Podcasts about Cancer research

Dr. Marissa Russo trained to become a cancer biologist. She spent four years studying one of the deadliest brain tumors in adults and built her entire research career around a simple, urgent goal: open her own lab and improve the odds for patients with almost no shot at survival. In 2024 she applied for an F31 diversity grant through the NIH. The reviewers liked her work. Her resubmission was strong. Then the grant system started glitching. Dates vanished. Study sections disappeared. Emails went silent. When she finally reached a program officer, the message was clear: scrub the DEI language, withdraw, and resubmit. She rewrote the application in ten days. It failed. She had to start over. Again. This time with her identity erased.Marissa left the lab. She found new purpose as a science communicator, working at STAT News through the AAAS Mass Media Fellowship. Her story captures what happens when talent collides with institutional sabotage. Not every scientist gets to choose a Plan B. She made hers count.RELATED LINKSMarissa Russo at STAT NewsNIH F31 grant story in STATAAAS Mass Media FellowshipContact Marissa RussoFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Scott Capozza and I could have been cloned in a bad lab experiment. Both diagnosed with cancer in our early twenties. Both raised on dial-up and mixtapes. Both now boy-girl twin dads with speech-therapist wives and a lifelong grudge against insurance companies. Scott is the first and only full-time oncology physical therapist at Yale New Haven Health, which means if he catches a cold, cancer rehab in Connecticut flatlines. He's part of a small, stubborn tribe of providers who believe movement belongs in cancer care, not just after it. We talked about sperm banking in the nineties, marathon training during chemo, and what it means to be told you're “otherwise healthy” when your lungs, ears, and fertility disagree. Scott's proof that survivorship is not a finish line. It's an endurance event with no medals, just perspective.RELATED LINKSScott Capozza on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-capozza-a68873257Yale New Haven Health: https://www.ynhh.orgExercising Through Cancer: https://www.exercisingthroughcancer.com/team/scott-capozza-pt-msptProfiles in Survivorship – Yale Medicine: https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/profiles-in-survivorship-scott-capozzaFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Angus Read graduated from university in July and, like any adventurous 22-year-old, wanted to go travelling. His plans grew, as did his desire to do something to not only better himself, but also raise money for charity, so he planned to do it all - a solo trip where he'd make his way across Europe, running a marathon in as many countries as he could, fund raising for Cancer Research. He's just finished this four month long trip and joined us to discuss the planning of such a trip, why running solo across Europe was the best experience he could have hoped for and how a rogue pizza in London nearly scuppered the whole experience.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Research has been at the heart of NETRF's mission for 20 years—and patients are the reason that work matters. Every study we fund is designed to move the field forward and improve how people with neuroendocrine cancer live, feel, and are treated. In this special episode of NETWise, we're bringing the 2025 NETRF Neuroendocrine Cancer […] The post NETWise Episode 50: The Year in Review 2025: Neuroendocrine Cancer Research and Clinical Progress appeared first on NETRF.

