Podcasts about comprehensive cancer center

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

Dr. Alipi Bonm, a neuro-oncologist at the Providence Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, joins host Dr. Ashwani Rajput to offer up valuable insights into brain cancer, from what to expect to the promising treatment options available that could ease your fears. He also debunks common myths, such as the misconception that cell phones and electrical wires cause brain cancer and highlights promising future treatments. If you or a loved one are affected by brain cancer, discover the support groups available for both patients and caregivers. Don't miss out on this informative and supportive discussion.Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioSee below Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on melanoma and other cancer related topics. Personalized cancer peptide vaccine shows remarkable promise against glioblastomaProvidence Saint John's opens last phase of clinical trial of promising drug for aggressive brain cancerTo learn more about our mission programs and services, go to Providence.org.Follow us on social media to get continued information on other important health care topics. You can  connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and X.For all your healthcare information on the go, download the Providence app. Whether you're tracking symptoms, scheduling appointments, or connecting with your healthcare providers, the Providence app has your back.To learn more about the app, check out the Wellness Brief podcast episode. Wellness Brief: Simplifying Care-There's an App for That.We'd love to hear from you. You can contact us at FutureOfHealthPodcasts@providence.org Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioAshwani Rajput, MD, FACS, joined Providence Swedish in September 2024 as the regional executive medical director (EMD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute. Dr. Rajput comes to us from Johns Hopkins University, where he is a professor of Surgery and Oncology, as well as the director of the Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in the Washington, D.C. region. Dr. Rajput completed his medical school, general surgery training, and a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular genetics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He went on to the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., for a fellowship in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO). There, he was recruited to join the faculty at Roswell Park with appointments in GI Surgical Oncology as well as Pharmacology and Therapeutics. His laboratory investigated the key signal transduction pathways in colorectal metastases using novel orthotopic murine models. In 2009, Dr. Rajput was recruited to the University of New Mexico as the inaugural division chief of Surgical Oncology. During his tenure in New Mexico, he also served as the director of surgical services for the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice-chair of surgery for academic affairs and faculty development. Under his leadership, an ACGME-approved fellowship in CGSO was created and launched. Throughout his roles in New Mexico and D.C., he has actively addressed cancer health care outcomes and health equity. Under Dr. Rajput's leadership, he will develop and implement a cancer strategic vision and enhance collaboration across our geography. He will oversee the SCI medical directors and partner with the Senior Director of Operations to deliver excellence in cancer care. Dr. Rajput and his wife, Sunita, have four children. Outside of work, he enjoys playing tennis, piano, the arts, and traveling.

As we continue our tour of the US National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines, today we're headed to North Carolina.Tim Bertram and Jesse Thornburg of the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine are taking us into the lab to give us a crash course in what regenerative medicine is, and how their Engine is helping regenerative medicine companies build, grow, and scale in the Piedmont Triad region through access to world-class resources, expertise, space, and collaboration opportunities to create economic impact.Tim is currently serving as CEO for the Regenerative Medicine Engine funded by the National Science Foundation, focusing on economic development through translation and commercialization of regenerative medical technologies. He was previously founder and CEO of four biotechnology companies, served on the board of directors of multiple companies, and worked on the development of 8 registered medical products while serving as a scientific leader and senior executive at Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE}, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, and The Procter & Gamble Company {NYSE: PG}. He started his career as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, was a visiting scientist at the National Institutes of Health, authored over 150 publications and invented over 100 patents.Jesse has worked as a researcher and in operations, building diverse research teams in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and Clinical Translational Science Institute.  His business experience stems from starting and operating a successful business and setting up a trust to provide capital to help growing businesses scale. Dr. Thornburg is passionate about helping businesses and economic ecosystems change lives.Listen to the full episode to hear:How advances in regenerative medicine can positively impact outcomes for both patients and the healthcare system at largeHow the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine is working to develop an integrated supply chain for regenerative therapies in order to scaleHow the regenerative medicine ecosystem encompasses patients, workforce, researchers, entrepreneurs, businesses, and moreHow the Regenerative Medicine Engine is fostering collaboration among companies that is pushing growth forwardWhat we stand to lose regionally, nationally, and even globally if we don't continue to invest in regenerative medicineLearn more about Tim Bertram:Connect On LinkedInLearn more about Jesse Thornburg:Connect on LinkedInLearn more about Anika Horn:Social VenturersSign up for Impact CuratorInstagram: @socialventurersResources:Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medical EngineStan ParkerFettechJoshua BogerAnthony Atala: Printing a human kidney | TED Talk

Join us for the inaugural episode of "TWAD: Cancer, Cures and Coffee" with Dr. Ashwani Rajput and special guest Dr. Kelly Paulson. In this episode, we dive deep into the topic of Melanoma, one of the most serious types of skin cancer. Dr. Paulson, a medical oncologist at Swedish Cancer Institute First Hill in Seattle, shares her expertise on the importance of early detection, risk factors, and the latest advancements in treatment. Learn how to protect yourself and your loved ones from Melanoma and discover the role of the immune system in fighting cancer. Don't miss this informative and engaging discussion.Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioSee below Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on melanoma and other cancer related topics. ·       Cancer survivor speaks with doctor he credits for saving his life·       Saint Patrick HealthBreak - Skin Cancers·       A year to remember: Advancements, recognition and transitions To learn more about our mission programs and services, go to Providence.org.Follow us on social media to get continued information on other important health care topics. You can  connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and X.For all your healthcare information on the go, download the Providence app. Whether you're tracking symptoms, scheduling appointments, or connecting with your healthcare providers, the Providence app has your back.To learn more about the app, check out the Wellness Brief podcast episode. Wellness Brief: Simplifying Care-There's an App for That. We'd love to hear from you. You can contact us at FutureOfHealthPodcasts@providence.org Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioAshwani Rajput, MD, FACS, joined Providence Swedish in September 2024 as the regional executive medical director (EMD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute. Dr. Rajput comes to us from Johns Hopkins University, where he is a professor of Surgery and Oncology, as well as the director of the Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in the Washington, D.C. region. Dr. Rajput completed his medical school, general surgery training, and a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular genetics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He went on to the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., for a fellowship in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO). There, he was recruited to join the faculty at Roswell Park with appointments in GI Surgical Oncology as well as Pharmacology and Therapeutics. His laboratory investigated the key signal transduction pathways in colorectal metastases using novel orthotopic murine models. In 2009, Dr. Rajput was recruited to the University of New Mexico as the inaugural division chief of Surgical Oncology. During his tenure in New Mexico, he also served as the director of surgical services for the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice-chair of surgery for academic affairs and faculty development. Under his leadership, an ACGME-approved fellowship in CGSO was created and launched. Throughout his roles in New Mexico and D.C., he has actively addressed cancer health care outcomes and health equity. Under Dr. Rajput's leadership, he will develop and implement a cancer strategic vision and enhance collaboration across our geography. He will oversee the SCI medical directors and partner with the Senior Director of Operations to deliver excellence in cancer care. Dr. Rajput and his wife, Sunita, have four children. Outside of work, he enjoys playing tennis, piano, the arts, and traveling.

Margaux Stack-Babich, Community Outreach and Engagement Manager for UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center,discusses the Center's prestigious National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation; the cancer burden in San Diego County; its Cancer Health Equity Collaborative; and its podcast project, The Science Of.About Spotlight and Cloudcast Media "Spotlight On The Community" is the longest running community podcast in the country, continuously hosted by Drew Schlosberg for 19 years.  "Spotlight" is part of Cloudcast Media's line-up of powerful local podcasts, telling the stories, highlighting the people, and celebrating the gravitational power of local.  For more information on Cloudcast and its shows and cities served, please visit www.cloudcastmedia.us. Cloudcast Media | the national leader in local podcasting.   About Mission Fed Credit Union A community champion for over 60 years, Mission Fed Credit Union with over $6 billion in member assets, is the Sponsor of Spotlight On The Community, helping to curate connectivity, collaboration, and catalytic conversations.  For more information on the many services for San Diego residents, be sure to visit them at https://www.missionfed.com/

In this podcast, Dr. Tami Johnson and Dr. Anne Tucker discuss the AJHP Practice Research Report, “Pharmacy prevalence of second victim syndrome in a comprehensive cancer center,” with host and AJHP Editor in Chief Dr. Daniel Cobaugh.  The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

In today's episode, Dr. Mitchell Posner, Dr. Sarah Shubeck, and Dr. Jelani Williams on the University of Chicago Medicine's new Comprehensive Cancer Center. Scheduled to open in 2027, the new center is a seven-floor, 575,000-square-foot building planned to have 80 private beds and 90 consultation and outpatient rooms. At the moment, the center is anticipated to see 200,000 outpatient visits and 5000 inpatient admissions annually. This would be the city of Chicago's first freestanding cancer pavilion.How will we ensure that this new center prioritizes the community's needs? In Chicago's South Side, cancer death rates are twice the national average, and cancer is also the second-leading cause of death on the South Side behind heart disease. In this conversation, you'll hear about the center's development, what patients can expect, and most importantly, the Department of Surgery's commitment to ensure the cancer center supports those who are most vulnerable. Dr. Mitchell Posner is the Thomas D. Jones Distinguished Service Professor of Surgery, Chief of the Section of General Surgery, and the Chief Clinical Officer of the University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center. From clinical trials for cancer treatment to his more than 250 articles, abstracts, and book chapters, Dr. Posner is a leading authority in the management of upper gastrointestinal cancers. He is frequently voted among the country's best doctors. He is the past president of the Society of Surgical Oncology. He is deputy editor of the Annals of Surgical Oncology and section editor for the gastrointestinal cancer section of the journal Cancer. He served as chairman of the Gastrointestinal Committee of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG).Dr. Sarah Shubeck is an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery. She is a Breast Surgical oncologist specializing in breast surgery, cancer, and benign disease treatment. In addition to her clinical practice, Dr. Shubeck's research has been published in many journals including Cancer, JAMA Surgery, and Annals of Surgical Oncology.Dr. Jelani Williams is a 5th-year general surgery resident at the University of Chicago. He is an aspiring surgical oncologist and attended the Eastern Virginia Medical School. He has published research on predictive models and surgery for metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors as well as the use of machine learning to distinguish benign and malignant thyroid nodules amongst other topics. Deep Cuts: Exploring Equity in Surgery comes to you from the Department of Surgery at the University of Chicago, which is located on Ojibwe, Odawa and Potawatomi land.Our executive producer is Tony Liu. Our senior producers are Alia Abiad, Caroline Montag, and Chuka Onuh. Our production team includes Megan Teramoto, Ria Sood, Ishaan Kumar, and Daniel Correa Bucio. Our senior editor and production coordinator is Nihar Rama. Our editorial team also includes Beryl Zhou and Julianna Kenny-Serrano. The intro song you hear at the beginning of our show is “Love, Money Part 2” from Chicago's own Sen Morimoto off of Sooper Records. Our cover art is from Leia Chen.A special thanks this week to Dr. Jeffrey Matthews — for his leadership, vision, and commitment to caring for the most vulnerable in our communities. Let us know — what have you most enjoyed about our podcast. Where do you see room for improvement? You can reach out to us on Instagram @deepcutssurgery. Find out more about our work at deepcuts.surgery.uchicago.edu.

Early detection is critical for improving cancer survival rates, yet pancreatic cancer remains challenging to detect. A recent breakthrough from Mayo Clinic researchers offers new hope. Artificial intelligence models demonstrate the potential to detect pancreatic cancer earlier and with remarkable accuracy. Learn more about this life-changing innovation in early cancer detection. Featured experts include Ajit Goenka, M.D., radiologist and professor of radiology at Mayo Clinic's Comprehensive Cancer Center and Suresh Chari, M.D., professor, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition in the Division of Internal Medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center.Get the latest health information from Mayo Clinic's experts, subscribe to Mayo Clinic's newsletter for free today:  https://mayocl.in/3EcNPNc

President and CEO of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dr. Candace Johnson on Sunday's Big Game commercial, "What Matters Most" full 183 Thu, 06 Feb 2025 18:15:55 +0000 EDKk9jNmtuO0gF03eSNytPOSbBGT9Rlv buffalo,news,super bowl lix,roswell park comprehensive cancer center,wben WBEN Extras buffalo,news,super bowl lix,roswell park comprehensive cancer center,wben President and CEO of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dr. Candace Johnson on Sunday's Big Game commercial, "What Matters Most" Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Alexander Davies, DVM, PhD joins us on OsteoBites to discuss his work which is focused on dynamic tumor-microenvironment signaling cross-talk, signal integration, and the development of 3D organotypic and tissue models to study these interactions using live-cell microscopy techniques. Results from studies in the Davies Lab demonstrate the utility of a novel dynamic live-cell tissue model, the lungSITE model, to quantitatively measure and understand tumor signaling dynamics and behaviors within the context of the lung metastatic niche. Data obtained from this model provided new insights into how spatial position and temporal response influence signaling dynamics, specifically in osteosarcoma lung metastasis, to create intratumoral signaling heterogeneity and consequent single-cell drug response variation. Dr. Alexander Davies graduated with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and a D.V.M., with an interest in comparative oncology, from the University of California, Davis. He then completed a post-doctoral fellowship in cancer biology at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before joining The Ohio State University as faculty in the Department of Veterinary Biosciences. While at OSU he was a member of the Comprehensive Cancer Center and faculty in the Cancer Biology and Cancer Engineering programs. Currently, Dr. Davies is an Assistant Professor at the Knight Cancer Institute within the Division of Oncological Sciences and Cancer Early Detection Advanced Research Center (CEDAR) where his work focuses on dynamic tumor-microenvironment signaling cross-talk, signal integration, and the development of 3D organotypic and tissue models to study these interactions using live-cell microscopy techniques.

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message.Cell & Gene: The Podcast Host Erin Harris talks to Christopher Choi, Ph.D., MBA, SVP Industry Partnership, Director of GMP and Cell Manufacturing Facility, and Associate Professor of Oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center about the Center's Buffalo, NY-based cell and gene therapy hub slated to open in early 2025. They cover the increasingly important role of automation and digital technologies in CGT manufacturing. Choi also offers his advice to new and emerging CGT biotechs on how to correctly tackle manufacturing as they begin their product development journey. Email Erin at erin.harris@cellandgene.com with topics you'd like us to cover in future episodes. Subscribe to the podcast!Apple | Spotify | YouTube

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul celebrates the openingof the state's first cell and gene therapy hub at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo full 2840 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:00:24 +0000 RzAzEc7F6TrUAY3EAsj1X1XPZpfe1I8N buffalo,news,kathy hochul,roswell park comprehensive cancer center,new york state,wben WBEN Extras buffalo,news,kathy hochul,roswell park comprehensive cancer center,new york state,wben New York Gov. Kathy Hochul celebrates the openingof the state's first cell and gene therapy hub at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

Cancer patients in Utah County will soon be able to find comprehensive cancer treatments and care closer to home. That's because Huntsman Cancer Institute is building a new campus in Vineyard situated close to I-15, a Frontrunner station, and Utah Valley University. In this episode, FM100.3 Host and Breast Cancer Survivor Rebecca Cressman is joined by Dr. Mary Beckerle, CEO of Huntsman Cancer Institute, Vineyard Mayor Julie Fullmer, and Lehi cancer survivor Jenni Thompson who share how the new center will give Utahns easier access to innovative treatments, enhance research collaborations with BYU and UVU, and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families. To learn more, visit HuntsmanCancer.org/Vineyard

Host Emily Walsh Martin, PhD, is joined by Chris Choi, PhD, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center's Senior Vice President of Industry Partnerships and Technical Director of the center's new Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) Facility. Dr. Choi is also an associate professor of oncology. This wide-ranging conversation covers cell therapy development and manufacturing and how the growing Roswell Park Center is aiming to support sponsors in the CAR T and cell therapy space. Emily and Chris also discuss their experiences on cross-functional teams and how a program's research, manufacturing, and clinical elements must be knit together for success. Music by: https://www.steven-obrien.net/--------------------------Bright New Morning - Steven O'Brien (Used for free under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)Show your support for ASGCT!: https://asgct.org/membership/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Timiya S. Nolan is the Associate Director for Community Outreach & Engagement at the O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center. In this role, she will be responsible for overseeing the Office of Community Outreach & Engagement, which fosters transdisciplinary cancer research along with bi-directional communication and collaboration with communities statewide.Marcus Glover is a program manager in the Office Community Outreach & Engagement with Dr. Nolan at the O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center. He helps coordinate the Hey Fellows program which is a community outreach program that we are going to talk more about in today's episode. Resources:https://www.onealcanceruab.org/community-outreach/#www.hetdconference.com

What is supportive care or supportive oncology? What is cancer-related distress? How might NET patients benefit from supportive care? Yale oncologist Dr. Maryam Lustberg suggests strategies to manage cancer-related fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, mouth sores, peripheral neuropathy, distress, anxiety, and anxiety. She also addresses considerations for fertility and sexual health.MEET DR. MARYAM LUSTBERGDr. Maryam Lustberg is an American breast oncologist. She is the Director of The Breast Center at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Chief ofBreast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center. Dr. Lustberg previously served as the Medical Director of Cancer Supportive Care Services atOhio State's Comprehensive Cancer Center. She is the Immediate Past President of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. She is also an Associate Editor for the Journal of Cancer Survivorship.TOP TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPPORTIVE CARE: What is supportive care in cancer (or supportive oncology)? What is survivorship? How do these concepts apply to the NET community?What is the 1st step for patients to get supportive care?What are the most common treated-related adverse events or side effects? What are risk factors for them? (Will all patients experience all potential side effects?)What causes cancer-related fatigue (CRF)? What are some strategies to manage cancer-related fatigue?What are some strategies to manage diarrhea?What are some strategies to manage nausea?What are some strategies to manage mouth sores?What is peripheral neuropathy? When do patients experience it and what can be done to prevent it?What should patients understand about sexual health and fertility?How can psychosocial needs such as distress, anxiety, and depression be addressed and supported?For more information, please visit https://www.lacnets.org/podcast/37. For more information, visit LACNETS.org.

