buffalo by visiting bluebuffalo.com. BLUE Natural Veterinary Diet formulas offer the natural alternative in nutritional therapy. At Blue Buffalo, we have an in-house Research & Development (R&D) team with over 300 years' experience in well-pet and veterinary therapeutic diets, over 600 scientific publications, and over 50 U.S. patents. At Blue Buffalo, we have an in-house Research & Development (R&D) team with over 300 years' experience in well-pet and veterinary therapeutic diets, over 600 scientific publications, and over 50 U.S. patents.---All footage is owned by SLA Video Productions.

How can pediatric and adult urologists team up to tackle complex cancer cases? In this episode of the BackTable Urology, host Dr. Amanda Buchanan, Division Chief of Pediatric Urology at the University of Kentucky, is joined by her colleagues Dr. Patrick Hensley, an adult urologic oncologist, and Dave Rodeberg, Division Chief of Pediatric Surgery. Their discussion centers around the importance of professional collaboration in urologic oncology care in order to improve patient outcomes.---SYNPOSISThe urologists discuss topics such as the experiences and benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration in complex cases and the role of pediatric urologists in treating adolescent and young adult patients. They also provide insights into the Children's Oncology Group (COG) studies and their intersections with adult oncology research. The episode concludes with practical advice for other institutions aiming to improve collaborative efforts between pediatric and adult urology departments.---TIMESTAMPS00:00 - Introduction02:35 - Challenges and Lessons in Multidisciplinary Collaboration08:24 - Pediatric vs. Adult Urologic Oncology11:07- Clinical Trials and Research Collaborations12:49 - Navigating Oncology Groups for Children and Adults19:06 - Collaborative Models in Kidney Cancer Care22:18 - Benefits and Challenges of Collaboration35:24 - Final Thoughts and Recommendations---RESOURCESSociety of Urologic Oncology:https://suonet.org/home.aspxChildren's Oncology Grouphttps://www.childrensoncologygroup.org/

Recorded at SCbio's 2025 annual conference, Heather and Lauren welcome Eric Perrault, the CEO of Kiyatec, a company focused on functional precision oncology. Eric discusses their exciting process, which aims to predict how individual cancer patients will respond to tailored therapies before treatment even begins. We dive into their live cell therapy, partnerships with surgeons, and much more. Tune in to learn about cutting-edge developments in personalized cancer treatment!

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/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/CBJ865. CME/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until May 27, 2026.Personalizing Prostate Cancer Care: Real-World Approaches for the Community Urology Practice In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and ZERO Prostate Cancer. 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 educational grants from Astellas and Pfizer, Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (which are both Johnson & Johnson companies).Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/CBJ865. CME/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until May 27, 2026.Personalizing Prostate Cancer Care: Real-World Approaches for the Community Urology Practice In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and ZERO Prostate Cancer. 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 educational grants from Astellas and Pfizer, Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (which are both Johnson & Johnson companies).Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/CBJ865. CME/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until May 27, 2026.Personalizing Prostate Cancer Care: Real-World Approaches for the Community Urology Practice In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and ZERO Prostate Cancer. 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 educational grants from Astellas and Pfizer, Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (which are both Johnson & Johnson companies).Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/CBJ865. CME/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until May 27, 2026.Personalizing Prostate Cancer Care: Real-World Approaches for the Community Urology Practice In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and ZERO Prostate Cancer. 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 educational grants from Astellas and Pfizer, Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (which are both Johnson & Johnson companies).Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

