Podcasts about cancer care

We are thrilled to open Season 9 of the PQI Podcast with a powerful episode featuring Deborah Wong, MD, PhD, Associate Clinical Professor at UCLA and Director of the Head and Neck Medical Oncology Program.This conversation spans the full spectrum of oncology care — from groundbreaking trial data to the everyday realities of supporting patients, families, and care teams. Dr. Wong offers a timely look at what's new in head and neck cancer while also sharing her thoughtful approach to compassionate care.In this episode, Dr. Wong discusses:The Keynote-689 trial and FDA approval of pembrolizumab for resectable head and neck cancer.Tailoring treatment for HPV-positive vs. HPV-negative disease.Emerging therapies such as antibody-drug conjugates.Quality of life challenges, including speech, swallowing, and survivorship.Supporting caregivers as the “unsung heroes” of cancer care.Strategies for preventing burnout and fostering resilience in oncology practice. 

Have you ever had a health concern that felt minor, but your gut told you to speak up anyway?In this episode, host Talaya Dendy shares a personal and timely story about the power of trusting your instincts, especially when it comes to your health. Drawing from her experience, she reveals how self-advocacy can be a life-saving tool, and why it's never a "false alarm" to speak up about your concerns.You'll discover how to:Recognize and honor your body's signals, even when they seem minor.Manage anxiety and build confidence in medical settings.Take charge of your health by transforming fear and uncertainty into empowered action.Turn your medical history into a powerful tool for better care.Whether you're newly diagnosed, in active treatment, or navigating life after cancer, this episode offers a powerful reminder that your voice matters. Talaya's story will help you feel more confident, informed, and supported on your health journey.✨Highlights from the show:08:59 A New Personal Story: My "False Alarm" Journey12:23 How to Advocate: Collaborating with Your Healthcare Team15:56 The Surprising Reason for My Pain17:21 Four Internal Self-Advocacy Strategies21:35 Closing Thoughts & Upcoming Survivor Series PreviewTranscript: https://bit.ly/podscript170Blog: https://www.ontheotherside.life/trusting-your-gut-why-it-s-never-a-false-alarm-in-self-advocacyNavigating Cancer TOGETHER delivers heartfelt stories and expert insights to remind you that you are not alone. Subscribe now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or your favorite podcast platform.

The new season of Business Class News's Race to the Start Line podcast launched with a conversation that was both deeply personal and profoundly forward-looking. Host Karl Woolfenden sat down with two leaders from Caris Life Sciences—Dr. David Spetzler, President and Chief Scientific Officer, and Dr. James Hamrick, Chairman of the Caris Precision Oncology Alliance —for a discussion on how Caris is transforming the future of cancer care. Woolfenden framed the conversation with personal reflections, sharing how recent losses in his own circle to cancer heightened his awareness of the need for innovation in oncology. “It tightened my awareness,” he said, “of how important it is to spotlight the companies and individuals driving meaningful progress.” Tackling the Complexity of Cancer Caris Life Sciences is a leader in molecular profiling and precision medicine, advancing how oncologists understand and treat cancer. Dr. Spetzler emphasized just how complicated this mission is: “Yeah, so I think what the patents demonstrate is that we're really on the cutting edge of trying to understand cancer. And the complexity of cancer is really quite staggering, because there are no two diseases that are the same.” He explained that Caris has built one of the world's largest datasets in cancer biology. “One of the things that we've been able to do is amass an enormous data set. We're approaching having profiled a million patients, and one of the great advantages that gives us is we can start to understand—from previous patients—new patients' status, and direct them towards the better drugs that are going to help them live longer.” From Science to the Patient Bedside Where Spetzler focused on the science, Dr. James Hamrick provided a clinical lens on the company's work. He reflected on his journey as both a practicing oncologist and now a leader at Caris. “The founder of Caris, and Dr. Spetzler who has been there since 2009, was always that connection point between the science and the patient. And that's where I focus—making sure what we're doing actually makes a difference in the clinic.” Hamrick highlighted the importance of ensuring that breakthroughs aren't confined to research institutions but are accessible to patients everywhere: “Too often, patients in community hospitals don't benefit from the latest advancements available at large academic medical centers. At Caris, we're working to close that gap.” Humanizing the Science The conversation underscored the human stakes of the work. Both leaders emphasized that the mission isn't just about data or discovery—it's about outcomes. Dr. Spetzler summed it up: “Science is only as valuable as the difference it makes in the real world. That's what drives us every day.” Scaling Innovation for the Future For Caris, growth means more than company expansion—it means scaling the reach of its technology so that physicians everywhere have the tools to personalize cancer care. This, Woolfenden pointed out, is a different kind of “race to the start line”: one where the finish line is measured in lives saved and futures extended. As the first episode in the series, the dialogue with Caris Life Sciences set a high standard for Race to the Start Line. It showcased how innovation, when combined with purpose, can shape industries—and in this case, save lives. 

Cancer. It's a word that stops us in our tracks — bringing fear, grief, or uncertainty depending on our own story. And as we age, that word carries even more weight. Despite decades of research, cancer still feels mysterious to many of us, and the “one-size-fits-all” treatments of the past haven't been enough. That's why this episode is so important. We sit down with Professor David Thomas — one of the world's leading “cancer detectives,” the driving force behind Omico and Australia's largest cancer genomics programs. His vision? To make personalised cancer treatment the standard of care for every patient, not just the lucky few. In this conversation, we go beyond the scary headlines and talk about the future of cancer care — from breakthrough genomic trials to real stories of hope — and what you can do today to reduce your own risk.

Program Notes:0:44 Spuds are what we call potatoes1:47 Followed for over 5million person years2:45 No mechanism for why french fries are problematic3:25 DASH4D diet for glycemic control4:25 4 diets compared 5:25 Extends benefits outside hypertension6:20 A new antibiotic for staph infections7:20 IV therapy until cultures are negative8:20 Cost of new therapy, cost effectiveness8:40 Geographic variation in subspeciality cancer care9:40 Highest income managed by specialists10:40 Guidelines expanded11:36 Telemedicine may help12:10 End

Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Arielle Elkrief discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome in cancer immunotherapy and the importance of antibiotic stewardship, as well as interventions currently being explored to treat gut dysbiosis and optimize immunotherapy response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hi everyone, I'm Dr. Monty Pal, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist. I'm a professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.  Today we're here to discuss one of my favorite topics, which is the gut microbiome. It's almost hard to avoid the gut microbiome nowadays if you look at medical literature within oncology. It's an emerging phenomenon, but there are a couple of individuals that I would really define as pioneers in the field. And one of them is actually with me today, Dr. Arielle Elkrief, to discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome, particularly amongst patients receiving immunotherapy, although I imagine our conversation today will take many twists and turns. Arielle is an assistant professor and clinician scientist in the Department of Oncology at the University of Montreal, and she is co-director of the CHUM Microbiome Center there.  FYI for the listeners, we have our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Arielle, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thanks so much, Monty. This is going to be amazing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, I have to tell you what sort of inspired me to bring you on as a guest. It was one of many things, but it was this really terrific ASCO Educational [Book] article that you wrote. Now, I have to tell you, I've read all the articles sort of cover to cover in the book, and they're always a wonderful primer, so if our audience is studying for board research or something of that sort, it's a terrific resource to go through. I have to tell you, this piece on the gut microbiome that you wrote is nothing short of a masterpiece. If you read this cover to cover, it's actually going to give you, I think, a sense of the current state and future state of the field. I wanted to start by just sort of beginning with sort of the origin story for a lot of this, which is this association between the gut microbiome and immunotherapy response. This takes us back several years to this pivotal series of papers in Science. Maybe you could walk our audience through that. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for your kind words about the ASCO [Educational] Book. It was a team effort with a lot of key opinion leaders in the field, so I'm really glad to learn that you've liked it.  Moving backwards in terms of how we came to understand that the gut microbiome is essential to priming a response to cancer immunotherapy actually goes back to 2015 and seminal papers that looked at what happens when we take mice that are germ-free mice that have never been exposed to a microbiome. These are mice that are born by cesarean section and essentially live in a bubble. And when we give those mice tumors and treat them, in the first papers with anti-CTLA-4 treatment, we realized that these antibodies don't work at all. And that was the first observation that the presence of a gut microbiome was essential to mounting an anti-cancer immune response. When we supplemented those same mice with beneficial bacteria or feces from responder patients, we were able to restore the response to immunotherapy. And so those were really the first preclinical observations that made us understand the critical role of the microbiome in immunotherapy response. Moving a little bit in the future, we examined the fecal microbiome composition using shotgun metagenomic sequencing in different cohorts of patients with solid tumors, namely lung cancers, kidney cancers, and also skin tumors like melanoma, and found that patients who responded to immunotherapy had a distinct microbiome that was characterized by beneficial bacteria compared to patients who experienced resistance to immunotherapy that had a dysbiotic or diseased microbiome. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So, you know, it's interesting, these techniques that we're using to sequence the gut, they're a little bit different. So I wonder if you can give the audience a quick primer on these techniques that you're so well versed in, shotgun metagenomic sequencing, 16S rRNA sequencing. If you had to describe this in 30 seconds, which is a tall task, how would you do that? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: That's a tall task. Much of what we know about the microbiome initially came from a technique called 16S rRNA sequencing. This is a technique that amplifies the 16S region and basically tells you at the genus level what's going on at the level of bacterial composition. This technique is fast, relatively cheap, and can be performed on a laptop computer, which is excellent. The problem is that it's prone to a lot of technical variations. Different primers might give you different results, and you're really limited at the genus resolution. You can't get a good resolution in terms of species, and we're learning that different species from the same genus might have different physiological properties, and the same thing goes at the strain level. So when we really zone in and look at inter-species changes, we're seeing that these actually have specific functions in the host. So that brings us to metagenomic sequencing, which is a whole genome sequencing, next-generation sequencing based method that looks at the whole composition and gives you information not only on bacteria, but you might also get fungal and viral properties. You can zoom in on the strain level. You can also get functional output, so we can examine what the metabolic properties of specific species or strains might look like. The negative aspects of shotgun metagenomic sequencing is that it takes a lot of computational power in order to analyze the results and it might take a little bit longer. And certainly, within the clinical setting, not something that's feasible yet.  And that brings us to more novel point-of-care biomarker tools that we've collaborated in developing along with Dr. Laurence Zitvogel and Dr. Lisa Derosa at Gustave Roussy, that learning from the shotgun metagenomics results designed a probe using quantitative PCR which looks for this specific bacteria we know to be important and developed a ratio of harmful bacteria to beneficial bacteria. This is called the TOPOSCORE, and it actually is able to predict quite nicely the response to immunotherapy using a stool sample and a really good turnaround time of almost 72 hours. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That was a perfect overview and a lot of information in a short amount of time. It also makes you take out your high school biology textbooks, doesn't it, to understand that the bacterial ribosome, right, is a different size and shape, and that's what we're sequencing here. But these techniques I think are incredibly important, and I'm glad you actually discussed this, this RT-PCR based strategy of calculating the TOPOSCORE. It lends itself to this phenomenon of dysbiosis, and I think for our audience, that's going to be an important term to understand as time goes on. There's the normal healthy gut and then there's this phenomenon of dysbiosis, which is, I guess, simply put, an unhealthy gut. But tell us about, you know, how often you see dysbiosis in a cancer patient, maybe versus a normal healthy adult. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: So, I think we can split up your question into two parts. One is we know from cohort studies and population level-based studies that the microbiome of patients with cancer is distinct from healthy patients or healthy people. And we know that because of the global composition. We also think that there are diversity metrics that lend themselves to being described as dysbiotic. But we do know that the microbiome of people with cancer is distinct from healthy volunteers. That's the first point.  In terms of how frequently dysbiosis occurs in patients with cancer, it's not very well defined. We know that even among healthy people, there is a certain level of dysbiosis. Laurence in her talk mentioned that to be about 10% to 20%. And the other fascinating component is that when we're thinking about dysbiosis and the cancer associated microbiome, in terms of the species that are enriched, it's quite striking that a lot of these dysbiotic or negative bacteria are also found to be enriched in patients with metabolic disease, like cardiovascular disease, for example. And so it's unclear if dysbiosis is the cause or consequence, but there definitely seems to be a general pattern of disease when looking at the microbiome compared to healthy people. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's interesting. So, I'll tell you, my second favorite portion of your article, and I'll tell you my favorite portion as well in the context of this podcast, but my second favorite part was the section around antibiotic stewardship. You know, the utilization of antibiotics in a very pragmatic fashion amongst our patients. Can you describe why that's so critical in the context of the microbiome? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Antibiotics can disrupt the gut microbiome composition. We know this from mouse studies, but also cohort studies of patients that are exposed to antibiotics. And most importantly, we know that patients who are exposed to antibiotics, either before or during the immunotherapy period, have significantly worse progression-free survival and overall survival to immunotherapy. And this is true for immunotherapy in the monotherapy setting, but also when combined with chemotherapy. What's striking is that when we look at patients who are just treated with chemotherapy, we don't see the negative outcome of antibiotics on outcome and progression-free survival and overall survival, suggesting that the negative impact of antibiotics on outcomes is really specific to immunotherapy backbones. The other important point is that this negative signal is maintained even after adjusting for standard prognostic variables in the specific malignancies that we're looking at. And then most importantly, at the mechanistic level, we were able to actually pinpoint the mechanism behind this antibiotic related dysbiosis. And we see this with a bloom of negative bacteria which induces a loss of MAd-CAM, which is an endothelial gut checkpoint immune marker, and that causes an efflux of immunosuppressive T cells, which are usually in the gut, to go straight into the tumor where they make the tumor unamenable to an immunotherapy response. And so now we finally have the mechanism as to why antibiotics are harmful and why we need to practice antibiotic stewardship. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And just to be clear for the audience, I mean, if a patient needs antibiotics, they need antibiotics. But perhaps it just suggests that, and we have, I suppose, this predilection as oncologists, just for the minor cold or cough or what have you, we maybe should be a little bit more cognizant of whether or not antibiotics are truly necessary. Is that fair? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. So what we're advocating for is antibiotic stewardship, and this is the clear recommendation that we can make. So that means confirming a bacterial infection. If it's there and antibiotics are indicated, to choose the most narrow spectrum for the shortest course and constantly re-evaluate the indication of antibiotics. And of course, we need to work with our colleagues in infectious diseases who've done incredible work in antibiotic stewardship. And all along this process we also need to be mindful of other medications and polypharmacy, such as proton pump inhibitors or narcotics, for example, we think that these other medications which are frequently prescribed in our cancer population can also potentially have negative impacts on the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I think that's a terrific summary and big guidance for the audience.  I promised you I'd tell you my favorite part of your article, and this is this huge table. I think the table is two and a half pages long, if I remember correctly, but it's an awesome table, and I highly recommend our audience to check this out. It lists literally every therapeutic trial for the microbiome under the sun. And so it begins with the approach of fecal microbiota transplant, which I'm going to ask you to tell us about in a second, but it also hinges on a lot of really cool sort of novel therapies, live bacterial products, mixes of different microbial products. Maybe take us through this whole approach of FMT (fecal microbiota transplantation). I actually wasn't aware of the dozens of trials that you listed there in this space. It seems like it's a very active area of research. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Definitely. So, as you alluded to, FMT or fecal microbiota transplantation is the most well studied and direct way to modify the patient's microbiome. This technique aims to replace the patient's dysbiotic microbiome with that of a healthy microbiome, either from a healthy donor volunteer that's been heavily screened, or from a patient who experienced response to immunotherapy. And, as three landmark studies so far that have been published demonstrated the potential of FMT to reduce primary resistance or secondary resistance to immunotherapy, and this has been in melanoma.  We also recently reported on the results of our FMT-LUMINate trial, which looked at patients with lung cancer and melanoma. Once again, FMT, when combined with immunotherapy was safe and led to a higher proportion of responses than we would normally expect.  We're now also looking at randomized trials that have come out. So the first being the TACITO trial in kidney cancer, which compared FMT plus pembrolizumab and axitinib to placebo in patients with RCC, and again, FMT was safe and feasible and also led to an increased progression-free survival at one year, meeting the study's primary endpoint.  And so, so far, there's a wealth of data really showing the promise of FMT when combined with immunotherapy, and we're now in the process of conducting larger randomized trials, including in melanoma with the CCTG (Canada Cancer Trials Group) in our ME17 or Canbiome2 trial, where we're going to be enrolling 128 patients with metastatic melanoma to receive FMT and standard of care immunotherapy compared to standard of care immunotherapy alone. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: You're very humble, so I've got to highlight for our audience. This was a mega grant that Arielle received to fund really the largest prospective exploration of FMT that will exist to date. So I'm really excited about that. I wish this was something we could participate in stateside.  Before we jump into the other approach, which is live bacterial products and mixes thereof, where do you see FMT going? I think that one of the perceived challenges with FMT is that it's hard to implement, right? You need to have a really robust framework when it comes to gastroenterology, the preparation's challenging. Is there a way to envision FMT use being more generalized? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Those are great questions. So we're lucky in Canada to work with pioneers in FMT, Michael Silverman, Saman Maleki, and John Lenehan in London, Ontario, who had this really robust FMT healthy donor screening program, which literally screens for every pathogen under the sun, and we haven't had any problems with feasibility or implementing FMT in Canada. But I think that once we're going to hopefully start doing larger scale, randomized phase three studies, that we might run into problems with scalability. And I think also with regards to reproducibility, and that's the feedback that we're getting from some regulatory authorities, especially at the level of the FDA, where there are some concerns around inter- and intra-donor variability because, of course, we can't guarantee that every fecal sample is going to be the same. So that has really pushed the field to think about other strategies, such as live biotherapeutic products which take modified FMT or bacteria from stools from either healthy donors or from responder patients and basically turn them into drugs that are regulated as drugs and can then be studied in the context of investigational new drugs or products. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I like this and, you know, I do think that there's a future for it. We just have to kind of put our heads together and figure out how to get over all of these logistical hurdles, but, you know, I agree, I think your group and others have demonstrated, especially with this trial that you're fanning out all throughout Canada, that it can potentially be done.  This is a topic that could probably go on for another couple of hours, right, especially based on the size of the table that you put together in this brilliant article, but tell us about live bacterial products or LBPs, as we call them these days. What's the current status, what's the future there? And maybe I'll give you less than two minutes here, although again, I realize it's a two-hour topic. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: You're probably better suited to speak about that because you've been one of the pioneers in terms of this. So we can think about LBPs in terms of single strain organisms, like CBM588 for an example, which your group did some amazing work in showing that, in a randomized setting, that this led to better responses than we would expect compared to just work with controls. We also know that LBPs can have multiple strains, up to 30. We're collaborating with a company called Cannabis Bioscience that is actually working on much larger communities of consortia. And so we're really excited about the direction that that's taking in terms of taking these LBPs and developing them from the drug perspective. In addition to LBPs, we know that there are other ways that we can change the microbiome, notably prebiotics, which are compounds which can have a beneficial impact on the microbiome. And one of these is camu camu, which I know your group is leading a clinical trial looking at camu camu and kidney cancer, and we're excited to see how that compares to FMT or LBPs, because that might be a potentially scalable alternative. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's awesome. What a terrific overview, and that was less than two minutes. I don't know how you did it. That's terrific.  Arielle, this has been such an insightful conversation. I just want to thank you for, again, a terrific article in the ASCO Educational Book. I highly recommend all of our listeners to go there and check it out, and also for sharing all these terrific insights on the podcast today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thank you so much, Monty. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And thanks to our listeners, too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal Dr. Arielle Elkrief Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal:   Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Honoraria: AstraZenica, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb Research Funding (Inst.): Kanvas Bioscience, AstraZeneca, Merck Other Relationship: Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians of Canada, Cedar's Cancer Center (Henry R. Shibata Fellowship), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Phil and Penny Knight have pledged $2 billion to Oregon Health & Science University for cancer research. The Knight Cancer Institute will become self-governed within OHSU and will have its own board of directors. In December, renowned cancer researcher Brian Druker announced his resignation as the institute’s CEO but said last week he will return as the inaugural president of the organization. He joins us with details about what this means for cancer care in Oregon.