Ann Meyn started her advocacy in the 1990s, launching support groups and sharing the message of early detection. Even while facing aggressive treatments, she continued teaching, volunteering, and helping others understand cancer. With a scientific mindset, she shaped patient support and influenced research, guiding the next generation of advocates. Today, she joins Dorothy to reflect on their friendship and impact on The Rose’s community. Support The Rose HERE. Subscribe to Let’s Talk About Your Breasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart, and wherever you get your podcasts. Key Questions Answered 1. What was the Rosebuds group and why was it created?2. How did the Rose operate to serve both insured and uninsured women?3. Why were support groups for breast cancer patients so important?4. How did breast cancer treatment approaches change over time?5. What was Ann Meyn’s personal experience with breast cancer diagnosis and treatment?6. How have support group needs varied among different groups of women?7. How has patient advocacy in breast cancer research evolved, and why is it important?8. How has breast cancer detection and awareness changed, especially for younger women?9. What advances have been made in breast cancer research and treatment in recent years?10. What advice does Ann Meyn have for women regarding breast health?11. What is the psychological impact of support, both from groups and families, in the journey of breast cancer?12. What are the challenges for caregivers vs. being the patient?13. How can survivors and educators help reduce the stigma or fear around cancer for children and families?14. What changes occurred in support and treatment during and after the COVID-19 pandemic? Timestamped Overview 00:00 Passion Behind The Rose Concept 05:22 Reflecting on Terminal Cancer Cases 08:53 Breast Cancer Misdiagnosis Experience 11:43 Teaching Through Chemo Treatments 14:52 Patient Advocacy and Cancer Research 19:33 Advances in Cancer Diagnostics 20:41 Resilience, Discovery, and Complexity 24:31 Advances in Radiation Treatment 27:58 Complex Surgeries and Recovery 32:57 Taking Fear Away Through ConnectionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guests Dr. Andrea Necchi, Dr. Ashish Kamat and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "End Points for the Next-Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer," focusing on the evolving treatment landscape of MIBC (muscle-invasive bladder cancer) and the need to properly design novel trials investigating non-operative management while including the incorporation of biomarkers and patient perspectives in clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by JCO authors Andrea Necchi, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at University San Raffaele and Medical Oncology at Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, Italy, and Ashish Kamat, Professor of Urologic Oncology and Cancer Research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Both Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat are internationally recognized experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly in bladder cancer. Today we will be discussing the article titled "Endpoints for the Next Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." So thank you for speaking with us, Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat. Dr. Andrea Necchi: Thank you, Davide, and thank you JCO for the opportunity. Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, absolutely. It is a great honor and privilege to be discussing this very important article with you. So thank you for the invitation. Dr. Davide Soldato: The article that you just published in JCO reports the results of a consensus meeting that was held among experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly for bladder cancer. So the objective was really to define endpoints for a novel generation of trials among patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So my first question would be: what is the change in clinical practice and in clinical evidence that we have right now that prompted the start of such consensus in 2025? Dr. Andrea Necchi: So, we are living so many changes in the treatment paradigm of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In general, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer or urothelial cancer today, thanks to the advent of immunotherapy or immunotherapy combinations, and today thanks to the advent of novel antibody-drug conjugates like enfortumab vedotin in combination with immunotherapy that are actually changing the landscape of treatment of patients with metastatic disease and also are entering quite fast into the treatment paradigm of patients with organ-confined disease with a lot of clinical trials testing these combination therapies, neoadjuvantly or adjuvantly, before or after radical cystectomy. Having said that, by potentiating the efficacy of systemic therapy, an increasing number of patients that receive neoadjuvant therapy of any kind, at a certain point in time, result to have achieved a deep response to systemic therapy, evaluated radiologically with conventional imaging, CT scan or MRI, or with cystoscopy or with other urology-based techniques, urinary cytology, and so. And based on the fact that they achieve a complete response, so no residual viable disease after systemic therapy, they raise concern about the fact that they have to undergo surgery like radical cystectomy that is quite impactful for their quality of life and for the future of their lives after the surgery. So the point that the patients are raising, and the patients are raising this point, is primarily due to the efficacy of systemic therapy. And we have seen so many cases fortunately achieving a deep response. So the question about what to do with the patient that at a certain point, at the start with the commitment to radical cystectomy, but at a certain point in time change their mind towards something else if possible, depending on the fact that they have achieved a deep response, is something that is a question and is a need to which we have to provide data, information, and guidance in general to the patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: If we look at the population that the recommendations were formulated for, we are mainly speaking about patients who would be fit for cystectomy, and this is a very distinct population compared to those who are not fit for cystectomy, both from a medical oncology point of view but also from a urologic point of view in terms of surgery. So, can you explain a little bit to our listeners why you think that this distinction is critical and why you developed this recommendation especially for this population? Dr. Ashish Kamat: That is a very important distinction that you made. To build upon what Professor Necchi mentioned earlier, this question that we get from patients after neoadjuvant therapy or systemic therapy is not a new question. It has been something that they have been asking us for the last 20 or 30 years. "Do I really need to have my bladder taken out?" And patients who are especially not fit for surgery will sometimes say, "Do I need to have my bladder taken out? And if I cannot have my bladder taken out, am I going to just not have anything done?" Because the eligibility for radical cystectomy is also a moving target. Over the years with improvement in surgical technique, improvement in perioperative therapy, ERAS protocols, et cetera, it is really unusual for us to deny a patient the opportunity to have major surgery unless clearly they have very significant comorbid conditions. So I think this endeavor is more broadly encompassing of the patient population than what was evident in previous years. And I really want to give a shout out to Professor Necchi because what we did was, as part of the International Bladder Cancer Group and Professor Necchi is an integral part of the scientific advisory board, we broached this topic broadly during one of our discussions. And of course, Andrea always does this, he picks on a topic and then he says, "Okay, we need to discuss this really in detail," put together a multinational, multicenter collaborative group, but the driving force was our patients. Because our patients are constantly asking, "Do I need to lose my organ? Do I need to have radiation therapy?" which again, also, has a lot of side effects. So this was really to answer the question in today's day and age as to do we need to do local consolidation, and if so, in what way? It is not a new question, but we have newer therapies, newer technology, and better ways to answer this. So it is a much needed question that needs to be answered. And I think the distinction between non-surgical candidates and surgical candidates is a little bit blurred in today's day and age. Dr. Davide Soldato: What about the eligibility, for example, for cisplatin-based chemotherapy? Because I think that that is a very fundamental part of this type of strategy that we apply to patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So we know that there are some caveats for proposing such treatment. And also this population was specifically defined inside this recommendation. Dr. Andrea Necchi: I think that the focus of our work is just to analyze what is happening after any type of systemic therapy the patient may get neoadjuvantly. So it is not actually a question of treatment eligibility or including cisplatin eligibility. This is an old question of today's practice and clinical trials. But regardless of what the patient received neoadjuvantly, the point that we have addressed in our consensus meeting was what to do next as a further step after systemic therapy or not. So basically we are- the consensus guidance includes all-comers, so patients to get any type of systemic therapy. So really non-selected based on specific features that determine a special eligibility to a special or a particular therapy. But an all-comer approach is always the winning approach for the translation to be in practice, an all-comer approach just focusing on what has happened after treatment and that we are assessing by the use of conventional imaging, MRI or CT, cystoscopy, urinary cytology, and trying to merge all together this information, all these features in a unique, shared, reliable definition of clinical complete response that could be used as a biomarker for the selection of newer therapies instead of pathological response that has been historically used, and maybe surrogate for the outcome, the long-term outcome and survival of these patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: A very specific point of the consensus was actually the definition of clinical complete response. As you were saying, this is actually a combination of several parameters including urinary cytology, the use of cross-sectional imaging, for example CT scan, but also the evaluation in cystoscopy of the bladder. Do you foresee any potential problems when applying this type of recommendation, not inside clinical trials, but in the context of routine clinical practice? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Absolutely. And that was the whole reason we had this consensus meeting. What happens nowadays in daily practice, and we see this every day at our center, we see patients referred to us. This definition or this sort of attempt to define clinical complete response is an ongoing issue. And urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists are always looking to see, does my patient have a complete response? That definition and those paradigms have changed and evolved over the years. The FDA had a workshop many years ago looking at this very question. And it was to address the proposal that complete clinical response, which is a clinical definition, a clinical state, does this correlate with pathologic response? And with the technology and the systemic therapies we had then, the answer was 'no'. In fact, more patients got recurrent disease than did not get recurrent disease. And that is why, of course in the paper we mention the trials that looked at this question, the trials that evolved around this question. And I think the distinction between a clinical trial and daily practice is extremely important when we are looking at this definition per se. Because essentially what happens with this issue is that if the patient is not appropriately counseled, and if the physician does not do the appropriate clinical complete response assessment as Professor Necchi mentioned, right, cystoscopy, cytology, imaging, use of markers that are still in evolvement, we risk doing harm to the patient. So we caution in the paper too that this definition is not ready for prime time use. It is something that needs to be studied. It is a rigorous definition and currently we are recommending it for clinical trials. I am sure eventually it will trickle down into clinical practice, but that guidance was not the purpose of this consensus meeting. Dr. Davide Soldato: There are several parameters that are potentially evolving and could potentially enter inside of clinical practice. For example, you mentioned pelvic MRI and we have now very specific criteria, the VI-RADS criteria, we're able actually to diagnose and also to provide information. So along with these novel imaging techniques, we also know that there are novel biomarkers that could be explored, for example ctDNA and urinary DNA. So what I was wondering is, why were not these included inside the definition that you provide for clinical complete response? And do you think that, as we are designing these trials to potentially spare cystectomy for this patient, we should include these biomarkers very early so that we can actually provide better stratification for our patients and really propose this type of cystectomy-sparing strategy only to those where we are very confident that we have obtained a clinical complete response? Dr. Andrea Necchi: I would say you have just to wait. So a follow-up is ongoing and hard work is ongoing. At the time we met, at the time we established the meeting in mid-December last year, we had no information on the ctDNA data from major trials, with only a few exceptions. So we were just at the beginning of a story that was more than likely to change but still without numbers and without data from clinical trials. Now in just nine months or 10 months time, we have accumulated important data and newer data will be presented during just a few weeks and a few days regarding the ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA in particular, as a prognostic marker assessed baseline or assessed after neoadjuvant therapy. So the point is certainly well made and ctDNA is certainly well shaped to be incorporated in a future definition of clinical complete response. But you have to consider the fact that most of the data that we are accumulating related to ctDNA are about the post-cystectomy field or the metastatic field. So regarding neoadjuvant therapy, you know, we have neoadjuvant therapy in the context of bladder-sparing approach, basically we have no information. And the point that is emerging in our daily practice when using these biomarkers or in clinical trials, and the impression in general, is that it is a very strong biomarker associated with survival, but we absolutely do not know what is the performance of the test in the prediction of superficial bladder relapses, high-grade pTa relapse in the bladder that is left untouched in the patient. We are considering, and maybe it will be just a matter of further discussion, not just what is happening within the immediate endpoint of clinical CR, but also what is happening later with other survival endpoints. And for example, when looking at the type of events that we may see in this kind of bladder-sparing approaches, most of the events, also in the trials that have been published including the RETAIN study published in JCO, most of the events are related to superficial high-grade superficial non-muscle invasive relapses. So the ability to predict these types of events with ctDNA is completely unknown. Maybe, maybe other liquid biomarkers like urinary tumor DNA, utDNA, could be a bit better shaped in the prediction of this kind of events, you know. But we have still to build the story. So the question is good. The answer is yes, we will likely, more than likely incorporate liquid biomarkers in the definition, but we have to wait at least more data and more robust data in order to translate this information in routine practice, you know. Another consensus meeting is organized by IBCG and the same folks for November. This meeting will be primarily focused on the liquid biomarkers, the interpretation and use and approval and so of liquid biomarkers including bladder cancer. And we will likely be able to address all these, most of these open issues, so most of these points in the next meetings. Dr. Davide Soldato: In the consensus you say that probably clinical complete response is now ready to be included in early phase trials, so actually to test what is the efficacy of the regimens that is being evaluated inside of these trials. But you actually do very in-depth work of defining what are the most appropriate endpoints for later phase trials. So to be very specific, the phase three registrational trials that bring new regimens inside of this space. So I just wanted to hear a little bit about what was the definition for event-free survival, which you define as the most appropriate one for this type of trials. And as you were mentioning before, Professor Necchi, there is a very specific interest on the type of events that we observe, especially when we look at these superficial relapses inside of the bladder. So was this a very urgent matter of debate as we define which type of events should actually trigger event-free survival? And did you make a very thoughtful decision about why using this type of endpoint instead of others, for example metastasis-free survival? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, this was a matter of intense debate as you might imagine. And again, this is a moving target. So as Professor Necchi mentioned, we tend to partner with each other, our organizations, on having definitions of clinical complete response, biomarker, retreats, and then using that as a marker, and you might imagine this definition of what is appropriate event-free survival, what events matter to the patient, is something we have been talking about for two years. It was not just something that came up at the retreat. But at the retreat there was intense discussion. One of the things that we talked about was bladder-intact event-free survival because we are trying to spare the patient's bladder. And do we count bladder-intact event-free survival as something that is relevant? The patient advocates absolutely liked that, right? They wanted that. But then we also learned from some of the studies, for example from the RETAIN study, that the non-muscle invasive recurrences can actually lead to metastatic disease. It is not as benign when you have a patient with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that then develops a non-invasive tumor because maybe there is cancer growing underneath the surface that we don't detect when we look in the bladder. So a lot of those discussions were held, debated. It was a consensus. I have to say it was not 100% agreement on that particular definition, but it was broad consensus. And Andrea, do you want to clarify a little bit as to how we came about that consensus? Because I think this is a very important point we need to make. Dr. Andrea Necchi: We focused on a bit different definition of BI-EFS, Bladder-Intact Event-Free survival. Just stating EFS as an all-inclusive parameter including all type of high-grade relapse or progression or death that may happen to the patient. So that we were counting high-grade pTa, pT1, CIS relapses to the bladder and of course more deeper involvement in the muscle layer and so, and metastatic disease as a relapse. But the point is that as compared to the classical bladder-intact EFS definition of chemoradiation bladder-sparing approaches that is including muscle-invasive relapses only or death as events, we tried to be as inclusive as possible in order to be as much conservative as possible and to raise as higher the bar as possible for the success. And this is actually what the patients are asking us. So they are asking, "Okay, I can save my bladder, sparing radical cystectomy, but at which cost?" So in order to provide an answer, we have to be very, very cautious and be on the right shape, on the right position to say, "Okay, we have accomplished the most, the safest points, you know, by which you can proceed with the bladder-sparing." This is the first point. The other point is related to the MFS, metastasis-free survival that you have mentioned. For sure, it was recognized as a very important point for sure. But in the discussion was clear that our focus was in saving patients, curing the patient, and saving the bladder. Any single event, superficial event that may occur in the bladder-saving approaches of this kind may expose the patient to an extra risk of developing distant metastases, as it happened for example in the RETAIN study. So EFS defined as we have agreed and published, is actually a way of including or anticipating in a safest position the MFS. Because most or if not the entirety of the events of metastasis development in patients undergoing bladder-sparing after neoadjuvant systemic therapy were preceded by a superficial phase of disease relapse, you know. So I remember very, very few, or we can count just on the finger of one hand, the cases that have been reported in the literature developing de novo metastatic disease in the similar bladder-sparing approaches, in particular when using a maintenance immunotherapy strategy, you know, after they reach TURBT. So this is the reason why with all the limitation that Ashish has mentioned, with all the uncertainties that are still there, the nervousness that is still there, EFS, as defined in the protocol, as put in the paper, is to us at the moment is the safest way to use a primary endpoint in potentially registration trials of this kind with perioperative systemic therapy and response-adapted surgery. Dr. Ashish Kamat: And David, just to be absolutely clear for our listeners, right, so what was the event-free survival that we defined? Essentially it was a very inclusive definition. Event was defined as high-grade tumor persistence, recurrence, or progression during or after perioperative therapy, and receipt of any additional standard of care treatment including radical cystectomy, radiotherapy or even intravesical therapy. So this was done at the behest of our patient advocates because we really wanted to make a very robust definition that could be utilized appropriately as an adequate primary endpoint for both early and late phase bladder preservation trials. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think that it really highlights one of the points that I liked the most about this consensus is that it really incorporated the patient vision and a sort of shared decision making process when we are deciding how we want to design these trials that will explore this bladder-sparing surgery. And Professor Necchi mentioned something that I think will be also a very interesting question for trials that will be developed considering the activity of this combination that we are seeing right now, which is maintenance. Because right now our approach in the few cases where patients do not do any type of treatments after an induction with neoadjuvant treatments is basically represented by observation. So I was wondering if you think that the field will actually evolve to a sort of maintenance strategy even in patients that will achieve a complete clinical response? Dr. Andrea Necchi: We just mentioned briefly in the paper, this is a very important point that was touched during the discussion, and in particular was raised and discussed by FDA people participating in the meeting. And when looking at the data from the trials that were available and are still available thus far, we could provide a suggestion that maintenance immune therapy is the preferred approach in this kind of approach as it currently stands, as the data currently stand. Because the cleanest data towards the successful part of this journey is related to the studies that provided a kind of maintenance therapy, like the study with nivolumab or the RETAIN-2 study with maintenance immune therapy instead of RETAIN study that was just stopping treatment until surgery with MVAC chemotherapy. So in general the impression is that maintenance therapy may help in reducing the type of events, including the events that we incorporate in the EFS definition that we mentioned in the paper. The point that you mentioned is very important because on the other side we have a problem, a big problem of affordability and cost of the treatment. The de-escalation trials are an urgent need and represent a call for the studies. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, this is something that moves beyond the possibilities of this type of consensus because we don't have data and we have to accumulate data from clinical trials prior to saying, "Okay, certain patients could de-escalate therapy and stop therapy and some other not." So we are still at the very beginning. So we can do- we can discuss about this in the radical cystectomy paradigm but not in the bladder-sparing paradigm, you know. But this is for sure a point, a discussion point that will be taken, pretty well taken in one year or two year projection. Dr. Davide Soldato: I was wondering if in the consensus, considering that patient advocates and patient associations were also involved, did you decide to actually suggest the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes or the evaluation of shared decision-making in the development of this trial really as endpoints that should matter as much or as much as possible as event-free survival and clinical complete response? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Oh yeah, absolutely. We had patient advocates, we had the World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition, Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, patient representatives. And we always consider this. Shared decision-making is actually the impetus behind why these efforts have been launched, right? So it is the shared decision-making that is very, very important. It is the driving force behind what we do. And it is worth noting, for example, for the design of such studies, regulatory agencies consider response-based endpoints or overall survival as primary endpoints. But the patient advocates consider quality of life to be just as important, if not more important sometimes than overall survival numbers. Because patient advocates will say, "Well if I live longer but I'm miserable living longer, yes that works for regulatory agencies but doesn't work for us." So PROs clearly are very, very important. And, in fact, we just literally had a meeting in Houston, the IBCG meeting where PROs were a main point of what we discussed. So incorporating PROs in everything we do, not just this but everything we do, Dr. Necchi, myself, everybody involved in these fields realizes it is very, very important. So absolutely. Dr. Davide Soldato: I want to thank again Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat for joining us today. Dr. Andrea Necchi: Thank you. Dr. Ashish Kamat: It is our pleasure. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thanks again and we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Endpoints for the Next Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this episode of Bench to Bedside, Dr. Roy Jensen, vice chancellor and director of The University of Kansas Cancer Center, hosts Dr. Kristy Brown, a nationally recognized expert in cancer metabolism and hormone signaling. Dr. Brown discusses the latest breakthroughs in understanding the relationship between obesity, estrogen, and cancer, along with how these discoveries shape more effective treatments. She reflects on her career and shares moving accounts of patient interactions that fuel her research. The conversation delves into emerging opportunities in cancer treatment and prevention, the role of artificial intelligence in research, and offers advice for early-career scientists on making a meaningful impact. Dr. Brown expresses optimism for future cancer research advancements and the potential for improved patient outcomes. 00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Today's Topic 00:28 Meet Dr. Kristy Brown: Expert in Cancer Metabolism 01:02 Optimism in Cancer Research: Key Developments 02:31 Proud Moments in Cancer Research 04:15 Obesity, Metabolism, and Cancer: Emerging Discoveries 06:10 Translational Research: From Lab to Clinic 09:08 Advice for Early Career Scientists 12:18 Hope for the Future: Personal Reflections 13:24 Conclusion and Resources Links from this Episode: ·       Learn more about Dr. Kristy Brown ·       Learn about Dr. Brown's research ·       Learn about cancer prevention at KU Cancer Center To ensure you get our latest updates, follow us on the social media channel of your choice by searching for KU Cancer Center.