In this episode of the Manta Cares's Patient from Hell Podcast Club, host Mike Lynn engages with Sheila Goodrow, a metastatic breast cancer advocate, to discuss the importance of mental health resources for cancer patients. They explore Sheila's personal journey with cancer, the challenges of accessing mental health care, and the role of advocacy in healing. The conversation emphasizes the need for comprehensive support systems for patients and caregivers alike, highlighting the significance of mental wellness in the cancer journey.This Podcast Club accompanies Patient from Hell podcast Episode 84: Managing Insomnia and Mental Health in Cancer Care with Dr. Cara Bohon.00:00 Introduction to Patient Advocacy and Podcast Goals02:00 Sheila's Journey with Metastatic Breast Cancer03:52 Mental Health Challenges in Cancer Care09:46 Exploring Therapy and Mental Health Resources14:03 Accessibility of Mental Health Services for Patients17:58 The Role of Advocacy in Personal Healing19:59 Conclusion and Final Thoughts on WellnessConnect with Us:Enjoyed this episode? Make sure to subscribe, rate, and review! Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, or Linkedin @mantacares and visit our website at mantacares.com for more episodes and updates.Disclaimer:All content and information provided in connection with Manta Cares is solely intended for informational and educational purposes only. This content and information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.This episode was supported by an award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Hematology-oncology physician Yousuf Zafar discusses his article, "The personalization of cancer care in 2025." He traces the evolution of cancer treatment over the past two decades, moving through waves of cytotoxic chemotherapy, biologic therapies, immunotherapies including groundbreaking CAR-T therapy, and now precision oncology, which targets treatments to the specific molecular profile of a patient's cancer. While these advancements have significantly improved survival and quality of life, Yousuf highlights the resulting increase in care complexity and the widening gap in outcomes between specialized centers (where only 20 percent of U.S. patients are treated) and community practices (where 80 percent of care occurs), particularly impacting rural areas where 66 percent of counties lack an oncologist. The conversation explores how digital health solutions, such as remote case reviews connecting community oncologists with subspecialists, can help bridge this divide and improve access. Importantly, Yousuf stresses that personalized care extends beyond treatment to encompass vital patient support for financial burdens, mental well-being, and survivorship. Actionable takeaways emphasize the need for collaboration, resources for community oncologists, investment in digital health tools, and a continued focus on patient-centered support throughout the cancer journey. Our presenting sponsor is Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Microsoft Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow, is transforming how clinicians work. Now you can streamline and customize documentation, surface information right at the point of care, and automate tasks with just a click. Part of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare, Dragon Copilot offers an extensible AI workspace and a single, integrated platform to help unlock new levels of efficiency. Plus, it's backed by a proven track record and decades of clinical expertise—and it's built on a foundation of trust. It's time to ease your administrative burdens and stay focused on what matters most with Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow. VISIT SPONSOR → https://aka.ms/kevinmd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST → https://www.kevinmd.com/podcast RECOMMENDED BY KEVINMD → https://www.kevinmd.com/recommended

Are you or a loved one facing a diagnosis of bladder cancer, melanoma, or skin cancer? Tune in to this essential episode of Navigating Cancer TOGETHER for expert guidance and compassionate insights. Join host Talaya Dendy as she welcomes back Dr. Thomas Eanelli, a highly respected radiation oncologist based in New York. We also feature Angel Santana, co-host of The CROC Podcast, sharing powerful motivational perspectives. In observance of May Cancer Awareness, this special episode dives into critical aspects of three specific cancers: bladder, melanoma, and skin cancer. Dr. Eanelli provides invaluable medical expertise on the latest cancer treatments, diagnosis, and management of these diseases. Angel Santana offers heartfelt inspiration and emphasizes the power of support and positivity throughout the cancer journey. This episode is packed with vital information and moving stories to offer hope and guidance for anyone navigating cancer.