Can one day change your city for the better?  Listen in as host Shay Roush sits down with Shelly Mayer, Care Ministry Director at The Crossing, to explain how one annual event called For Columbia unites 55 churches and over 2,100 volunteers to serve the people of Columbia, Missouri, in a single day. This initiative includes diverse projects from landscaping for elderly homeowners and painting in residential or community centers, to delivering food to those with dwindling resources and rehabbing homes for the most vulnerable in our city. Putting differences aside, For Columbia fosters unity among local churches and is a unique opportunity to make a powerful impact with many hands tackling huge tasks to meet the felt needs in our community.  Shay and Shelly also discuss how many of the care ministries at The Crossing have evolved over the years to meet people where they are hurting, whether it's in Divorce Care, Grief Share, One-to-One Care, Single Moms, Cancer Care and more. Many practical ministries now exist to offer simple yet profound ways to show care, proving small acts of service can be multiplied to impact the church family and the community beyond.  Loving your neighbor as yourself may not be an easy task, but when you link arms with others on the same mission, you can change a city one person, and one day, at a time.  Do you want to get involved on a Care Serving Team at The Crossing? click here.  Are you ready to get plugged into a support group within our Care Ministry? click here. Connect with us & Subscribe to our weekly newsletter! Website: withyouintheweeds.com Instagram: @withyouintheweeds Facebook: @withyouintheweeds            X: withyou_weeds If you love listening to WYITW, would you please leave us a 5 star rating and a review? Your feedback helps us reach more people!

Access the FREE Water Fasting Masterclass Now: https://www.katiedeming.com/the-healing-power-of-fasting/What if the very words your doctor uses could help or harm your healing journey?Dr. Katie Deming joins fellow physician Dr. Nasha Winters, host of the Metabolic Matters podcast to share a story that may forever change how you view cancer care. Her journey from conventional oncology to holistic healing uncovers why so many people aren't truly getting well, even when their treatments “work.” If you've ever felt dismissed, rushed, or unseen by the medical system, this conversation will resonate deeply.Key Takeaways:The word that divides patients and doctorsHow trauma shows up in the bodyWhen medicine ignores your intuitionHow a 17-day fast changed everythingDr. Deming reveals fascinating research on how words like “battle” and “survivor” can trigger stress responses that disrupt healing. She offers practical tools for navigating illness, how to trust your inner wisdom when medical advice doesn't feel right, and why addressing emotional trauma is just as important as treating physical symptoms.What makes her perspective so unique is that she doesn't reject medicine, she expands it. With one foot in science and the other in ancient healing traditions, Dr. Deming shares how modalities like water fasting and energy work can support the body's natural ability to heal.Listen in on this deeply personal conversation between two physicians who've witnessed healing that textbooks can't explain. Follow Metabolic Matters: https://drnasha.com/metabolic-mattersAccess the FREE Water Fasting Masterclass Now: https://www.katiedeming.com/the-healing-power-of-fasting/ Transform your hydration with the system that delivers filtered, mineralized, and structured water all in one. Spring Aqua System: https://springaqua.info/drkatieMORE FROM KATIE DEMING M.D. Save your spot for the next LIVE fasting call here: https://www.katiedeming.com/the-healing-power-of-fasting/ Work with Dr. Katie: www.katiedeming.comEmail: INFO@KATIEDEMING.COM 6 Pillars of Healing Cancer Workshop Series - Click Here to Enroll Follow Dr. Katie Deming on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/katiedemingmd/ Please Support the Show Share this episode with a friend or family member Give a Review on Spotify Give a Review on Apple Podcast DISCLAIMER: The Born to Heal Podcast is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for seeking professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Individual medical histories are unique; therefore, this episode should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease without consulting your healthcare provider.

"I always kept my lab at NCI, so I was always doing my research. But I was asked by him to lead the oncology critical path at the FDA, and I did that. I was doing that while also helping the King of Jordan develop the biotechnology strategy of Jordan and what it would take to move it forward." In this episode of The Biotech Startups Podcast, Samir Khleif shares pivotal moments from his career at the crossroads of government, research, and entrepreneurship—reflecting on being chosen by FDA commissioner Andy von Eschenbach to lead oncology reform at the FDA, while simultaneously running his NCI research lab and advising Jordan's national biotech strategy. He highlights the power of academic freedom, assembling a task force of over 120 top experts to advance regulatory change, and the leadership lessons gained building world-class teams—all culminating in a breakthrough that sparked the founding of Georgiamune.