Dr. MaryAnn Wilbur trained her whole life to care for patients, then left medicine behind when it became a machine that punished empathy and rewarded throughput. She didn't burn out. She got out. A gynecologic oncologist, public health researcher, and no-bullshit single mom, MaryAnn walked straight off the cliff her career breadcrumbed her to—and lived to write the book.In this episode, we talk about what happens when doctors are forced to choose between their ethics and their employment, why medicine now operates like a low-resource war zone, and how the system breaks the very people it claims to elevate. We cover moral injury, medical gaslighting, and why she refused to lie on surgical charts just to boost hospital revenue.Her escape plan? Tell the truth, organize the exodus, and build something that actually works. If you've ever wondered why your doctor disappeared, this is your answer. If you're a clinician hiding your own suffering, this is your permission slip.RELATED LINKSMaryAnn Wilbur on LinkedInMedicine ForwardClinician Burnout FoundationThe Doctor Is No Longer In (Book)Suck It Up, Buttercup (Documentary)FEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

2025: The Year America Got Thinner — But Not Healthier | Media Power Grabs & Cancer Truths 2025 is being called “the year America shed” — with more people losing weight than ever thanks to fad diets, Ozempic, Wegovy, Zepbound, and every quick-fix trend imaginable. But here's the shocking truth: Americans may be getting thinner, but not healthier. Why? Today we break down the real reasons behind the wellness illusion. Then, a massive story almost no one is paying attention to: the brewing Warner Bros. takeover battle. Donald Trump, backed by Saudi money and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, is pushing for a hostile takeover to compete with (and control) Netflix. What's the motive? What does it mean for media, entertainment, and democracy? We dig into the power dynamics behind the scenes. Plus — new, surprising research on cancer detection asks a provocative question: Should all cancers be found? The answer isn't what you think. The Karel Cast is funded by your support at patreon.com/reallykarel. Watch, like, comment, and subscribe at youtube.com/reallykarel. Listen on all major platforms: Apple Music, Spotify, iHeartMedia, Spreaker, and more. Catch the show Monday through Thursday at 10:30 AM PST, with daily clips on TikTok and Instagram. Karel is a history-making broadcaster based in Las Vegas with his service girl, Ember — bringing bold commentary, big stories, and unfiltered truth. #TheKarelCast, #2025Trends, #OzempicCulture, #WeightLossTruth, #Wegovy, #Zepbound, #AmericanHealthCrisis, #MediaTakeover, #WarnerBrosDeal, #TrumpNews, #JaredKushner, #SaudiMoney, #NetflixWar, #CancerResearch, #HealthMyths, #PoliticalCommentary, #NewsAnalysis2025, #LasVegasCreator, #LGBTQCommentator, #PodcastLife https://youtube.com/live/NPftX-i5_EU

Dr. Trudy G. Oliver is a Professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Cancer Biology as well as a Duke Science and Technology Scholar at Duke University. Trudy's research focuses on small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its remarkable ability to "shape-shift" or undergo cellular plasticity. This adaptability allows cancer cells to change types and develop different therapeutic vulnerabilities (or invulnerabilities), making treatment especially challenging and preventing the development of a one-size-fits-all approach. When she's not in the lab, Trudy unwinds with walks, jogs, music, and true-crime podcasts. She also enjoys spending quality time with friends, family, and her two energetic orange kittens named Basal and Tuft after her favorite lung cell types. She received her Bachelor's degree in chemistry from Oklahoma Baptist University, and her PhD in cancer biology from Duke University. Afterwards, she conducted postdoctoral research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and subsequently at MIT. Trudy served on the faculty at the University of Utah for more than a decade before joining the faculty at Duke University where she is today. She has received numerous awards and honors for her work, including the Heine H. Hansen Lectureship Award for Small Cell Lung Cancer from the IASLC World Lung Conference, the William C. Rippe Award for Distinguished Research in Lung Cancer from the Lung Cancer Research Foundation, the Lung Cancer Discovery Award from the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society Research Scholar Award, the Damon Runyon-Rachleff Innovation Award, and the Jimmy V Scholar Award from the V Foundation for Cancer Research. In this interview, Trudy shares more about her life and science.