 Dr. Leigh Erin Connealy is a globally recognized leader in integrative and functional medicine. She is the founder of the Center for New Medicine and Center for Healing in Irvine, California—two of the largest and most advanced integrative medical clinics in the country. With over 39 years of experience, Dr. Connealy specializes in treating chronic illness and cancer by combining the best of conventional science with natural healing and patient-centered care. Dr. Leigh Erin Connealy joins us for one of the most important health conversations we've had to date. With nearly four decades at the forefront of integrative cancer care, Dr. Connealy breaks down why chronic illness, cancer, and emotional dysfunction are exploding—and how to reverse the trend by taking radical responsibility for your health. She unpacks her holistic approach to healing—from foundational lifestyle habits like sleep, food, and detox to the spiritual and emotional work often ignored by mainstream medicine. What we cover: - Why self-care is the new healthcare- The great poisoning: environmental toxins and chronic illness- Foundational habits: sleep, clean food, movement, and hydration- Preventative testing and how to truly screen for disease- Why community is medicine and loneliness is a silent killerTimestamps: (00:00) Introduction (04:50) A generational health awakening (07:15) Fertility decline as warning sign (10:25) Sleep, water, food, and movement (16:40) Healing emotional trauma (23:30) Detox tools you can use (29:45) You are your own clinical trial (36:00) Redefining spirituality and health (41:25) Human connection as medicine (57:15) Preventative care done right  *** LINKS***Check out our supplement company - Noble Origins- 100% grass-fed beef protein with added collagen, colostrum and organs- Use code MAFIA25 for 25% OFF your orderCheck out our Newsletter - Food for Thought - to dramatically improve your health this year!Join The Meat Mafia community Telegram group for daily conversations to keep up with what's happening between episodes of the show. Connect with Dr. Connealy:InstagramWebsite Connect with Brett:InstagramConnect with Harry:InstagramXConnect with Meat Mafia:Instagram - Meat MafiaX - Meat MafiaYouTube - Meat MafiaConnect with Noble Protein:Website - Noble ProteinX - Noble ProteinInstagram - Noble ProteinAFFILIATESLMNT - Electrolyte salts to supplement minerals on low-carb dietThe Carnivore Bar - Use Code 'MEATMAFIA' for 10% OFF - Delicious & convenient Pemmican BarPerennial Pastures - Use CODE 'MEATMAFIA' 10% OFF - Regeneratively raised, grass-fed & grass-finished beef from California & MontanaFarrow Skincare - Use CODE 'MEATMAFIA' at checkout for 20% OFFHeart & Soil - CODE ‘MEATMAFIA' for 10% OFF - enhanced nutrition to replace daily vitamins!Carnivore Snax - Use CODE 'MEATMAFIA' Crispy, airy meat chips that melt in your mouth. Regeneratively raised in the USA.Pluck Seasoning - 15% OFF - Nutrient-dense seasoning with INSANE flavor! Use CODE: MEATMAFIAWe Feed Raw 25% OFF your first order - ancestrally consistent food for your dog! Use CODE 'MEATMAFIA'Fond Bone Broth - 15% OFF - REAL bone broth with HIGH-QUALITY ingredients! It's a daily product for us! Use CODE: MAFIAMaui Nui- 15% OFF. Use CODE: MEATMAFIA 

Join Rebeca Leon on this episode of the Nurse Converse podcast as she pulls back the curtain on the world of oncology nursing. She shares her personal journey into this life-changing specialty, reflecting on the emotional highs, the profound patient connections, and the powerful community of oncology nurses. Get inspired by highlights from the 50th Oncology Nursing Society Congress and discover why this field is more critical than ever. If you've ever wondered what it's like to make a difference in the lives of cancer patients, this episode is for you. >>Inside Oncology Nursing: Stories, Challenges & Triumphs from the Frontlines of Cancer CareJump Ahead to Listen: [01:08] Oncology Nursing Society's 50th anniversary.[05:10] Oncology nursing specialties and settings.[10:57] Oncology nurses' resilience and care.[13:57] Attending oncology nursing conferences.[17:51] Customizing conference experiences for nurses.[23:45] Immunotherapy in oncology nursing.[26:00] Advancements in oncology nursing.[30:07] Oncology nursing opportunities for students.[34:37] Oncology nursing community connection.Connect with Rebeca on Social Media:Instagram: @EnfermeraMami.RNFor more information, full transcript and videos visit Nurse.org/podcastJoin our newsletter at nurse.org/joinInstagram: @nurse_orgTikTok: @nurse.orgFacebook: @nurse.orgYouTube: Nurse.org