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Kamaria Lee discuss the prevalence of financial toxicity in cancer care in the United States and globally, focusing on breast cancer, and highlight key interventions to mitigate financial hardship. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm the director of the Women's Cancer Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Rising healthcare costs are causing financial distress for patients and their families across the globe. Patients with cancer report financial toxicity as a major impediment to their quality of life, and its association with worse outcomes is well documented. Today, we'll be discussing how patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Kamaria Lee, a fourth-year radiation oncology resident and health equity researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center and a co-author of the recently published article titled, "Financial Toxicity in Breast Cancer: Why Does It Matter, Who Is at Risk, and How Do We Intervene?" Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Lee, it's great to have you on this podcast. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Hey, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here today. I also would like to recognize my co-authors, Dr. Alexandru Eniu, Dr. Christopher Booth, Molly MacDonald, and Dr. Fumiko Chino, who worked on this book chapter with me and did a fantastic presentation on the topic at ASCO this past year. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thanks very much. We'll now just jump into the questions. We know that rising medical costs contribute to a growing financial burden on patients, which has [GC1]  [JG2]  been documented to contribute to lower quality-of-life, compromised clinical care, and worse health outcomes. How are patients with breast cancer uniquely at risk for financial toxicity? How does the problem vary within the breast cancer population in terms of age, racial and ethnic groups, and those who have metastatic disease? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Breast cancer patients are uniquely at risk of financial toxicity for several reasons. Three key reasons are that breast cancer often requires multimodal treatment. So this means patients are receiving surgery, many receive systemic therapies, including hormonal therapies, as well as radiation. And so this requires care coordination and multiple visits that can increase costs. Secondly, another key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that there's often a long survivorship period that includes long-term care for toxicities and continued follow-ups, and patients might also be involved in activities regarding advocacy, but also physical therapy and mental health appointments during their prolonged survivorship, which can also add costs. And a third key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that the patient population is primarily women. And we know that women are more likely to have increased caregiver responsibilities while also potentially working and managing their treatments, and so this is another contributor. Within the breast cancer population, those who are younger and those who are from marginalized racial/ethnic groups and those with metastatic disease have been shown to be at an increased risk. Those who are younger may be more likely to need childcare during treatment if they have kids, or they're more likely to be employed and not yet retired, which can be disrupted while receiving treatment. And those who are racial/ethnic minorities may have increased financial toxicity due to reasons that exist even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. And some of these reasons have been shown to be increased risk of job or income loss or transportation barriers during treatment. And lastly, for those with metastatic breast cancer, there can be ongoing financial distress due to the long-term care that is needed for treatment, and this can include parking, transportation, and medications while managing their metastatic disease. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is really important to understand these issues as you just outlined. There has been a lot of focus on financial toxicity research in recent years, and that has led to novel approaches in screening for financial hardship. Can you tell us about the new screening tools and interventions and how you can easily apply that to clinical practice, keeping in mind that people aren't at MD Anderson with a bunch of support and information on this but are in clinical practice and seeing many, many patients a day with lots of different cancers? Dr. Kamaria Lee: You're exactly right that there is incredible nuance needed in understanding how to best screen for financial hardship in different types of practices. There are multiple financial toxicity tools. The most commonly used tool is the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, also known as the COST tool. In its full form, it's an 11-item survey. There's also a summary question as well. And these questions look at objective and subjective financial burden, and it uses a five-point Likert scale. For example, one question on the full form is, "I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the cost of my treatment," and then patients are able to respond "not at all" to "very much" with a threshold score for financial toxicity risk. Of course, as you noted, one critique of having an 11-item survey is that there's limited time in patient encounters with their providers. And so recently, Thom et al validated an abbreviated two-question version of the COST tool. This validation was done in an urban comprehensive cancer center, and it was found to have a high predictive value to the full measure. We note which two questions are specifically pulled from the full measure within the book chapter. And this is one way that it can be easier for clinicians who are in a busier setting to still screen for financial toxicity with fewer questions. I also do recommend that clinicians who know their clinic's workflow the best, work with their team of nurses, financial navigators, and others to best integrate the tool into their workflow. For some, this may mean sending the two-item survey as a portal message so that patients can answer it before consults. Other times, it could mean having it on the tablet that can be done in the clinic waiting room. And so there are different ways that screening can be done, even in a busy setting, and acknowledging that different practices have different amounts of resources and time. Dr. Hope Rugo: And where would people access that easily? I recognize that that information is in your chapter, or your article that's on PubMed that will be linked to this podcast, but it is nice to just know where people could easily access that online. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, and so you should be able to Google ‘the COST measure', and then there is a website that also has the forms as well. So it's also beyond the book chapter, Googling ‘the COST measure', and then online they would be able to find access to the form. Dr. Hope Rugo: And how often would you do that screening? Dr. Kamaria Lee: So, I think it's definitely important that we are as proactive as possible. And so initially, I recommend that the screening happens at the time of diagnosis, and so if it's done through the portal, it can be sent before the initial consult, or again, however, is best in the workflow. So at the time of diagnosis and then at regular intervals, so throughout the treatment process, but then also into the follow-up period as well to best understand if there's still a financial burden even after the treatments have been completed. Dr. Hope Rugo: I wonder if in the metastatic setting, you could do it at the change of treatment, you know, a month after somebody's changed treatment, because people may not be as aware of the financial constraints when they first get prescribed a drug. It's more when you hear back from how much it's going to cost. And leading into that, I think it's, what do you do with this? So, you know, this cost conversation is really important. You're going to be talking to the patient about the cost considerations when you, for example, see that there are financial issues, you're prescribing treatments. How do we implement impactful structured cost conversations with our breast cancer patients, help identify financial issues, and intervene? How do we intervene? I mean, as physicians often we aren't really all that aware, or providers, of how to address the cost. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree fully that another key time when to screen for financial toxicity is at that transition between treatments to best understand where they're at based off of what they've received previously for care, and then to anticipate needs when changing regimens, such as like you said in the metastatic setting. As we're collecting this information, you're right, we screen, we get this information, and what do we do? I do agree that there is a lack of knowledge among us clinicians of how do we manage this information. What is insurance? How do we manage insurance and help patients with insurance concerns? How do we help them navigate out-of-pocket costs or even the indirect costs of transportation? Those are a lot of things that are not covered in-depth in traditional medical training. And so it can be overwhelming for a lot of clinicians, not only due to time limitations in clinic, but also just having those conversations within their visit. And so what I would say, a key thing to note, is that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So just as we're treating patients in a multidisciplinary way within oncology as we work with our medical oncology, surgical colleagues across the board, it's knowing that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So the team members include all of the different oncologists, but it also includes team members such as financial counselors and navigators and social workers and even understanding nonprofit partners who we have who have money that can be set aside to help reduce costs for certain different aspects of treatment. Another thing I will note is that most patients with breast cancer often say they do want to have these conversations still with their clinicians. So they do still see a clinician as someone that can weigh in on the costs of their treatment or can weigh in on this other aspect of their care, even if it's not the actual medication or the radiation. And so patients do desire to hear from their clinicians about this topic, and so I think another way to make it feel less overwhelming for clinicians like ourselves is to know that even small conversations are helpful and then being knowledgeable about within your institution or, like I said, outside of it with nonprofits, being aware of who can I refer this patient to for continued follow-up and for more detailed information and resources. Dr. Hope Rugo: Are those the successful interventions? It's really referring to financial navigators? How do people identify? You know, in an academic center, we often will sort of punt this to social workers or our nurse navigators. What about in the community? What's a successful intervention example of mitigating financial toxicity? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I agree completely that the context at which people are practicing is important to note. So as you alluded to, in some bigger systems, we do have financial navigators and this has been seen to be successful in providing applications and assisting with applications for things such as pharmaceutical assistance, insurance applications, discount opportunities.  Another successful intervention are financial toxicity tumor boards, which I acknowledge might not be able to exist everywhere. But where this is possible, multidisciplinary tumor boards that include both doctors and nurses and social workers and any other members of the care team have been able to effectively decrease patients' personal spending on care costs and decrease co-pays through having a dedicated time to discuss concerns as they arise or even proactively. Otherwise, I think in the community, there are other interventions in regards to understanding different aspects of government programs that might be available for patients that are not, you know, limited to an institution, but that are more nationally available, and then again, also having the nonprofit, you know, partnerships to see other resources that patients can have access to.  And then I would also say that the indirect costs are a significant burden for many patients. So by that, I mean even parking costs, transportation, childcare. And so even though those aren't interventions necessarily with someone who is a financial navigator, I would recommend that even if it's a community practice, they discuss ways that they can help offset those indirect costs with patients with parking or if there are ways to help offset transportation costs or at least educate patients on other centers that may be closer to them or they can still receive wonderful care, and then also making sure that patients are able to even have appointments scheduled in ways that are easier for them financially.  So even if someone's receiving care out in the community where there's not a financial navigator, as clinicians or our scheduling teams, sometimes there are options to make sure if a patient wants, visits are more so on one day than throughout the week or many hours apart that can really cause loss of income due to missed work. And so there are also kind of more nuanced interventions that can happen even without a financial navigation system in place. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that those are really good points and it is interesting when you think about financial toxicity. I mean, we worry a lot when patients can't take the drugs because they can't afford them, but there are obviously many other non-treatment, direct treatment-related issues that come up like the parking, childcare, tolls, you know, having a working car, all those kinds of things, and the unexpected things like school is out or something like that that really play a big role where they don't have alternatives. And I think that if we think about just drug costs, I think those are a big issue in the global setting. And your article did address financial toxicity in the global setting. International financial toxicity rates range from 25% of patients with breast cancer in high-income countries to nearly 80% in low- and middle-income countries or LMICs. You had cited a recent meta-analysis of the global burnout from cancer, and that article found that over half of patients faced catastrophic health expenditures. And of course, I travel internationally and have a lot of colleagues who are working in oncology in many countries, and it is really often kind of shocking from our perspective to see what people can get coverage for and how much they have to pay out-of-pocket and how much that changes, that causes a lot of disparity in access to healthcare options, even those that improve survival. Can you comment on the global impact of this problem? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I am glad that you brought this up for discussion as well. Financial toxicity is something that is a significant global issue. As you mentioned, as high as 80% of patients with breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries have had significant financial toxicity. And it's particularly notable that even when looking at breast cancer compared to other malignancies around the world, the burden appears to be worse. This has been seen even in countries with free universal healthcare. One example is Sri Lanka, where they saw high financial toxicity for their patients with breast cancer, even with this free universal healthcare. But there were also those travel costs and just additional out-of-hospital tests that were not covered. Also, literature in low- and middle-income countries shows that patients might also be borrowing money from their social networks, so from their family and their friends, to help cover their treatment costs, and in some cases, people are making daily food compromises to help offset the cost of their care. So there is a really large burden of financial toxicity generally for cancer globally, but also specifically in breast cancer, it warrants specific discussion. In the meta-analysis that you mentioned, they identified key risk factors of financial toxicity globally that included people who had a larger family size, a lower income, a lack of insurance, longer disease duration, so again, the accumulation of visits and costs and co-pay over time, and those who had multiple treatments. And so in the global setting, there is this significant burden, but then I will also note that there is a lack of literature in low-income countries on financial toxicity. So where we suspect that there is a higher burden and where we need to better understand how it's distributed and what interventions can be applied, especially culturally specific interventions for each country and community, there's less research on this topic. So there is definitely an increased need for research in financial toxicity, particularly in the global setting. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, and I think that goes on to how we hope that financial toxicity researchers will have approaches to large-scale multi-institutional interventions to improve financial toxicity. I think this is an enormous challenge, but one of the SWOG organizations has done some great work in this area, and a randomized trial addressing cancer-related financial hardship through the delivery of a proactive financial navigation intervention is one area that SWOG has focused on, which I think is really interesting. Of course, that's going to be US-based, which is how we might find our best paths starting. Do you think that's a good path forward, maybe that being able to provide something like that across institutions that are independent of being a cancer only academic center, or more general academic center, or a community practice? You know, is finding ways to help patients with breast cancer and their families understand and better manage financial aspects of cancer care on a national basis the next approach? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree that that is a good approach, and I think the proactive component is also key. We know that patients that are coming to us with any cancer, but including breast cancer, some of them have already experienced a financial burden or have recently had a job loss before even coming to us and having the added distress of our direct costs and our indirect costs. So I think being proactive when they come to us in regards to the additional burden that their cancer treatments may cause is key to try to get ahead of things as much as we can, knowing that even before they've seen us, there might be many financial concerns that they've been navigating.  I think at the national level, that allows us to try to understand things at what might be a higher level of evidence and make sure that we're able to address this for a diverse cohort of patients. I know that sometimes the enrollment can be challenging at the national level when looking at financial toxicity, as then we're involving many different types of financial navigation partners and programs, and so that can maybe make it more complex to understand the best approaches, but I think that it can be done and can really bring our understanding of important financial toxicity interventions to the next level. And then the benefit to families with the proactive component is just allowing them to feel more informed, which can help decrease anticipation, anxiety related to anticipation, and allow them to help plan things moving forward for themselves and for the whole family. Dr. Hope Rugo: Those are really good points and I wonder, I was just thinking as you were talking, that having some kind of a process where you could attach to the electronic health record, you could click on the financial toxicity survey questions that somebody filled out, and then there would be a drop-down menu for interventions or connecting you to people within your clinic or even more broadly that would be potential approaches to manage that toxicity issue so that it doesn't impact care, you know, that people aren't going to decide not to take their medication or not to come in or not to get their labs because of the cost or the transportation or the home care issues that often are a big problem, even parking, as you pointed out, at the cancer center. And actually, we had a philanthropic donor when I was at UCSF who donated a large sum of money for patient assistance, and it was interesting to then have these sequential meetings with all the stakeholders to try and decide how you would use that money. You need a big program, you need to have a way of assessing the things you can intervene with, which is really tough. In that general vein, you know, what are the governmental, institutional, and provider-level actions that are required to help clinicians do our best to do no financial harm, given the fact that we're prescribing really expensive drugs that require a lot of visits when caring for our patients with breast cancer in the curative and in the metastatic setting? Dr. Kamaria Lee: At the governmental level, there are patient assistant programs that do exist, and I think that those can continue and can become more robust. But I also think one element of those is oftentimes the programs that we have at the government level or even institutional levels might have a lot of paperwork or be harder for people with lower literacy levels to complete. And so I think the government can really try to make sure that the paperwork that is given, within reason, with all the information they need, but that the paperwork can be minimized and that there can be clear instructions, as well as increased health insurance options and, you know, medical debt forgiveness as more broad just overall interventions that are needed. I think additionally, institutions that have clinical trials can help ensure that enrollment can be at geographically diverse locations. Some trials do reimburse for travel costs, of course, but sometimes then patients need the reimbursement sooner than it comes. And so I think there's also those considerations of more so upfront funds for patients involved in clinical trials if they're going to have to travel far to be enrolled in that type of care or trying to, again, make clinical trials more available at diverse locations.  I would also say that it's important that those who design clinical trials use what is known as the “Common Sense Oncology” approach of making sure that they're designed in minimizing the use of outcomes that might have a smaller clinical benefit but may have a high financial toxicity. And that also goes to what providers can do, of understanding what's most important to a particular patient in front of them, what outcomes and what benefit, or you know, how many additional months of progression-free survival or things like that might be important to a particular patient and then also educating them and discussing what the associated financial burden is just so that they have the full picture as they make an informed decision. Dr. Hope Rugo: As much as we know. I mean, I think that that's one of the big challenges is that as we prescribe these expensive drugs and often require multiple visits, even, you know, really outside of the clinical trial setting, trying to balance the benefit versus the financial toxicity can be a huge challenge. And that's a big area, I think, that we still need help with, you know. As we have more drugs approved in the early-stage setting and treatments that could be expensive, oral medications, for example, in our Medicare population where the share of cost may be substantial upfront, you know, with an upfront cost, how do we balance the benefits versus the risk? And I think you make an important point that discussing this individually with patients after we found out what the cost is. I think warning patients about the potential for large out-of-pocket cost and asking them to contact us when they know is one way around this. You know, patients feeling like they're sort of out there with a prescription, a recommendation from their doctor, they're scared of their cancer, and they have this huge share of cost that we didn't know about. That's one challenge, and I don't know if there's any suggestions you have about how one should approach that communication with the patient. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I think part of it is truly looking at each patient as an individual and asking how much they want to know, right? So we all know that patients, some who want more information, some want less, and so I think one way to approach that is asking them about how much information do they want to know, what is most helpful to them. And then also, knowing that if you're in a well-resourced setting that does have the social workers and financial navigators, also making sure it's integrated in the multidisciplinary setting and so that they know who they can go to for what, but also know that as a clinician, you're always happy for them to bring up their concerns and that if it's something that you're not aware of, that you will connect them to the correct multidisciplinary team members who can accurately provide that additional information. Dr. Hope Rugo: Do you have any other additional comments that you'd like to mention that we haven't covered? I think the idea of a financial toxicity screen with two questions that could be implemented at change of therapy or just periodically throughout the course of treatment would be a really great thing, but I think we do need as much information on potential interventions as possible because that's really what challenges people. It's like finding out information that you can't handle. Your article provides a lot of strategies there, which I think are great and can be discussed on a practice and institutional level and applied. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yeah, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss such an important topic within oncology and specifically for our patients with breast cancer. I agree that it can feel overwhelming, both for clinicians and patients, to navigate this topic that many of us are not as familiar with, but I would just say that the area of financial toxicity is continuing to evolve as we gather more information on most successful interventions and that our patients can often inform us on, you know, what interventions are most needed as we see them. And so you can have your thinking about it as you see individual patients of, "This person mentioned this could be more useful to them." And so I think also learning from our patients in this space that can seem overwhelming and that maybe we weren't all trained on in medical school to best understand how to approach it and how to give our patients the best care, not just medically, but also financially. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you, Dr. Lee, for sharing your insights with us today. Our listeners will find a link, as I mentioned earlier, to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I think it's very useful, a useful resource, and not just for providers, but for clinic staff overall. I think this can be of great value and help open the discussion as well. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at Education Sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives into new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you. 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. Hope Rugo  @hope.rugo  Dr. Kamaria Lee @ lee_kamaria Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)       ASCO on Bluesky      ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:   Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma  Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer  Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx    Dr. Kamaria Lee: No relationships to disclose  

Anticipating and managing CDK4/6 inhibitor toxicities in HR+ HER2- breast cancer is essential to improving patient quality of life and optimizing clinical outcomes. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Diana Van Ostran, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacy specialist – breast clinic at Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, about strategies to monitor and manage treatment-related adverse events in patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancer receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors. She discusses the importance of individualized care and robust patient education around lifestyle and dietary techniques to improve tolerance of this treatment.   Diana Van Ostran, PharmD, BCOP  Clinical Pharmacy Specialist – Breast Clinic Miami Cancer Institute Baptist Health South Florida  Miami, FL   “Clinical pharmacists play a vital role in managing the patient's treatment. Because, as we know, if you're having excessive side effects, patients are going to be less likely to take their medications.”   Resources: ACCC Adverse Event Management for CDK Inhibitors in HR+ Breast Cancer ACCC CDK Inhibitors Management Miami Cancer Institute ACCC Spotlight on Miami Cancer Institute: The Role of a Breast Cancer Clinical Pharmacy Specialist for CDK4/6 Inhibitor Management

Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Kimmie Ng discuss the disturbing rise of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers, the unique challenges faced by younger patients, and key research that is shedding light on potential drivers of early diagnoses in colorectal cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hello, everyone. I'm Dr. Monty Pal, and I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. I'm really delighted to welcome you all to the ASCO Daily News Podcast as the show's new host. I'll be bringing you discussions with leaders in the oncology space on a variety of topics. I've been working hard with the ASCO team on picking the ideal topics to bring to you, and I'm really delighted to introduce my first guest, a dear friend, Dr. Kimmie Ng, to discuss this huge problem that we're seeing nowadays of early-onset GI cancers. Dr. Ng is the associate chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and she's an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. She serves as co-director of the Colon and Rectal Cancer Program. She's also the founding director of the Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber. I'm sure we'll talk a little bit about that today.  Just to note, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr Ng, it's so great to have you on the podcast. Thanks so much for joining us. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I'm going to refer to you as Kimmie, if you don't mind, for the rest of the podcast here. Please, we'll go by first names, if you don't mind.  Your research has really done so much to help improve our understanding of early-onset GI cancers. You've done a lot of work to increase awareness in this space. I don't think there's a couple of months that passes by when I don't see you on television on Good Morning America or other shows really broadcasting this really critical message. I think there's a certain sensitivity that we all have to this issue, right? I mean, because receiving a cancer diagnosis at any age is very challenging, but I'm sure that young patients who face a colorectal cancer diagnosis have some very unique challenges. Could you give us a sense of some of those? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I think the other reason why so many people are interested in this and feel touched by this is that it's not just gastrointestinal cancers that are increasing in young people, but actually a multitude of different cancers have been rising in young individuals. And while it is difficult at any age to receive a cancer diagnosis, we do all know that young people getting a diagnosis like this do face unique challenges. Studies have shown that over 80% have children under the age of 18 when they are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, for example, under the age of 50. And many experience career and education disruptions. They are in what we call the ‘sandwich generation,' where they're not only taking care of young families or starting to think about starting a young family, but they're also taking care of elderly parents. So it's just a very busy stage of life, and to then be facing a usually terminal cancer diagnosis, it is extremely challenging. The other factors that we've seen that seem to be unique or more prevalent in young patients is that there are higher levels of psychosocial distress, depression, and anxiety, and a majority of patients do need medical attention and treatment for those things, whether it's medication treatment or whether it's counseling or support from psychosocial oncologists. And so the other big issue is fertility. We know that so many of the treatments that these young patients receive do permanently and negatively impact fertility. And for a person who is young, who may still be trying to expand their family or again start a family, it is very important that these young patients do receive counseling about fertility preservation prior to starting treatment. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: You know, it's so interesting you bring this up, and I think about a patient who's in their 40s diagnosed with this disease. They're in the same demographic as I am, as you are. You know, I'm 44 years old, and you know, I'm thinking about my 11- and 12-year-old and my aging parents, right? I mean, the dilemmas that you highlighted are precisely what I'm facing in life, and it's so true, right? If I had to take my day-to-day and superimpose on that a colorectal cancer diagnosis, it would just be problematic in so many spheres, so many spheres. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Absolutely. And because we did think going into this, starting our Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, that these patients will need unique supports, we did conduct a qualitative study and held some focus groups of young-onset colorectal cancer patients as well as their caregivers. And we really identified four primary themes that I think reflect a lot of the experience of patients with cancer, no matter what type of cancer when they're diagnosed young. And the first is the need, feeling overwhelmed by the healthcare system, and the need for patient navigation. As we know, a lot of these patients are previously healthy before they're facing this very serious diagnosis. The second is the need for peer-to-peer support, where they really value connecting with other young patients going through a similar experience. The third, we talked about already, the need for kind of formal psychosocial support in the form of psychosocial oncologists or psychiatrists or social workers. And the last is an interest in research. They are really very invested in getting germline genetic testing as well as somatic genomic profiling to help guide their therapy. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's really encouraging to hear that they themselves are interested in participating in research. I mean, obviously, that's a great way to move the field forward. I view your area of work here as being such a vexing problem because no matter what way you slice it, young-onset colorectal cancer still remains a relatively small proportion of all diagnoses. So how do you go about studying this phenomenon? I mean, it must be challenging to really sort of investigate underlying causes when ostensibly this is still a small piece of the pie. Dr. Kimmie Ng: That is such a great question and is one of the challenges me and my research team think about every single day. As you mentioned, one of the major barriers is that although these cancers are rising in young people, the absolute number of patients being diagnosed is still relatively small, and if it's going to take large scale epidemiologic studies to really understand, for example, what the dietary and lifestyle risk factors are, you need a considerable number of patients in order to have enough power to reach definitive conclusions.  And so this is where it is so important to collaborate. Any single institution is not going to see enough young-onset patients with colorectal cancer to be able to do this work on their own. And so I have really been intent on establishing an international prospective cohort study of patients with young-onset colorectal cancer so that we can increase the numbers of patients we partner with to try to answer these questions, but also so that we can study this on a global scale, because unfortunately this is not something that's just plaguing the United States. It is actually happening in multiple countries around the world. So that is one barrier.  The second, I would say, is that we think it's early life exposures to whatever environmental factor it is that's causing the rise that is likely contributing the most. And so if you imagine how difficult it would be to start studying individuals from when they're children through adolescence, through adulthood, and then all the way until a cancer diagnosis is obtained, a study like that would take too long, would cost too much, and really wouldn't be feasible. So we need to think of alternative ways to really try and answer this question of what is driving this rise in young-onset colorectal cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Honestly, Kimmie, this seems like almost an unfair question in the context of what you just mentioned, the challenges in terms of ascertaining causality, right? I'll tell you, I cheated a little bit ahead of this podcast. Kimmie and I had dinner together in Los Angeles a couple months ago. She came out to deliver a Presidential Lectureship at City of Hope. We were delighted to have her. And we did have a couple of thoughts exchanged over potential drivers of these early diagnoses, leaning on perhaps one of the things that you and I are both interested in, the microbiome. But amongst all these things, vitamin D, microbiome, etc., and I won't hold you to this, do you have at least a general sense of what might be contributing to this early-onset phenomenon? Dr. Kimmie Ng: Yeah, as we talked about during my visit there to City of Hope, we do hypothesize that it is a complex interaction between our exposome, which is everything we are exposed to in our environment, which does include diet and lifestyle factors, interacting with host immunity and antitumor immunity, and as well as the microbiome and shaping the composition and diversity of the gut microbiome that are likely interacting to increase susceptibility to colorectal cancer at a younger age. And I will say one of the biggest discoveries, if you will, about what might be driving young-onset colorectal cancer was published a few months ago in Nature. And that paper identified a specific mutational signature caused by the genotoxin colibactin, which is often produced by an organism called pks+ E. coli, as being much more prevalent in younger patients with colorectal cancer than older patients. And so while it doesn't explain necessarily all of young-onset colorectal cancer and why it's rising, it does give us a clue that the microbiome is likely very important in perhaps why this is rising in young people. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: After you mentioned it, I went back and dove deep into that paper. I was fascinated, fascinated by the content there. And this is just a massive exploration across thousands of patients worldwide. So, I mean, if there is a way to get at least some hint of what's driving this phenomenon, I suppose that's it. So thank you for pointing me in the direction of that manuscript. Now that we've addressed the issue of diagnosis, if we could just, you know, verge on the topic of treatment, right? And this is something that I struggle with. When I have my young patients with kidney cancer, I don't know necessarily that my treatment paradigm changes a whole heck of a lot. I guess what I will say is I might be a little bit more aggressive about concepts like definitive management with surgery. I suppose perhaps their treatment tolerance is a little bit higher. But tell us about the setting of young-onset colorectal cancer. Is the philosophy any different in terms of the actual sort of management of these patients? Dr. Kimmie Ng: That's a great question, and actually I was honored to participate in the first international consensus guidelines group to try to come up with uniform recommendations for how to treat young patients with colorectal cancer. And you know, the overall consensus is just as you said, the medical care of these young patients right now is really not that much different than that of an older patient with colorectal cancer. There are a couple of distinctions. One is that all young patients should get germline genetic testing, given that there is a higher prevalence of pathogenic germline variants when you are diagnosed at a young age. And the second is what we've already talked about, which is that all young patients should be referred for counseling about fertility preservation prior to starting treatment. But otherwise, the chemotherapy regimens recommended, you know, surgery, radiation, all of that seems very similar to older patients. I will say that because most of our young patients with colorectal cancer are diagnosed with left-sided cancers, including rectal cancers, where some of the treatment may be morbid and result in lifelong complications, we do consider de-escalation of therapy and try to consider the long-term implications when it's safe to do so and won't compromise outcomes. The other concerning thing is that younger patients don't necessarily have a better prognosis than older patients. And multiple studies have shown this, that even though we both often treat younger patients more aggressively – they more often receive multi-agent chemotherapy, and more often undergo surgery and radiation – their survival is not necessarily correspondingly better than an older patient with colorectal cancer. So that suggests to us that maybe these cancers are indeed biologically different and perhaps more aggressive or perhaps less responsive to treatment. And so that is some of the focus of our research too, to understand what is actually different about these cancers and how they respond to treatment. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: It's such a paradox, isn't it, right? Because you just brought this to my mind. I guess on the one hand, our younger patients may be able to tolerate perhaps a greater amount of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, etc. But you're absolutely right. I mean, they do sort of have these lingering issues with side effects that may persist for much longer than the 80- or 90-year-old that we're treating in the clinic. I mean, these tend to be sort of lifelong consequences and sequelae that they're dealing with. So that really does evolve to be a challenge. You've kind of changed my mindset there a little bit. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Yeah, I do think survivorship issues and long-term complications of therapy do need to be considered, especially for a young person who we hope will live a very, very long time. And so part of the work that our Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center is doing, we are participating in a pilot navigation study where we navigate patients to survivorship earlier than we typically would, perhaps, for an older patient. And that's so we can get a head start on addressing some of those potential complications of therapy and hopefully mitigate them so that they don't become an issue long term. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Do you think there's a role for de-escalation studies formally in these young populations of patients? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I think de-escalation studies are important overall, and specifically for locally advanced rectal cancer, which again is one of the most common types of colorectal cancer diagnosed in our young patients, there are certain populations that may be able to forgo the radiation treatment to the pelvis, for example, and there's more and more patients who now may become candidates for non-operative management where they may not necessarily need to have their rectal cancer surgically removed. And elimination potentially of both of those modalities of treatment can really avoid some of the most serious and morbid complications that often occur with these treatments. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Really interesting. Now, this is not and will never be a political podcast, but you know, obviously we're dealing with the consequences of changes on funding and so forth that have evolved over time. And I think it's worth sort of speculating how the landscape of research may change on account of that. Could you comment perhaps a little bit on how some of the funding cuts that we've seen recently at the NIH might affect the body of work that you're so integrally involved in? Dr. Kimmie Ng: I am honestly very worried about the current funding environment. Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and women in the United States and globally, and when you combine men and women together, the second leading cause of cancer death. But proportionally, we receive much less funding for colorectal cancer compared to other cancer types. And my thoughts have always been that perhaps this is because there is this stigma around colorectal cancer and maybe some of the symptoms associated with colorectal cancer. And so on top of that, to have additional challenges in obtaining funding, I worry what it will do to the pace of progress for especially young patients with this disease. Also, because of some new stipulations that perhaps international collaborations are being discouraged, I also worry about that aspect of it because young-onset colorectal cancer and gastrointestinal cancers in general is a global phenomenon happening in multiple countries around the world. And if we are to understand what the environmental factors are affecting the different rates of rise in these different countries, we do so much need that international collaboration. So yes, I am worried, and I do hope that conversations like this will spark an awareness of the need for more funding and continued funding into this disease. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I will say that, and the audience can't see this because this is an audio program, but I'm wearing my Southwest Oncology shirt here, a SWOG, and it's one of the National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative groups. And you know, I was recently dismayed to find that, you know, funding got cut for international collaborations and enrollment in South America and Latin America. And this was traditionally actually a mainstay of our enrollment for many trials, including trials in rare cancers that present themselves in younger patients in the GU space. So, I completely agree with you. We've got to do something to address this funding issue to make sure that this body of work, both yours and mine, continues, without a doubt. Kimmie, this has been a delightful conversation. I really want to thank you for, you know, leading the charge in the young-onset colorectal cancer space, and you've done so much tremendous work here. Dr. Kimmie Ng: Thank you for having me. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And again, thank you for joining us today. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal @montypal Dr. Kimmie Ng @KimmieNgMD Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Kimmie Ng: Honoraria: Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline Consulting or Advisory Role: CytomX Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Abbvie, Bayer, Pfizer, Agenus, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Etiome, AstraZeneca Research Funding (Inst.): Pharmavite, Janssen Other Relationship: JAMA

Genetic testing and counseling are crucial components of precision medicine in cancer care, enabling clinicians to deliver the right care, to the right patient, at the right time. i3 Health's educational activity, Pathways to Precision: Integrating Genetic Counseling and Testing Into Cancer Care, provides a comprehensive foundation for incorporating these tools into practice. In this follow-up interview to the activity, co-chairs Dr. Filipa Lynce, Director of the Inflammatory Breast Cancer at Harvard Medical School, and Catherine Skefos, Certified Genetic Counselor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, share advances that have occurred in the field since the activity was recorded, including clinical trial updates and novel insights for clinicians. Click here to complete the free CME/NCPD/CE activity: bit.ly/3HqXjpX

Wellness Rising from the Wellness House of Annapolis welcomes Palliative Care Physician and Author Dr. Delia Chiaramonte, who writes about why some people with cancer and their families cope better with the rigors of the disease than others.

Guest: Brian Slomovitz, MD Our treatment approach for patients with endometrial cancer is evolving, with antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and biomarker-driven therapies showing promise. Dr. Brian Slomovitz highlights future directions that could redefine treatment pathways for patients with advanced or recurrent disease. Dr. Slomovitz is the Director of Gynecologic Oncology and Co-Chair of the Cancer Research Committee at Mount Sinai Medical Center as well as a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Florida International University in Miami.

How do you effectively treat your bladder cancer population with an insufficient supply of BCG? Dr. Amy Luckenbaugh, a urologic oncologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, joins host Dr. Ruchika Talwar to highlight challenges and solutions to managing bladder cancer amidst ongoing BCG shortages. --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from UroGen Pharma. --- SYNPOSIS Dr. Luckenbaugh and Dr. Talwar delve into the history and significance of BCG in bladder cancer treatment, exploring the reasons behind the shortages and discussing various coping strategies, including split dosing and alternative intravesical therapies like gemcitabine, docetaxel, and the new mitomycin hydrogel. The conversation also covers emerging treatments for high-risk patients, the role of radical cystectomy, and the importance of standardization and innovation in dealing with medication shortages. Dr. Luckenbaugh highlights the importance of patient quality of life, cost considerations, and the need for resilient pharmaceutical supply chains. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction01:56 - History and Importance of BCG in Bladder Cancer03:21 - Challenges and Shortages of BCG06:36 - Managing BCG Shortages in Clinical Practice12:33 - New Alternatives and Treatments for Bladder Cancer23:28 - The Role of Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer Treatment26:12 - Future Directions and Final Thoughts --- RESOURCES BCG Shortage AUA Recommendations:https://www.auanet.org/about-us/bcg-shortage-info Reduced-dose bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in an era of BCG shortage: real-world experience from a tertiary cancer centre: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11951178/ Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN):https://bcan.org/ Primary Chemoablation of Recurrent Low-Grade Intermediate-Risk Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer With UGN-102: A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial (ENVISION)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39446087/b FDA Approves Intravesical Mitomycin in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer:https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-mitomycin-intravesical-solution-recurrent-low-grade-intermediate-risk-non-muscle TAR-200 - SunRISe-3 Study:https://www.jnjmedicalconnect.com/products/tar-200/medical-content/tar-200-sunrise-3-study First results from TAR-200 - SunRISe-1 Study:https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/johnson-johnsons-tar-200-monotherapy-achieves-high-disease-free-survival-of-more-than-80-percent-in-bcg-unresponsive-high-risk-papillary-nmibcN-803 Plus BCG Treatment for BCG-Naïve or -Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Plain Language Review:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11524197/

In this episode of the Veterinary Cancer Pioneers Podcast, host Dr. Rachel Venable welcomes Dr. David Vail, renowned veterinary oncologist, professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and co-editor of the widely used Small Animal Clinical Oncology textbook. Dr. Vail reflects on the evolution of veterinary oncology over the past four decades, sharing pivotal developments such as the introduction of Tanovea and the wide-reaching impact of Cerenia. He explores the rise of comparative oncology and the increasingly bidirectional collaboration between veterinary and human medicine. The discussion highlights cutting-edge advances in immunotherapy and how combination therapies and naturally occurring canine cancer trials are shaping human clinical research. Tune in for a thoughtful look at the past, present, and future of oncology through the lens of a true pioneer.