Craig Bunnell, MD, MPH, MBA, is the Morse Family Chief Medical Officer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School-affiliated teaching hospital. In this role, Dr. Bunnell oversees adult and pediatric clinical services at Dana-Farber. Under his leadership, the Institute has become a leader in implementing technology to enhance patient flow, operational efficiency, and patient access.  Dr. Bunnell is also a breast medical oncologist at Dana-Farber and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. He has been the principal investigator of several institutional and multicenter clinical trials and serves on several editorial boards.  Dr. Bunnell received his MD from Harvard Medical School, MPH from the Harvard School of Public Health, MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He completed his medical training at Brigham and Women's Hospital where he also served as Chief Medical Resident.  Dr. Bunnell has more than 120 original publications focused on innovative breast cancer treatments and improvements in the safety, quality, and efficiency of cancer care delivery.  He holds, or has held, leadership positions at the National Comprehensive Cancer Centers, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Association of American Cancer Institutes, Massachusetts Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Cancer Society.

Drs. Hope Rugo, Diana Lam, Sheri Shen, and Mitchell Elliot discuss key strategies and emerging technology in early-stage breast cancer survivorship, including mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book.   There are currently about 4 million breast cancer survivors in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, and this number is expected to rise as more women are being diagnosed at early stages of this disease, thanks to advances in early detection and the delivery of more effective adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment leading to successful outcomes.  In today's episode, we'll be discussing current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, focusing on a multidisciplinary approach. Joining me for this discussion are Drs. Mitchell Elliott, Sherry Shen, and Diana Lam, who co-authored, along with others, a recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, “Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines.”  They also addressed this topic in an Education Session presented at the recent ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Elliott is a drug development fellow and clinician scientist trainee at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Sherry Shen is a breast oncologist and assistant attending at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Dr. Diana Lam is a breast radiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  It's great to have you all on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you so much.  Dr. Sherry Shen: Thank you.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Let's go into the meat of the article now and try to provide some interesting answers to questions that I think come up for clinicians all the time in practice. Your article points out that addressing the challenges in early-stage breast cancer survivorship requires a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, surveillance for distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging.   Dr. Shen, surveillance can facilitate the early detection of recurrence, but ultimately the goal is to prevent recurrence. Lifestyle modifications are a key component of survivorship care, and there are many interventions in this context. Could you summarize the best approaches for mitigating risk of breast cancer recurrence through lifestyle modification and how we might accomplish that in clinical practice? Dr. Sherry Shen: Absolutely. This is a question that we get asked a lot by our breast cancer patients who are so interested in what changes they can make within their lifestyle to improve their breast cancer outcomes. I always tell them that there are three main things, three main lifestyle factors that can improve their breast cancer outcomes.  Firstly, enough physical activity. So the threshold for physical activity seems to be around 150 minutes of a moderately vigorous level per week. So moderately vigorous means something that gets the heart rate up, like walking quickly on rolling hills, for example. Or patients can do a vigorous level of physical activity for at least 75 minutes per week. Vigorous meaning playing a sport, swimming, for example, running, something that really gets the heart rate up.   The second really important lifestyle modification is limiting alcohol use. Keeping alcohol to less than 4 to 7 drinks per week is particularly important for breast cancer outcomes, especially in women who are postmenopausal and have hormone receptor positive diseases. That's where the strongest connection is seen. Lastly, maintaining a healthy weight. We know that women who gain more than 5% to 10% of their diagnosis body weight have a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence and worse breast cancer outcomes. That, of course, is easier said than done, and it's primarily through dietary modifications.  I always tell women that in terms of specific things in the diet, it's really hard to study at a population level because diets vary so much between patients. But what is really important is consuming a plant-forward whole foods diet that prioritizes nutrients and the quality of the diet. A little bit more specifically, it's important to limit the amount of red and processed meats in the diet, really limit the amount of sugar sweetened beverages, ideally to cut that out of the diet entirely, and to consume an appropriate amount of dietary fiber in the range of 20 to 30 grams per day. Those are more specific things that have been associated with breast cancer outcomes.  Dr. Hope Rugo: This is such helpful, practical information for clinicians and for patients. Thank you.  But let's move on to another area, surveillance testing for distant recurrence, an area of great interest, in fact highlighted in a special session at ASCO 2024. In clinic, we've seen that many cancer survivors expressed surprise at the less intensive approach to surveillance testing for recurrence, with the whole idea that if you detected it earlier, the outcome would be better. But it does raise an important question. What is the optimal strategy for monitoring for recurrence? And importantly, can early detection through surveillance testing impact outcome?   Dr. Elliot, your research has focused on ctDNA surveillance and the evolving role of minimal residual disease, or MRD. Can you comment on the current surveillance guidelines for distant recurrence, and then, how we really define true MRD?  Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Those are excellent questions, and I think leaving that Education Session at ASCO left us with even more questions than answers with the current role of MRD in this setting. I think a lot of this comes from wanting to help patients and trying to identify the patients at highest risk of cancer recurrence, with the goal of intervening with effective targeted therapy to prevent metastatic relapse.  Current international guidelines in the United States done by ASCO and the NCCN, as well as ESMO guidelines in Europe and even our local Canadian guidelines, do not suggest that patients undergo routine screening in asymptomatic individuals, whether it be blood work or routine radiographic imaging, as there were some studies that were done in the late 1990s and early 2000s that didn't actually show benefit and actually maybe favored a little bit of harm in these situations. So these recommendations are based on these initial studies. However, we know that in the last 10, 15 years, even 20 years, that breast cancer and the landscape of breast cancer has changed significantly with the introduction of our typical standard classification of breast cancer, the emergence of HER2 positive breast cancer, and thus triple negative breast cancer, which was not actually routine standard testing at the time of these studies, and also the most effective therapies we have to date, including immunotherapy, HER2 targeted therapy and the advent of antibody drug conjugates. We're at prime time right now to potentially revisit this question, but the question is, do we have the right technology to do so? And this is where the circulating tumor DNA has really emerged as a potential option, given its minimally invasive opportunity with a standard blood test to actually identify tumor specific DNA that is highly predictive of distant metastatic recurrence or patient recurrence in general.   The evolving role – we still have a lot of questions in this setting. There have been a lot of retrospective analyses of cohort studies and clinical trials that have shown that modern fit for purpose MRD based tests actually have a high positive predictive value at identifying patients with imminent risk of breast cancer recurrence. The most important thing in this setting is that there are different fit for purpose tests. The initial ctDNA assays were actually genotyping based assays, which look for the presence of mutations in the blood. But we know that the sensitivity of these assays is quite challenging at the level of ctDNA required to actually diagnose patients with very small amounts of residual disease. So the fit for purpose MRD assays are now emerging on the market. And we have several that are in clinical development, several that are in research development, but the high specificity in the setting is very important, which we're seeing some evolving and emerging technologies in this setting. We really don't have the data about if these interventions, so if we were to effectively deploy these MRD based ctDNA assays prospectively in patients, if they will actually improve patient outcomes, and how do we correct and address lead time bias, which might potentially affect study results?  Also, the important thing to think about in this setting is if we are able to find something, we also should have an effective therapy to actually intervene for patients, because the outcome in these trials will actually be dependent not only on identifying early breast cancer occurrence, but also delivering the best targeted intervention for that individual patient, which currently we don't understand fully.   Another really interesting thing is there was a trial, the ZEST trial, as many of our listeners may know, that was randomizing patients with patients with ctDNA detected in the adjuvant setting were randomized through either intervention or standard follow up. And going forward, is it actually an opportunity, or is it possible to actually randomize patients knowing that they have a near 100% likelihood of breast cancer recurrence to observation? So these are several ongoing questions that we have to address as we move forward to deploying this technology in the clinical space.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Really fascinating, and thanks for sharing that. I think really broad and helpful information on these ctDNA [assays] and also our surveillance guidelines, which I think really suggests that you only do surveillance for cause, other than looking for local recurrence and new cancers with breast imaging. So it is really an interesting time where we're seeing evolving technologies and evolving understanding of how we can best do this kind of testing when there are so many different assays out there. I think it's going to take a little while. And also understanding, as you pointed out, trying to target treatments when patients have emerging ctDNA to mutations. And we just have no idea yet if we're going to ultimately change outcomes. This is really helpful, and I think we'll give people a good understanding of where to think about this right now, what to look for in the future.  Now, of course, it's a nice segue into the idea of breast imaging for early breast cancer survivors because that's where we do have data. Dr. Lam, let's talk about how we optimize breast imaging in early-stage breast cancer survivors, because there's such a wide variation in breast cancer imaging survival protocols between different centers and different countries. And of course, here our group is representing two countries and really a broad geographic area. So some of the variations are when to do imaging in terms of frequency, when to start imaging and what kind of examination to do, screening versus diagnostic, MRI versus mammogram. And of course, there are some emerging imaging techniques as well. Could you tell us a little bit about the variation in imaging surveillance protocols in survivors, and the challenges and what you recommend?  Dr. Diana Lam: First off, I want to say that surveillance mammography saves lives and annual intervals are uniformly recommended among both national and international guidelines. However, we know that in practice there are variations in imaging surveillance protocols, with approximately 40% of sites performing imaging at more frequent or six-month intervals for at least one to two years. In addition, there's variation in what type of mammogram someone gets in terms of the indication. They might be getting initial diagnostic mammograms for a short period of time or screening mammograms. However, overall, there is limited evidence in improved outcomes in women getting a diagnostic versus a screening exam for asymptomatic surveillance. In addition, there is limited evidence in increased frequency of surveillance, for example, every six months versus one year.  The real difference between a screen and a diagnostic mammogram, if someone is asymptomatic in the surveillance population, primarily has to do with workflow. For screening examinations, the imaging is generally viewed after a patient leaves the facility, and it might actually take days, maybe even weeks, for the results to be delivered to the patient. In addition, if more imaging is needed, the patient will need to return back to the facility, which does diagnostic imaging work for us to work up this finding. And this practice approach causes diagnostic delays in care. It also disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic women. For diagnostic mammography surveillance, there's generally real time interpretation with immediate results. However, there are both access and scheduling limitations, as not all facilities actually perform these types of examinations. There may also be out of pocket costs which are increased due to the diagnostic indication of this exam.  So  what we found, which is an approach that can aid in minimizing patient costs and decreasing these health disparities, is to provide immediate interpretations of these screening mammography surveillance exams, or so-called online screens where diagnostic workup and potential biopsy can be performed on the same day. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is all very interesting, but what do we tell our patients? How do we, as oncologists, decide on how frequently to get mammograms? Should we be getting diagnostic or screening? And do we sequence MRI with mammograms for everybody or just for certain patients? And then some patients will say, “Well, my doctor does an ultrasound to mammogram.” We don't do that for screening. When do you recommend that? Dr. Diana Lam: We do know that compared to people without a personal history of breast cancer, surveillance mammography is actually less sensitive. It's only about 70% versus 87% or so percent sensitive with over four times more interval cancers or cancers diagnosed after a negative surveillance mammogram compared to the general screening population without a personal history of breast cancer. In addition, about 35% of invasive second breast cancers are actually interval cancers or those not detected by surveillance mammography. However, there is currently no guideline consensus on supplemental breast imaging or additional imaging beyond surveillance mammography. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is most often recommended, particularly for patients who are already at high risk for breast cancer, such as those with genetic mutations, or patients who have had primary breast cancer diagnosed at a younger age to less than 50 years old, or those patients who have dense breast tissue on mammography.  There is a question about whole breast ultrasound and this is generally not specified or recommended unless the patient is unable to undergo breast MRI. This is primarily due to the number of false positive examinations or findings that are seen that do not amount to breast cancer. We do have the opportunity here to tailor surveillance imaging by selecting people who are at high risk for interval second breast cancers in order to decrease harms and improve patient outcomes. We know that there are a number of factors such as primary breast cancer subtype which affects second breast cancer risk. We know that women who have ER negative and/or hormonal negative breast cancers have significantly higher recurrence rates within the five years of treatment with no significant difference after that 5 years. We also know that there are certain factors such as imaging factors where patients are more likely to develop an interval second cancer with mammography surveillance only. And these are factors such as if their primary breast cancer was hormone negative, if they had an interval presentation to start, or if they had breast conservation without radiation therapy. So, in terms of the future of local breast imaging surveillance, this can be improved with upfront risk prediction and stratification based on the patient, primary breast cancer and treatment factors, as well as looking at imaging test performance to optimally guide the modality and frequency of surveillance imaging.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting.   Well, thank you all three of you for sharing your valuable insights. This has been so interesting and a great addition to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I would encourage everyone to actually read the article as well because there's some really great tables and interesting information there that of course we don't have time to cover, but thank you, all three of you.  Dr. Diana Lam: Thank you. Dr. Mitchell Elliott: Thank you for having us. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to the article that you can read and look at and cut out the tables discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I encourage all of our listeners also to check out the 2024 ASCO Educational Book where there is an incredible wealth of useful information. Finally, if you value the insights that you've heard today and here on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks again.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo   @MitchElliott18 Dr. Sherry Shen @SherryShenMD    Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx   Dr. Diana Lam: No relationships to disclose   Dr. Sherry Shen: Honoraria: MJH Life Sciences Research Funding (Inst.): Merck, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals   Dr. Mitchell Elliott:  No relationships to disclose

When the mucin-1 (MUC-1) vaccine tecemotide was added to standard-of-care neoadjuvant systemic therapy, investigators in Austria found improved long-term outcomes in women with early breast cancer. Individuals vaccinated with tecemotide had markedly longer distant recurrence-free and overall survival. This was in the randomized prospective ABCSG-34 trial presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Oncology Times reporter Peter Goodwin met up in Chicago with the lead study author, Christian F. Singer MD, a gynecologist specializing in breast cancer at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Comprehensive Cancer Center of the Medical University of Vienna, in Vienna, Austria.