Navigating disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC) is essential for improving patient outcomes, ensuring equitable care, and optimizing the patient experience. The Association of Cancer Care Centers (ACCC) remains committed to increasing awareness and disseminating the latest strategies for BTC management. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ explores these issues with Paige Griffith, CRNP, lead oncology nurse practitioner at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, who highlights the vital role of multidisciplinary teams in reducing care fragmentation and streamlining care delivery. CANCER BUZZ also speaks with Chaundra Bishop, a patient with biliary tract cancer, who shares her personal experience confronting systemic barriers—particularly delays and obstacles during the diagnostic process—and offers insights into how addressing such disparities can improve the patient journey for others.   “Everyone plays a role, even from early-stage disease all the way to advanced disease, and having someone help navigate patients through that very complex system is important.” – Paige Griffith, CRNP   “From the patient perspective, I think it's always important to ask for what you need, or ask questions if you don't understand something. Don't, as they say, suffer in silence.” – Chaundra Bishop   Paige Griffith, CRNP  Lead Oncology Nurse Practitioner  Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center  Baltimore, MD    Chaundra Bishop  Patient With Biliary Tract Cancer     Resources:  Bile Duct Cancer - MD Anderson Cancer Center - https://bit.ly/42YPRdT Cholangiocarcinoma - NCI - https://bit.ly/44oV4N2

Christine Verini is a pharmacist by training, a nonprofit CEO by title, and an unapologetic empath by design. She now leads CancerCare, one of the oldest, least-known, and most impactful organizations in the country that actually helps real cancer patients deal with the practical garbage no one likes to talk about—like paying rent, affording a ride to chemo, or feeding their kids.We talk about her career pivot from industry to impact, what it's like trying to scale empathy without losing your soul, and the daily gut-punch of knowing there are millions of people who still have no idea that CancerCare exists. Christine gets real about leadership, advocacy, burnout, and why being “pan-cancer” matters more than ever in a world obsessed with biomarkers, buckets, and branding.She also dishes on what AI gets dead wrong, what patients actually want when they call for help, and why “ghosting” someone with cancer is still a thing. Buckle up. This one's packed with heart, brains, and a little righteous rage.RELATED LINKSCancerCareChristine Verini on LinkedInChristine's CEO Announcement – PR NewswireCancer Health 25: Christine VeriniChristine on HealthyWomenBIO Convention Speaker ProfileFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The alarming rise of early-onset cancers, particularly in individuals under 50, demands a critical shift in our understanding and approach to cancer care.  In this episode, Dr. Karin Tollefson, Chief Oncology Medical Officer at Pfizer, discusses the concerning 79% increase in cancer diagnoses among younger people since 1990, highlighting the urgent need to address this trend. She emphasizes that this is a multifactorial issue, with likely contributors including Western lifestyle factors such as poor diet, obesity, sedentary habits, and exposure to toxins, as well as genetic predispositions. Dr. Tollefson also underscores the need for increased screening accessibility, particularly with colonoscopies, and molecular testing to tailor treatments for younger patients often diagnosed at later stages. Furthermore, she addresses the importance of making clinical trials more accessible to diverse populations and ensuring comprehensive survivorship care, including mental health, family planning, and fertility considerations, as cancer survival rates increase. Finally, Dr. Tollefson calls on the need to partner with advocacy organizations and to educate the public about early detection, healthy lifestyles, and available resources.  Tune in and learn about the critical shifts needed in cancer care to address early-onset cases. Resources: Follow Dr. Karin Tollefson, Chief Oncology Medical Officer at Pfizer, on LinkedIn. Discover more about Pfizer on their LinkedIn and website. Read more on Pfizer in Oncology here.  Patient Resources/Advocacy Links: Explore This Is Living With Cancer's Advocacy Support's website. Visit the Global Colorectal Cancer Alliance's website here. (Pfizer was one of their sponsors) Learn more about the transformative work CancerCare is doing. Find CancerCare's guide on Biomarker Testing here. Read the best practices for Biomarker Testing Coverage here. (Pfizer had input and was a sponsor) Get AONN Biomarker Navigation here. For the Precision Medicine Toolkit, look here. Empower yourself or your patients with essential navigation resources–a site co-created with AONN, to find materials on breast, prostate, health equity, geriatric, and more. (Patient navigators can download and share educational tools for enhanced support.) Deepen your understanding of prostate cancer here.