Dr. Joseph McCollom and Dr. Ramy Sedhom discuss precision palliative care, a new strategy that aims to align palliative care delivery with patient and caregiver needs instead of diagnosis alone. TRANSCRIPT ADN Podcast Episode 8-22 Transcript: What Is Precision Palliative Care? Rethinking a Care Delivery Problem Dr. Joseph McCollom: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Joseph McCollom. I'm a GI medical oncologist and palliative oncologist at the Parkview Packnett Family Cancer Institute here in Fort Wayne, Indiana. So, the early benefits of palliative care for patients with cancer have been well documented, but there are challenges in terms of bandwidth to how do we provide this care, given the workforce shortages in the oncology field. So today, we'll be exploring a new opportunity known as precision palliative care, a strategy that aims to align care delivery with patient and caregiver needs and not just diagnosis alone. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Ramy Sedhom. He is the medical director of oncology and palliative care at Penn Medicine Princeton Health and a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Sedhom, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you so much for being here. Dr. Ramy Sedhom: Thank you, Joe. It's a pleasure to be here and lucky me to be in conversation with a colleague and friend. Yes, many of us have heard about the benefits of early palliative care. Trials have shown better quality of life, reduced symptoms, and potentially even improved survival. But as we know, the reality is translating that evidence into practice, which is really, really challenging. So Joe, both you and I know that not every patient can see palliative care, or I'd even argue should see palliative care, but that also means there are still many people with real needs who still fall through the cracks. That's why I'm really excited about today's topic, which we'll be discussing, which is precision palliative care. It's a growing shift in mindset from what's this patient's diagnosis or what's this patient's prognosis, to what matters most for this person in front of me right now and what are their individual care needs. I think, Joe, it's very exciting because the field is moving from a blanket approach to one tailored to meet people where they actually are. Dr. Joseph McCollom: Absolutely, Ramy. And I think from the early days when palliative care was kind of being introduced and trying to distinguish itself, I think one of the first models that came to clinicians' eyes was Jennifer Temel's paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2010. And her colleagues had really looked at early palliative care integration for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. And in that era – this is a pre-immunotherapy era, very early targeted therapy era – the overall prognosis for those patients are similar to the population I serve as a GI medical oncologist, pancreatic cancer today. Typically, median overall survival of a year or less. And so, a lot of her colleagues really wanted her to track overall survival alongside quality of life and depression scores as a result of that. And it really was a landmark publication because not only did it show an improvement of quality of life, but it actually showed an improvement of overall survival. And that was really, I think, revolutionary at the time. You know, a lot of folks had talked about if this was a drug, the FDA would approve it. We all in GI oncology laugh about erlotinib, which got an FDA approval for a 2-week overall survival advantage. And so, it really kind of set the stage for a lot of us in early career who had a passion in the integration of palliative care and oncology. And I think a lot of the subsequent ASCO, NCCN, COC, Commission on Cancer, guidelines followed through with that. But I think what we realized is now we're kind of sitting center stage, there's still a lot of resource issues that if we sent a referral to palliative care for every single patient diagnosed with even an advanced cancer, we would have a significant workforce shortage issue. And so, Ramy, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how do we help center in on who are the right patients that are going to have the greatest benefit from a palliative care specialist intervention? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: Thanks, Joe. Great question. So you mentioned Dr. Temel's landmark 2010 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And it is still a game changer in our field. The results of her work showed not only improved quality of life and mood, but I think very surprisingly at the time, a survival benefit for patients with lung cancer who had received early palliative care. That work, of course, has helped shape national guidelines, as you've shared, and it also helped define early, as within 8 weeks of diagnosis. But unfortunately, there remains a disconnect. So in clinical practice, using diagnosis or stage as the only referral trigger doesn't really match the needs that we see show up. And I think unfortunately, the other part is that approach creates a supply demand mismatch. We end up either referring more patients than palliative care teams can handle, or at the opposite extreme, we end up referring no one at all. So, I actually just wanted to quickly give, for example, two real world contrasts. So one center that I actually have friends who work in, tried as a very good quality improvement incentive, auto-refer all patients with stage IV pancreas cancer to palliative care teams. And while very well intentioned, they saw very quickly that in a two-month period, they had 30 new referrals. And on the palliative care side, there were only 15 available new patient slots. On the other hand, something that I often see in practice, is a situation where, for example, consider the case of a 90-year-old with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma. On paper, low-risk disease, but unfortunately, when you look under the microscope, this gentleman is isolated, has symptoms from his bulky adenopathy, and feels very overwhelmed by many competing illnesses. This is someone who, of course, may benefit from palliative care, but probably doesn't check the box. And I think this is where the model of precision palliative care steps in. It's not really about when was someone diagnosed or what is the prognosis or time-based criteria of their cancer, but it's really fundamentally asking the question of who needs help, what kind of help do they need, and how urgently do we need to provide this help? And I think precision palliative care really mirrors the logic and the philosophy of precision oncology. So just like we've made strides trying to match therapies to tumor biology, we also need to have the same attention and the same precision to match support to symptoms, to context of a patient situation and their caregiver, and also to their personal goals. So I think instead of a blanket referral, we really need to tailor care, the right support at the right moment for the right person to the right care teams. And I think to be more precise, there's really four core elements to allow us to do this well. So first, we really need to implement systematic screening. Let's use what we already have. Many of our centers have patient reported outcomes. The Commission on Cancer motivates us to use distress screening tools. And the EHR is there, but we do very little to flag and to surface unmet care needs. We have seen amazing work from people like Dr. Ethan Bash, who is the pioneer on patient-reported outcomes, and Dr. Ravi Parikh, who used to be my colleague at Penn, now at Emory, who show that you could use structured data and machine learning to identify some of these patient needs in real time. The second piece is after a systematic screening, we really need to build very clear referral pathways. One very good example is what the supportive care team at MD Anderson has done, of course, led by Dr. Eduardo Brera and Dr. David Huey, where they have, for example, designed condition-specific triggers. Urgent referrals, for example, to palliative care for severe symptoms, where they talk about it like a rapid response team. They will see them within 72 hours of the flag. But at the same time, if the unmet need is a caregiver distress, perhaps the social work referral is the first part of the palliative care intervention that needs to be placed. And I think this helps create both clarity and consistency but also it pays attention to that provider and availability demand mismatch. Third, I really think we need to triage smartly. As mentioned in the prior example, not every patient needs every team member of the palliative care team. Some benefit most from the behavioral health intervention. Others might benefit from chaplaincy or the clinician for symptom management. And I think aligning intensity with complexity helps us use our teams wisely. Unfortunately, the greatest barrier in all of our health care systems is time and time availability. And I think this is one strategic approach that I have not yet seen used very wisely. And fourth, I really think we need to embrace interdisciplinary care and change our healthcare systems to focus more on value. So this isn't about more consults or RVUs. I think it's really about leveraging our team strengths. Palliative care teams or supportive care teams usually are multidisciplinary in their core. They often have psychologists, social workers, sometimes they have nurse navigators. And I think all of these are really part of that engine of whole person care. But unfortunately, we still are not set up in care delivery systems that unfortunately to this day still model fee for service where the clinician or the physician visit is the only quote unquote real value add. Hopefully as our healthcare systems focus more on delivery and on value, this might help really embrace the structure to bring through the precision palliative care approach. Dr. Joseph McCollom: No, I love those points. You know, we talk frequently in the interdisciplinary team about how a social worker can spend 5 minutes doing something that I could not as a physician spend an hour doing. But does every patient need every member every time? And how do we work as a unified body to deliver that dose of palliative care, specialized palliative care to those right patients and match them? And I think that perfect analogy is in oncology as a medical oncologist, frequently I'm running complex next-generation sequencing paneling on patients' tumors, trying to find out is there a genetic weakness? Is there a susceptibility to a targeted therapy or an immunotherapy so that I can match and do that precision oncology, right patient to the right drug? Similarly, we need to continue to analyze and find these innovative ways like you've talked about, PROs, EHR flags, machine learning tools, to find those right patients and match them to the right palliative care interdisciplinary team members for them. I know we both get to work in oncology spaces and palliative and supportive spaces in our clinical practice. Share a little bit, if you could, Ramy, about what that looks like for your practice. How do you find those right patients? And how do you then intervene with that right palliative oncology dose? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: So Joe, when I first started in this space as a junior faculty, one thing became immediately clear. I think if we rely solely on physicians to identify the patients for palliative care, we're unfortunately going to be very limited by what we individually, personally observe. And I think that's what reflects the reality that many patients have real needs that go unseen. So over the past few years, I've really worked with a lot of my colleagues to really work the health system to change that. The greatest partnership I've personally had has been working with our informatics team to build a real time EHR integrated dashboard that I think helps us give us a broader view of patient needs. What we really think of as the population health perspective. Our dashboard at Penn, for example, pulls in structured data like geriatric assessment results, PHQ-4 screens, patient reported outcomes, whether or not they've been hospitalized, whether or not these hospitalizations are frequent and recurrent. And I think it's allowed us to really move from a reactive approach to one that's more proactive. So let me give you a practical example. So we have embedded in our cancer care team, psycho-oncologists. They share the same clinic space, they're right down the hall. And we actually use this shared dashboard to review weekly trends in distress scores and patient reported outcomes. And oftentimes, if they see a spike in anxiety or worsening symptoms like depression, they'll reach out to me and say, “Hey, I noticed Mrs. Smith reported feeling very anxious today. Do you think it'd be helpful if I joined you for her visit?” And I think that's how we could really use data and teamwork to offer and maximize the right support at the right time. Like many of our other healthcare systems, we also have real-time alerts for hospitalizations. And I think like Dr. Temel's most recent trial, which we'll discuss at some point, I'm sure, it's another key trigger for vulnerability. I think whenever someone's admitted or discharged, we try to coordinate with our palliative care colleagues to assess do they need follow-up and in what timeline. And we know that these are common triggers, progression of disease, hospitalizations, drops in quality-of-life. And it's actually surprisingly simple to implement once you set up the right care structures. And I think these systems don't just help patients, which is what I quickly learned. They also help us as clinicians too. Before we expanded our team, I often felt this weight, especially as someone dual trained in oncology and palliative medicine, as trying to be everything to everyone. I remember one patient in particular, a young woman with metastatic breast cancer who was scheduled for a routine pre-chemo visit with me. Unfortunately, on that day, she had a very dramatic change in function. We whisked her down to x-ray and it revealed a pretty large pathologic fracture in her femur. And suddenly what was scheduled as a 30-minute visit became a very complex conversation around prognosis, urgent need for surgery and many, many life changes. And when I looked at my Epic list, I had a full waiting room. And thankfully, because we have embedded palliative care in our team, I was able to bring in Dr. Collins, the physician who I work with closely, immediately. She spent the full hour with the patient while I was able to continue seeing other patients that morning. And I think that's what team-based care makes possible. It's not just more hands on deck but really optimizing the support the patient needs on each individual day. And I think last, we're also learning a lot from behavioral science. So many institutions like Penn, Stanford, Massachusetts General, they've experimented with a lot of really interesting prompts in the EHR. One of them, for example, is the concept of nodes or the concept of prompt questions. Like, do you think this patient would benefit from a supportive care referral? And I think these low-level nudges, in a sense, can actually really dramatically increase the uptake of palliative care because it makes what's relevant immediately salient and visible to the practicing physician. So I think the key, if I had to maybe finish off with a simple message: It's not flashy tech, it's not massive change against staffing, but it's having a local champion and it's working smarter. It's asking the questions of how can we do this better and setting up the systems to make them more sustainable. Dr. Joseph McCollom: I appreciate you talking about this because I think a lot of folks want to put the wheels on in some way and they don't know where to get started. And so I think some of the models that you've been able to create, being able to track patients, screen your population, find the right individuals, and then work within that team to be able to extend, I think when you have an embedded palliative care specialist in your clinic, they expand your practice as a medical oncologist. And so you can make that warm handoff. And that patient and that caregiver, when they view the experience, they don't view you as a medical oncologist, someone else as a palliative care specialist, they view that team approach. And they said, "The team, my cancer team took care of me." And I think we can really harness a lot of the innovative technological advancements in our EHR to be able to prompt us in this work. I know that Dr. Temel had kind of set the stage for early palliative care intervention, and you did mention her stepped palliative care trial. Where do you see some of the future opportunities as we continue to push the needle forward as oncologists and palliative care specialists? What do you see as being the next step? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: So for those who are not familiar with the stepped palliative care trial, again, work by Dr. Temel, I think it's really important to explain not just the study itself, but I think more importantly, what it's representing for the future of our field. First, I really want to acknowledge Dr. Temel, who is a trailblazer in palliative oncology. Her work has not only shaped how we think about timing and delivery, but really about the value of supportive care. And more importantly, I think for all the young trainees listening, she had shown that rigorous randomized trials in palliative care are possible and meaningful. And I think for me, one quick learning point is that you could be an oncologist and lead this impactful research. And she's inspired many and many of us. Now let's quickly transition to her study. So in this trial, the stepped palliative care trial, patients with advanced lung cancer were randomized into two groups. One group followed the model from her landmark 2010 New England Journal of Medicine paper, which was structured monthly palliative care visits, again, within eight weeks of diagnosis. The second group, which is in this study, the intervention or the stepped palliative care group, received a single early palliative care visit. Think of this as a meet and greet. And then care was actually stepped up. If one of three clinical triggers happened. One, a decline in patient reported quality of life as measured by PROs. Two, disease progression, or three, hospitalization. And the findings which were presented at ASCO 2024 were striking. Clinical outcomes, very similar between the two groups. And this included quality-of-life, end-of-life communication, and resource use. But I think the take-home point is that the number of palliative care visits in the stepped group was significantly lower. So in other words, same impact and fewer visits. This was a very elegant example of how we can model precision palliative care, right sizing patient care based on patient need. So where do we go from here? I think if we want this model to take root nationally, we really need to pull on three key levers: healthcare systems, healthcare payment, and healthcare culture. So from a system alignment, unfortunately, as mentioned too often, the solution to gaps in palliative care is we need more clinicians. And while yes, that's partly true, it's actually not the full picture. I think what we first need to do and what's more likely to be achieved is to develop systems that focus on building the infrastructure that maximizes the reach of our existing care teams. So this means investing in nurse navigation, real-time dashboards with patient-reported outcomes and EHR flags, and again, matching triage protocols where intensity matches complexity. And the goal, as mentioned, isn't to maximize consults, but to really maximize deployment of expertise based on need. The second piece is, of course, we need payment reform. So the stepped palliative care model only works when it allows continuous patient engagement. But unfortunately, current pay models don't reward or incentivize that. In fact, electronic PROs require a very high upfront financial investment and ongoing clinician time with little to no reimbursement. Imagine if we offered bundled payments or value-based incentives for teams that integrated PROs. Or imagine if we reimbursed palliative care based on impact or infrastructure instead of just fee-for-service volume. There is a lot of clear evidence that tele-palliative care is effective. In fact, it was the Plenary at ASCO 2024. Yet we're still battling these conversations around inconsistent reimbursement, and we're always waiting on whether or not telehealth waivers are gonna continue. So I think most importantly is we really need to recognize the broader scope of what palliative care offers, which is caregiver support, improving navigation, coordinating very complex transitions. To me, and what I've always prioritized as a champion at Penn, is that palliative care is not a nice to have, and neither are all of these infrastructures, but they're really essential to whole person care, and they need to be financially supported. And last, we really need a culture shift. We need to change from how palliative care is perceived, and it can't be something other. It can't be something outside of oncology, but it really needs to be embraced as this is part of cancer care itself. I often see hesitancy from many oncologists about introducing palliative care early. But it doesn't need to be a dramatic shift. I think small changes in language, how we introduce the palliative care team, and co-management models can really go a very long way in normalizing this part of patient care. And I'm particularly encouraged, Joe, by one particular innovation in this space, which is really the growth of many startups. And one startup, for example, is Thyme Care, where I've seen them working with many, many private practices across the country, alongside partnerships with payers to really build tech-enabled navigation that tries to basically maximize triage support with electronic PROs. And to me, I really think these models can help scale access without overwhelming current care teams. So precision palliative care, Joe, in summary, I think should be flexible, scalable, and really needs to align based on what patients need. Dr. Joseph McCollom: No, I really appreciate, Ramy, you talking about that it really takes a village to get oncology care in both a competent and a compassionate way. And we need buy-in champions at all levels: the system level, the administrative level, the policy level, the tech level. And we need to change culture. I kind of want to just get your final impressions and also make sure that we make our listeners aware of our article. We should be able to have this in the show notes here as well to find additional tools and resources, all the studies that were discussed in today's episode. But, Ramy, what are some of your kind of final takeaways and conclusions? Dr. Ramy Sedhom: Before we wrap up, I just want to make sure we highlight a very exciting opportunity for residents considering a future in oncology and palliative medicine. Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Jamie Von Roen, who truly championed this cause, ASCO and the ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine) have partnered to create the first truly integrated palliative care oncology fellowship. Trainees can now double board in just two years or triple board in three with palliative care, oncology, and hematology. And I think, Joe, as you and I both know, it's incredibly rewarding and meaningful to work at this intersection. To close our message, if there's one message I think listeners should carry with them, it's that palliative care is about helping people live as well as possible for as long as possible. And precision palliative care simply helps us do that better. We need to really develop systems that tailor support to individual need, value, and individual goals. Just like our colleagues in precision oncology mentioned, getting the right care to the right patient at the right time, and I would add in the right way. For those who want to learn more, I encourage you to read our full article in JCO, which is “Precision Palliative Care As a Pragmatic Solution for a Care Delivery Problem.” Joe, thank you so, so much for this thoughtful conversation and for your leadership in our field. And thank you to everyone for listening. Thank you all for being champions of this essential part of cancer care. If you haven't yet joined the ASCO Palliative Care Communities of Practice, membership is free, and we'd love to have you. Dr. Joseph McCollom: Thank you, Ramy, not only for sharing your insights today, but the pioneering work that you have done in our field. You are truly an inspiration to me in clinical practice, and it is an honor to call you both a colleague and friend.  And thank you for our listeners for joining us today. If you value the insights that you've heard on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks again. 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. Joseph McCollom @realbowtiedoc Dr. Ramy Sedhom @ramsedhom Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclaimer: Dr. Joseph McCollom: No relationships to disclose Dr. Ramy Sedhom: No relationships to disclose

In this powerful episode, host Lisa Malia sits down with Leslie Ferris Yerger, CEO and founder of My Density Matters, for an intimate and eye-opening conversation about breast density, advocacy, and early detection of breast cancer. If you've ever wondered why breast density is such a critical, yet often overlooked, part of the breast cancer conversation, this episode is a must-listen. Lisa and Leslie share their personal stories as breast cancer survivors and passionate advocates, revealing how their own experiences with missed diagnoses due to dense breast tissue ignited their mission to empower women with crucial information.   Leslie recounts her shocking diagnosis of stage four metastatic breast cancer just two months after an “all clear” mammogram and ultrasound—a story that highlights the urgent need for better awareness and screening options. Together, they discuss what women should know about lobular cancer, the limitations of traditional screenings, why advocacy is so important, and what steps everyone can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.   They also touch on barriers to care, tips on understanding your risk and screening reports, and the grassroots power of women supporting one another. Tune in for a moving and educational conversation that might just change how you think about breast health—and give you exactly the tools you need to advocate for yourself and others.   Timestamps: 00:00 Empowering Women on Breast Density 06:04 Unexpected X-Ray Discoveries 09:51 "Invisible Lobular Breast Cancer" 12:10 Breast Density Diagnosis Challenges 13:42 Forming Alliances for Breast Density Awareness  16:59 Bridging Gaps in Cancer Care 20:06 Dense Breasts: Ultrasound Limitations 23:06 Metastatic Cancer and Osteoporosis Medications 28:54 Family Support and Open Conversations 30:24 "Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Guide" Learn more about The Clear Pathways Program, Walk, Summit, App and Initiative powered by For The Love Of Cups and join our task force or advisory board: https://www.breastdensitysummit.org/ Leslie Ferris Yerger is a Tedx speaker, author of Probably Benign, and a women's advocate with a laser focused mission. Leslie was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer in November 2017 after an ‘all clear' mammogram and ultrasound, experiencing firsthand the failings of our current breast cancer screening standards. As Founder and CEO of the not-for-profit My Density Matters, Leslie is determined to empower women to find out their breast density, learn their options, and advocate for themselves to get the additional breast cancer screening they need, so that her story doesn't become their story. Leslie lives in Hawthorn Woods, IL with her husband John. She has 3 grown children: Evan, Julia, and Megan. My Density Matters: https://www.mydensitymatters.org LinkedIn: ttps://www.linkedin.com/company/my-density-matters Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mydensitymatters/   #breastcancer #breastdensity #mammogram #nonprofitleadership

An interview with Dr. Kathryn Schmitz, Interim Director of the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center.We have one randomized control trial showing, in one group of cancer patients, that there is a disease free survival benefit and a mortality benefit, and we know that there's a lot of nice to have outcomes, right? Nice, nice to have is quality of life, things that are not going to be something that the payer pays for. So there's our challenge, that's the truth, that's the truth of our situation. That's why it's going to be difficult. And I think the challenge provides us one of the first opportunities to be able to really lay all of that bare. And then the question becomes, how do we motivate hospitals, healthcare systems and payers to pay for something when there is no profit in it for them?Dr. Kathryn SchmitzEvidence for exercise as a standard of care in cancer treatmentImproving access to exercise oncology programsMaking the case for reimbursement for exercise oncology programsCMS coverage of supervised exercise training for people with cancerMoving Through Cancer areas of focusPrognosis for 2029https://www.movetolivemore.com/https://www.movetolivemore.com/bookhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/move-to-live-more@MovetoLiveMore

Dr. George Sledge, Executive VP and Chief Medical Officer of Caris Life Sciences, is using advanced molecular testing, including DNA, RNA, and protein analysis, to identify specific mutations and characteristics of a patient's tumor, allowing for more personalized and targeted treatment. The company is developing liquid biopsies to detect cancer early, identify minimal residual disease, and assess the potential for future cancer development. Caris has a database of over half a million patients whose tumors have undergone next-generation sequencing, allowing them to draw increasingly accurate conclusions. The future of precision oncology is expected to involve broader and earlier use of next-generation sequencing as the cost of the test continues to decrease significantly. George explains, "Caris Life Sciences is a molecular diagnostics company. Patients and their physicians send us tumor samples that can be obtained either from the primary tissue or from a distant recurrent site. When they come to us, we do several things. We look at DNA, what's called whole exome. We look at RNA, what's called whole transcriptome. We also frequently look at the protein level at immunohistochemistry, looking at slides that have been stained to look for particular molecular lesions that may be important from a treatment standpoint. Based on all of these, we're able to provide patients with information about which drugs represent the most appropriate treatment for their disease. This, of course, allows you to go to a drug that hopefully will be less toxic and more effective for your particular disease."  "When we look at the very specific mutations that manifest themselves at the level of either DNA or RNA, this requires fairly high technology, what's called next-generation sequencing, which allows us to pick up all these individual mutations that make up a particular patient's cancer. And every patient's cancer is different. Every patient's cancer involves different combinations of mutations that result in different responses to different treatments." #CarisLifeSciences #CancerResearch #PrecisionMedicine #RealWorldData #AccestoCare #HealthEquity #NextGenerationSequencing #NGS #LiquidBiopsy #ClinicoGenomic #Biomarkers #PanCancer carislifesciences.com Listen to the podcast here

Dr. George Sledge, Executive VP and Chief Medical Officer of Caris Life Sciences, is using advanced molecular testing, including DNA, RNA, and protein analysis, to identify specific mutations and characteristics of a patient's tumor, allowing for more personalized and targeted treatment. The company is developing liquid biopsies to detect cancer early, identify minimal residual disease, and assess the potential for future cancer development. Caris has a database of over half a million patients whose tumors have undergone next-generation sequencing, allowing them to draw increasingly accurate conclusions. The future of precision oncology is expected to involve broader and earlier use of next-generation sequencing as the cost of the test continues to decrease significantly. George explains, "Caris Life Sciences is a molecular diagnostics company. Patients and their physicians send us tumor samples that can be obtained either from the primary tissue or from a distant recurrent site. When they come to us, we do several things. We look at DNA, what's called whole exome. We look at RNA, what's called whole transcriptome. We also frequently look at the protein level at immunohistochemistry, looking at slides that have been stained to look for particular molecular lesions that may be important from a treatment standpoint. Based on all of these, we're able to provide patients with information about which drugs represent the most appropriate treatment for their disease. This, of course, allows you to go to a drug that hopefully will be less toxic and more effective for your particular disease."  "When we look at the very specific mutations that manifest themselves at the level of either DNA or RNA, this requires fairly high technology, what's called next-generation sequencing, which allows us to pick up all these individual mutations that make up a particular patient's cancer. And every patient's cancer is different. Every patient's cancer involves different combinations of mutations that result in different responses to different treatments." #CarisLifeSciences #CancerResearch #PrecisionMedicine #RealWorldData #AccestoCare #HealthEquity #NextGenerationSequencing #NGS #LiquidBiopsy #ClinicoGenomic #Biomarkers #PanCancer carislifesciences.com Download the transcript here

Role of Nutrition in Cancer Care and Recovery with guests Leah Ferrucci and Maura Harrigan July 27, 2025 Yale Cancer Center visit: https://www.yalecancercenter.org email: canceranswers@yale.edu call: 203-785-4095

Send us a textThe massage therapy landscape is shifting with regulatory changes and developments across states, including the Interstate Massage Compact passing in five states and ongoing advancements in state licensing requirements. Recent months have seen significant changes including Vermont's increased registration fees, Idaho's elimination of continuing education requirements, and new regulations addressing human trafficking in multiple states.• Interstate Massage Compact has passed in five states, with two more needed for implementation• Vermont raised application and renewal fees for massage registration• Idaho eliminated continuing education requirements while extending renewal cycles to two years• Oregon increased massage therapy fees by 35% for budget rebalancing• Utah now requires massage establishment registration starting October 1st• Arkansas added massage businesses to those required to display human trafficking hotline information• AMTA highlighted new research supporting massage for anxiety and depression• Upcoming events include AMTA National Convention and Black Massage Therapist Conference• International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork June edition features various research studiesABMP Scholarship SweepstakesHealwell Substack: More Than HandsSupport 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

This episode features Dr. Dax Kurbegov, Senior Vice President of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Network at HCA Healthcare, discussing how HCA is identifying high-risk patients and improving preventative cancer care across diverse care settings. He shares how data, technology partnerships, and streamlined workflows are helping patients like Christina detect cancer early and drive better outcomes.To learn more about The Ambry CARE Program®, HCA's digital health partner, click here.

Cancer, Character, and Calling: The Oncologist's Journey, hosted by Girindra Raval, MD, is a podcast highlighting how top oncologists have navigated the field over the course of their careers, the passion that drove them to enter the oncology space, and the ongoing work that will continue to transform cancer care. Each episode, Raval will welcome a top oncologist to dive into their background, highlight their career achievements, discuss key issues still being addressed in their fields, and explore their interests outside of the clinic and lab. In this episode, Raval welcomed Jorge Cortes, MD, who is director of the Georgia Cancer Center and a professor in the Department of Medicine at Augusta University. Raval is an associate professor in the Department of Medicine: Hematology and Oncology at the Medical College of Georgia of Augusta University. In their conversation, Raval and Cortes dived into Cortes' upbringing in Mexico, his family life, and his experience earning his medical degree from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Mexico City. They also spoke about Cortes' work during his 27-year tenure at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where he served as a professor of medicine, deputy department chair, chair of the acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myeloid leukemia sections, and deputy division chair, among other roles. Cortes detailed how that experience facilitated long-lasting collaborations and friendships. He then touched on his goals as director of the Georgia Cancer Center since taking over the role in 2019 and explained how it felt to leave MD Anderson after nearly 3 decades. Raval and Cortes also discussed how the hematologic oncology field has evolved during Cortes' career and how he expects the management of these malignancies as ongoing research continues. Cortes also highlighted his goals as director of the Georgia Cancer Center. 

For many cancer patients, treatment can be an isolating and overwhelming journey; marked by fear, fatigue, and the constant burden of travel. But what if chemotherapy could be delivered at home? In this episode, our host Cathy Wurzer explores the growing movement to bring cancer care into the comfort of patients' homes with Dr. Roxana Dronca, Hematologist & Oncologist at Mayo Clinic and Dr. Arif Kamal, Chief Patient Officer at American Cancer Society. Could this shift not only ease the experience but also improve outcomes? Join us as we examine how innovation is transforming the future of cancer treatment.Get the latest health information from Mayo Clinic's experts, subscribe to Mayo Clinic's newsletter for free today:  https://mayocl.in/3EcNPNc

Breast pain is one of the most common—and most ignored—issues women face from puberty through post-menopause. In this episode of Asking for a Friend, I sit down with Debbie and Troy Sutton, the inspiring mother-son duo behind The Healing Bra—a revolutionary product offering real relief for breast discomfort through every stage of life.From painful mammograms and postpartum nursing to menopause and breast cancer recovery, The Healing Bra's temperature therapy pads are changing the way women manage their comfort. What started as a simple question—"Why isn't there anything for this?"—sparked an invention that's now easing pain and empowering women everywhere.Whether you're a nursing mom, an athlete, in cancer treatment, or dealing with hormone shifts, you'll want to hear how this simple, genius idea is redefining breast wellness and self-care.You can find The Healing Bras and Healing Pads https://thehealingbras.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/thehealingbras/In this episode, we cover:[01:50] The painful mammogram that sparked the idea[04:10] Why nothing existed for breast pain—and the market gap they uncovered[06:40] How The Healing Bra works (and how it doesn't replace your bra)[09:25] Hot therapy vs cold therapy: use cases from nursing to menopause[12:15] Surprising benefits for athletes and post-surgical recovery[15:45] Partnering with cancer orgs, OB/GYNs, and wellness professionals[18:20] How this journey turned into a mission to serve millions of women[22:00] The future of The Healing Bra and upcoming product expansions_________________________________________Are you ready to reclaim your midlife body and health? I went through my own personal journey through menopause, the struggle with midsection weight gain, and feeling run-down. Faster Way, a transformative six-week group program, set me on the path to sustainable change. I'd love to work with you! Let me help you reach your health and fitness goals.https://www.fasterwaycoach.com/?aid=MicheleFolanHave questions about Faster Way? Please email me at:mfolanfasterway@gmail.com After trying countless products that overpromised and underdelivered, RIMAN skincare finally gave me real, visible results—restoring my glow, firmness, and confidence in my skin at 61. RIMAN Korea's #1 Skincare Line - https://michelefolan.riman.com*Transcripts are done with AI and may not be perfectly accurate.**This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing, or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice. The content of this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions.

Tune in as Dr Daejin Adiboye, Vice President, Therapeutic Area Head, Solid Tumor Oncology, AbbVie, explores both the evolution of cancer care and his leadership style over the last two decades. Together, Daejin and Jade discuss the lessons from his time in the clinic that shaped who he is today, the move to precision medicine in oncology, his work with the Cancer Support Community in San Francisco and much more. A little more on EMJ GOLD's guest… Dr Daejin Abidoye serves as Vice President, Therapeutic Area Head for Solid Tumor Oncology at AbbVie. In this role, he is responsible for the clinical development of all assets in late oncology clinical development.  His career includes over 20 years of experience in oncology, cancer research and drug development. Prior to joining AbbVie, Daejin was the Therapeutic Area Lead for Oncology Development and Clinical Research at Gilead Sciences. He has also held various roles at Seattle Genetics and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Abidoye is a board-certified oncologist with a career in clinical practice at Scripps Health in Southern California. 

What if everything you've been told about cancer needs a second look?

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GUA865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until July 16, 2026.Achieving Excellence in Gastric/GEJ Cancer Care: Multidisciplinary Guidance on Immunotherapy Platforms in Resectable Disease In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GUA865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until July 16, 2026.Achieving Excellence in Gastric/GEJ Cancer Care: Multidisciplinary Guidance on Immunotherapy Platforms in Resectable Disease In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GUA865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until July 16, 2026.Achieving Excellence in Gastric/GEJ Cancer Care: Multidisciplinary Guidance on Immunotherapy Platforms in Resectable Disease In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

After enduring multiple surgeries, rib resections, and stage 4 breast cancer treatment, Cheri Henderson was told her pain was just her “new normal.” But then she met Monica Kasari-Desulme—a physical therapist specializing in cancer rehabilitation and lymphatic support—and everything changed. In this powerful and emotional episode, Cheri shares how physical therapy helped her breathe, move, and live again. From not being able to sit in a car without pain to hiking the Grand Canyon, her transformation is nothing short of miraculous. You'll also hear from Monica, who breaks down the science behind scar tissue, adhesions, lymphatic drainage, craniosacral therapy, and chemo brain. Together, they help us understand why physical therapy isn't just about range of motion—it's about reclaiming your life after breast cancer. about your heart, your spirit, and your future.  

In this episode of Onc Now, host Jonathan Sackier is joined by Jean Abraham, Professor of Precision Breast Cancer Medicine at the University of Cambridge, to delve into the future of integrated cancer medicine, the evolving role of clinical trials, and how precision oncology is redefining outcomes for patients with breast cancer across the UK.  Timestamps  00:00 – Introduction  01:28 – Quickfire round  09:50 – Cambridge institutes for precision medicine  12:53 – Predictive/prognostic tools in breast cancer  15:33 – The future of breast cancer clinical trials  18:34 – Integrating genomic data  22:31 – Addressing cost barriers  24:22 – How AI is transforming breast cancer care  28:08 – Why oncology?  30:04 – A message to non-oncologists  31:54 – Abraham's three wishes for healthcare  

Come and experience London Nootropics at the Health Hub (Aug 5, CNM London) and The Wellness Way Festival (Aug 8–10, Wasing Woods) Use Code PHILLY15 for 15% of festival tickets today.Book now:www.thewellnesswayfestival.comIn this episode, Zain, co-founder of London Nootropics, shares how adaptogenic coffee is changing the way we energise, using medicinal mushrooms like lion's mane and cordyceps to support focus, calm and clarity.We talk about the impact of caffeine on the nervous system, their powerful new partnership with Hessa da Tera and why London Nootropics have the exclusive rights to supply coffee across the entire Festival weekend.Tune in to learn how ancient remedies and modern nootropics are fuelling a new kind of wellness revolution.London Nootropics will also be joining us at the Health Hub so you can try their blends in person or use code PHILLY20 for 20% off your first order! www.londonnootropics.com Check out Hifas da Terra: www.hiifasdaterra.co.uk Buy tickets now: www.phillyjlay.com

Did you know that immunotherapy has shown promise in the perioperative setting for gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma? Credit available for this activity expires: 7/11/26 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/transforming-gastric-and-gej-cancer-care-perioperative-2025a1000i7e?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Integrative oncologist Sean Devlin, DO, has over two decades of experience. He is challenging the conventional cancer care model by blending cutting-edge science with holistic healing. As a board-certified physician in Anti-Aging and Regenerative Medicine and a founder of the International Organization of Integrative Cancer Physicians, Dr. Devlin brings a unique perspective to treating cancer […]

DJ Carey, once hailed as hurling royalty, now stands at the centre of a deception scandal that shook Ireland and reached as far as Texas. As the GAA prepares to honour him, we ask: Can an institution built on trust afford to look away? Host: Fionnán Sheahan Guests: Amy Molloy and Colm Keys See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Dr. Eric Balcavage as he explores the cutting-edge world of nuclear medicine with Dr. Munir Ghesani, Chief Medical Officer at United Theranostics. Discover how theranostics—the fusion of diagnostics and therapeutics—is revolutionizing cancer treatment, particularly for thyroid conditions. Key Topics Covered: The fascinating history of nuclear medicine, born from thyroid treatment in the 1940s How radioactive iodine therapy works and why it's so effective for thyroid cancer The difference between traditional treatment and modern theranostic approaches Revolutionary redifferentiation therapy that can restore cancer cells' ability to absorb iodine Applications beyond thyroid: prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumors The role of AI in precision dosing and treatment planning Why hypothyroidism might be a protective response, not just a deficiency What You'll Learn: When radioactive iodine treatment is recommended vs. traditional surgery How theranostics provides targeted treatment with fewer side effects The importance of proper patient selection and staging Future developments in nuclear medicine and personalized cancer care Whether you're dealing with thyroid cancer, supporting someone who is, or simply interested in the latest advances in precision medicine, this episode offers invaluable insights into treatments that are changing lives.   https://unitedtheranostics.com/   Dr. Munir Ghesani, MD, FACNM, FACR, FSNMMI, is Chief Medical Officer at United Theranostics with 30+ years in nuclear medicine, specializing in theranostics, oncologic imaging, and targeted radiopharmaceutical therapies

These days, there's no getting around it: In a society that practically lives online, it's no surprise that two-thirds of people with cancer—and their caregivers—turn to social media to inform their treatment and care decisions.  Perhaps it was inevitable, then, that doctors like thoracic medical oncologist Eric Singhi, MD, would eventually follow suit. After all, what better way to reach and educate patients than by meeting them where they are? And if Dr. Singhi can counteract a little medical misinformation and help people better understand and appreciate the lifesaving impact of science in the process, well, even better.  “When I first began engaging on social media, I was mostly using professional platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn,” Dr. Singhi recalls. As his social media goals grew, however, he gradually expanded to other more personal platforms like TikTok and Instagram. What he found there alarmed him.   “I started seeing all of this misinformation about cancer, especially lung cancer,” he explains. “And it was frustrating. There were people without true medical training ... offering guidance and their thoughts and supplements and all of these things without data or evidence to back it up.”  In a landscape so ripe for misinformation and so impossible to control, Dr. Singhi knew it was impossible to purge or prevent it entirely. “I realized we couldn't get rid of it,” he says. “What we should do is drown it out with credible experts who do have the training, right?”  And so, that's exactly what he set out to do.   In this episode of Your Stories, Dr. Singhi—or, as he's known on various social media platforms, @lungoncdoc—sits down with host Dr. Don Dizon (a social media maven in his own rite) to talk about his mission to make oncology make sense to patients and families, his determination to counter misinformation with genuine knowledge, and how he's conquering cancer not only through his research, but by building an online community, one post (the occasional dancing doctor video) at a time. 