Beat Cancer hosts Chris Joyce and Stephanie Winn sit down with UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center child life specialists Jenny Belke, Mackenzie Lee, and Marisa Martinez to talk about the role child life specialists play in caring for our pediatric cancer patients. Learn more about the Child Life Program here. To learn more about the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, visit https://health.ucdavis.edu/cancer/

Prior to 2020, patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist's Comprehensive Cancer Center experienced high variability in the number of days it took to see a breast cancer provider. Scheduling was decentralized across the departments and rarely could multiple visits be coordinated to occur on the same day, within the same location. Addressing this issue required a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach that involved engaging the cancer center leadership across 3 treatment departments—medical, radiation, and surgical oncology—administration, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), patient navigation, genetic counseling, scheduling, imaging, lab, and pathology. The primary goals of the initiative were to transform patient experience and improve timeliness to care for every newly diagnosed patient. Guest: Hunter Hayes, MBA Associate Principal  The Chartis Group    “Being able to get patients seen quickly; being able to retain patients for their full cancer treatment is incredibly important…competition is growing and being able to keep those patients and keep their experience positive is critical.”    Read more in “Improving the Care of Patients Newly Diagnosed With Breast Cancer” coming in your Volume 38, Number 2, Oncology Issues.   Resources: Improving Cancer Care Teamwork: Five Patient-Centered Strategies to Strengthen Care Coordination Machine Learning and Predictive Analytics Solution Transforms Infusion Center Operations Location Technology Improves Efficiency, Safety & the Patient Experience Breast Care ACCESS Project Oncology IssuesVolume 39, Issue 2 Apr 2024  

Prior to 2020, patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist's Comprehensive Cancer Center experienced high variability in the number of days it took to see a breast cancer provider. Scheduling was decentralized across the departments and rarely could multiple visits be coordinated to occur on the same day, within the same location. Addressing this issue required a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach that involved engaging the cancer center leadership across 3 treatment departments—medical, radiation, and surgical oncology—administration, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), patient navigation, genetic counseling, scheduling, imaging, lab, and pathology. The primary goals of the initiative were to transform patient experience and improve timeliness to care for every newly diagnosed patient. Guest: Hunter Hayes, MBA Associate Principal The Chartis Group   “Being able to get patients seen quickly; being able to retain patients for their full cancer treatment is incredibly important…competition is growing and being able to keep those patients and keep their experience positive is critical.”   Read more in “Improving the Care of Patients Newly Diagnosed With Breast Cancer” coming in your Volume 38, Number 2, Oncology Issues.   Resources: Improving Cancer Care Teamwork: Five Patient-Centered Strategies to Strengthen Care Coordination Machine Learning and Predictive Analytics Solution Transforms Infusion Center Operations Location Technology Improves Efficiency, Safety & the Patient Experience Breast Care ACCESS Project

Dr. Joanne Mortimer, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Jessica, who was diagnosed with breast cancer join me to talk about the importance of BRCA mutation testing, and how knowing her BRCA mutation status led to routine cancer screenings that Jessica says saved her life.

Dr. Joanne Mortimer, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Jessica, who was diagnosed with breast cancer join me to talk about the importance of BRCA mutation testing, and how knowing her BRCA mutation status led to routine cancer screenings that Jessica says saved her life.

Dr Allison Applebaum is an Associate Attending Psychologist in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), and also the Founding Director of their Caregivers Clinic the first of its kind in any Comprehensive Cancer Center in the US. Dr Applebaum amplifies the voices of family caregivers in her scientific journals, editorials and her research which focuses on developing innovative ways to identify, prepare and support caregivers. Through this work she also addresses the distress experienced as a result of increasing responsibilities. In Allison's new book, Stand By Me A Guide to Navigating Modern, Meaningful Caregiving. She brings not only her professional experience to the subject, but also her personal journey of caring for her beloved father, Stanley Applebaum. In our conversation today, we discuss her book, the experience of living in the in between as a family caregiver, and how caregivers can find meaning and purpose while juggling the responsibilities and emotional ups and downs.  Allisonapplebaum.com Book - Stand By Me - A Guide to Navigating Modern, Meaningful Caregiving SHOW NOTES

Dr Allison Applebaum is an Associate Attending Psychologist in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) and the Founding Director of their Caregivers Clinic, the first of its kind in any Comprehensive Cancer Center in the US. Dr Applebaum amplifies the voices of family caregivers in her scientific journals, editorials, and research, which focuses on developing innovative ways to identify, prepare, and support caregivers. Through this work, she also addresses the distress experienced due to increasing responsibilities. In Allison's new book, Stand By Me: A Guide to Navigating Modern, Meaningful Caregiving. She brings not only her professional experience to the subject but also her journey of caring for her beloved father, Stanley Applebaum. In our conversation today, we discuss her book, the experience of living in the in-between as a family caregiver, and how caregivers can find meaning and purpose while juggling the responsibilities and emotional ups and downs. Allisonapplebaum.com Book - Stand By Me - A Guide to Navigating Modern, Meaningful Caregiving SHOW NOTES

Drs. Hope Rugo and Sara Tolaney discuss the promise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of breast cancer, highlighting key trials that shed light on matching the right ADC to the right patient in the right setting. They also explore how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, the mechanisms of resistance, and the future potential of biomarkers to predict patient response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California, San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. Antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with breast cancer. ADCs consist of antibodies that target tumor-specific antigens on the cell surface, chemical linkers, and cytotoxic payloads that can act powerfully to kill cancer cells. On today's episode, we'll be discussing advances in research to match the right ADC to the right patients and in the right setting. We'll also talk about the next steps, assessing how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, improve options for patients, and identify biomarkers in the future to predict how patients will respond so that we can match the right treatment to the right patient and their tumor. We need to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of resistance that occur upfront as well as under the pressure of treatment.  Joining me for this important discussion is Dr. Sara Tolaney. Dr. Tolaney is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, associate director of the Susan Smith Center for Women's Cancer, and chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Tolaney, we're delighted to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much for having me. I'm looking forward to the discussion. Dr. Hope Rugo: Great! So, we'll move forward, and because we're friends and colleagues, I'm going to refer to you as Sara, and I'm Hope, since we'll dispense with formalities in our discussion.  A lot of the talks that we give about ADCs start out with “a revolution in breast cancer therapy.” And indeed, this is a really exciting time with ADCs as treatment for breast cancer, and we're rapidly moving these agents into earlier disease settings. Can you tell us a little bit about the possibilities and challenges of using ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer today? Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's interesting that you say antibody-drug conjugates as revolutionizing outcomes of breast cancer, which I think is true. But on the flip side, I think it's also bringing up a lot of questions about how to use them, when to use them, and how to manage side effects. So there are a lot of good strengths for these antibody-drug conjugates, but a lot of unknowns that we're still trying to figure out. We had an older antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1 that we were all very familiar with that for years had been a treatment that we used very commonly in metastatic disease and now even use in early breast cancer, and I think has changed outcomes for patients. But over time, we've been able to develop newer antibody-drug conjugates as the technology has really evolved so that these agents now are able to deliver a lot of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. We're seeing very high drug-to-antibody ratios, and we're also seeing that these drugs can function via bystander effect, whereas T-DM1, for example, was not able to do that. But our newer ADCs, like sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan, are agents that do allow chemotherapy to get into that cancer cell, but also to get into neighboring cells.  And I think the technology evolution in being able to build these so-called next-generation ADCs has allowed for really unprecedented efficacy that we've not seen before. And it's also allowed us to develop these drugs in a way that's been different. Originally, we were developing T-DM1 to turn off HER2 signaling and to deliver chemotherapy into a HER2 cell. At least that's what we thought originally. And now we're really evolving so that we can just find a tiny bit of protein on a cancer cell and use it as a target, really in a subtype-agnostic way. And I think it's just a different way of thinking about how to use these agents to really deliver a lot of chemotherapy into cancer cells and have very robust efficacy. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it is fascinating that some of the suppositions that we made with the first ADC don't seem to really hold true as well. And maybe they hold true in varying levels for the different ADCs. For example, this bystander effect is thought to allow us to target cells that have very low expression of the receptor that can be internalized even lower than our ability to detect these receptors by immunohistochemistry. And maybe we'll talk about that in a little bit.   But first, you mentioned already sacituzumab and trastuzumab deruxtecan, the ADCs that are currently approved for breast cancer. But can you tell us a little more about those ADCs and the key trials that have led to approval of these targeted agents? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yes, I think when we first saw the data that came out with T-DXd and DESTINY-Breast01, I think my jaw dropped because I had never seen a waterfall plot like that. This was a single-arm study that looked at T-DXd in patients with very heavily pretreated metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and saw very high response rates of over 60% and a clinical benefit rate of almost 98%, meaning that almost every single patient who got the drug and had a median of six prior lines of therapy had reduction in tumor size. And that's unreal. I think it was revolutionary in the sense that we had never seen that kind of activity in such a pretreated population. The agent was studied in other registration trials, DESTINY-Breast03, which looked at T-DXd and compared it head to head with T-DM1 in a predominantly second-line metastatic HER2-positive population, and here, again, unprecedented results. I've never seen a p value like that or a hazard ratio of, again unreal, of a little under 0.3 and seeing a 28-month PFS with T-DXd relative to just a little under 7 months PFS with T-DM1. We have never seen patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer have a PFS that long. Even in CLEOPATRA, it's a little under 19 months in the first-line setting, where people were predominantly naïve to HER2-directed therapies. This, again, is really changing outcomes for patients.   But then, I think, when we go to the next step, we studied T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and it had again these unprecedented results. But there was some early data suggesting that it could even work in tumors that weren't truly HER2-positive but what we call HER2-low, meaning that they weren't HER2/3+, they weren't HER2-0 but they were 1+ to 2+ and not FISH amplified. And so even with a little bit of protein there, they were seeing activity in the early phase studies and so it led to DESTINY-Breast04, which compared T-DXd to chemotherapy of physician's choice in people who had had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. It was predominantly geared to look at outcomes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. But there was a small group of 58 patients with triple-negative disease that were also included in that trial. And here again, a very unprecedented outcome seeing a response rate of about 50%, which, again, we never see in pretreated hormone receptor-positive disease. And a PFS of 10 months, and again, these are people who already had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy. So it's, again, really changing outcomes. And so now I think it leads us to a lot of other questions that we are addressing in trials - can this drug work even if the tumor has maybe no HER2 expression, what about HER2-0, what about HER2-ultra low, meaning a little bit of staining but not quite 1+. And so these are questions that I think we will need to address and there are studies that will help us address that. On the flip side, we saw sacituzumab govitecan get developed in breast cancer. Initially, we saw very impressive results from a single arm study of sacituzumab in metastatic triple-negative disease where we saw response rates of a little over 30%. These are patients who were very heavily pretreated with metastatic triple negative breast cancer where, unfortunately, response rates end up being in a 5% range so it was a home run in that setting. So that led to the ASCENT trial, which compared sacituzumab govitecan to treatment of physician's choice therapy and that study really enrolled people who were, in essence, second line and beyond in the metastatic triple-negative setting and showed almost triple progression free survival, in essence, doubled overall survival. So again, very robust efficacy leading to confirming its approval. And then we saw data from TROPiCS-02, which looked at sacituzumab in metastatic hormone receptor-positive disease and also showed improvements in both progression free and overall survival. And this was in pre-treated populations of 2 to 4 prior lines of chemotherapy. These agents, again, have established robust efficacy, and so now the idea is can we move these drugs earlier in development into earlier line settings and can we even move these agents into the early disease setting and potentially cure more patients? So hopefully, we'll figure out ways to make that happen. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of this exciting data. And I think we really got an idea of what waterfall plots could tell us from DESTINY-Breast01 where you could count the number of patients whose cancers grew with therapy on one hand. It's been a huge advance. I think it's where we get this “revolution” even in patients with a median of 4 lines of prior chemo, and, in the ASCENT trial, we were able to see this improvement and survival in the hardest-treated subset of metastatic breast cancer triple negative disease. And then the remarkable data in HER2-positive and HER2-low breast cancer hormone receptor positive disease. We're really covering all of the subset of breast cancers.   When we introduce new therapies though, and of course, our interest is moving them earlier as lines of therapy in the metastatic setting, we really have to think about the adverse events and how those are going to affect their patients, and balancing the risk benefit ratio. Obviously when the benefit is so huge, we're more thinking about how do we proactively manage these side effects, educate our patients, use prophylaxis when possible. Can you share with us some of your insights on management strategies for toxicities?  Dr. Sara Tolaney: You bring up a very good point, and I will say the ADCs were designed with the idea being that we could deliver a ton of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. So obviously, my hope had been that we weren't going to see a lot of chemotherapy-like side effects because the goal was to try to spare normal cells of these side effects. But unfortunately, we do see that these agents do have real toxicities, and I think that is an important message. So, for example, with sacituzumab, for people who have hair going into it, they will lose their hair during the course of treatment, and so that's important to make patients aware of. It can lower blood counts, and about 50% of patients who are on sacituzumab will end up needing growth factor support while they're on treatment. So, that is again something that needs to be monitored and managed. But usually, we're pretty good at managing neutropenia, and with the growth factor support, I find that it actually works really well.  Another thing with sacituzumab is the potential risk of diarrhea, but most of the diarrhea is low-grade diarrhea. It's rare that you get someone who has high-grade diarrhea with sacituzumab. Usually, I find it works to just instruct patients to use loperamide as needed. And again, usually that works well. And certainly when needed, dose modification can also help with these side effects and so it is important to keep in mind that this is another option. With T-DXd, one thing that we do have to keep in mind as an unusual side effect is the potential risk of interstitial lung disease. We see that in about 10% to 15% of patients getting T-DXd. That is something that we do have to be very mindful of. For the most part it is low-grade ILD. But there are rare occasions where there have been deaths from ILD. And we're seeing with some of the newer trials, the death rate is usually under 1%, but it is a real potential risk. And so it is really important to counsel patients when getting T-DXd about this potential side effect, that way they are good about communicating with you if they get any new symptoms, such as shortness of breath or dry cough, to get you aware of it and can work it up and get imaging certainly if that occurs.  And then I think the management for ILD is a little unique and a little different truthfully than the way we manage pneumonitis from other drugs. Normally, when I am treating patients who develop pneumonitis, even if it is mildly symptomatic, we often will hold treatment, give steroids, and rechallenge them when it gets better. But with T-DXd, if anyone develops symptomatic pneumonitis, you actually have to permanently discontinue the T-DXd per the guidelines because we just don't know the safety of being able to rechallenge that patient once that pneumonitis resolves. For grade 1 ILD, meaning someone who has, for example, ground glass changes seen on imaging but doesn't have any symptoms, you have to hold the drug and wait until those imaging findings resolve and then you can restart. I usually do treat grade 1 ILD patients with steroids with the hope being that maybe it will allow for the pneumonitis to resolve more quickly, although in truth I don't know if that's the case. I have just taken that approach because I don't like leaving patients off the drug for too long if not needed. Again, I typically treat them with steroids, reimage in three to four weeks, and see if I'm able to restart. If they resolve within 28 days, you can restart at the same dose. If it takes longer to resolve, you need to dose modify.  And then I think the other big thing with T-DXd is to know that it is categorized as a highly emetogenic agent. Most of us are using three-drug prophylaxis, which I think works really well. It is also important to realize that there can be some delayed nausea, which is a little unusual with some of our other agents. And so to warn patients about that and I find that use of olanzapine or ondansetron for the delayed nausea tends to work pretty well.  Hope, do you have any pearls for us? Obviously, you are very experienced in using these agents; are there any things you would recommend for the management of ADCs?  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it's such a great question and an important area because, particularly as we are using these agents earlier, we really need to have strategies for both how long to continue as well as manage the toxicities. I agree with the nausea, olanzapine has been really a great addition, and using a triplet as initial premedication makes a big difference for T-DXd and other deruxtecan ADCs that are in the pipeline. And then I think that the ILD issue, we're really learning more about the risk factors as well as retreatment. And hopefully, we'll have more data this year at ESMO Breast and maybe ASCO on retreatment for grade 1. We certainly now do not have any data on the safety of retreatment for grade 2, so that is really not accepted now. For sacituzumab, I think the interesting area is the metabolism and the impact. So with neutropenia, as we move the drug earlier, it's easier and easier to manage, we see less severe neutropenia. We can give growth factors, which we are all good at in oncology. But I think the question about managing diarrhea and who is at risk still exists. Understanding pharmacogenomics and UGT1A1 is an interesting area where patients who have diarrhea could be tested to see if they are poor metabolizers which affects a little under 10% of the overall population. Because in that group, you could give less drug and get the same benefit with less toxicity. So I think this is all very interesting. It is important for providers and patients to be educated so that we can manage this appropriately. And I think you gave an excellent overview.   We have new agents in the pipeline also and maybe we'll talk about those next, and then we'll talk a little bit about sequencing and resistance, as well as the unmet need for brain metastases. So lots of areas to talk about. There are a number of TROP-2 ADCs that are in the pipeline, and one that has presented phase III data, datopotamab deruxtecan. But other studies are being developed with new TROP-2 ADCs as well. But then there are a huge number of ADCs there with new targets, for example, immune effector targets, and new payloads, even immunotherapy and two different payloads or bispecific antibodies. And then there is interest in combining ADCs with immunotherapy and PARP inhibitors. We saw data in bladder cancer, I think it was bladder cancer, with combined 2 different ADCs at ESMO in 2023. So a lot of new approaches. How are we going to manage this moving forward? And where do you think we are going to position some of these next sort of "me-too" drugs?  Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's an excellent question, and you're right, the field is exploding with new antibody- drug conjugates. So, it's going to leave us with this conundrum of what to do. And you brought up the really interesting example of the fact that we have an approved TROP-2 ADC, we have as sacituzumab govitecan, and for example, we've recently seen some really exciting data come out from TROPION-Breast01 looking at another TROP-2 ADC, datopotamab deruxtecan or Dato-DXd where that ADC performed better than chemotherapy in a head-to-head trial in terms of progression-free survival in a hormone receptor-positive population. Then there's another TROP-2 ADC, moving forward in development moving to phase III that Merck is developing MK-2870. All three of these ADCs are targeting TROP-2 and have a TOPO 1 payload. So, it leaves you with the question of how do you think about that? Is there going to be a role for using serial TROP-2 ADCs? Could one work after the other, even when they have very similar payloads? How are we going to incorporate them? How do you pick one over the other? So, it is going to be tricky for us as we get more and more of these agents. I think we're all excited about seeing ADCs that may have different targets and different payloads, where maybe we will see that sequential utilization will have robust efficacy if we swap things out. Again, we don't have data here yet, but I think there are other agents in development. For example, you could think of like, disitamab vedotin targets HER2 and has an MMAE payload. So, could it be that someone progresses on T-DXd for HER2-low, but then could go on to disitamab vedotin? How will that work? So, we have a lot to learn, but it's really nice to have so many options.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether or not we select the ADC based on a rational understanding of the tumor and the patient, or whether it's simply what's easier to give and has the right toxicity for that patient.  So, that sort of brings us to our next topic, which is how are we going to sequence these agents? How are we going to understand the mechanisms of ADC resistance? At San Antonio in 2023, we saw a presentation where there was a top-alteration, and the patient had a really long response to a top-directed ADC, or an agent that carried a topoisomerase inhibitor. And that really struck me that we're going to see these alterations. There was a fresh autopsy study that suggested that the alterations may be different in different organ sites of disease. How are we going to figure this out? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yeah, I also was really puzzled to see those data from San Antonio where we've sort of simplified ADC resistance in our heads to say, well, maybe someone becomes resistant because they lose target expression, or maybe someone becomes resistant because they've developed resistance to the payload, kind of like the way we think of someone developing resistance to getting chemotherapy. But obviously, it's probably far more complex than that. With these ADCs, they need to be able to internalize the ADC and could there be mechanisms of resistance related to the internalization process? So, I think there are lots of potential areas where resistance could be occurring. I think, we don't understand it very well. We've seen patients, for example, who have responded. This is just anecdotal, but we have data, for example looking at, Dato-DXd in the phase 1 triple-negative study where there were some patients who responded despite having progressed on sacituzumab. Well, why is that? You would think if it's target resistance or payload resistance, it would be the same target and a very similar payload. So, why would those drugs work one after the other? And that's why I think we just don't understand this well enough at this point in time.   So, it's clearly an area where more research is needed because it does have significant implications on how we think about using these drugs sequentially. We will need to understand these resistance mechanisms because there do seem to be some rare patients who benefit from these sequencing strategies and then others who don't. So, it would be nice to be able to figure this out and hopefully in the future, we'll be able to test patients and know what drugs to give them. But I think we're far off from that, unfortunately, right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it does seem to be a relatively elusive approach, and I think, in part, it's due to the heterogeneity of cancer. And maybe, as we're better and better at analyzing tumor cells in the blood, which are a rare group, and ctDNA, which, of course, we do now to look for mutations, maybe that'll be an approach that we'll be able to take. And also, of course, moving the drugs earlier into the disease setting with less heterogeneity and mechanisms of resistance might help as well.  I was fascinated by the fact that although the PFS to the first ADC seems to be overall much greater than the PFS to the second ADC, when you sequence them, there are a few patients who have a longer PFS with the second, even if these are just sacituzumab T-DXd sequencing in various directions. So, it's clearly very complex. And right now, I think we're just sequencing and we don't really know how to do it. We just choose what we think is best for that patient first and go on to the next one later, which is interesting. And one of the choices might be treating brain metastases, which of course remains a huge unmet need. And if we could find effective treatment for brain metastases, maybe we could also prevent them in some patients more. What do we know about the central nervous system (CNS) penetration of ADCs and the clinical results? Dr. Sara Tolaney: At first, we were not optimistic that these drugs would have activity in the brain because we thought that these were very large agents that probably couldn't penetrate into the blood-brain barrier. But in fact, I think we were all very excited to see that there is actually data suggesting that these drugs can actually have robust efficacy in the CNS in patients who have active brain metastases. And so what we've seen so far is data with trastuzumab deruxtecan or T-DXd, there have been some trials that have been done, including studies like DEBRA and TUXEDO, which have looked at T-DXd in patients who have active brain metastases and are showing very robust response rates within the CNS. So, we're seeing intracranial response rates on the order of 40% to 50%. And clinically, this is what we're seeing as well. These are smaller studies and there's a larger trial, DESTINY-Breast12, which will hopefully validate the robust efficacy in the CNS with T-DXd. So, again, it's really nice to see this.  To your point, though, one area that I'm curious about, as you were alluding to, is will these drugs be able to prevent CNS disease? And I think that is a very different question because here the blood-brain barrier is not intact when patients have progressive brain metastases, and so these ADCs are causing robust activity. But if you look, for example, and I'll be curious to see what happens, DESTINY-Breast05 is looking at T-DXd in the post preoperative setting for patients who have residual disease and comparing it to T-DM1. And unfortunately, we saw that T-DM1 was not able to prevent brain metastases when looking at data from KATHERINE, where in fact, rates of CNS as the first site of recurrence were similar with T-DM1 and trastuzumab. So, now we'll be interested to see, will it be any different with T-DXd? Will T-DXd be able to have any role in prevention? I think we haven't seen anything like that with ADCs to date, so that would be a paradigm shift in our way of thinking.  Right now, there are strategies being taken from a prevention standpoint of trying to add a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in that early-stage setting, such as what is being done in the COMPASS-RD trying to add tucatinib to T-DM1 to see if that would do it. But again, we really need to understand, again, how these drugs work, particularly when the blood-brain barrier may not be intact. But again, very exciting data with T-DXd in an ongoing trial, actually through SWOG looking at sacituzumab for patients with CNS disease. And we've seen some preliminary data with sacituzumab showing that it actually does penetrate into the brain when they've looked at drug levels in the tumor in the brain, comparing it to plasma, it actually looks similar. So, we know it's getting in there and we'll have more robust efficacy data, hopefully coming soon. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of that data. It's been exciting also to see some responses in patients with leptomeningeal disease as well, where we've really been struggling with anything that works for more than a few weeks or months at the most. So I'm holding out great hope that we're going to see a big difference because even though TDM-1 had some efficacy, it was nothing like what we're seeing with T-DXd. So we'll see. And the same with sacituzumab with triple negative disease, where sometimes brain metastases can be an isolated site of recurrence, even in patients who have a pathologic complete response. So it has been a big challenge.  So I think that what we've learned from you is a lot about the mechanisms and the data about these new ADCs, the tremendous hope that these are bringing to our patients, but also the really exciting new approaches with new payloads, new targets of drugs that are in development, as well as potentially some different ADCs that have the same target and similar mechanisms of action of this payload. Really fascinating to hear about this, the future work on sequencing, on mechanisms of resistance, and on brain metastases. We have, of course, 2 prospective trials that we'll be looking at sequencing, one with T-DXd and Dato-DXd, and one registry trial with T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan in the US. So that's also going to, I think, provide us with some important information.  We could talk for a long time about this, but I just wonder if you have any closing comments to sum up your thoughts.  Dr. Sara Tolaney: I think you did a great job leading us through thinking about ADCs, and I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens in the future. While again, these agents have become a standard for us for patients with metastatic disease, I'm going to be curious to see how everything evolves and to see if we'll be able to substitute chemotherapy with ADCs in early disease settings and change outcomes. Will we be able to have novel combinations? Will we be able to sequence these drugs one after another? Will we actually have biomarker predictors to help us sort out which drug to give when? So, still a lot to learn, but clearly a very exciting field right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Indeed. Sara, thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast on your great work to develop novel therapies for breast cancer. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and even greater to work with you on the future progress of treatment for breast cancer. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much, Hope. Again, really nice to always discuss these data with you. I always learn a lot, so thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to all of the 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 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, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of a product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo  @hoperugo  Dr. Sara Tolaney @stolaney1     Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Hope Rugo:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Talho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc, Stemline Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca   Dr. Sara Tolaney: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Bio, Artio Biopharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp, Zetagen, Bayer, Infinity Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Tango Therapeutics, Systimmune, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Sumitovant Biopharma Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Seattle Genetics, OncoPep, Gilead Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences

Conversation with Dr. Stephen Dyar about building a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Greenville and the building blocks necessary to do the same in the Kijabe context.

IASLC Lung Cancer Considered host Dr. Narjust Florez interviews two researchers presenting at the North America Conference on Lung Cancer: Dr. Carolyn Presley is an Associate Professor in the Division of Medical Oncology/Department of Internal Medicine at The Ohio State University, Comprehensive Cancer Center and The James Cancer Hospital/Solove Research Institute. Alexandra Potter is co-founder and President of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

Host:  Dr. Jennifer Hunter, Assistant Director for Family and Consumer Sciences Extension, University of Kentucky Guest: Dr. Mark Evers, Director, UK Markey Cancer Center Cancer Conversations Episode 48 What does it mean when a cancer center, such as Markey, receives the comprehensive cancer center designation?  How does being a comprehensive cancer center impact the work being done at Markey?  Does having a comprehensive cancer center have significant implications for Kentucky? Listen to this episode of Cancer Conversations, as Dr. Mark Evers answers these questions and more. Connect with the UK Markey Cancer Center Online Markey Cancer Center On Facebook @UKMarkey On Twitter @UKMarkey

The University of Kentucky announced in September that the Markey Cancer Center has earned a National Cancer Institute “Comprehensive” Cancer Center designation, the highest level of recognition awarded by the NCI. Markey is the first and only center in Kentucky to achieve this designation, and the next-closest Comprehensive Cancer Center is nearly 200 miles from Lexington. There are currently only 72 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the country, and 56 of those are Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Dr. Greg speaks with Center Director Dr. Mark Evers about the remarkable achievement.

We are re-releasing an episode from 2021 in remembrance of Ralph D'Agostino, Sr.  Ellie Murray and Lucy D'Agostino McGowan chat with Ralph D'Agostino Sr. and Ralph D'Agostino Jr. about their careers in statistics, looking back at how things have developed and forward at where they see the world of statistics and epidemiology going.  Ralph D'Agostino Sr. was a professor of Mathematics/Statistics, Biostatistics, and Epidemiology at Boston University. He was the lead biostatistician for the Framingham Heart Study, a biostatistical consultant to The New England Journal of Medicine, an editor of Statistics in Medicine and lead editor of their Tutorials, and a member and consultant on FDA committees. His major fields of research were clinical trials, prognostic models, longitudinal analysis, multivariate analysis, robustness, and outcomes/effectiveness research.  Ralph D'Agostino Jr. is a professor in the Department of Biostatistics and Data Science at Wake Forest University where he is the Director of the Biostatistics Core of the Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methodologically his research includes developing statistical techniques for evaluating data from observational settings, handling missing data in applied problems, and developing predictive functions to identify prospectively patients at elevated risk for future negative outcomes. Some of his recent work includes the development of methods using propensity score models to identify safety signals in large retrospective databases. 