Episode 5 of Standard Deviation with Oliver Bogler on the Out of Patients podcast feed pulls you straight into the story of Dr Ethan Moitra, a psychologist who fights for LGBTQ mental health while the system throws every obstacle it can find at him.Ethan built a study that tracked how COVID 19 tore through an already vulnerable community. He secured an NIH grant. He built a team. He reached 180 participants. Then he opened an email on a Saturday and learned that Washington had erased his work with one sentence about taxpayer priorities. The funding vanished. The timeline collapsed. His team scattered. Participants who trusted him sat in limbo.A federal court eventually forced the government to reinstate the grant, but the damage stayed baked into the process. Ethan had to push through months of paperwork while his university kept the original deadline as if the shutdown had not happened. The system handed him a win that felt like a warning.I brought Ethan on because his story shows how politics reaches into science and punishes the people who serve communities already carrying too much trauma. His honesty lands hard because he names the fear now spreading across academia and how young scientists question whether they can afford to care about the wrong population.You will hear what this ordeal did to him, what it cost his team, and why he refuses to walk away.RELATED LINKSFaculty PageNIH Grant DetailsScientific PresentationBoston Globe CoverageFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In today's episode of Game Over: c*ncer, we explore one of the greatest superpowers in pediatric cancer research: collaboration. From co-funding grants to global scientific networks, teamwork is driving lifesaving breakthroughs, especially for the rarest and hardest-to-treat childhood cancers.Hosted by Val Solomon (Director of Program Impact) and Dana Nichols (Executive Director of CKc), this episode features an inspiring conversation with Dr. Anirban Das, a pediatric neuro-oncologist and cancer geneticist at SickKids Hospital in Toronto and assistant professor at the University of Toronto.Dr. Das is a 2024 Cannonball Kids' Cancer Young Investigator, a grant co-funded with Kindred Foundation, supporting his groundbreaking work on DNA replication repair deficiency and central nervous system tumors. His research not only spans advanced biology and immunotherapy but also reaches families across the world, including low- and middle-income countries, through the International Replication Repair Deficiency Consortium, which now includes more than 50 countries.What We Cover in This Episode:How Dr. Das unexpectedly found his path into pediatric neuro-oncologyWhy early-career funding (like CKc Young Investigator grants) is critical to innovationHow collaboration between foundations accelerates research for rare cancersThe global consortium bringing efficiency, shared data, and evidence-based care to families worldwideWhat makes replication repair deficiency tumors unique, and why they were once considered “rare”The reality of the research pipeline: grant writing, mentorship, and the challenges young investigators faceHow CKc and Kindred partnered to fuel the next generation of cancer breakthroughsWhy teamwork is not just helpful in pediatric cancer, it's essentialIf this conversation moves you, please like, comment, and share to help us educate for change. Leaving a review helps more families find tangible hope.To learn more about Kindred Foundation, visit www.kindredfoundation.caTune in to hear this inspiring and informative conversation. Don't forget to subscribe, leave a review, and join the fight to make Game Over: c*ncer a reality.----------------------------------Connect with Dana: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danaknichols/Connect with Val: https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-solomon/Upcoming Ckc Events: https://cannonballkidscancer.org/category/make-an-impact/events/----------------------------------Podcast Produced by Hi Hello Labs: Website: https://www.hihellolabs.com/

Join host Dr. Mario Espinoza-Kulick for a conversation with leaders from End Kids Cancer, a San Luis Obispo–based organization working at the forefront of pediatric cancer research, family navigation, and prevention. Listen and participate live Thursdays from 1-2pm on KCBX

In this episode of Parts and Labor, Angela Chaudhari, MD, hosts a panel of experts from Northwestern Medicine's Division of Gynecologic Oncology to explore the innovative role of robotic surgery in cancer care. The discussion highlights how robotic technology is improving outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancers through minimally invasive techniques, enhanced precision and interdisciplinary collaboration.The panel covers advancements in robotic systems, patient populations who benefit most from this approach, including those with high BMI, complex surgical histories, and fertility concerns, as well as the future of surgical innovation at Northwestern Medicine.This episode's panel of guests includes:• Emma L. Barber, MD, John and Ruth Brewer Professor of Gynecology and Cancer Research, Division Chief of Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Robotic Surgery.• Dario R. Roque, MD, Associate Professor of Gynecologic Oncology and Fellowship Program Director.• Jenna Z. Marcus, MD, Associate Professor of Gynecologic Oncology, Director of Robotic Simulation and Associate Fellowship Program Director.

In this episode, Catherine Glass is joined by Anna Minchom, Clinical Scientist at the Drug Development Unit at the Royal Marsden Hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. In a highly informative discussion, Minchom explains the drug development process, key considerations in designing and conducting a trial, and the challenges in drug resistance.   Timestamps:      00:00 – Introduction 00:51 – Her journey into oncology 4:04 – Drug development 07:20 – Patient recruitment 08:45 – Challenges of drug resistance 11:20 – Early-phase clinical trials 13:06 – Navigating clinical trial outcomes 15:38 – Emerging technologies and therapies 17:42 – Side effects 19:09 – Three magic wishes

Chelsea J. Smith walks into a studio and suddenly I feel like a smurf. She's six-foot-three of sharp humor, dancer's poise, and radioactive charm. A working actor and thyroid cancer survivor, Chelsea is the kind of guest who laughs while dropping truth bombs about what it means to be told you're “lucky” to have the “good cancer.” We talk about turning trauma into art, how Shakespeare saved her sanity during the pandemic, and why bartending might be the best acting class money can't buy. She drops the polite bullshit, dismantles survivor guilt with punchline precision, and reminds every listener that grace and rage can live in the same body. If you've ever been told to “walk it off” while your body betrayed you, this one hits close.RELATED LINKS• Chelsea J. Smith Website• Chelsea on Instagram• Chelsea on Backstage• Chelsea on YouTube• Cancer Hope Network• Artichokes and Grace – Book by Chelsea's motherFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

* Latest Science News: This week Fred Williams and Doug McBurney review headlines from the world of immunotherapy and cancer research, the Epoch Times, Evolutionary Cosmology & Hydroplate Theory. * God's Shooting Video: Hear a theory (that's at least as plausible as others) for how God can have eyes everywhere as Proverbs 15:3 says! * Gunning for Cancer: We'll cover the latest advances in cancer research, which sees doctors injecting one tumor with CD40 agonist antibody 2141-V11, eliminating it, and many more, using compounds created by the immune system God gave ya! * Epoch Rewrite: Hear the story of Antarctic Ice that has defied erosion for 6 million years, and once again rewritten a host of old earth/climate fairy tales. * The Big Roll: How did frozen & fossilized tropical plants and animals end up in the arctic? And what are Mammoths discovered, frozen and with tropical plants, undigested in their stomachs? Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory offers a plausible explanation!

* Latest Science News: This week Fred Williams and Doug McBurney review headlines from the world of immunotherapy and cancer research, the Epoch Times, Evolutionary Cosmology & Hydroplate Theory. * God's Shooting Video: Hear a theory (that's at least as plausible as others) for how God can have eyes everywhere as Proverbs 15:3 says! * Gunning for Cancer: We'll cover the latest advances in cancer research, which sees doctors injecting one tumor with CD40 agonist antibody 2141-V11, eliminating it, and many more, using compounds created by the immune system God gave ya! * Epoch Rewrite: Hear the story of Antarctic Ice that has defied erosion for 6 million years, and once again rewritten a host of old earth/climate fairy tales. * The Big Roll: How did frozen & fossilized tropical plants and animals end up in the arctic? And what are Mammoths discovered, frozen and with tropical plants, undigested in their stomachs? Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory offers a plausible explanation!

Patrick Vallance, the minister for science, research and innovation, recently unveiled a plan to cut animal testing through greater use of AI and other technologies, with the eventual aim of phasing it out altogether. To understand how this will affect research and what could be used in place of animal models, Madeleine Finlay hears from science editor Ian Sample, Prof Hazel Screen of Queen Mary University London and Prof Kevin Harrington from the Institute of Cancer Research. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

My good friend ​⁠ is so knowledgeable and experienced in so many fields! I learned so much when he educated us on toxicology, I was thrilled when he was willing to share his knowledge on cancer research! Cancer is such a scary and devastating disease, I could not be happier and more assured that brilliant minds like him are working on a solution! Start your $1 per month trial at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.shopify.com/rebecca⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Rebecca: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@rrogersworld⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To watch the podcast on YouTube:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/RebeccaRogersYouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast for free wherever you're listening or by using this link:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/WouldYouBelievePodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you like the show, telling a friend about it would be amazing! You can text, email, Tweet, or send this link to a friend:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/WouldYouBelievePodcast⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Bench to Bedside, Dr. Roy Jensen speaks with Dr. Anna Arthur and Dr. Gregory Gan about their innovative cross-disciplinary work at the intersection of nutrition and radiation oncology. They explore how their combined expertise leads to holistic cancer treatment approaches, focusing on the effects of diet, inflammation, and treatment response on patient outcomes. Both experts share their personal and professional journeys into their respective fields, the collaborative projects they have undertaken, and the way they integrate multidisciplinary insights into improving cancer care. They also highlight their efforts to mentor the next generation of researchers, underscoring the value of collaboration in scientific innovation. 00:00 Introduction to Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration 00:41 Meet the Experts: Dr. Anna Arthur and Dr. Gregory Gan 00:48 Journey into Their Respective Fields 02:02 Challenges and Realizations in Cancer Research 05:22 The Intersection of Nutrition and Radiation Oncology 10:28 Collaborative Projects and Their Impact 19:31 Mentoring the Next Generation of Researchers 23:14 Future Directions in Integrating Nutrition and Cancer Treatment 25:04 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Links from this Episode: ·       Learn more about Dr. Anna Arthur ·       Learn about Dr. Gregory Gan ·       Learn about the Nutrition Shared Resource at the cancer center ·       Learn about head and neck cancer To ensure you get our latest updates, follow us on the social media channel of your choice by searching for KU Cancer Center.