A conversation with Dr. Yousuf ZafarEach patient has a 'sphere of life'.And according to Dr. Yousuf Zafar, it's critical we do everything we can to understand it.As a gastrointestinal medical oncologist, Adjunct Professor at Duke University, and Chief Medical Officer at cancer data innovators AccessHope, he knows exactly what it takes to strive for the best patient outcomes.Through data, personalized case reviews, subspecialist recommendations, and collaboration, AccessHope connects local oncologists with expertise, to improve health outcomes and apply the concept of precision care to the patient experience.—We spoke about  financial toxicity in oncological care, the importance of a second opinion, how data-driven solutions can boost both patient outcomes and economic value, and how we can improve access for patients and physicians across America.Follow me on Instagram and Facebook @ericfethkemd and checkout my website at www.EricFethkeMD.com. My brand new book, The Privilege of Caring, is out now on Amazon! https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CP6H6QN4

Drs. Hope Rugo, Sheri Brenner, and Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode discuss the struggle that health care professionals experience when terminally ill patients are suffering and approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book.  I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be exploring the complexities of grief and oncology and the struggle we experience as healthcare professionals when terminally ill patients are suffering. Our guests will discuss approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way, as outlined in their recently published article titled, “Oncology and Suffering: Strategies on Coping With Grief for Healthcare Professionals.” I'm delighted today to welcome Dr. Keri Brenner, a clinical associate professor of medicine, palliative care attending, and psychiatrist at Stanford University, and Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode, a senior research fellow in philosophy in the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Buckingham, where he also serves as director of graduate research in p hilosophy. He is also a research fellow in philosophy at Blackfriars Hall at the University of Oxford and associate professor at the University of Warsaw.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Keri Brenner: Great to be here, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. It's a pleasure and an honor. Dr. Hope Rugo: So I'm going to start with some questions for both of you. I'll start with Dr. Brenner. You've spoken and written about the concept of suffering when there is no cure. For oncologists, what does it mean to attune to suffering, not just disease? And how might this impact the way they show up in difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Keri Brenner: Suffering is something that's so omnipresent in the work of clinical oncology, and I like to begin by just thinking about what is suffering, because it's a word that we use so commonly, and yet, it's important to know what we're talking about. I think about the definition of Eric Cassell, who was a beloved mentor of mine for decades, and he defined suffering as the state of severe distress that's associated with events that threaten the intactness of a person. And my colleague here at Stanford, Tyler Tate, has been working on a definition of suffering that encompasses the experience of a gap between how things are versus how things ought to be. Both of these definitions really touch upon suffering in a person-centered way that's relational about one's identity, meaning, autonomy, and connectedness with others. So these definitions alone remind us that suffering calls for a person-centered response, not the patient as a pathology, but the panoramic view of who the patient is as a person and their lived reality of illness. And in this light, the therapeutic alliance becomes one of our most active ingredients in care. The therapeutic alliance is that collaborative, trusting bond as persons that we have between clinician and patient, and it's actually one of the most powerful predictors of meaningful outcomes in our care, especially in oncologic care.  You know, I'll never forget my first day of internship at Massachusetts General Hospital. A faculty lecturer shared this really sage insight with us that left this indelible mark. She shared, “As physicians and healers, your very self is the primary instrument of healing. Our being is the median of the medicine.” So, our very selves as embodied, relationally grounded people, that's the median of the medicine and the first most enduring medicine that we offer. That has really borne fruit in the evidence that we see around the therapeutic alliance. And we see this in oncologic care, that in advanced cancer, a strong alliance with one's oncologist truly improves a patient's quality of life, treatment adherence, emotional well-being, and even surpasses structured interventions like psychotherapeutic interventions. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just incredibly helpful information and actually terminology as well, and I think the concept of suffering differs so much. Suffering comes in many shapes and forms, and I think you really have highlighted that. But many oncologists struggle with knowing what to do when patients are suffering but can't be fixed, and I think a lot of times that has to do with oncologists when patients have pain or shortness of breath or issues like that. There are obviously many ways people suffer. But I think what's really challenging is how clinicians understand suffering and what the best approaches to respond to suffering are in the best patient-centered and therapeutic way. Dr. Keri Brenner: I get that question a lot from my trainees in palliative care, not knowing what to do. And my first response is, this is about how to be, not about knowing what to do, but how to be. In our medical training, we're trained often how to think and treat, but rarely how to be, how to accompany others. And I often have this image that I tell my trainees of, instead of this hierarchical approach of a fix-it mentality of all we're going to do, when it comes to elements of unavoidable loss, mortality, unavoidable sufferings, I imagine something more like accompaniment, a patient walking through some dark caverns, and I am accompanying them, trying to walk beside them, shining a light as a guide throughout that darkness. So it's a spirit of being and walking with. And it's so tempting in medicine to either avoid the suffering altogether or potentially overidentify with it, where the suffering just becomes so all-consuming like it's our own. And we're taught to instead strike a balance of authentic accompaniment through it. I often teach this key concept in my palli-psych work with my team about formulation. Formulation is a working hypothesis. It's taking a step back and asking, “Why? Why is this patient behaving in this manner? What might the patient's core inner struggle be?” Because asking that “why” and understanding the nuanced dimensions of a patient's core inner struggle will really help guide our therapeutic interactions and guide the way that we accompany them and where we choose to shine that light as we're walking with them. And oftentimes people think, “Well Keri, that sounds so sappy or oversentimental,” and it's not. You know, I'm just thinking about a case that I had a couple months ago, and it was a 28-year-old man with gastric cancer, metastatic disease, and that 28-year-old man, he was actually a college Division I athlete, and his dad was an acclaimed Division I coach. And our typical open-ended palliative care questions, that approach, infuriated them. They needed to know that I was showing up confident, competent, and that I was ready, on my A-game, with a real plan for them to follow through. And so my formulation about them was they needed somebody to show up with that confidence and competence, like the Division I athletes that they were, to really meet them and accompany them where they were on how they were going to walk through that experience of illness. Dr. Hope Rugo: These kinds of insights are so helpful to think about how we manage something that we face every day in oncology care. And I think that there are many ways to manage this.  Maybe I'll ask Dr. Sławkowski-Rode one question just that I think sequences nicely with what you're talking about.  A lot of our patients are trying to think about sort of the bigger picture and how that might help clinicians understand and support patients. So, the whole concept of spirituality, you know, how can we really use that as oncology clinicians to better understand and support patients with advanced illness, and how can that help patients themselves? And we'll talk about that in two different ways, but we'll just start with this broader question. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: I think spirituality, and here, I usually refer to spirituality in terms of religious belief. Most people in the world are religious believers, and it is very intuitive and natural that religious beliefs would be a resource that people who help patients with a terminal diagnosis and healthcare professionals who work with those patients appeal to when they try to help them deal with the trauma and the stress of these situations.  Now, I think that the interesting thing there is that very often the benefit of appealing to a religious belief is misunderstood in terms of what it delivers. And there are many, many studies on how religious belief can be used to support therapy and to support patients in getting through the experience of suffering and defeating cancer or facing a terminal diagnosis. There's a wealth of literature on this. But most of the literature focuses on this idea that by appealing to religious belief, we help patients and healthcare practitioners who are working with them get over the fact and that there's a terminal diagnosis determining the course of someone's life and get on with our lives and engaging with whatever other pursuits we might have, with our job if we're healthcare practitioners, and with the other things that we might be passionate about in our lives. And the idea here is that this is what religion allows us to do because we sort of defer the need to worry about what's going to happen to us until the afterlife or some perspective beyond the horizon of our life here.  However, my view is – I have worked beyond philosophy also with theologians from many traditions, and my view here is that religion is something that does allow us to get on with our life but not because we're able to move on or move past the concerns that are being threatened by illness or death, but by forming stronger bonds with these things that we value in our life in a way and to have a sense of hope that these will be things that we will be able to keep an attachment to despite the threat to our life. So, in a sense, I think very many approaches in the field have the benefit of religion upside down, as it were, when it comes to helping patients and healthcare professionals who are engaged with their illness and treating it. Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, it's really interesting the points that you make, and I think really important, but, you know, sometimes the oncologists are really struggling with their own emotional reactions, how they are reacting to patients, and dealing with sort of taking on the burden, which, Dr. Brenner, you were mentioning earlier. How can oncologists be aware of their own emotional reactions? You know, they're struggling with this patient who they're very attached to who's dying or whatever the situation is, but you want to avoid burnout as an oncologist but also understand the patient's inner world and support them. Dr. Keri Brenner: I believe that these affective, emotional states, they're contagious. As we accompany patients through these tragic losses, it's very normal and expected that we ourselves will experience that full range of the human experience as we accompany the patients. And so the more that we can recognize that this is a normative dimension of our work, to have a nonjudgmental stance about the whole panoramic set of emotions that we'll experience as we accompany patients with curiosity and openness about that, the more sustainable the work will become. And I often think about the concept of countertransference given to us by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago. Countertransference is the clinician's response to the patient, the thoughts, feelings, associations that come up within us, shaped by our own history, our own life events, those unconscious processes that come to the foreground as we are accompanying patients with illness. And that is a natural part of the human experience. Historically, countertransference was viewed as something negative, and now it's actually seen as a key that can unlock and enlighten the formulation about what might be going on within the patient themselves even. You know, I was with a patient a couple weeks ago, and I found myself feeling pretty helpless and hopeless in the encounter as I was trying to care for them. And I recognized that countertransference within myself that I was feeling demoralized. It was a prompt for me to take a step back, get on the balcony, and be curious about that because I normally don't feel helpless and hopeless caring for my patients. Well, ultimately, I discovered through processing it with my interdisciplinary team that the patient likely had demoralization as a clinical syndrome, and so it's natural many of us were feeling helpless and hopeless also accompanying them with their care. And it allowed us to have a greater interdisciplinary approach and a more therapeutic response and deeper empathy for the patient's plight. And we can really be curious about our countertransferences. You know, a few months ago, I was feeling bored and distracted in a family meeting, which is quite atypical for me when I'm sharing serious illness news. And it was actually a key that allowed me to recognize that the patient was trying to distract all of us talking about inconsequential facts and details rather than the gravitas of her illness.  Being curious about these affective states really allows us to have greater sustainability within our own practice because it normalizes that human spectrum of emotions and also allows us to reduce unconscious bias and have greater inclusivity with our practice because what Freud also said is that what we can't recognize and say within our own selves, if we don't have that self-reflective capacity, it will come out in what we do. So really recognizing and having the self-awareness and naming some of these emotions with trusted colleagues or even within our own selves allows us to ensure that it doesn't come out in aberrant behaviors like avoiding the patient, staving off that patient till the end of the day, or overtreating, offering more chemotherapy or not having the goals of care, doing everything possible when we know that that might result in medically ineffective care. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I love the comments that you made, sort of weaving in Freud, but also, I think the importance of talking to colleagues and to sharing some of these issues because I do think that oncologists suffer from the fact that no one else in your life wants to hear about dying people. They don't really want to hear about the tragic cases either. So, I think that using your community, your oncology community and greater community within medicine, is an important part of being able to sort of process. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and Dr. Rugo, this came up in our ASCO [Education] Session. I'd love to double click into some of those ways that we can do this that aren't too time consuming in our everyday practice. You know, within palliative care, we have interdisciplinary rounds where we process complex cases. Some of us do case supervision with a trusted mentor or colleague where we bring complex cases to them. My team and I offer process rounds virtually where we go through countertransference, formulation, and therapeutic responses on some tough cases.  You know, on a personal note, just last week when I left a family meeting feeling really depleted and stuck, I called one of my trusted colleagues and just for 3 minutes constructively, sort of cathartically vented what was coming up within me after that family meeting, which allowed me to have more of an enlightened stance on what to do next and how to be therapeutically helpful for the case. One of my colleagues calls this "friend-tors." They coined the phrase, and they actually wrote a paper about it. Who within your peer group of trusted colleagues can you utilize and phone in real time or have process opportunities with to get a pulse check on where what's coming up within us as we're doing this work? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, and it's an interesting question about how one does that and, you know, maintaining that as you move institutions or change places or become more senior, it's really important.  One of the, I think, the challenges sometimes is that we come from different places from our patients, and that can be an issue, I think when our patients are very religious and the provider is not, or the reverse, patients who don't have religious beliefs and you're trying to sort of focus on the spirituality, but it doesn't really ring true. So, Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, what resources can patients and practitioners draw on when they're facing death and loss in the absence of, or just different religious beliefs that don't fit into the standard model? Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: You're absolutely right that this can be an extremely problematic situation to be in when there is that disconnect of religious belief or more generally spiritual engagement with the situation that we're in. But I just wanted to tie into what Dr. Brenner was saying just before. I couldn't agree more, and I think that a lot of healthcare practitioners, oncologists in particular who I've had the pleasure to talk to at ASCO and at other events as well, are very often quite skeptical about emotional engagement in their profession. They feel as though this is something to be managed, as it were, and something that gets in the way. And they can often be very critical of methods that help them understand the emotions and extend them towards patients because they feel that this will be an obstacle to doing their job and potentially an obstacle also to helping patients to their full ability if they focus on their own emotions or the burden that emotionally, spiritually, and in other ways the illness is for the patient. They feel that they should be focusing on the cancer rather than on the patient's emotions. And I think that a useful comparison, although, you know, perhaps slightly drastic, is that of combat experience of soldiers. They also need to be up and running and can't be too emotionally invested in the situation that they're in. But there's a crucial difference, which is that soldiers are usually engaged in very short bursts of activity with the time to go back and rethink, and they often have a lot of support for this in between. Whereas doctors are in a profession where their exposure to the emotions of patients and their own emotions, the emotions of families of patients is constant. And I think that there's a great danger in thinking that this is something to be avoided and something to compartmentalize in order to avoid burnout. I think, in a way, burnout is more sure to happen if your emotions and your attachment to your patients goes ignored for too long. So that's just following up on Keri's absolutely excellent points. As far as the disconnect is concerned, that's, in fact, an area in which I'm particularly interested in. That's where my research comes in. I'm interested in the kinds of connections that we have with other people, especially in terms of maintaining bonds when there is no spiritual belief, no spiritual backdrop to support this connection. In most religious traditions, we have the framework of the religious belief that tells us that the person who we've lost or the values that have become undermined in our life are something that hasn't been destroyed permanently but something that we can still believe we have a deep connection to despite its absence from our life. And how do you rebuild that sense of the existence of the things that you have perceivably lost without the appeal to some sort of transcendent realm which is defined by a given religion? And that is a hard question. That's a question, I think, that can be answered partly by psychology but also partly by philosophy in terms of looking at who we are as human beings and our nature as people who are essentially, or as entities that are essentially connected to one another. That connection, I believe, is more direct than the mediation of religion might at first suggest. I think that we essentially share the world not only physically, it's not just the case that we're all here, but more importantly, the world that we live in is not just the physical world but the world of meanings and values that helps us orient ourselves in society and amongst one another as friends and foes. And it is that shared sense of the world that we can appeal to when we're thinking about retaining the value or retaining the connection with the people who we have lost or the people who are helping through, go through an experience of facing death. And just to finish, there's a very interesting question, I think, something that we possibly don't have time to explore, about the degree of connection that we have with other people. So, what I've just been saying is something that rings more true or is more intuitive when we think about the connections that we have to our closest ones. We share a similar outlook onto the world, and our preferences and our moods and our emotions and our values are shaped by life with the other person. And so, appealing to these values can give us a sense of a continued presence. But what in those relationships where the connection isn't that close? For example, given the topic of this podcast, the connection that a patient has with their doctor and vice versa. In what sense can we talk about a shared world of experience? Well, I think, obviously, we should admit degrees to the kind of relationship that can sustain our connection with another person. But at the same time, I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. And I think part of emotional engagement in medical practice is finding yourself somewhere on that spectrum rather than thinking you're completely off of it. That's what I would say. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's very helpful and I think a very helpful way of thinking about how to manage this challenging situation for all of us.  One of the things that really, I think, is a big question for all of us throughout our careers, is when to address the dying process and how to do that. Dr. Brenner, you know, I still struggle with this – what to do when patients refuse to discuss end-of-life but they're very close to end of life? They don't want to talk about it. It's very stressful for all of us, even where you're going to be, how you're going to manage this. They're just absolutely opposed to that discussion. How should we approach those kinds of discussions? How do we manage that? How do you address the code discussion, which is so important? You know, these patients are not able to stay at home at end-of-life in general, so you really do need to have a code discussion before you're admitting them. It actually ends up being kind of a challenge and a mess all around. You know, I would love your advice about how to manage those situations. Dr. Keri Brenner: I think that's one of the most piercing and relevant inquiries we have within our clinical work and challenges. I often think of denial not as an all-or-nothing concept but rather as parts of self. There's a part of everyone's being where the unconscious believes it's immortal and will live on forever, and yet we all know intellectually that we all have mortality and finitude and transience, and that time will end. We often think of this work as more iterative and gradual and exposure based. There's potency to words. Saying, “You are dying within days,” is a lot higher potency of a phrase to share than, “This is serious illness. This illness is incurable. Time might be shorter than we hoped.” And so the earlier and more upstream we begin to have these conversations, even in small, subtle ways, it starts to begin to expose the patient to the concept so they can go from the head to the heart, not only knowing their prognosis intellectually but also affectively, to integrate it into who they are as a person because all patients are trying to live well while also we're gradually exposing them to this awareness of mortality within their own lived experience of illness. And that, ideally, happens gradually over time. Now, there are moments where the medical frame is very limited, and we might have short days, and we have to uptitrate those words and really accompany them more radically through those high-affective moments. And that's when we have to take a lot of more nuanced approaches, but I would say the more earlier and upstream the better. And then the second piece to that question as well is coping with our own mortality. The more we can be comfortable with our own transience and finitude and limitations, the more we will be able to accompany others through that. And even within my own life, I've had to integrate losses in a way where before I go in to talk to one of my own palliative care patients, one mantra I often say to myself is, “I'm just a few steps behind you. I don't know if it's going to be 30 days or 30 years, but I'm just a few steps behind you on this finite, transient road of life that is the human experience.” And that creates a stance of accompaniment that patients really can experience as they're traversing these tragedies. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great. And I think those are really important points and actually some pearls, which I think we can take into the clinic. I think being really concrete when really the expected life expectancy is a few days to a couple of weeks can be very, very helpful. And making sure the patients hear you, but also continuing to let them know that, as oncologists, we're here for them. We're not abandoning them. I think that's a big worry for many, certainly of my patients, is that somehow when they would go to hospice or be a ‘no code', that we're not going to support them anymore or treat them anymore. That is a really important process of that as well. And of course, engaging the team makes a big difference because the whole oncology team can help to manage situations that are particularly challenging like that. And just as we close, I wanted to ask one last question of you, Dr. Brenner, that suffering, grief, and burnout, you've really made the point that these are not problems to fix but dimensions that we want to attend to and acknowledge as part of our lives, the dying process is part of all of our lives. It's just dealing with this in the unexpected and the, I think, unpredictability of life, you know, that people take on a lot of guilt and all sorts of things about, all sorts of emotions. And the question is now, people have listened to this podcast, what can they take back to their oncology teams to build a culture that supports clinicians and their team at large to engage with these realities in a meaningful and sustainable way? I really feel like if we could build the whole team approach where we're supporting each other and supporting the patients together, that that will help this process immeasurably. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and I'm thinking about Dr. Sławkowski-Rode's observation about the combat analogy, and it made me recognize this distinction between suppression and repression. Repression is this unconscious process, and this is what we're taught to do in medical training all the time, to just involuntarily shove that tragedy under the rug, just forget about it and see the next patient and move on. And we know that if we keep unconsciously shoving things under the rug, that it will lead to burnout and lack of sustainability for our clinical teams. Suppression is a more conscious process. That deliberate effort to say, “This was a tragedy that I bore witness to. I know I need to put that in a box on the shelf for now because I have 10 other patients I have to see.” And yet, do I work in a culture where I can take that off the shelf during particular moments and process it with my interdisciplinary team, phone a friend, talk to a trusted colleague, have some trusted case supervision around it, or process rounds around it, talk to my social worker? And I think the more that we model this type of self-reflective capacity as attendings, folks who have been in the field for decades, the more we create that ethos and culture that is sustainable because clinician self-reflection is never a weakness, rather it's a silent strength. Clinician self-reflection is this portal for wisdom, connectedness, sustainability, and ultimately transformative growth within ourselves. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's such a great point, and I think this whole discussion has been so helpful for me and I hope for our audience that we really can take these points and bring them to our practice. I think, “Wow, this is such a great conversation. I'd like to have the team as a whole listen to this as ways to sort of strategize talking about the process, our patients, and being supportive as a team, understanding how we manage spirituality when it connects and when it doesn't.” All of these points, they're bringing in how we process these issues and the whole idea of suppressing versus sort of deciding that it never happened at all is, I think, very important because that's just a tool for managing our daily lives, our busy clinics, and everything we manage. Dr. Keri Brenner: And Dr. Rugo, it's reminding me at Stanford, you know, we have this weekly practice that's just a ritual where every Friday morning for 30 minutes, our social worker leads a process rounds with us as a team, where we talk about how the work that we're doing clinically is affecting us in our lives in ways that have joy and greater meaning and connectedness and other ways that might be depleting. And that kind of authentic vulnerability with one another allows us to show up more authentically for our patients. So those rituals, that small 30 minutes once a week, goes a long way. And it reminds me that sometimes slowing things down with those rituals can really get us to more meaningful, transformative places ultimately. Dr. Hope Rugo: It's a great idea, and I think, you know, making time for that in everybody's busy days where they just don't have any time anymore is important. And you don't have to do it weekly, you could even do something monthly. I think there's a lot of options, and that's a great suggestion. I want to thank you both for taking your time out for this enriching and incredibly helpful conversation. Our listeners will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today, which is excellent, in the transcript of this episode. I want to thank you again, Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, for your time and for your excellent thoughts and advice and direction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Keri Brenner: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives on new 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. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Keri Brenner @keri_brenner Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode @MikolajRode Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Keri Brenner: No relationships to disclose Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode: No relationships to disclose    