Drs. Hope Rugo and Nancy Davidson discuss the next generation of endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer – SERDs, SERMs, CERANs, and PROTACs – and challenges relating to the optimal sequence of therapeutic options. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is the most common subset of this disease and breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. Endocrine therapy (ET) is the cornerstone of management in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and may involve suppressing estrogen production with aromatase inhibitors in the cancer cell itself, or directly blocking the estrogen receptor pathway through selective estrogen receptor modulators, such as tamoxifen, or the injectable selective estrogen receptor degrader, fulvestrant. However, despite the availability of these therapies, the largest unmet need lies in treatment of HR-positive HER-negative disease lies after progression on endocrine therapy. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the emerging generation of endocrine therapies in breast cancer, some of which were designed to overcome common mechanisms of endocrine resistance, and the challenges relating to the optimal sequence of therapeutic options. Today, I'm delighted to welcome the world-renowned breast cancer researcher, Dr. Nancy Davidson, to the podcast. She's a professor and the executive vice president for clinical affairs at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and professor of medicine at the University of Washington as well as past president of ASCO and AACR. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found in our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod. Nancy, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Thank you so much, Hope, for the opportunity. Dr. Hope Rugo:  You've done incredible work in the area of treating HR+ disease, but also in understanding some of the agents and pathways that are most important to our understanding of how we treat and really think about developing new drugs for HR+ breast cancer. The first generation of anti-estrogen drugs really included selective estrogen receptor modulators, but now we have a new generation of these anti-estrogen drugs. And there's also orally administered selective estrogen receptor degraders, so-called SERDs, that we hope someday will be an alternative with already one approved for the injectable SERD, fulvestrant. But there's a whole additional class of drugs, complete estrogen receptor antagonists, referred to as CERANs, and proteolysis targeting chimerics, PROTACs. These agents are all at various stages of development in both early and metastatic settings and really represent, I think, a confusing array of different treatments that are being studied, some of which of course are approved. Nancy, it would be great if you could tell us some about these exciting new agents, starting with our approved drugs and moving on to the agents that we're studying in clinical trials. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Hope, this is a terrific example of how basic science has really begun to inform clinical practice. For us as breast cancer practitioners, it was really easy for a long time because we only had tamoxifen. And then things like the aromatase inhibitors as a means of decreasing the estrogen ligand came into practice, as did fulvestrant, as you mentioned, a selective estrogen receptor degrader. Thanks though to a lot of understanding about estrogen receptor biology, and specifically, the discovery about a decade ago of estrogen receptor mutations, something that we didn't think exist ed for a long time, but which we now know exists in maybe a third to a half of breast cancers after exposure to aromatase inhibitors, that's led to really an explosion, this alphabet soup of possibilities that you talked about. SERMs, selective estrogen receptor modulators, tamoxifen is the classic one—something that acts as an agonist and as an antagonist, depending on the tissue. The SERDs, the selective estrogen receptor degraders, lead to estrogen receptor destruction. Fulvestrant is the classic example of this right now. But we're very excited that a second one has been FDA approved. That's elacestrant that was approved earlier this year, and it has specifically been developed to try to target those estrogen receptor mutant breast cancers because those are the ones that are particularly resistant. So that's the first of this new generation of SERDs that's coming on the market, has come on the market. As you say, a key advantage there is that it's oral, unlike  fulvestrant, which requires 2 monthly injections and is very, very inconvenient and uncomfortable for patients. Other SERDs are coming along. I think another one that is well along in clinical development is giredestrant, which is in the same family and being tested in clinical trials of the classic varieties. It's been tested in a window trial, looking at its ability to down-regulate Ki67. It's being tested against standard of care in first-line metastatic breast cancer. And there are some studies that are going to begin looking at it in the adjuvant setting as well. There are other members of this particular family, but I think that elacestrant is the one that we have at our fingertips right now, and giredestrant is one that's certainly coming along in clinical trials, and we should look forward to those results. For those who are interested in the giredestrant, the trials in question right now that are going on are persevERA, which is in stage 4 breast cancer, and lidERA, which is in the adjuvant setting. Now that's one new category, or it's an old category with a new twist. A second is these agents that are called complete estrogen receptor antagonists, CERANs, as you talked about them. The key here is that what they do is, the estrogen receptor has a couple of domains, and in particular, it has 2 different activation domains, AFT1 and AFT2. And these CERANs are complete estrogen receptor antagonists, so they block both of those domains. And the hope would be that they might end up being more effective than the other agents that we have available to us right now. So those are also in clinical trial at the present time, and we're waiting to see whether or not there's going be any value in that particular area that's going to able to go forward for us.   Another area that I think we want to talk about is the PROTACs, as you mentioned. These are proteolysis targeting chimeric entities. So, this is a kind of a complicated situation where you have a kind of bivalent situation where you have something that binds both to the estrogen receptor and then also to E3 ubiquinase. So, it leads to degradation again of the agents; that's another area for us to be watching. And then finally the SERCAs. So those are the selective estrogen receptor covalent antagonists, and what they do is they bind very specifically to a cysteine 530 that exists in the estrogen receptor but not in other steroid receptors. So that's where the selective part of this comes along. Now these are all in various stages of clinical investigation. Some of them are pretty early at this point, but I think the ones that are well established are elacestrant, giredestrant is coming along as we just talked about. Camizestrant is also coming along through the SERENA series of trials, and imlunestrant is also coming on through the EMBER series of trials. Hope, I would also be remiss if I didn't go back to an old drug that's a new drug, and that's lasofoxifene, which is also in the SERM family. Those who have been in our field for a while will remember that lasofoxifene was actually originally kind of tested in the prevention setting, where it seemed to have some activity. It came back into our interest because it has really strong activity against estrogen receptor mutant breast cancer models in the laboratory. And as a consequence of that, it's coming back into the clinic through a series of trials that are called the ELAINE trials, where we're looking to see whether or not it might also be better than fulvestrant. It too is an oral agent, so that's a real plus for us, and the first set of ELAINE trials would suggest that there's some nice activity without a lot of toxicity. So, lots going on in this field. You know, I think for all of these things, obviously, we're also working very hard to think about the toxicities. All of these, as I recall, are oral agents. So that gets rid of  1 huge toxicity, which is you don't have the need for some sort of injection. But they all do have some side effects. Frequently, [the toxicities] are like GI side effects or fatigue. In a couple of cases, there might be some concern about cardiac arrhythmias, but I think GI turns out to be one of the most important things that we have seen in some of these trials. Generally, it's very well tolerated, though. I think another important question, which I'm sure is in your head and is in mine, is that how are we going to integrate these into what we already have? And so, I think a lot of the work right now is looking at patients who have already received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor and are now going on to one of these new agents. But you might wonder, if they turn out to be effective and well-tolerated, whether they too should be perhaps combined with CDK4/6 inhibitors in place of the aromatase inhibitors or the fulvestrant that we use now. So, I think that we can imagine that those clinical trials are either in progress in some cases or will be coming on as we try to think about how to integrate these new approaches into our existing standard of care, which is already quite complicated, right? We've gone far from tamoxifen, which was good for everybody, to now a really complex algorithm about how we think about hormone therapy, both in early breast cancer and in metastatic breast cancer.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, that was a fabulous discussion about the new agents and our existing agents and both the exciting aspects, as well as the challenges. One question that comes up, I think a lot, and this is of course a huge question in many ways, but for ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, where these drugs are first being tested, maybe we'll talk about that first. There's one trial at SERENA-6, looking at camizestrant in patients who have developed evidence of an ESR1 mutation in circulating tumor DNA, who are on first-line therapy with an AI and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. What do you think about that study and where do you think that progress might go? Of course, that's based on data from another trial, which wasn't definitive, but suggested, had sort of a suggestion, you know, without studying the sequencing in detail that maybe you would have improved progression-free survival with that approach. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Yeah, by which you mean the idea of monitoring pre-ESR1 mutations and circulating DNA and then making therapy changes based on that? Is that what you're talking about? Dr. Hope Rugo:  The PADA-1 trial, yes, and that led to this huge SERENA-6 trial, which of course is now accruing. Dr. Nancy Davidson: So, you know, we would love that, right? I think that obviously breast cancer for many years has been interested in trying to have circulating markers that we could use to help to guide our therapy in a more meaningful way than we have in the past. And I think that the trial that you've talked about is certainly one that's trying to make that see whether that's a possibility for us based on information like the PADA trial. I'm hopeful it's going to work out. I would say, let's see what that looks like, whether it's going to be useful or not. It seems to me in some cases, some of these trials have not been quite what we hoped for, but I don't think we necessarily had the molecular techniques or the sensitivity, nor did we necessarily have other things to move to because, you know, those two approaches require both a really good test, but also the ability to use the test to define a new therapy that's going to lead to improved patient outcomes. And I think that these are ingredients that we now have available to us at our fingertips more than we did, say, a decade or 2 decades ago. Exciting approach. Dr. Hope Rugo:  I do think there's a lot of challenges inherent in this process, monitoring blood on a regular basis and following up and then randomizing based on results. But I think [SERENA-6] is an incredibly important trial, as you have mentioned, to try and think about moving past using circulating tumor cells, which didn't work, to just change blindly to the next therapy, but more have a rational reason to change to a drug that may be more effective before the disease itself progresses. And just for our listeners, the unique aspect of trials like this in SERENA-6 is that you change therapy before you have evidence of disease progression, but only this molecular evidence of a mutation that is associated with resistance to the therapy you're on. So, it's a really important question. We'll see what happens, as you mentioned, sometimes we're not clever enough to really get around the fact that there are multiple mutations driving resistance in this setting, so we'll see how straightforward this is. The question also comes up, and I think that's a question with many of these trials now, is they're randomizing patients after a progression on an AI and CDK4/6 inhibitor to receive the novel endocrine therapy or fulvestrant. One of, I think, the concerns of treating oncologists is that then you're sort of eliminating the possibility of a targeted agent in that setting. And of course, we have new targeted agents we're studying as well, AKT inhibitors and new inhibitors of the PI3 kinase pathway. So, the newer trials are now combining, as you mentioned. There's a lot of concerns about drug-drug interactions here and how you might really combine them. And then there are triplet studies looking at CDK4/6 inhibitors, oral SERDs primarily, and pi3-kinase and CDK4/6 inhibitors. What's your thought on these and will they really help to move the needle forward? Dr. Nancy Davidson: I think that's a really interesting question, Hope, is whether or not we're going to find that combination therapies from the get-go are the way to go, or whether we're going to end up having to use maybe more serial therapies. Because not only is it a question about whether or not you can tackle all of these different resistance mechanisms simultaneously, but I think the other question is, as you say, are there negative drug-drug interactions, and are there toxicities that are intolerable? Although these are targeted in all cases and they're relatively benign in terms of side effects from the breast cancer perspective, they're not devoid of toxicity. And so, I think that's going to be another issue for us – whether they're well tolerated during the time that patients are taking them. I guess the other thing I always think about, Hope,  is that it's hard to know about value of cancer care, but you know, we are talking about agents that are not inexpensive. You know, when you think about the financial toxicity, in addition to the side effect toxicity that you and I just talked about, trying to think about what that value is going to look like is going to be very important for us. Also, as somebody who worked for a long time in the lab and in the clinic, you know, there are an infinite number of combinations that you and I could think about that are rational. And so, the question is, how are we going to pick the ones that are the most rational, if you will, the ones that seem to be the most promising, and take them forward into clinical trials? Because patients are our most precious resource. And so, we want to make sure that we are bringing forward only those things that really seem to have a very strong foundation and the opportunity to improve outcomes over time. Tough, tough question for us to try to think about, as you've talked about. The other thing is that, you know, these trials are not only for postmenopausal women, who are the majority of patients, but we also want to target them to premenopausal women. So, in those women, we're also looking at using an LHRH agonist on top of this, right, because many of these things are really at least so far designed for the postmenopausal state. So stay tuned. Lots of work going on. I think one of the interesting things will be making the leap from using these in metastatic disease at time of progression to taking them forward into the early breast cancer space. And several of the agents are now beginning to do that because of very strong preclinical and clinical data to date. Dr. Hope Rugo: So, we have new agents that we're studying in the metastatic setting, and we've seen a trend to move fairly rapidly from phase 1B trials directly into phase 3 trials, because as you pointed out so clearly, there are a number of drugs in this setting, and we don't really know not only which agent is better, but even what class of agents is better. So, as we move more quickly from phase 1B to phase 3, the question comes up about how we're going to study these agents optimally in the early-stage setting. They, I think we all thought that maybe changing based on ctDNA evidence of a mutation might be an approach, but that's complicated. A big question for you is whether or not you think that's ready for prime time as it's being marketed as such. And then the second question is really, are we better changing our whole approach upfront in high-risk disease or should we wait until after patients are exposed to their endocrine therapy and then switch as we go along; the EMBER-4 trial is looking at that switching approach? Dr. Nancy Davidson: Yeah, I think that this is obviously the billion-dollar question for many companies and for many of us as investigators. I don't know that I have a crystal ball into what the best approach might be. We know that already some of these have been abandoned. For example, amcenestrant. So, I don't even have to learn how to say it because it has been abandoned. It did go to phase 3, as you pointed out, in the advanced setting, looking at it with palbo vs letrozole plus palbo, and it didn't really show a whole lot that the company wanted to pursue.  So, I think that sometimes these things are going to be abandoned based on the metastatic setting, which is a large trial, and that's a trial where obviously it might be a little easier to the circulating markers, as you talked about, than maybe in the early-stage breast cancer setting.  I think that probably these early-stage trials are going to end up being big; they're going to have be clean. I'm guessing that most companies and most investigators will want to target them towards high-risk individuals, as you talked about, for 2 reasons. One is that ethically, I think we feel more comfortable with that. These are individuals where standard therapies are maybe not serving them as well as we would like and where we have information to think that we can at least have equipoise about a new approach. And the second is that from a trial design point of view, the event rate is likely to be higher, and therefore you might get answers earlier and with a smaller clinical trial. So that's where I suspect we're going to go. But it's a challenging question, and I think that many investigators and many companies are really trying to struggle with that right now because we do have so many options. And we're not quite sure how to, first, develop these new drugs, but then really importantly, put them in the context of our existing drugs. And as you say, we're also simultaneously trying to develop superior molecular or circulating markers to guide us. So, there's so many variables that are going on right now in this field that, from my point of view, itmakes it really exciting, but it also makes it pretty complicated, both for investigators and for pharma as we try to think about how to position these going forward. But what a great problem to have, Hope, because remember when you and I started in breast cancer, pretty much all you needed to know was tamoxifen. And I think you and I also probably started at the tail end of the time when we were using androgens and progestins and agents that now have basically completely fallen out of favor. Dr. Hope Rugo: Estrogen Dr. Nancy Davidson: Estrogen, yeah, and your side effect profiles were not as good. So, it's a good problem to have. It's a nice situation when science can inform our clinical investigation, our clinical practice. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, I think it'll be fascinating to see where we end up at the end, but of course, the complexities of this include the fact that sometimes just the clinical trial design leads to a less than positive result because of the way the trial itself has been designed, which I think is the nice part about moving these earlier into treatment of high-risk disease, but also brings up the question of all sorts of areas we're not really a place to discuss today, like how the statistical design is made, et cetera, that can sometimes result in poor evaluation of excellent agents. One of the questions that comes up, and you brought this up earlier, which I think is really important, is that we are in the era of combining our endocrine agents with targeted agents, and, oral agents, in a fascinating way, really bring up drug-drug interactions in a way that the injectable fulvestrant hasn't, and aromatase inhibitors were kind of quiet on the impacting metabolism, unlike tamoxifen. But we are seeing some drug-drug interactions and certainly the discussions about using these agents may include the question about whether or not you're having more diarrhea or nausea or fatigue or one drug causes photopsia, flashing lights, things like that. Keratitis is becoming a new toxicity to follow.  How are we going to figure out how to sequence these drugs and are they only going to work better all of them as a class in patients with ESR1 mutations in their tumors? Dr. Nancy Davidson: I think we don't know the answer to the second question yet. That's something that really needs to be sorted out. Even if they do, that's still a really important subset of patients, assuming that we continue to start with the aromatase inhibitors, right? That's where those things really seem to emerge right now. I don't know how we're going to figure those things out. I guess that I'm hoping that maybe a couple of agents in these classes will become kind of the lead agents. And so, we'll be able to do this work with a handful of things as opposed to a whole array of things. But we'll see. I think that even within classes, obviously, these agents are going be slightly different, probably. And so it may be that one member of a class may be slightly better from a, maybe not from an efficacy point of view, but from a toxicity point of view. And we'll just have to see how it goes. I don't think I have any magic answers about that. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it'll be interesting to see whether or not the agents work in sequence too. You know, could you use a PROTAC after an oral SERD, for example, or a CERAN? That'll be fascinating to see. Dr. Nancy Davidson:  I'm hoping that preclinical modeling may help with that a little bit, though of course we all know that there are plenty of things that do well in preclinical models, GEMS and rodent models and PDXs, and sometimes those things translate nicely into clinical practice, but sometimes they don't. Dr. Hope Rugo: You mentioned, Nancy, that when we started out, that it was a fairly simple decision about what endocrine therapies, and we ran out very quickly. We're seeing some of those old classes come up with new agents. And you mentioned lasofoxifene, the oral SERM that seems to have some benefits and works in the later-line setting and also can be combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor; [and also] has data with abemaciclib. There's also a new androgen receptor agonist, enobosarm, that's being tested as well. Do you think that these older mechanisms have a future as well? Dr. Nancy Davidson: I do. I think that because we'll be able to understand the biology better than we did in the past. A lot of our hormone therapy was pretty empiric several decades ago. But I think with better understanding of mechanisms and better understanding of what the patterns of resistance might be for a particular tumor, that we might be able to think about those things. You're right that there's a whole parallel universe right now in androgen receptor targeted therapies that we're not talking about today, both in perhaps in hormone-responsive breast cancers, but also in triple-negative breast cancers in a certain subset. And so that's an area where we probably need to be watching what our prostate cancer colleagues are doing as they develop these agents and thinking about where they might mechanistically make sense to apply in the breast cancer field. It won't be the first time that we've received insights from them because remember, prostate cancer people knew about androgen receptor mutations a really long time before we figured out that they existed in estrogen receptor as well. So, there's a nice cross talk, I think, between the prostate cancer field and the breast cancer field in that regard. Dr. Hope Rugo:  That's an excellent point. And we learn a lot from our colleagues studying other malignancies, and prostate cancer has been a big area there for us and hopefully will help us with studying these agents because there's different toxicity profiles, of course, as well. And then you mentioned the approval of elacestrant, the first oral SERD to have regulatory approval, and it's approved in patients who have ESR1 mutations in their tumors. We're also studying it in the ELEVATE trial in combination with all of the different targeted agents, the CDK4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, and the PI3 kinase inhibitor, alpelisib, to really try and understand how these can be optimally combined. Would you check for ESR1 mutations at diagnosis of metastatic disease, or would you do this more after progression or start of progression of disease on an aromatase inhibitor? Dr. Nancy Davidson: I tend to be a conservative, Hope, and so unless there's a clinical trial that might be able to be considered, I would tend to check it only after progression on the aromatase inhibitor. But I think some people are earlier adopters, and I suppose it's possible that they might want to know from the get-go. Having said that, I do think elacestrant has an approval after aromatase inhibitor, as I recall. So, presumably the patient would have to have that exposure before you would be able to act on the ESR1 mutation by administering the oral SERD. This is also a new area that may well change with time, right? You know, as we develop different agents, as the agents have different requirements or different indications, and as we perhaps have better tests, it may be things that we don't do routinely now will become very routine in the future. And perhaps in series like you talked about in a serial fashion. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I think that's a really important comment about how we're going to think about treating hormone receptor positive disease and potentially, you know, we have new chemo options, of course, not part of our talk discussion today and antibody drug conjugates. So, the future is certainly challenging in terms of understanding this appropriate sequencing. We need data, but it's exciting to have these options. As you pointed out, this is this is a great problem to have, you know, too many drugs with efficacy to try and understand how to use these in the most appropriate way. And as you also pointed out, the use in young women is particularly important. Whether or not you need to suppress the ovaries with all of these new agents is going to be important to understand as well as a next step. I don't know if you have specific thoughts on that area as well. I mean, that may reduce toxicity for younger women. Dr. Nancy Davidson: I guess our approach right now has been to suppress them, but I agree with you; you wonder if you look at some of the mechanisms of action, whether that's really a requirement biologically and medically, or whether it's something that's kind of a leftover from the approval process. You know, that for the drug approval, these women were suppressed. I think we need to work that out because that's another area where certainly women could have ovaries removed. That's pretty straightforward, although it requires a surgical procedure. But otherwise use of LHRH agonists continues to be injections, right? And so, if we're trying to minimize convenience or maximize convenience and minimize toxicity for women with any stage of breast cancer, anything we can do, it seems to me to eliminate an injection is going to be a good thing. So important for us to be able to work that out as well, even though numerically it's a smaller number of women, it's obviously a very important number. population of women. Dr. Hope Rugo: Last question for you. One question that comes up and sent to me and panels all the time is, if you have done your next generation sequencing and you see an ESR1 mutation and a P13CA mutation, what do you prioritize in terms of your choice of treatment, because we have the choice of either using elacestrant or a fulvestrant in combination with an agent targeting the PI3 kinase pathway? Dr. Nancy Davidson: I don't know that there's a right answer to that medically right now. So, when I talk about it with patients, I suggest to them that it's probably not one or the other. It's kind of the question of which one to use first. So, we talk a little bit about side effect profiles. We talk a little bit about patient preference and neither of these drugs is devoid of problems, but sometimes patients have pretty strong feelings about which set of side effects seems the least unattractive to them or the possibility of having those side effects. And I know that if one isn't well tolerated, you can swap over to the other. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I think that's a very important way to think about next therapies in our era of not really knowing what's right. And this idea of shared decision-making is so incredibly important. Nancy, thank you so much for sharing your insights and knowledge with us today. I could talk to you for hours about this. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Hope, thank you so much for the opportunity. It is an exciting area and I really enjoyed talking with you about what we know and the many things that we don't yet know, but we're working on. Dr. Hope Rugo: Indeed, it's certainly an exciting time. Thank you to our listeners for joining us today. And thanks to the ASCO Daily News Podcast for highlighting this important area. You'll find a link to all of the 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. Thanks so much.   Disclaimer:    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Follow today's speakers:     Dr. Hope Rugo  @hoperugo  Dr. Nancy Davidson     Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Hope Rugo:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Talho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca   Dr. Nancy Davidson: No Relationships to Disclose    