In this episode, Dr. Jockers and Dr. Chris D'Adamo break down how your immune system learns, adapts, and strengthens over time—and why beta-glucan is one of the most researched natural compounds for resilience. You'll hear how immune modulation, not just stimulation, can keep you healthy through stress, seasonal shifts, and everyday exposures.   You'll learn how gut health, stress hormones, and immune function are deeply connected, and why improving your stress tolerance starts with lowering inflammation and supporting your microbiome. Dr. D'Adamo explains the science behind cortisol, trained immunity, and the role beta-glucan plays in balancing your system long before symptoms appear.   You'll also discover why immune aging may be one of the biggest drivers of biological aging—and how supporting your innate defenses can influence longevity, energy, and mood. Throughout the conversation, you'll pick up practical strategies you can start using today to strengthen immunity in a real, sustainable way.   In This Episode:  00:00 Introduction to Beta-Glucan and Cancer Research 00:37 Training Your Immune System 01:23 Beta-Glucan: Sources and Benefits 05:48 Interview with Dr. Chris D'Adamo: Immune System Focus 08:07 Beta-Glucan and Immune Modulation 09:44 Cold and Flu Season: Immune System Tips 11:24 Beta-Glucan and Biological Aging 17:45 Beta-Glucan Dosage and Usage 20:23 Personal Immune System Strategies 22:55 Trained Immunity and Beta-Glucan 25:14 Beta-Glucan and Cortisol Reduction 30:05 The Role of Beta-Glucan in Detoxification 33:07 Supplements and Modern Toxicity 34:45 Beta-Glucan for Kids 36:26 Exciting Research on Immune Health 39:17 Daily Habits for a Strong Immune System 42:12 The Benefits of Sauna and Cold Exposure 47:10 Choosing the Right Beta-Glucan Supplement 48:28 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Hydration is one of the fastest ways to boost your energy, sharpen your focus, curb cravings, and even improve the look and feel of your skin — but water alone isn't enough. Your cells need electrolytes to actually absorb and use that hydration. Paleovalley Essential Electrolytes delivers premium, full-spectrum minerals with zero sugar, no artificial ingredients, and unprocessed sea salt, helping you feel more energized, clear-headed, and vibrant — and look more radiant from the inside out. Just one scoop a day can make a noticeable difference. Try Paleovalley Essential Electrolytes and save 15% by visiting Paleovalley.com/jockers and using code JOCKERS at checkout.   If you're serious about reducing your toxic load, I highly recommend upgrading to the P600 ceramic cookware. It's 100% free from Teflon, PFAS, and plastic coatings, ensuring a non-toxic cooking experience. Right now, you can get it for 50% off, plus an extra 20% off with the code SAFE20 at checkout! Don't miss this limited-time offer—head to chefsfoundry.com/jockers to claim your discount today!     "Beta-glucans aren't just immune boosters—they're immune modulators, helping balance and strengthen your body's defenses against pathogens."      Subscribe to the podcast on: Apple Podcast Stitcher Spotify PodBean TuneIn Radio     Resources: Get 15% off Paleovalley Electrolites: paleovalley.com/jockers – Use code JOCKERS Use code SAFE20 at chefsfoundry.com/jockers to claim your discount today!     Connect with Dr. Chris D'Adamo: Website - https://www.betterwayhealth.com/   Connect with Dr. Jockers: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/drjockers/ Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/DrDavidJockers YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/user/djockers Website – https://drjockers.com/ If you are interested in being a guest on the show, we would love to hear from you! Please contact us here! - https://drjockers.com/join-us-dr-jockers-functional-nutrition-podcast/ 

When Julia Stalder heard the words ductal carcinoma in situ, she was told she had the “best kind of breast cancer.” Which is like saying you got hit by the nicest bus. Julia's a lawyer turned mediator who now runs DCIS Understood, a new nonprofit born out of her own diagnosis. Instead of panicking and letting the system chew her up, she asked questions the industry would rather avoid. Why do women lose breasts for conditions that may never become invasive? Why is prostate cancer allowed patience while breast cancer gets the knife? We talked about doctors' fear of uncertainty, the epidemic of overtreatment, and what happens when you build a movement while still in the waiting room. Funny, fierce, unfiltered—this one sticks.RELATED LINKS• DCIS Understood• Stalder Mediation• Julia's story in CURE Today• PreludeDx DCISionRT feature• Julia on LinkedInFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The FDA's Accelerated Approval Program (AAP) aims to bring promising, potentially life-saving medicines to patients sooner by allowing approvals based on surrogate endpoints while requiring timely confirmatory evidence. In this episode, we speak with Bridget Doherty, MPH, MS (Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine), and Jeff Allen, PhD (Friends of Cancer Research). Bridget discusses her team's review of the AAP's real-world impact, showing that hundreds of thousands of meaningful life-years have been gained for patients. Jeff shares findings from work strengthening biomarkers as reliable surrogate endpoints—helping define when increased speed can still preserve scientific rigor. We also explore the core access challenge: how payer coverage and utilization management help or hinder patients the AAP is designed to serve. We close with practical policy steps to ensure that earlier regulatory access truly leads to better outcomes for people who need treatments most. Bridget Doherty, MPH, MS, Johnson & Johnson Jeff Allen, Friends of Cancer Research J&J Center for U.S. Healthcare Policy Research Friends of Cancer Research Accelerated Approvals in Oncology Tracker Drug Development Dashboards 30 Years of Accelerated Approval: Data-Driven Insights Analysis of FDA Biomarker Qualification Program Original JNCCN Study How Gleevec Transformed Leukemia Treatment Immunotherapy Surrogate Endpoints Confirmatory Trials Years Gained from the FDA Accelerated Approval Program (2024) Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) ctMoniTR Project Questions or comments? Email us at comments@prescriptionforbetteraccess.com. Find us on social media: X, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Threads.

2025: A Year in Review for Cancer Research Breakthroughs with guest Dr. Patricia LoRusso December 14, 2025 Yale Cancer Center visit: https://medicine.yale.edu/cancer email: canceranswers@yale.edu call: 203-785-4095

Today on Beating Cancer Daily, Saranne sits down with cancer prevention expert Jacqui Bryan for an in-depth discussion about what it really takes to lower cancer risk—whether you've never faced a diagnosis or are dealing with fears of recurrence after Stage IV disease. This episode uses Jacqui's own journey as a breast cancer survivor and her expertise in functional medicine to break down the ten evidence-based recommendations from the American Institute for Cancer Research, with a special focus on diet, weight management, lifestyle choices, and emotional wellbeing. The conversation goes beyond genetics and environmental exposures to offer tangible ways listeners can “change their inner terrain,” from prioritizing plant-based foods and limiting processed meats, to rethinking alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages. The episode also features guidance on when to use supplements, the critical importance of physical activity, and why community and social support matter just as much as nutrition. Throughout, Jacqui and Saranne emphasize making progress over perfection and share practical advice for anyone looking to feel more empowered in their own cancer prevention plan.Jacqui Bryan is a whole health educator, functional medicine expert, certified health coach, and registered nurse. A breast cancer survivor herself, Jacqui has spent more than two decades guiding others toward resilience, wellness, and cancer prevention. She serves the ComedyCures community both in private practice and through free educational offerings, and is recognized for her compassion, deep knowledge, and motivational approach to healthy living."There's no magic pill for cancer prevention...your body prefers the nutrition that it gets from real food and not necessarily from supplements." ~Jacqui Bryan Today on Beating Cancer Daily:·     Empowerment, not perfection, is the foundation of sustainable cancer prevention·     Maintaining a healthy body weight lowers the risk for multiple cancers, and even small weight loss brings real benefits·     Seven out of ten top cancer prevention strategies recommended by experts are directly tied to what and how you eat·     Prioritizing a diet of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans reduces inflammation and supports immune function·     Limiting red meat, processed meats, sugary drinks, and fast foods is essential for lowering cancer risk and inflammation·     Alcohol should be minimized or avoided, as it can increase cancer risk by damaging DNA and raising estrogen·     Supplements are not a substitute for a healthy diet, food should always come first in cancer prevention·     Physical activity, stress reduction, social connection, and strong sleep habits are crucial dimensions of a comprehensive prevention plan 2025 People's Choice Podcast Awards Finalist Ranked the Top 5 Best Cancer Podcasts by CancerCare News in 2024 & 2025, and #1 Rated Cancer Survivor Podcast by FeedSpot in 2024 Beating Cancer Daily is listened to in over 130 countries across 7 continents and features over 390 original daily episodes hosted by Stage IV survivor Saranne Rothberg.   To learn more about Host Saranne Rothberg and The ComedyCures Foundation:https://www.comedycures.org/ To write to Saranne or a guest:https://www.comedycures.org/contact-8 To record a message to Saranne or a guest:https://www.speakpipe.com/BCD_Comments_SuggestionsTo sign up for the free Health Builder Series live on Zoom with Saranne and Jacqui, go to The ComedyCures Foundation's homepage:https://www.comedycures.org/Please support the creation of more original episodes of Beating Cancer Daily and other free ComedyCures Foundation programs with a tax-deductible contribution:http://bit.ly/ComedyCuresDonate THANK YOU! Please tell a friend whom we may help, and please support us with a beautiful review. Have a blessed day! Saranne  

Dr. Rachel Gatlin entered neuroscience with curiosity and optimism. Then came chaos. She started her PhD at the University of Utah in March 2020—right as the world shut down. Her lab barely existed. Her advisor was on leave. Her project focused on isolation stress in mice, and then every human on earth became her control group. Rachel fought through supply shortages, grant freezes, and the brutal postdoc job market that treats scientists like disposable parts. When her first offer vanished under a hiring freeze, she doubled down, rewrote her plan, and won her own NIH training grant. Her story is about survival in the most literal sense—how to keep your brain intact when the system built to train you keeps collapsing.RELATED LINKS• Dr. Rachel Gatlin on LinkedIn• Dr. Gatlin's Paper Preprint• Dr. Eric Nestler on Wikipedia• News Coverage: Class of 2025 – PhD Students Redefine PrioritiesFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONBefore she was raising millions to preserve fertility for cancer patients, Tracy Weiss was filming reenactments in her apartment for the Maury Povich Show using her grandmother's china. Her origin story includes Jerry Springer, cervical cancer, and a full-body allergic reaction to bullshit. Now, she's Executive Director of The Chick Mission, where she weaponizes sarcasm, spreadsheets, and the rage of every woman who's ever been told “you're fine” while actively bleeding out in a one-stall office bathroom.We get into all of it. The diagnosis. The misdiagnosis. The second opinion that saved her life. Why fertility preservation is still a luxury item. Why half of oncologists still don't mention it. And what it takes to turn permission to be pissed into a platform that actually pays for women's futures.This episode is blunt, hilarious, and very Jewish. There's chopped liver, Carrie Bradshaw slander, and more than one “fuck you” to the status quo. You've been warned.RELATED LINKSThe Chick MissionTracy Weiss on LinkedInFertility Preservation Interview (Dr. Aimee Podcast)Tracy's Story in Authority MagazineNBC DFW FeatureStork'd Podcast EpisodeNuDetroit ProfileChick Mission 2024 Gala RecapFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Jeanine Cook-Garard and Pandora Groth learn about clinical trials, especially concerning phase 1, or early-stage trial in oncology.  They speak with Dr. Geraldine O'Sullivan Coyne, who was recently named to lead The Northwell Cancer Institute START Center for Cancer Research - the first site in New York, expanding the community-based early-phase oncology research network.  Northwell's START unit is located at the R.J. Zuckerberg Cancer Center in New Hyde Park. Dr. O'Sullivan Coyne joins Northwell Health after two years as a clinical investigator at START Dublin in Ireland, and 10 years at the National Cancer Institute in Maryland.