Does personalized precision medicine have the potential to treat chronic and life-threatening diseases like cancer and enhance longevity? In this episode, we connect with Dr. John Oertle, the Chief Medical Director at Envita Medical Centers, to dive into the innovative field of personalized precision medicine – something that has played a critical role in helping many late-stage cancer patients recover holistically… Dr. Oertle specializes in chronic infectious disease, immunotherapy, and precision oncology. He leads the molecular tumor board for Envita Medical Centers and does research and development in the fields of oncology and infectious disease. Dr. Oertle and his team treat diseases by identifying and addressing the root causative factors, considering the detailed genetics, epigenetics, pharmacogenomics, environmental, and other factors that contribute to patient recovery.  Want to learn how this level of in-depth analysis can help build a customized treatment protocol for each individual patient? What does it mean to go beyond the standard one-size-fits-all protocols? Join the conversation now to find out!  Hit play to discover: ●      Why focusing on outcomes is so critical to effectively treating chronic diseases. ●      The benefits of providing individualized cancer therapy.  ●      How to teach the immune system to attack harmful tumors.  ●      The role that biological age plays in disease prevention and recovery. Click here to follow along with Dr. Oertle and his important work at Envita Medical Centers!

GDP Script/ Top Stories for July 12th Publish Date: July 12th PRE-ROLL: From the BG AD Group Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Saturday, July 12th and Happy Birthday to Christine McVie I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are your top stories presented by Gwinnett KIA Mall of Georgia. Gwinnett charges dropped against detained journalist Mario Guevara Georgia Power to update energy forecasts amid uncertain demand Lawmakers conclude listening tour on access to cancer care All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe! Break 1: 07.14.22 KIA MOG STORY 1: Gwinnett charges dropped against detained journalist Mario Guevara Local journalist Mario Guevara, known for covering Atlanta's Hispanic community and ICE operations, is no longer facing traffic charges in Gwinnett County. Solicitor General Lisamarie Bristol announced insufficient evidence to prosecute charges of reckless driving, unlawful use of a telecommunication device, and failure to obey signs, as the incidents occurred on private property. However, Guevara still faces federal immigration charges, with ICE questioning his legal status despite his work permit and ongoing efforts toward permanent residency. Guevara claims he is being targeted for his journalism, which has drawn local and national attention. STORY 2: Georgia Power to update energy forecasts amid uncertain demand Georgia Power's 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) faces scrutiny for overestimating energy demand, driven by the rapid growth of data centers. Critics, including environmental groups, argue the projections could leave ratepayers covering billions in stranded assets if demand falls short. While Georgia Power committed to updating forecasts and reporting on large-load projects, many called for stronger demand-side management (DSM) efforts to reduce energy needs. The utility plans to increase DSM spending from $90M to $160M annually, but some remain dissatisfied. The PSC will vote next week, with debates ongoing over coal plant operations and natural gas upgrades. STORY 3: Lawmakers conclude listening tour on access to cancer care Around 66,000 Georgians will be diagnosed with cancer this year, with 19,000 deaths expected, prompting state lawmakers to study ways to reduce these rates. Georgia exceeds national averages for lung, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancer, with rural areas facing significant barriers to care due to rising costs, limited access, and medical industry consolidation. Experts highlighted issues like pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) controlling drug markets and low reimbursement rates for clinics. Lawmakers aim to address drug pricing, access to screenings, and systemic healthcare challenges, with plans to continue studying cancer care access and solutions. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We’ll be right back Break 2: STORY 4: Deputies: Buford man threw deep freezer at 59-year-old at Lake Lanier after fight over nudity A Buford man, Logan Nicholas Young, 42, was arrested on July 3 after a bizarre incident on Lake Lanier involving public indecency, a fight, and a flying deep freezer. Young allegedly got naked on a boat, argued with a 59-year-old man, punched him, and later threw a deep freezer at him, causing a head injury and knocking him into the lake. Deputies found Young hiding under a bed on his houseboat after he ignored their attempts to contact him. He was charged with six offenses, including aggravated assault, and released on bond on July 6. STORY 5: Robert Michener named Gateway85 CID's interim executive director The Gateway85 Community Improvement District (CID) appointed longtime employee Robert Michener as interim executive director following Emory Morsberger's resignation after nearly 20 years of involvement. Michener, with 17 years at Gateway85, previously served as director of operations, overseeing infrastructure, security, and landscaping projects. Board Chairman Shiv Aggarwal praised Morsberger's contributions and welcomed Michener's leadership during the transition. The CID will continue focusing on economic development, mobility, and quality of life improvements as it searches for a permanent leader. Michener expressed excitement about guiding the district's next phase of growth. Break 3: STORY 6: 'Superman' stars excited to bring DC reboot to theaters Edi Gathegi, Isabela Merced, and Anthony Carrigan star in the new "Superman" reboot, with Gathegi playing Mr. Terrific, Merced as Hawkgirl, and Carrigan debuting as Metamorpho. At a red carpet event in Atlanta, Gathegi contrasted his survival as Mr. Terrific with his infamous death as Darwin in "X-Men: First Class." Merced highlighted the mix of CGI and practical sets, comparing her Hawkgirl role to her experience in "Dora the Explorer." Carrigan, excited to bring fan-favorite Metamorpho to life, praised the detailed makeup used instead of CGI. STORY 7: Gwinnett fire investigators say arsonist tried to burn down Lawrenceville home Gwinnett County fire officials are investigating a suspected arson at a Lawrenceville home on Clairidge Lane on June 27. Firefighters responded to a fire alarm and smoke report, discovering an incendiary device behind the home. The fire was out by the time they arrived, and no injuries were reported. Officials are seeking public help to identify the suspect, with a potential reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to an arrest and conviction. Tips can be directed to the Gwinnett Fire Investigations Section or the Georgia Arson Control Hotline. We’ll have closing comments after this Break 4: Ingles Markets 2 Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.gwinnettdailypost.com Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network Show Sponsors: ingles-markets.com kiamallofga.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Anna Liza Rodriguez, MSN, MHA, RN, OCN, NEA-BC, chief nursing officer and vice president of Nursing and Patient Care Services at Fox Chase Cancer Center about her program's receipt of a 2025 ACCC Innovator Award. Fox Chase Cancer Center's innovation, Ambulatory Care Excellence (ACE): Charting a New Path in Ambulatory Care Model and Coordination, is a structured approach designed to improve efficiency, coordination, and patient outcomes in ambulatory cancer care while ensuring top of license scope of work for clinicians. Rodriguez will discuss key features of the ACE Model, its impact on patients with cancer, and notable results of the initiative.   Anna Liza Rodriguez, MSN, MHA, RN, OCN, NEA-BC Chief Nursing Officer, Vice President, Nursing and Patient Care Services Fox Chase Cancer Center Philadelphia, PA  “All of our team members are really connected to our purpose...from frontline staff to executives to different support services. [They] truly have the patient front and center, [and] that really drives a lot of our passion towards improvement [and] making sure that the care we deliver is exceptional.”  - Anna Rodriguez    This podcast is part of a special series featuring the 2025 ACCC Innovator Award winners. For a deeper dive into this topic and other content that will help your team reimagine how care is delivered at your cancer program or practice, register today for the ACCC 42nd National Oncology Conference, October 15-17 in Denver, Colorado.    Resources:  Geriatric Oncology Ambulatory Care Clinics  Implementing Telephone Triage Guidelines into Nursing Workflow  The Oncology Nursing Fellowship Program  Transitioning Select Chemotherapeutics to the Outpatient Setting Improves Care and Reduces Costs   

How This Is Building Me, hosted by world-renowned oncologist D. Ross Camidge, MD, PhD, is a podcast focused on the highs and lows, ups and downs of all those involved with cancer, cancer medicine, and cancer science across the full spectrum of life's experiences. In this episode, Dr Camidge sat down with Catharine Young, PhD, who is currently a senior fellow at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Young was formerly the assistant director of Cancer Moonshot Policy and International Engagement in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in Washington, DC. Camidge and Young, a South African–born scientist, discussed Young's journey from Johannesburg to Charlotte, North Carolina. Young shared that after undergrad, where she majored in biology, she joined a post-baccalaureate fellowship at the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, sparking her passion for research. This led her to pursue a PhD in biomedical sciences at the University of Missouri, focusing on the brain's role in regulating blood pressure. Catherine noted the challenges of changing labs mid-PhD and her eventual decision to step away from academia. During her postdoc, Young was inspired by her advisor's science policy fellowship, leading her to pursue a fellowship herself. She was matched with the US Department of Defense, working on chemical and biological threat reduction in former Soviet states and West Africa during the Ebola outbreak. Though she described the experience was eye-opening, she eventually shifted career paths, realizing that long-term government work wasn't the right fit for her career goals. From there, Young worked for the British Embassy in Washington, DC, bridging UK and US science priorities. She then joined the Biden Cancer Initiative, continuing the Cancer Moonshot's momentum through its ups and downs. Young reflected on how her variety of experiences led her to launch the Cancer Moonshot to new heights as she worked to advance cancer research and patient care through cancer-related policy and global engagement. Young concluded by highlighting her passion for continuing to expand medical treatment access worldwide.

Averil Power, Irish Cancer Society Chief Executive discusses new data which indicates that delays in cancer treatment lead to avoidable deaths.

In this enlightening episode of Keeping Abreast, Dr. Jenn sits down with world-renowned surgical oncologist Dr. Francisco Contreras to explore how mindset, metabolic therapy, and integrative medicine can change the cancer care conversation.Guided by the influence of his father, a pioneer in holistic oncology, Dr. Contreras shares his path to becoming a surgeon and his mission to treat not just the disease, but the whole person. From patient empowerment to the limitations of conventional care, this episode offers a deep dive into the emotional, spiritual, and metabolic components of healing.You'll hear how innovative therapies at Oasis of Hope combine conventional medicine with holistic practices—and why patient education is the cornerstone of long-term success.This conversation is filled with hope, science, and practical insights to help you take charge of your healing journey.In This Episode, You Will Learn:How Dr. Contreras's father inspired his holistic cancer care approachWhy mindset and empowerment are critical in healingThe science behind metabolic therapy and low-glycemic nutritionWhat immunotherapy is—and how it's changing cancer outcomesHow alternative and conventional treatments can work togetherWhy movement, habit-building, and diet play vital roles in recoveryThe truth about high-dose vitamin C, off-label meds, and natural remediesHow innovative treatments like dendritic cell vaccines and CAR T cells workWhy patients deserve education, options, and hope