In oncology, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is synonymous with the highest standard of cancer research in the U.S. Nearly 50 years ago, Massey Cancer Center first became an NCI-designated cancer center in 1975 and has maintained this status every five years – when the NCI evaluates Massey for its transdisciplinary research and approaches to cancer prevention and treatment. This year, the NCI declared Massey a Comprehensive Cancer Center, its highest level of recognition. In this episode, Dr. Robert A. Winn, director of the VCU Massey Cancer Center and senior associate dean for cancer innovation and professor of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine at the VCU School of Medicine, discusses Massey's latest NCI achievement, and explains the impact this accolade will have on the cancer center and its community. An NCI-designation is not just an award. It comes with an array of opportunities for cancer centers to deepen their research, recruit top-tier scientists and advance pathways for new cancer treatments.

The United Auto Workers go on strike, but Ford workers in Louisville are still on the job. The University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center is designated as a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute. A program that gave free haircuts to students at the start of the school year gets a makeover. It's been expanded to give free haircuts year-round.

What does it take to run an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center for 22 years? And what does it takes to recruit a successor? In this episode, Shelton “Shelley” Earp talks about his plans to step down as director of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center effective in June 2024. He is joined by Norman "Ned" Sharpless, former director of UNC Lineberger as well as former NCI director and former acting FDA commissioner. Sharpless chairs the committee charged with finding Earp's successor. Earp has served as director between 1997 and 2018 and then again from 2018 on, both preceding and succeeding Sharpless in the UNC job. This is a special edition of the Cancer History Project podcast focused a little more on the present—and the future. Read more here: https://cancerletter.com/conversation-with-the-cancer-letter/20230908_1/

The next chapter in the career of Peter Shields, MD, has begun. “Now I get to do what I started out doing … seeing patients and doing research,” he said. Shields recently stepped down as deputy director of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, a position he has held for more than a decade. Under his leadership, the Center continued to grow at a rapid rate and has become established as one of the leading cancer-research institutions in the world. But Shields, a lung-cancer specialist, is definitely not retiring. He will continue to see patients and do research. And, he is also in the midst of becoming licensed as a paramedic. “I had this passion as an undergraduate and in medical school for being an (emergency medical technician) and riding in ambulances, going to places where people really need help.” As deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Shields recruited new physicians and scientists, helped pull together teams that collaborated to do research and apply for grants, and he helped created the Pelotonia Institute for Immuno-Oncology and the Center for Tobacco Research. “My job was to be a catalyst,” he explained. “It's not me doing the research, but it's understanding that this is the direction we need to go and fostering collaborations and providing our great people with the tools they need.”

On today's episode, meet Dr. Amy Cummings. Dr. Cummings is a thoracic oncologist and research scientist who practices in Santa Monica and Torrance California. In Santa Monica, she sees lung cancer patients, runs clinical trials, and is part of the virtual multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program. Her clinical interests include immunotherapy, precision medicine, and providing equitable care to all patients regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. At the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center she also serves as the Director for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI).Dr. Cummings received her medical degree from the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California and completed both her internal medicine residency and her hematology and oncology fellowship at UCLA.

Drs. Hope Rugo and Kristin Rojas discuss advances in the management of menopausal symptoms, fertility preservation, and bone health for women on endocrine therapy for breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello. I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. And I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book.   In patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer, the most common subset of the most common cancer in women worldwide, adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and death. However, prolonged estrogen suppression associated with the use of endocrine therapy can cause life-altering menopausal symptoms, bone loss, and fertility concerns. These issues impact the use of endocrine therapy and potentially breast cancer outcome.    Today, we'll be discussing mitigation strategies to manage the side effects of endocrine therapy, which we hope will improve our patient's quality of life and adherence to treatment with Dr. Kristin Rojas, who addressed these issues in a recently published article in the 2023 ASCO Educational Book. Dr. Rojas is an assistant professor of surgery and a breast surgical oncologist and gynecologic surgeon at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.    Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found in our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod.    Dr. Rojas, thank you for being on the podcast today.   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thanks, Dr. Rugo, thank you so much for having me. Thank you to ASCO as well. It's truly an honor to be here with you today.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Your excellent article provides an updated overview of the existing approaches and a little forward thinking for improving the quality of life of breast cancer patients who are receiving estrogen deprivation therapy, a really broad term we use for all the hormone therapy we use in ovarian function suppression in the treatment of breast cancer. And then you had a very nice session education session at the ASCO Annual Meeting discussing these issues. Can you briefly discuss the educational session, your speakers and topics, and then we'll get more into the details of this important topic?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: At our educational session at ASCO this year, I chaired the session and presented on managing the sexual side effects and menopausal symptoms of estrogen suppression. And I had two wonderful colleagues with me: Dr. Matteo Lambertini, who shared guidelines regarding bone-targeted agents and managing bone health during endocrine suppression. And then we also had Dr. Terri Woodard, who is a reproductive endocrinologist from MD Anderson, who spoke on managing fertility concerns, which is a very important topic right now.   Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that's great. And it was such a fabulous session. Our listeners can view it online at asco.org if you missed this session. But let's talk a little bit about what was in your article and what was discussed. First, I think the physical and psychological effects of cancer care we know are critical components of survivorship care. Can you tell me a little bit more about that and how we need to understand that as oncologists?  Dr. Kristin Rojas: So, as you know, as treatment continues to improve, our cancer outcomes are improving and the population of survivors continues to grow. So, I think that for many breast cancer patients, or having the diagnosis of breast cancer, becomes more of a chronic illness and less a life-threatening issue for some. I think that the conversation is now changing from “Will you live?” to “How will you live?” And I was thrilled to see that other big organizations, along with ASCO, are prioritizing managing these important symptoms in survivorship. Because I think that, as most patients will be on some form of estrogen suppression, managing the toxicity of these therapies, as you pointed out, probably does influence treatment adherence, which directly translates to an oncologic improvement. So, it's not just managing these soft symptoms, it actually will have a direct influence on probably overall survival along with disease-free survival.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I think that's incredibly important and it's not just about doing the exam and finding out symptoms that might signify recurrence, it's really trying to address the effects of the treatment patients have gotten of chemo and their ongoing treatment with endocrine therapy that's so incredibly important. And now, of course, in medical oncology, we're adding on more agents which add to symptoms. That'll be the topic of next year's ASCO educational session. What do you do with the CDK4/6 inhibitors and managing those. But in more than 80% of women who are on the antiestrogen or various, I'm going to call hormone therapies, for early-stage breast cancer, vasomotor symptoms are a big issue. They're typically more severe in younger patients because of course they have estrogen and we take it away. So, how do we mitigate this problem in patients that can result in poor sleep and impact many aspects of one's psychosocial status? And these issues, not sleeping, of course, you make everything worse.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Yeah, that's a really important point. And you're right, this is a really common symptom experienced by the majority of patients on endocrine suppression. And not only those patients, but patients with triple negative disease who are put into menopause from chemotherapy, etc., along with women with cancer of other disease sites. And so, as the director of our program at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, the program is called MUSIC, which stands for Menopause Urogenital Sexual Health and Intimacy Clinic.    This is a very common symptom that patients often report. And one of the important things about this that I've realized is that hot flashes or vasomotor symptoms can actually have a pretty varied presentation. So, it's not just intense sweating. Sometimes these patients can present with palpitations, panic attacks, and they don't even realize that they're hot flashes. This is an effect of estrogen suppression and it's a central mechanism. So, it's probably related to hypothalamic dysregulation regarding how our body senses temperature changes, but it results in widespread flushing and sweating and those other aspects I told you about.   So, we've known for a long time that there are some behavioral modifications that can help with vasomotor symptoms or hot flashes. But now, we actually do have some pretty effective pharmacologic therapies for these patients as well, for whom behavioral modifications aren't completely helping the issue. Or, as you said, when patients are being woken up all night long with these hot flashes, it totally disrupts how their day goes and disrupts coping with their disease and all the other aspects of their treatment.   So, there's some effective treatments that we have. One of those being cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be helpful. The data on acupuncture is mixed, but I'm hopeful about this. And then the pharmacologic therapies we have. Traditionally or historically, clonidine, which is an alpha agonist, has been used along with gabapentin. But I think when choosing a medication to prescribe to a patient for hot flashes, you have to take into account the side effect profile. Clonidine does have some issues with blood pressure rebound, and gabapentin is really only effective in large doses, which can be very sedating for patients.    In the MUSIC Sexual Health After Cancer program, we typically stick to low dose SSRIs or SNRIs. I usually go with venlafaxine at a really low dose of 37.5 milligrams, and I can titrate up. I have patients take it at night in case they feel a little foggy when they first start it. But more recently, we've started using oxybutynin, which is an anticholinergic medication originally FDA approved for overactive bladder. I use the XL formulation, or you can do 2.5 or 5 milligrams BID. And this, in a study a few years ago, was shown to significantly reduce hot flashes and improve quality of life in a placebo-controlled trial.   So, important aspects of side effects of these medications with SSRIs or SNRIs working in the MUSIC Sexual Health After Cancer Program, sexual health concerns are often an issue, so those drugs can be libido zappers sometimes. But, the biggest side effect I've come across with oxybutynin for patients is dry mouth, and usually that resolves after a little while. So, we've had a lot of success in managing patients' hot flashes with these medications.  Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great and incredibly helpful. And I will say that as we're talking about these issues on this podcast, this is really important for all of our staff and our clinics because most of us don't have a fabulous clinic like the one you've started. But we are managing this with our staff, our APPs, and other areas that our patients are seeing. If everybody has this education, it will really help in the management of symptoms. And I just want to point out that venlafaxine was the first drug to be studied in this area really successful, but that we can use a whole host of different antidepressants. If people have side effects from one another, one may work really well, and generally low doses work well. The oxybutynin was such a very cool study. I think that's a great additional option.    In addition to hot flashes, we also see genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and that's part of what you deal with every day in your clinic, GSM. And this can be not just vaginal dryness, which is bad enough, but also increased infections, painful sex, recurrent bladder infections and also reduced libido, which is a really big issue, we just don't talk about very much. What's the most effective and safe treatment for GSM? And we use a lot of low dose vaginal estrogen and a variety of delivery mechanisms. What are the risk and benefits when patients really need something more?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: GSM, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause, is this newer umbrella term for what we used to call vaginal atrophy. And you're right, it encompasses not only dryness, but all the other changes that can happen to the vulvovaginal mucosa along with anatomic changes to the pelvic floor. This is critically important, I think, that we address these issues or these potential side effects at the time of endocrine therapy prescription because what we have found in our program is that while hot flashes might get better, these symptoms do not get better. And left untreated, they get worse.   And one of the surprising findings that we have presented earlier at another conference this year was that almost half of our patients, when they had their pelvic exam in the program, were also found to have vaginal stenosis. So narrowing and shortening of the vagina, making penetrative sex actually impossible. So it's really not just dryness, but a host of these other symptoms that go along with that. I like to break this down in a really simple way because I know that a lot of providers may be intimidated when patients might bring this up. But I think about it this way. Number 1, eliminate irritants. Number 2, moisturize. Number 3, lubricate. And 4, address the pelvic floor.   Oftentimes when patients present in the MUSIC program, they've been putting a lot of over the counter topical therapies on the vulva and the vagina using intravaginal washes. One of the biggest offenders of some of these symptoms is artificial fragrance, which we can actually develop an allergic reaction to, which manifests as burning and stinging. So these patients may also report burning and stinging in addition to dryness. These offenders can be in all kinds of products. So not only feminine washes, which I don't recommend in our program, but things like bath bombs, bubble bath, toilet paper. And so we kind of go through an inventory of everything that's touching the delicate tissues of the vulva and the vagina and try to back off those products.   The second thing is moisturization. It's important to talk to patients about the difference between moisturization, which I say is for maintenance, and lubricants, which are for PRN use sexual activity. But I tell patients, "lubricants for love." That's how I differentiate the use of these two different types of products because they have different properties. Usually after eliminating irritants, our first step is to start with a non-hormonal moisturizer because there's some really good high-tech non-hormonal moisturizers out there, specifically those containing hyaluronic acid, which pulls moisture from the environment and holds it on the skin. And by using this first—this is my personal opinion—but I think by improving the mucosa a little bit and kind of improving the dryness, maybe even the elasticity a little bit, I think that when patients do have persistent symptoms after using regularly these non-hormonal moisturizers at least three times a week, that adding in a low dose vaginal hormone at that time, instead of putting it on completely atrophic mucosa, you're putting it on kind of like a pretreated mucosa, which I think might decrease systemic absorption.   I'm so glad you brought up vaginal estrogen. I could give an entire talk just on that, so I'd be happy to do that next year for ASCO if anybody wants. But it is very controversial. Historically, there have not been studies showing an increased risk of recurrence with the use of local estrogen therapy, so estrogen in the vulva and the vagina. However, there was a recent study that came out this year that was a large analysis of breast cancer patients receiving different types of hormone therapy. And in a subset analysis of the group who got local vaginal estrogen, just in those patients on aromatase inhibitors, there was a slightly, but statistically significant–according to their analysis–increase in the risk of recurrence. I think there's some issues with this analysis because it was a large study and there's a lot of recall bias and measuring this in patients is really challenging. But I think it's still important to mention because a lot of patients are going to read about those things, these types of studies.   The way I approach it is to start with the lowest dose and I start with infrequent dosing. If patients have persistent symptoms, I start them with once a week or twice a week, which is different from the original pharmacokinetic studies of higher dose estrogens, which showed a bump in their serum estradiol when they used it every night for two weeks. So I actually do the opposite and taper them up. I'll do once a week to twice a week. And usually, patient symptoms are resolved at that point.   But I do want to point out, that's a great option for patients on tamoxifen because mechanistically, as you know, it probably doesn't matter if they have a little bump in their serum estrogen. But for the patients on aromatase inhibitors, we actually have a new kid on the block, a vaginal androgen called prasterone or DHEA. I dose this in the same way, titrate it up. But this can be really helpful for patients on aromatase inhibitors because the ALLIANCE trial showed that for those patients on AIs that their systemic estrogen levels do not increase. And so that's kind of how I manage that discussion. I do think it takes some multidisciplinary collaboration, so I always involve my medical oncology colleagues on this.    Lastly, lubricants. So, everyone seems to be really into using water-based lubricants, but I try to tell patients, unless you're depending on condoms for STD or contraception protection, silicone-based lubricants that are like preservative-free and don't have a lot of those gimmicks or additives, are great—they stay slippery for longer—and there's some really great brands out there. And then for patients who still have persistent pain with sex, we address the pelvic floor, which is either through the use of dilators, referring them to pelvic floor physical therapy, or other sexual devices that we use in the MUSIC program.  Dr. Hope Rugo: This is really helpful, and I think that for many of us in practice, we really want to get the specifics of what you use. I think this prasterone, the idea of DHEA is really very interesting and something that personally I haven't used, but we did use in the distant past before there was an FDA-approved version.   So I guess I have several questions just to ask about the details. So one is, when you prescribe this, do you find it's generally covered by insurance? And when you say low dose, do you mean just try it once a week? And then do you use the estrogen tablets, the brand names are often Yuvafem or Vagifem, we often use those twice a week. How often do you use them and do you use the estrogen ring also? What are the absolute specifics of what you're recommending to these women? And do you feel like sometimes in patients who are developing these symptoms that early use can help avoid the more severe symptoms and therefore reduce the exposure?   And lastly, just to say, that paper which was so interesting about the slightly increased risk of recurrence, I felt was so flawed in terms of what people were using and if they were taking their hormone therapy and risk of recurrence, the risk of the cancer itself, that I really felt like I couldn't make anything out of it in terms of the risk to patients. But I'm really interested in your specific recommendations.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thanks for asking about specifics. And I'm happy to give our treatment algorithms here, which we also discussed in our session and we listed in our EdBook manuscript. We do pelvic exams in the MUSIC program and I often find that there's very specific points in the vestibule or the opening of the vagina that are tender and have pain, specifically, what's known as the posterior fourchette, which is the kind of connection between the right and the left side towards the posterior aspect. So, I usually start with a 1% estradiol cream and have patients tap it to the outside and then bring in a dilator and have patients use not only a silicone lubricant, but put some of the estradiol cream on the dilator. And so that brings the product up to the top of the vagina for patients that have some of those anatomic changes that I discussed.   So this is 1 option, and we really don't have a lot of issues with insurance authorization for the cream, just every once in a while. We can also use a 4 microgram or a 10 microgram dose of estradiol, which is a tablet, which are newer options. This is in contrast to the old pharmacokinetic studies that use 25 micrograms. So this is much, much lower. I do run into some prior authorization issues with those because there tend to be newer versions of this. But as you mentioned, the estradiol ring, which I do think is a great option and when you calculate it out, releases a very low dose of estradiol every day. And it's good for patients who want a more low maintenance regimen. The only challenge I've had with that is it's a large rigid ring. And for patients who already have those anatomic changes, it can be really hard to place that in the vagina.   And so, just like you said, early prevention and treatment of these issues can prevent not only anatomic changes, but even potentially the need for exposure for larger doses of hormones. For all of those options, I tend to do it once or twice a week and then can move up. But we sometimes get kind of creative in how we use these options in terms of placing them on the dilator, placing them externally. For patients that have recurrent urinary tract infections, I also have them kind of tap some of the estradiol cream around the urethra as well to improve the urethral and potentially bladder microbiome and decrease risk of recurrent UTIs.  Dr. Hope Rugo: That's really interesting, and I think those specifics are incredibly helpful. We also will check, although I have to say there's no data to support it, the serum estradiol levels in patients who are using more than our minimal amount. We have plenty of studies that have shown that there really isn't systemic estrogen if people are using very low doses. But we will check sometimes, just sometimes people use these topical creams where they get premenopausal levels of estrogen, which of course we don't want. So, this is an incredibly helpful and useful discussion.    One of the other things that happens for these patients and our younger patients, which breast cancer is still increasing in small numbers in younger patients every year, and many of these patients have hormone receptor positive disease. And it just breaks your heart to see a 38-year-old who is planning to get pregnant next month with their new partner who develops a hormone receptor positive breast cancer. and we want to give people all the options they possibly can. We are strong proponents for harvesting eggs and either freezing eggs or embryos before you start treatment. And we figure we always have 2 weeks for breast cancer. We also use ovarian function suppression during chemo just for whatever help it might have.   But then after patients have finished their treatment and they're on hormone therapy, it's a really big issue for women about when they can have a child because we don't want to wait until they're 45. So, you had noted in your article that some women could take a break from endocrine therapy after 18 to 24 months to try and conceive. Can you tell me a little more about that?  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Sure. Well, this aspect of our discussion was very well presented by my colleague, Dr. Terri Woodard from MD Anderson, a reproductive endocrinologist, and she also put together the aspect of this for our manuscript. She talks about how fertility counseling and referral is probably underutilized, but definitely indicated for most of these patients who are of pregnancy age or premenopausal status. And observational data for a long time didn't show that pregnancy after treatment worsened oncologic outcomes. However, patients as well as many providers had reservations.   So, it's been very helpful that we now have a prospective, large, international trial known as the POSITIVE trial, the early results of which came out earlier this year, which showed that women, after 18 to 24 months, could interrupt endocrine therapy and did not have a worsened short-term oncologic outcome. And those are women with early-stage breast cancer. However, there is a concern that many patients do take longer to get pregnant in that age group or after treatment, potentially if they've received chemo. There is a concern about the duration of time that they're not on endocrine therapy afterwards, which might be further clarified in later analyses. So that's my takeaway from that study, which did show us that very helpful, reassuring information. But I think we're still waiting for the long-term data and it's definitely still a very important patient-centered discussion.   Dr. Hope Rugo: This is a really excellent point, and I think that one of the things of a trial like this, which is sort of a registry study, is that we're always going to speak with our feet to some degree. So, if patients have very, very high risk of recurrence and highly proliferative disease, we might not want them to stop at 18 months because their risks are so high early. So, it has to be a risk versus benefit discussion for individual patients, of course. But I think this data was incredibly reassuring.   It was interesting there were some patients who hadn't restarted their endocrine therapy. In the paper in the New England Journal, it told us that some of those patients were still trying to conceive. But one of the things that's going to be really important for these patients is to really make a big effort on the part of our clinical practices to get patients to restart their hormone therapy. It's very hard to do that, as you can imagine, in that setting.    Another area here is monitoring bone health. And I know that's not part of the MUSIC clinic per se because you're really focusing on GSM and other areas that we've just discussed, which are so incredibly important. And it's funny, bone health is silent, right? So, although some patients don't want to take aromatase inhibitors because they're worried about losing further bone density, they don't feel it. So that's, of course, a different kind of a toxicity. But we know that by suppressing ovarian function in young women, we cause a lot of bone loss, and in older women, already in menopause, that this continuous loss of bone increases the risk of fractures, which can be a huge impact on quality of life and even survival in some cases. So, we're really interested in trying to prevent bone demineralization and reducing the risk of fractures. I believe that Matteo Lambertini from Italy discussed this in your paper and that there's a lot of discussion about use of denosumab and zoledronate. I wonder if you could just comment a little bit on that in our last couple of minutes.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Well, as you said, my colleague Dr. Lambertini put this aspect of our paper together, but he did put together a very nice summary of bisphosphonates and denosumab and separated their use by premenopausal and postmenopausal patients because the data surrounding those patient populations is slightly different or nuanced. But as you mentioned, it is important to monitor these patients' bone density. We have our standard recommendations such as a calcium-enriched diet, resistance and weight-bearing exercise, and vitamin D for patients, for those patients with a vitamin D deficiency or at risk of bone density loss. And so these pharmacologic agents can also help decrease bone mineral density loss and potentially decrease or likely decrease bone recurrences, which, as we know, influences survival. I think he provides a very nice summary of that, as you mentioned.  Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that's so incredibly important. And thank you for really emphasizing the weight-bearing exercise and checking vitamin D and making sure patients are taking vitamin D and at least some calcium. And then, of course, our institution, we work closely with our endocrinologists specializing in bone as well, when issues come up about risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw, and we require dental clearance for everybody starting medication just to make sure that we've reduced risk to the patient. And then when we're trying to think about stopping denosumab and should we bridge with zoledronate to reduce the risk of fracture, we also talk to our bone doc. So it's really important.   And in our last just 1 minute, I know you were thinking of saying something about measuring estrogen in the blood in patients who are using vaginal estrogens. Do you do that?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Yeah, great question. I'm glad you brought that up. We actually don't routinely do this in the MUSIC program, but it is an important aspect to think about today, because I don't know about where you are, but here in South Florida we have a lot of patients who are receiving therapies outside of the FDA-approved space and these are typically marketed as bioidentical hormones, which is a marketing term. Oftentimes, they'll get either transdermal formulations or pelleted hormone therapy that can result in really high superphysiologic testosterone or estrogen levels. And so we typically, for those patients, do try to get them off those non FDA-approved therapies because the safety of those is unknown.   Dr. Hope Rugo: That's really interesting and so helpful. Yes, I know this whole idea of bioidentical hormones drives me crazy, but I think that's great that you brought that up, actually. We do measure it. Who knows? I think if you're really worried, measuring “Yeah, everybody's hot flashes went away,” it's probably worthwhile checking.   This was such a fabulous conversation. I learned so much. We really appreciate your contribution to the educational manuscript, to the educational program, and your fabulous insights with us today. Thank you so much for participating on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I think everyone will find this very helpful.   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thank you so much for having me.   Dr. Hope Rugo: And thank you to you, our listeners, for joining us today. You'll find a link to Dr. Rojas and her colleagues' article in the transcript of this episode and in the 2023 ASCO Educational Book, which features practice-changing oncology research and a wide range of compelling studies on quality and equitable cancer care.    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. Thanks again.    Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo  @hoperugo  Dr. Kristin Rojas  @kristinrojasmd    Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Hope Rugo:  Honoraria: Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Samsung Bioepis, Chugai Pharma, Blueprint MedicinesConsulting or Advisory Role: Napo PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Macrogenics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Polyphor  Dr. Kristin Rojas:   Honoraria: Pacira Pharmaceuticals  Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Diagnostics, Merck  Research Funding (Inst): Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation       

Gary Schwartz, MD, Director of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and a medical oncologist who specializes in sarcoma joins the Cancer Advances podcast to discuss his goal of improving cancer care not just in Cleveland, but beyond. Listen as he talks about his vision for seamless integration of science and clinical practice and fostering rapid translation from bench to bedside and more.

In this Management Case Study from the 2022 Midyear Clinical Meeting, our content matter experts identify considerations for implementation of IV chemotherapy robotic technology into a cancer center's care model, discuss methods to optimize IV chemotherapy robotic technology workflow integration and review benefits of using IV chemotherapy compounding robotic technology.  The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

Dr. Leslie Appiah is a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief of the Division of Academic Specialists in Obstetrics and Gynecology at The University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado. She is a fellowship-trained pediatric and adolescent gynecologist and Director of the Fertility Preservation and Reproductive Late Effects program at the Comprehensive Cancer Center and Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders. Dr. Appiah's clinical and research interests include team science and outcomes research in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult fertility preservation, reproductive late effects in cancer survivorship, and hormone replacement therapy in the medically complex patient. She is passionate about improving the health of girls and women so that they may pursue life, career, and education unencumbered by reproductive health concerns. She is also an alumnus of our Get That Grant® coaching program!Listen in as we discuss her coaching journey and: How to say NO with pleasure, peace, and confidence as a leader with many varying responsibilitiesHow keying into her energy balance has improved her productivity and leadership ability How she *finally* shifted away from the strategy she learned in every other coaching experience and found greater balance AND impactHer advice to mid and senior-level academics thinking about coaching and want to experience a similar transformation as she did  Loved this convo? Please go find Dr. Appiah and show her some love on Twitter @DrLeslieAppiah and Instagram @drleslieappiahIf you'd like to learn more foundational career navigation concepts for women of color in academic medicine and public health, sign up for our KD Coaching Foundations Series: www.kemidoll.com/foundations.

Mary Francis Bell Williams Licensed Certified Social Worker Mary Francis Bell Williams is a native of Birmingham Alabama and received her early education in the Birmingham public school system. She received the bachelor of Arts Degree from Miles College, Fairfield, Alabama and a Masters Degree in Social Work from the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Mrs. Williams, who is now retired, career spanned more than forty years in providing direct social work services to developmentally disabled children, medical social work in both the hospital and clinic setting, foster care, and the training and education of allied health care professionals. Mrs. Williams was an Adjunct Professor of Social Work at The University of Alabama School of Social Work and a Field Instructor in the Department of Social Sciences at The University of Alabama - Birmingham. Mrs. Williams was responsible for the training and supervision of social work students at both UA and UAB. She is a member of the National Association of Social Workers, the Academy of Certified Social Workers and is licensed for Private Independent Practice (PIP) in the state of Alabama. Prior to her retirement from Unity Health Management Services as Director of Community Awareness, Mrs. Williams worked for the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB) at the Comprehensive Cancer Center as a social worker. In her role at the Cancer Center, she worked on a research project looking at the lifestyles and outcomes of newly diagnosed cancer patients. At the end of that project she went to work at the Center for Developmental and Learning Disorders (now known as the Sparks Center) where she worked with an interdisciplinary team of professionals providing services to developmentally disabled children and there parents. Mrs. Williams continued interest in cancer care led her to a position at the Baptist Health System-Hospice Care Program where she was hired as the first full time social worker (person of color) and eventually became the Director of Support Services, supervising social workers, volunteers, a substitute caregiver program, publishing at system wide newsletter and bereavement care. Following full time employment Mrs. Williams later worked at both the Eastern Health System, certifying allied health care professionals and the Alabama Baptist Children's Homes working with foster parents and adoptions. Caring for others is at the core of Mrs. Williams being and even after retiring she has continued to offer her services in a variety of endeavors. Mrs. Williams has served and continues to serve on several boards and advisory committees including the Alabama State Board of Social Work Examiners, United Way and the Jefferson, Blount, St. Clair Mental Health Authority. She has worked and volunteered with many civic and social organizations including the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, Grace House Ministries, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, The Links, Incorporated, Imperial Club Incorporated and the National Association of Colored Women's Clubs. Mrs. Williams is very involved in her church-Sixth Avenue Baptist Church where she is a Deaconess and has developed and implemented several programs in the church including the Stephens Ministry, the Grief and Loss Ministry, Time Mentoring Program and the Counseling Center at the Church. Mrs. Williams is still actively involved in social organizations and volunteers with her community and local governments. Through the years she has been recognized by several organizations and most recently named by Miles College, her alma mater, as “A 2022 Woman of Distinction.” She is a member of Sixth Avenue Baptist Church; is married to Iva B. Williams, Jr.; they have two adult children and four grandchildren.

Hosts Chris Joyce and Stephanie Winn sit down with Dr. Robert Canter of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center and Dr. Michael Kent of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Canter is a Professor and Chief of the Division of Surgical Oncology at the Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Dr. Kent is the Director of the Center for Companion Animal Health at UC Davis and a Professor of Surgical and Radiological Sciences. To learn more about the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, visit https://health.ucdavis.edu/cancer.

Carla Dannug Linkedin Education- Loyola University-Nursing Chamberlain University-MSN-FNP-

Ashley Ross, MD, PhD, David VanderWeele, MD, PhD, and Sean Sachdev, MD, join this episode of the Better Edge podcast to discuss the Northwestern Medicine Genitourinary Oncology Program in the Polsky Urologic Cancer Institute of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center. The program takes a comprehensive approach to care, collaborating across medical disciplines to develop an integrated and personalized treatment plan for patients with genitourinary cancers.All three are faculty members at Northwestern Medicine. Dr. Ross is an associate professor of Urology. Dr. VanderWeele is an associate professor of Hematology and Oncology. And Dr. Sachdev is an associate professor of Radiation Oncology. All are members of Lurie Cancer Center, which is an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center serving as hub for interdisciplinary collaboration, clinical trials and tumor boards.

This episode features Ryan Goerlitz, Chief Financial Officer at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-James Cancer Hospital & Solove Research Institute. Here, he discusses the concept of why it is so important for healthcare leaders to always invest in mission even in difficult financial times.

Nancy Novack on My Best Healer Podcast, what an honor. She is a cancer survivor, psychologist, and mom. She said "I thought I had appendicitis. On April 29, 2004, I had pain on the right side of my belly that didn't want to go away. I went to my internist who examined me and immediately sent me for a CT scan … whatever that was, I did not know.The DiagnosisIn what seemed to be an interminably long time, she called me in and asked, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?”“The good news.”“You don't have appendicitis.”Wow! All right.“Ready for the bad news?”NO!“You have stage 4 ovarian cancer. Your liver is two times its appropriate size, more like a small watermelon. Your right ovary is the size of a grapefruit.”I said two now-remarkable things … “Thank goodness … it is not appendicitis! What is stage 5?”I was swept away to Stanford to meet the oncologist who would save my life. When I entered the Comprehensive Cancer Center, I couldn't breathe. This was the very moment that changed and defined the rest of my life.My friends and family soon arrived at my bedside. They came from all over the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California. That was very nice.True to the nature of a high-powered teaching hospital, every medical student, oncologist, their fellows, and seemingly every person in the Western world also arrived at my bedside to poke and probe. That was not so nice.The Oncologist Who Walks on Water..........Learning to TrustI began to finally understand what it means to trust. I trusted him implicitly. I never ever felt alone.The Will to LiveI was blessed to meet Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D., who became my mentor and my friend.My oncologist saved my body. Rachel saved my soul.Community Call-to-ActionAnd then, the vision morphed.I placed clipboards around the room with such things asI will walk your dog.I will drive you to your medical treatment.I will bring fresh food.I will tutor your kids.I Am With You: Love Letters to Cancer PatientsI love that she is calling herself "I am the luckiest lady in the world" … I know it. It is a joy to be Stanford's poster child. I am extremely grateful.I am with you, Dr. Nancy Novack.Social & WebsiteInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mybesthealer/Twitter: https://twitter.com/MyBestHealerFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mybesthealer/TikTok: Support the showBook a FREE connect call to find out more about My Best Healer:https://www.mybesthealer.com/

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, tells host Dr. John Sweetenham, of the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, about the first study to examine the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in sex and gender minority patients and other key studies on disparities associated with access to clinical trials and rising drug costs.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm John Sweetenham, the associate director for Clinical Affairs at UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News podcast.  I'm delighted to welcome my friend and colleague Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Agarwal also serves as editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  Today, he'll be sharing his insights on compelling studies that will be featured at the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting, addressing access to clinical trials, disparities associated with high deductible health plans, rising drug costs, and more.  Our full disclosures are available in the show notes and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts.  Neeraj, it's great to have you back on the podcast.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thanks, John.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Neeraj, let's begin with Abstract 6503. This study looks at the impacts of high deductible health plans on delays in metastatic cancer diagnosis. What do you think about this study and why should it be on our radar?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Well, John, in high deductible health plans, patients are liable for the cost of all cancer-related care, with the exception of screening tests, until their annual deductible is met. Due to increased out-of-pocket costs, patients may postpone seeing a physician for concerning symptoms or diagnostic testing, leading to delayed diagnosis.  So, in this study, Mr. Nicholas Trad and J. Frank Wharam assessed the impact of high deductible health plans on the timing of metastatic cancer detection.  The authors leveraged a nationally representative cohort of more than 340,000 privately insured members whose employers mandated a switch from a low deductible of less than $500 plan to a high deductible plan of more than $1,000.  So, the group consisted of more than 1 million individuals in a contemporary time frame, whose employers offered only low deductible plans. Participants were matched based on multiple baseline characteristics, time to metastatic cancer diagnosis, and the before and after switching to high deductible health plans was investigated using a weighted Cox proportional-hazards model.  After matching, there were no systematic differences between the 2 groups with regards to baseline characteristics, and there were no differences in time to metastatic cancer diagnosis prior to the switch to high deductible health plans.  However, after the employer-mandated switch to the high deductible health plans, these participants had lower odds of metastatic cancer diagnosis, which was significant, statistically speaking, and indicates delayed detection of metastatic cancer diagnosis relative to the control group.  Dr. John Sweetenham: This is certainly concerning data, Neeraj. What's your key takeaway from this study?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, the key takeaway from the study is that compared with conventional health plans, high deductible health plans are associated with delayed detection of metastatic cancer, implying that patients postpone seeking care for concerning symptoms or even defer diagnostic testing when they're exposed to high-cost sharing.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Neeraj. So, let's continue with this theme of the financial burden of cancer care for our patients. Of course, we're all aware of the rising costs of targeted oral therapies, and this was addressed in Abstract 6504, where the study looks at the rising costs of targeted oral treatments among Medicare beneficiaries. And the study reported a substantial increase in the total cost and out-of-pocket costs of these medicines. Can you tell us more about this abstract?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes! So, due to the rapidly rising cost of targeted oral anticancer medicines, Drs. Meng Li and Ya-Chen T. Shih examined recent trends and the financial burden of these oral medicines among patients with cancer with Medicare Part D insurance. So, eligible patients in the SEER-Medicare database had to be 65 years and older and had to have one primary cancer diagnosis.  The investigators estimated the trends in the share of patients who used targeted oral anticancer medicines, the percentage of users reaching catastrophic coverage, and the total and patient out-of-pocket spending on these medicines in the catastrophic phase in a year.  So, from 2011 to 2016, the uptake of these oral anti-cancer medicines increased from approximately 4% to 9%. The percentage of those who reached catastrophic coverage increased from 55% to 60%.  Among those who reached the catastrophic phase, the mean total annual gross spending on oral anti-cancer medicine increased 4-fold from approximately $16,000 to $64,000. And the mean out-of-pocket spending for the patients rose from approximately $600 to $2600.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes, this is more evidence that the financial toxicity generated from an increase in spending and out-of-pocket costs is going to have serious impacts on our patients. Would you agree with that, Neeraj?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, John. The key takeaway from this study is that the financial burden of these oral anti-cancer medicines continues to increase. In the relatively short period of time, we see here, 5 years from 2011 to 2016, there was a 4-fold increase in the total cost and out-of-pocket cost of these medicines. And in my view, these findings warrant immediate actions to rein in drug prices and cap out-of-pocket spending for our patients.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. It's very difficult to know where this will end unless we see some kind of slowdown in these rising costs. I'm going to change gears just a little bit now to address the access to clinical trials, which is the subject of Abstract 6505.  This study looks at the implementation of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion, which was associated with an almost threefold increase in the proportion of patients using Medicaid in cancer clinical trials by early 2020. What are your thoughts on this study?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: As you said, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion resulted in increased use of this platform across the nation. However, its impact on access to clinical trials has not been examined.  So, in this study, Dr. Joseph Unger and Dr. Dawn Hershman examined the number and proportion of patients insured by Medicaid at enrollment over time using data from the SWOG Cancer Research Network.  In addition, they also examined all patients, 18 to 64 years old, enrolled in treatment trials between 1992 to 2020 using Medicaid versus private insurance.  So, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion was associated with a nearly threefold increase from 7% to 21% in the proportion of patients using Medicaid in cancer clinical trials by early 2020.  The increase per year of Medicaid uses for patients in these treatment trials from states that implemented the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion was 27% compared to 7% for patients from other states who did not implement this platform of Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.  So, the key takeaway from the study is that better access to clinical trials for more vulnerable patients is critical to improving confidence in how generalizable these trial findings are. In addition, these results suggest that the recently enacted Cancer Treatment Act may continue to improve access to clinical trials for those with Medicaid insurance or those who are vulnerable patients.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes, I think this is a really important study which adds to the growing literature on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion on cancer care in general, in this case, specifically related to clinical trials. So, so important, I think.  On that theme of equity, I think the next 2 abstracts we're going to discuss address specific aspects of equity, which I think are both interesting and really important. So, Abstract 6510 has interesting research which conveys an urgent need to ensure equitable patient-reported access and implementation and to address the greater reported symptom burden among minority patients. Why do you think this study is important?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The routine collection of patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer is an evidence-based practice and a critical component of high-quality cancer care, but the real-world adherence and reporting patterns are poorly understood.  In this study, Dr. Samuel Takvorian and Dr. Ravi Parikh examined differences in adherence to the collection of patient-reported outcomes and reported symptoms by race and ethnicity.  This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using de-identified electronic health record data from an National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. The participants included adults seen in follow-up at 1 of the 2 medical oncology practices—one was in academics and one was in the community—from June 2019 to February 2020. Using ordinary least-squares regression, the authors modeled patient adherence as a function of race or ethnicity, and this was adjusted for age, sex, insurance, median area income, ECOG, performance status, and many other patient-related characteristics.  The results show that adjusted mean PRO adherence and reported symptoms varied by race and ethnicity, with Black and Hispanic patients being less likely to complete PRO questionnaires, but reporting significantly higher symptom burden compared to the White patients.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right. So, it seems that more work is needed to ensure equitable access and adherence to PRO questionnaires so we can better address the symptom burden of our minority patients.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Correct, John. In this large cohort reflecting real-world PRO collection patterns, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely than White patients to complete these PRO questionnaires, but more likely to report more severe symptoms. And I think there is an urgent need to ensure equitable PRO access and implementation and to address the greater reported symptom burden among minority patients.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Let's continue the theme of health equity and cancer care equity into the use of telemedicine. Of course, we saw a massive expansion of telemedicine for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.  But studies are emerging now to show that there have been substantial disparities among the Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients who are less likely to use telemedicine services.  Abstract 6511 reminds us that telemedicine may expand access to specialty care, but the proliferation of these services may widen cancer care disparities if vulnerable populations don't have equitable access. Can you tell us more about this abstract?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: These are indeed very interesting findings, John. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with declines in in-person clinical visits, with a concurrent increase in the use of telemedicine.  In this study, Dr. Gregory S. Calip assessed demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with telemedicine use among patients initiating treatment for 21 common cancers at community oncology clinics.  This was a retrospective study and made use of the nationwide Flatiron electronic health record derived de-identified database of patients with cancer. The authors focused on differences in telemedicine use across race and ethnicity, insurance coverage, rural versus urban areas, and socioeconomic status.  They used logistic regression models for this analysis, which was adjusted for clinical characteristics to examine differences in telemedicine use among these different cohorts.  Results indicate Black patients were significantly less likely to use telemedicine services compared to White patients. Telemedicine use was also significantly lower among patients without documented insurance than well-insured patients. It was also lower in patients from rural and suburban areas versus patients who were living in urban areas. Lastly, telemedicine use was significantly lower in patients in the least affluent areas than those in the most affluent areas.  So, during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly one-fifth of patients initiating cancer treatment using telemedicine services—among these patients, we see substantial disparities. So, Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients were less likely to use telemedicine services.  So, the take home message from this study is that while telemedicine may expand access to care, the proliferation of these services may actually widen cancer care disparities if vulnerable populations do not have equitable access to these services.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Neeraj. So, the final study that we'll discuss today also looks at another aspect of disparities, and that's Abstract 6517. It's a case-controlled study of health care disparities in sex and gender minority patients with breast cancer. What are the key takeaways from this study?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Disparities and the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in sex and gender minority populations are largely undefined. Only 24% of studies funded by the National Cancer Institute capture data on sexual orientation and only 10% capture data on gender identity.  In this case-control study, Drs. Eric Eckhert and Allison W. Kurian matched sex and gender minority patients with breast cancer to cisgender heterosexual controls in the Stanford University health care database. Ninety-two sex and gender minority patients were identified who were then matched by year of diagnosis, age, stage of cancer, presence of estrogen receptor (ER), and HER-2/neu receptor status to cisgender heterosexual controls within this database.  Additional data on demographics, diagnosis, treatment, and relapse were then manually abstracted from the electronic health care records. The sex and gender minority cohort were comprised of 80% lesbians, 13% bisexuals, and 6% transgender men.  One of the most pertinent findings was a significant, almost twice as much delay in time to diagnosis from the onset of symptoms in these minority patients versus control. Although there was no difference in the receipt of surgery or surgical radiation or new adjuvant therapy, sex, and gender minority patients were significantly less likely to undergo chest reconstruction surgery, and if they were estrogen receptor-positive, they were significantly less likely to complete at least 5 years of ER directed therapy.  Please also note that sex and gender minority patients used more alternative medicine, had a higher rate of documented refusal of recommended oncology treatments, and they experienced a higher recurrence rate.  So, the key takeaway from this study is that—this is the first study, I really want to congratulate the investigators who examined the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in sex and gender minority patients. Several novel potential health care disparities are identified in these patients, which should be further evaluated in population-based studies to inform further interventions.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Neeraj, it's always a pleasure to talk with you and have an opportunity to spend some time with you. Thanks very much for sharing your insights on these compelling studies today. Our listeners will find the links to these abstracts in the transcripts of this episode.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thanks, John.  Dr. John Sweetenham: And thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you're enjoying the content on the ASCO Daily News podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.    Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, lily, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences    Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR therapeutics, and Arvinas     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. 

My guest today is Heather Brandt, Ph.D. Heather is the Director, HPV Cancer Prevention Program, Co-associate Director for Outreach, St. Jude Comprehensive Cancer Center, Member, Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control - St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Vaccines are a hot topic once again because of COVID. There is so much misinformation floating around about vaccines and Heather is the perfect guest to answer the tough questions surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. We also talk about the importance of the HPV vaccine and how it protects our kids from numerous different HPV related cancers in the future. This is so important, so please pay attention, and share this with your family and friends. Vaccine related information and resources: The CDC vaccination information for parents is excellent. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/index.html (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/index.html) If someone wants other resources: The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, which is one of the top hospitals for children in the United States and world, has excellent vaccine resources through the Vaccine Education Center. https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center (https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center) Vaccinate Your Family https://vaccinateyourfamily.org/ (https://vaccinateyourfamily.org/) UNITY United for Adolescent Vaccination https://www.unity4teenvax.org/ (https://www.unity4teenvax.org/) And, last but not least, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital has accurate information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Right now, we have an excellent resource – Vaccines Bring Us Closer – that offers accurate information about vaccines, specifically COVID-19 vaccines. https://www.stjude.org/media-resources/special-announcements/get-vaccinated.html (https://www.stjude.org/media-resources/special-announcements/get-vaccinated.html) Here is how to contact Heather Brandt, Ph.D, or the HPV program: Web: stjude.org/hpv Email: PreventHPV@stjude.org LinkedIn – Heather Brandt Twitter @BlondeScientist All my information and relevant links are https://linktr.ee/theautismdad (here) Support this podcast: venmo.com/theautismdad Sponsors This episode is sponsored by Mightier. Mightier is an amazing program out of Harvard Medical and Boston Children's. It uses video games to teach kids to emotionally self-regulate. Visit https://www.theautismdad.com/2018/08/28/kids-learn-self-regulation-through-gaming-with-mightier-review/ (theautismdad.com/mightier) and find out more information, including how to get a free 30-day trial. This episode is also brought to you by Hero Health. HERO is a smart automatic pill dispenser that dramatically improves medication management and compliance. Learn more at https://theautismdad.com/hero (theautismdad.com/hero) and use code "theautismdad50" to save $50.  https://www.theautismdad.com/contact/ (CONTACT ME) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://megaphone.fm/adchoices (megaphone.fm/adchoices) Mentioned in this episode: BrainyAct BrainyAct® provides tech-enabled, patent-pending therapy programs delivered via gamification for neurological disorders such as Autism, Asperger's, Dyslexia, and ADHD. BrainyAct activates the underdeveloped areas of the brain through exercises that strategically target a child's balance, gravity, gross/fine motor, rhythm and timing, visual motor perception, and memory. Putting hope in motion means putting your family first in everything we do and using movement to affect real change. Shifting hope to a reality. 91% of families report global brain improvements after four months. Our company was built on the premise to create real, measurable, and visible change that shows you how your child is improving through data. BrainyAct is for homes and schools. Visit Kinuu.com. Use promo code THEAUTISMDAD and save $500. This is a limited time offer....