BUFFALO, NY – November 17, 2025 – A new #research perspective was #published in Oncotarget (Volume 16) on November 14, 2025, titled “A personal perspective of patient-centred clinical trials.” In this perspective, led by corresponding author Jia Liu of The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital, the University of New South Wales, and the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, three early-phase clinical trial participants — Trevor Tyne, Elizabeth Ivimey, and Leanne Duggan — reflect on their personal experiences with experimental cancer treatments. Their stories offer a unique perspective on the patient journey through early-phase trials and emphasize the need to design clinical research that prioritizes patients' needs, dignity, and lived realities. The authors highlight both the life-changing opportunities that trials can provide and the systemic barriers that still prevent many patients from participating. This perspective captures a turning point in how early-phase trials are viewed. Once considered a last resort, these trials are now increasingly offered earlier in treatment, especially with the rise of biomarker-guided therapies. In this context, the patient experience has become critical. The authors outline key benefits of participation, including access to novel therapies, ongoing medical monitoring, emotional support, and a strong sense of purpose in contributing to future medical advancements. However, they also point out significant challenges, such as restrictive eligibility criteria, high financial and logistical burdens, and communication gaps between patients and trial staff. “While no trial guarantees success, the level of support, access to innovative therapies, and sense of contribution to medical progress can be profoundly meaningful.” Each narrative provides insight into the clinical trial experience. One patient explains how living with a visual impairment required tailored accessibility support throughout the trial process Another shares how genomic testing led to targeted treatment after standard options failed. Despite their different diagnoses and circumstances, all three stories reflect resilience, hope, and a shared call for trial designs that better reflect the realities of diverse patients. To address these issues, the authors propose a number of improvements to trial design and delivery. These include expanding eligibility criteria, offering financial and logistical assistance, improving communication training for research staff, and introducing dedicated trial navigators to help guide patients through complex processes. They also focus on the importance of involving patient advocates in trial design and ensuring smoother transitions for patients moving between treatment centers. While early-phase trials focus on safety and effectiveness, the authors argue they must also be guided by core values like ethics and patient empowerment. This perspective serves as a reminder that the future of cancer research depends not only on scientific innovation, but on an honest partnership between patients and the research community. By sharing these real-world experiences, the article encourages a broader conversation about how to make clinical trials more responsive to the people they are designed to serve. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28776 Correspondence to - Jia Liu - jia.liu@svha.org.au Abstract video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CCGN78n8ug To learn more about Oncotarget, visit https://www.oncotarget.com: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

As part of our deeper series on protein, perimenopause, and hormone health, this episode kicks off a multi-part exploration of soy—one of the most misunderstood yet most powerful foods in our plant-based toolkit.This podcast is listener-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.There's so much confusion around soy—does it act like estrogen? Does it affect hormones? And what about breast cancer? In this first episode of a multi-part series on soy, we walk through * what phytoestrogens really are (and aren't)* how isoflavones behave in the body* why soy foods are considered such a nutritional powerhouseWe explore: * what soy actually is* why it's so misunderstood in the West* the environmental realities behind global soy production* the unique benefits of tofu, tempeh, and edamame * estrogen-receptor–positive cancer and what the research really shows about it and its relationship to soyAll of this lays the groundwork for understanding soy's real role in our health—far beyond the myths and misinformation—and prepares us for Parts 2 and 3, where we'll explore soy's impact on menopause symptoms, hormone health, and how to incorporate these nourishing foods into your daily life with confidence and joy.*High-Protein Recipes Featuring Tofu, Tempeh, and EdamameIf you're enjoying this series and want practical, delicious ways to bring more soy foods into your life, don't miss my new recipe e-book, High-Protein Recipes Featuring Tofu, Tempeh, and Edamame. It features 12 savory, protein-rich recipes—spreads, soups, salads, sandwiches, and mains—all with 10-20 grams of protein per realistic serving. Each recipe includes a beautiful photo and full nutrition information to make meal planning easy and satisfying.Related Episodes* Protein-Packed Plant Foods (Ranked from Highest to Lowest)* Are You Eating Enough Protein? (Part One)* Are You Eating Enough Protein? (Part Two)* Omega-3s: Skip the Fish, Boost Your Brain, but Make Sure You're Getting Enough* Your Daily Supplement Guide: The Non-Negotiables and the Helpful Boosts* Building Strength and Muscle: Protein Intake, Protein Timing, and Lifting Heavy Sh*tSupport the PodcastTo keep Food for Thought Podcast ad-free and accessible to all, I rely on the support of paid subscribers. If you're already one—thank you. If you're not, please consider becoming one. None of the companies below sponsored this episode. They're simply brands I personally use, love, and trust—which is why I agreed to be an affiliate.If you make a purchase using the links below, I receive a small commission at no extra cost to you—and you'll receive exclusive discounts using the codes provided!* Complement SupplementsEverything you need, nothing you don't. Complement makes targeted supplements for plant-based eaters, including B12, D3, DHA, and more—all from clean, trusted sources.

Biochemist Lingyin Li survived breast cancer at just 30 and now works to harness the human immune system to fight cancers that have long evaded treatment. T cells, she says, are powerful cancer killers, but they can be oblivious. She and her lab colleagues have discovered a masking enzyme that squelches the immune system's “danger signals” and are now developing drugs to block that enzyme. She likens her work to an arms race between cancer and immunotherapy. “The cancers are not getting smarter, but we are,” Li tells host Russ Altman on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast.Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Lingyin LiConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / FacebookChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRuss Altman introduces guest Lingyin Li, a professor of biochemistry at Stanford University.(00:03:38) Research MotivationLingyin explains how her breast cancer diagnosis inspired her research.(00:04:31) How T-Cells WorkT-cell mechanisms and why they struggle to reach solid tumors.(00:05:38) Immune System OverviewInnate and adaptive immunity and how mutations make cancer recognizable.(00:07:28) Awakening the Immune SystemEfforts to stimulate innate immune cells to detect and expose tumors.(00:10:54) The Cancer SignalDiscovery of cancer-derived DNA signals that alert the immune system.(00:13:01) Cancer's Evasion MechanismHow tumors destroy immune signals to hide from detection.(00:14:26) ENPP1 EnzymeIdentification of ENPP1 as the enzyme enabling immune evasion.(00:15:22) Balancing Immunity and SafetyRole of ENPP1 in autoimmunity and the challenge of targeting it safely.(00:19:30) ENPP1 InhibitorsDevelopment of molecules to block ENPP1 and enhance immune signaling.(00:24:55) Preclinical FindingsThe promising results against aggressive solid tumors in animal studies(00:28:05) From Lab to ClinicThe progress toward FDA approval and preparation for human testing.(00:31:04) Future In a MinuteRapid-fire Q&A: innovation, collaboration, and the outlook for cancer treatment.(00:33:14) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

EPISODE DESCRIPTION:Libby Amber Shayo didn't just survive the pandemic—she branded it. Armed with a bun, a New York accent, and enough generational trauma to sell out a two-drink-minimum crowd, she turned her Jewish mom impressions into the viral sensation known as Sheryl Cohen. What started as one-off TikToks became a career in full technicolor: stand-up, sketch, podcasting, and Jewish community building.We covered everything. Jew camp lore. COVID courtship. Hannah Montana. Holocaust comedy. Dating app postmortems. And the raw, relentless grief that comes with being Jewish online in 2025. Libby's alter ego lets her say the quiet parts out loud, but the real Libby? She's got receipts, range, and a righteous sense of purpose.If you're burnt out on algorithm-friendly “influencers,” meet a creator who actually stands for something. She doesn't flinch. She doesn't filter. And she damn well earned her platform.This is the most Jewish episode I've ever recorded. And yes, there will be guilt.RELATED LINKSLibby's Website: https://libbyambershayo.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/libbyambershayoTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@libbyambershayoLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/libby-walkerSchmuckboys Podcast: https://jewishjournal.com/podcasts/schmuckboysForbes Feature: Modern Mrs. Maisel Vibes https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshweissMedium Profile: https://medium.com/@libbyambershayoFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform.For guest suggestions or sponsorship, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Susanne Kogut, President of Petco Love, talks about their inspiring mission to help pets and their people. Learn how Petco Love supports dog cancer research, funds treatment for pet parents in need, and even pioneers groundbreaking initiatives like lost pet facial recognition and free vaccination drives. Topics Covered: • Why the Petco Foundation became Petco Love • Petco Love Lost: The lost-and-found pet database revolution • 1 million free vaccines for dogs and cats: How it's saving lives • $18 million invested in dog cancer research and subsidized treatments • Groundbreaking immunotherapy and ultrasound research for canine cancer • How you can support Petco Love's mission Donate: Support Petco Love's life-saving initiatives by donating at your local Petco store, online at https://www.petcolove.org, or during checkout at Petco's online store. Your Voice Matters! If you have a question for our team, or if you want to share your own hopeful dog cancer story, we want to hear from you! Go to https://www.dogcancer.com/ask to submit your question or story, or call our Listener Line at +1 808-868-3200 to leave a question. Related Videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEvFhsC_TyY Related Links: Petco Love: https://petcolove.org/ Petco Love Lost: https://petcolove.org/lost/ Petco Love Care vaccination program: https://petcolove.org/care/ Morris Animal Foundation: https://www.morrisanimalfoundation.org/ Mosby Foundation: https://themosbyfoundation.org/programs/ FACE Foundation: https://face4pets.org/ Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA: https://www.caspca.org/ Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 01:15 - From Petco Foundation to Petco Love 03:00 - Love Lost: A New Solution for Lost Pets 06:30 - Free Vaccination Drive for Preventable Diseases 09:15 - Petco Love's $18 Million Dog Cancer Initiative 12:00 - Cutting-Edge Canine Cancer Research Highlights 14:30 - Immunotherapy Vaccines for Dogs with Lymphoma 16:00 - Breakthroughs in Focused Ultrasound Technology 18:45 - Subsidized Cancer Treatment Programs at Top Universities 21:00 - How Pet Parents Can Access Petco Love Funds 23:30 - Susanne's Journey: From Corporate Attorney to Animal Advocate 27:00 - How You Can Support Petco Love's Mission Get to know Susanne Kogut: https://www.dogcancer.com/people/susanne-kogut/ For more details, articles, podcast episodes, and quality education, go to the episode page: https://www.dogcancer.com/podcast/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

===== MDJ Script/ Top Stories for November 7th Publish Date:  November 7th    Commercial: From the BG AD Group Studio, Welcome to the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast.    Today is Friday, November 7th and Happy Birthday to Jim Kaat I’m Keith Ippolito and here are the stories Cobb is talking about, presented by Times Journal Bakery, Italian restaurant coming to Avenue East Cobb Auditions for Cobb Idol Jr. are due by Dec. 1 Powder Springs man to run in marathon to raise money for cancer research Plus, Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on milk All of this and more is coming up on the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen and subscribe!  BREAK: Ingles Markets 6 STORY 1: Bakery, Italian restaurant coming to Avenue East Cobb  Two new spots are about to shake things up at Avenue East Cobb this month, and foodies, you’re gonna want to mark your calendars. First up, Giulia—a cozy Italian bakery and patisserie—opened today! Think flaky croissants, dreamy pastries, and coffee that’ll make you linger. After finding success at The Forum in Peachtree Corners, owners Ben and Seth Gjuka are bringing their magic to a 900-square-foot space here, right next to their upcoming restaurant, Luga. Speaking of Luga, it’s set to debut Nov. 24 in the old Drift Fish House spot. Expect a sleek 28-seat bar, an open kitchen, and a menu packed with antipasti, Roma-style pizzas, and fresh, house-made pastas. Find it all at 4475 Roswell Road. STORY 2: Auditions for Cobb Idol Jr. are due by Dec. 1  Got a voice that can wow a crowd? The Earl and Rachel Smith Strand Theatre in Marietta is calling all young singers, ages 11-19, to audition for Cobb Idol Jr. 2026: Heartbreak & Heartache. This live competition, a spinoff of the beloved Cobb Idol, gives talented teens a chance to shine on stage. The big event happens Feb. 11 at 6:30 p.m., but auditions are due by Dec. 1. Here’s the deal: submit a video of yourself singing a love or heartbreak-themed song (1.5–3 minutes) to education@strandmarietta.org. Keep it family-friendly, show off your range, and make sure your voice is the star. Winners snag cash, scholarships, and even a spot in Cobb Idol 2026. Questions? Email Savannah Patton at education@strandmarietta.org. STORY 3: Powder Springs man to run in marathon to raise money for cancer research  The 2026 Chicago Marathon is still months away, but for Cole McNall, the journey has already begun. The 25-year-old from Powder Springs isn’t just training for his first marathon—he’s running for something much bigger: his mom. Last December, McNall’s mother, Danae Huffman, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare and incurable blood cancer. “She wasn’t herself—back pain, fatigue, just... off,” McNall recalls. The diagnosis hit hard. Treatments were grueling—chemo, a stem cell transplant—but today, she’s in remission. Now, McNall is running as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation team, aiming to raise $3,000 for research. “This isn’t just a race,” he says. “It’s for her.” We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.799.6810 for more info.  We’ll be right back. Break: Ingles Markets 6 STORY 4: Veterans Day celebrations in Cobb County Veterans Day is almost here, and Cobb County is pulling out all the stops to honor those who’ve served. From parades to luncheons, there’s something for everyone leading up to Nov. 11. Veterans Day Parade on Nov. 8 will feature marching bands, floats, and a ceremony in Glover Park. And on Nov. 11, ceremonies in Acworth, Austell, Powder Springs, and Smyrna will pay tribute with speakers, color guards, and heartfelt moments. There are countless ways to show gratitude next week. STORY 5: Delays likely for distribution of government food benefits to the hungry For one in eight Georgians, the wait for food assistance just got longer—and more uncertain. SNAP benefits, which usually roll out between the 5th and 23rd of each month, are delayed, leaving families in limbo. At Goodr Community Market in Atlanta, owner Jasmine Crowe-Houston has already heard from customers. “People are coming in saying, ‘I always get my benefits on the 5th—nothing today.’” The delay stems from the government shutdown, now in its 36th day. USDA guidance issued Tuesday slashed funding to half the usual amount, forcing states to scramble to recalibrate systems. Food banks like Second Harvest of South Georgia are bracing for impact, but as Eliza McCall put it, “SNAP feeds nine people for every one we serve. We can’t fill that gap.” Meanwhile, confusion reigns. A Trump social media post suggested benefits might stop entirely, though the White House later clarified payments are coming—just slowly. For 1.4 million Georgians, that’s cold comfort. Hunger doesn’t wait. And now here is Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on milk We’ll have closing comments after this. Break: Ingles Markets 6 Signoff-   Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Marietta Daily Journal 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 mdjonline.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: www.ingles-markets.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textCould exercise be just what the doctor ordered for recovery during chemotherapy? In this episode of “The UMB Pulse,” explore this novel approach to cancer recovery with Ian Kleckner, PhD, MPH, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Nursing and director of the SYNAPSE Center. Kleckner shares how exercise can alleviate symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and improve the quality of life for cancer survivors. Through his research, Kleckner investigates how movement can reduce inflammation, enhance brain and body coordination, and empower patients to reclaim their lives. Chapter Markers 00:00 – Introduction 00:00:17 – Cancer Treatment & Neuropathy 00:01:37 – Guest Introduction: Dr. Ian Kleckner 00:05:06 – Understanding Neuropathy 00:09:38 – Research Findings: Brain & Exercise 00:13:33 – Exercise Intervention & Clinical Trials 00:19:08 – Practical Advice & Takeaways 00:23:31 – Conclusion & CreditsListen to The UMB Pulse on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you like to listen. The UMB Pulse is also now on YouTube.Visit our website at umaryland.edu/pulse or email us at umbpulse@umaryland.edu.

When the system kills a $2.4 million study on Black maternal health with one Friday afternoon email, the message is loud and clear: stop asking questions that make power uncomfortable. Dr. Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at UNC, built a groundbreaking project called LIFE-2 to uncover how racism and stress shape the biology of pregnancy. It was science rooted in community, humanity, and truth. Then NIH pulled the plug, calling her work “DEI.” Jaime didn't quit. She fought back, turning her grief into art and her outrage into action. This episode is about the cost of integrity, the politics of science, and what happens when researchers refuse to stay silent.RELATED LINKS• The Guardian article• NIH Grant• Jaime's LinkedIn Post• Jaime's Website• Faculty PageFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Curing with Sound, we explore how focused ultrasound is revolutionizing the field of veterinary medicine. Joanne Tuohy, DVM, PhD, Associate Professor of Surgical Oncology at Virginia Tech's Animal Cancer Care and Research Center, investigates how histotripsy—a non-thermal focused ultrasound technology—could improve cancer outcomes for veterinary patients while advancing treatments that may benefit both animals and humans. She discusses her clinical trial on osteosarcoma, an aggressive bone cancer that affects dogs and humans in remarkably similar ways.  We also talk with Tasha Hoover, whose two Dobermans participated in Dr. Tuohy's groundbreaking clinical trials. Both dogs were diagnosed with osteosarcoma at different stages of the research, allowing Tasha to witness firsthand how early trial results shaped the development of treatment protocols. Her story demonstrates the hope that innovative treatments can offer to pet owners and humans facing devastating diagnoses. Discussion highlights: Noninvasive Oncology Innovation: Unlike traditional ablation technologies that use heat, histotripsy employs mechanical stress and pressure to destroy cancer cells, offering a potentially less invasive alternative to amputation while stimulating the immune system to fight remaining cancer cells. One Health Initiative: Dr. Tuohy's histotripsy research for veterinary osteosarcoma could have translational applications for human bone cancer patients, demonstrating how animals and humans can benefit from shared treatment advances under the One Health approach. EPISODE TRANSCRIPT ---------------------------- QUESTIONS? Email podcast@fusfoundation.org if you have a question or comment about the show, or if you would you like to connect about future guest appearances.  Email info@fusfoundation.org if you have questions about focused ultrasound or the Foundation.  FUSF SOCIAL MEDIA LinkedIn X Facebook Instagram TikTok YouTube FUSF WEBSITE https://www.fusfoundation.org SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE NEWSLETTER https://www.fusfoundation.org/newsletter-signup/ READ THE LATEST NEWSLETTER https://www.fusfoundation.org/the-foundation/news-media/newsletter/ DOWNLOAD "THE TUMOR" BY JOHN GRISHAM (FREE E-BOOK) https://www.fusfoundation.org/read-the-tumor-by-john-grisham/

Amy talks with Event Organizer Lisa Millar about the upcoming 18th annual Heroes of Hope Race for brain tumor research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONAllison Applebaum was supposed to become a concert pianist. She chose ballet instead. Then 9/11 hit, and she ran straight into a psych ward—on purpose. What followed was one of the most quietly revolutionary acts in modern medicine: founding the country's first mental health clinic for caregivers. Because the system had decided that if you love someone dying, you don't get care. You get to wait in the hallway.She's a clinical psychologist. A former dancer. A daughter who sat next to her dad—legendary arranger of Stand By Me—through every ER visit, hallway wait, and impossible choice. Now she's training hospitals across the country to finally treat caregivers like patients. With names. With needs. With billing codes.We talked about music, grief, psycho-oncology, the real cost of invisible labor, and why no one gives a shit about the person driving you to chemo. This one's for the ones in the waiting room.RELATED LINKSAllisonApplebaum.comStand By Me – The BookLinkedInInstagramThe Elbaum Family Center for Caregiving at Mount SinaiFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONRebecca V. Nellis never meant to run a nonprofit. She just never left. Twenty years later, she's still helming Cancer and Careers after a Craigslist maternity-leave temp job turned into a lifelong mission.In this 60-minute doubleheader, we cover everything from theater nerdom and improv rules for surviving bureaucracy, to hanging up on Jon Bon Jovi, to navigating cancer while working—or working while surviving cancer. Same thing.Rebecca's path is part Second City, part Prague hostel, part Upper East Side grant writer, and somehow all of that makes perfect sense. She breaks down how theater kids become nonprofit lifers, how “sample sale feminism” helped shape a cancer rights org, and how you know when the work is finally worth staying for.Also: Cleavon Little. Tap Dance Kid. 42 countries. And one extremely awkward moment involving a room full of women's handbags and one very confused Matthew.If you've ever had to hide your diagnosis to keep a job—or wanted to burn the whole HR system down—this one's for you.RELATED LINKSCancer and CareersRebecca Nellis on LinkedIn2024 Cancer and Careers Research ReportWorking with Cancer Pledge (Publicis)CEW FoundationI'm Not Rappaport – Broadway InfoFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship opportunities, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Yossi Matias is the head of Google Research. He joins Big Technology Podcast to discuss the company's research efforts in areas like cancer treatment and Quantum and to discuss the relationship between research and product. Tune in to hear how Google used LLMs to generate a cancer hypothesis validated in living cells, what a “13,000×” quantum result really means, and how the research product loop turns papers into products. We also cover whether AI can automate a researcher's job. This conversation was recorded in front of a live audience at Google's Mountain View headquarters. --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack + Discord? Here's 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Questions? Feedback? Write to: bigtechnologypodcast@gmail.com

Sally Wolf is back in the studio and this time we left cancer at the door. She turned 50, brought a 1993 Newsday valedictorian article as a prop, and sat down with me for a half hour of pure Gen X therapy. We dug into VHS tracking, Red Dawn paranoia, Michael J. Fox, Bette Midler, and how growing up with no helmets and playgrounds built over concrete somehow didn't kill us.We laughed about being Jewish kids in the suburbs, the crushes we had on thirty-year-olds playing teenagers, and what it means to hit 50 with your humor intact. This episode is part nostalgia trip, part roast of our own generation, and part meditation on the privilege of being alive long enough to look back at it all. If you ever watched Different Strokes “very special episodes” or had a Family Ties lunchbox, this one's for you.RELATED LINKSSally Wolf Official WebsiteSally Wolf on LinkedInSally Wolf on InstagramCosmopolitan Essay: “What It's Like to Have the ‘Good' Cancer”Oprah Daily: “Five Things I Wish Everyone Understood About My Metastatic Breast Cancer Diagnosis”Allure Breast Cancer Photo ShootTom Wilson's “Stop Asking Me the Question” SongFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Nikki Maphis didn't just lose a grant. She lost a lifeline. An early-career Alzheimer's researcher driven by her grandmother's diagnosis, Nikki poured years into her work—only to watch it vanish when the NIH's MOSAIC program got axed overnight. Her application wasn't rejected. It was deleted. No feedback. No score. Just gone.In this episode, Oliver Bogler pulls back the curtain on what happens when politics and science collide and promising scientists get crushed in the crossfire. Nikki shares how she's fighting to stay in the field, teaching the next generation, and rewriting her grant for a world where even the word “diversity” can get you blacklisted. The conversation is raw, human, and maddening—a reminder that the real “war on science” doesn't happen in labs. It happens in inboxes.RELATED LINKS:• Dr. Nikki Maphis LinkedIn page• Dr. Nikki Maphis' page at the University of New Mexico• Vanguard News Group coverage• Nature article• PNAS: Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016FEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, visit outofpatients.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Carla Tardiff has spent 17 years as the CEO of Family Reach, a nonprofit that shouldn't have to exist but absolutely does—because in America, cancer comes with a price tag your insurance doesn't cover.We talk about shame, fear, burnout, Wegmans, Syracuse, celebrity telethons, and the godforsaken reality of choosing between food and treatment. Carla's a lifer in this fight, holding the line between humanity and bureaucracy, between data and decency. She's also sharp as hell, deeply funny, and more purpose-driven than half of Congress on a good day.This episode is about the work no one wants to do, the stuff no one wants to say, and why staying angry might be the only way to stay sane.Come for the laughs. Stay for the rage. And find out why Family Reach is the only adult in the room.RELATED LINKSFamily ReachFinancial Resource CenterCarla on LinkedInMorgridge Foundation ProfileAuthority Magazine InterviewSyracuse University FeatureFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on cancer.” Today, President Trump seems to be winding it down. Jonathan Mahler, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss how Trump administration efforts to target suspected waste and abuse have shut down vital cancer research, how government funding helped make enormous strides in cancer survival rates, and what happens to patients who find themselves sick with a diagnosis now. His article is “Trump Is Shutting Down the War On Cancer.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Surgical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is one of the highest-risk elective operations performed. The obstructive jaundice suffered by patients preoperatively, central location of the tumors, and extensive nature of the resection make pCCA one of the most challenging HPB disease processes. In this episode from the HPB team at Behind the Knife, listen in on the discussion about perioperative strategies to improve outcomes for surgical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hosts Anish J. Jain MD (@anishjayjain) is a current PGY4 General Surgery Resident at Stanford University and a former T32 Research Fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Timothy E. Newhook MD, FACS (@timnewhook19) is an Assistant Professor within the Department of Surgical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is also the associate program director of the HPB fellowship.  Jean-Nicolas Vauthey MD, FACS (@VautheyMD) is Professor of Surgery and Chief of the HPB Section, as well as the Dallas/Fort Worth Living Legend Chair of Cancer Research in the Department of Surgical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learning Objectives ·      Develop an understanding of the three treatment sequences for resection of disease in patients with synchronous liver metastasis from a primary rectal cancer (reverse, combined, and classic approach) ·      Develop an understanding of the benefits, risks, and nuances of each of the three treatment sequences ·      Develop an understanding of which patient cases each treatment sequence is ideal for as well as which cases they are not suitable for. Papers Referenced: 1)    Ribero D, Zimmitti G, Aloia TA, Shindoh J, Fabio F, Amisano M, Passot G, Ferrero A, Vauthey JN. Preoperative Cholangitis and Future Liver Remnant Volume Determine the Risk of Liver Failure in Patients Undergoing Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Jul;223(1):87-97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27049784/ 2)    Jain AJ, Lendoire M, Haddad A, Tzeng CD, Boyev A, Maki H, Chun YS, Arvide EM, Lee S, Hu I, Pant S, Javle M, Tran Cao HS, Vauthey JN, Newhook TE. Improved Outcomes Following Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A 27-Year Experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Jun;32(6):4352-4362. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40000564/ Additional Suggested Reading Olthof PB, Erdmann JI, Alikhanov R, Charco R, Guglielmi A, Hagendoorn J, Hakeem A, Hoogwater FJH, Jarnagin WR, Kazemier G, Lang H, Maithel SK, Malago M, Malik HZ, Nadalin S, Neumann U, Olde Damink SWM, Pratschke J, Ratti F, Ravaioli M, Roberts KJ, Schadde E, Schnitzbauer AA, Sparrelid E, Topal B, Troisi RI, Groot Koerkamp B; Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Collaboration Group. Higher Postoperative Mortality and Inferior Survival After Right-Sided Liver Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Left-Sided Resection is Preferred When Possible. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Jul;31(7):4405-4412. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38472674/ Mueller M, Breuer E, Mizuno T, Bartsch F, et al. Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma - Novel Benchmark Values for Surgical and Oncological Outcomes From 24 Expert Centers. Ann Surg. 2021 Nov 1;274(5):780-788. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334638/ Ad Disclosures: Visit goremedical.com/btk to learn more about GORE® ENFORM Biomaterial. Refer to Instructions for Use at eifu.goremedical.com for a complete description of all applicable indications, warnings, precautions and contraindications for the markets where this product is available. Rx only Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://behindtheknife.org/listen Behind the Knife Premium: General Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/general-surgery-oral-board-review Trauma Surgery Video Atlas: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/trauma-surgery-video-atlas Dominate Surgery: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Clerkship: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-clerkship Dominate Surgery for APPs: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Rotation: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-for-apps-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-rotation Vascular Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/vascular-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Colorectal Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/colorectal-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Surgical Oncology Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/surgical-oncology-oral-board-audio-review Cardiothoracic Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/cardiothoracic-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Download our App: Apple App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/behind-the-knife/id1672420049 Android/Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btk.app&hl=en_US

More than 50 years ago, President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer when he signed the National Cancer Act in 1971. Since then, the United States has emerged as a juggernaut in cancer research, funded largely by the government.But since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration's sweeping cuts to the federal workforce and government funding are upending the country's research system.So, how are these funding and staffing cuts affecting cancer research and treatment? And how could they impact our progress towards scientific breakthroughs?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy