Study of blood, the blood-forming organs, and blood diseases
POPULARITY
Categories
In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, about current challenges and emerging treatment approaches for the management of leukemia and lymphoma that were published in a manuscript based on proceedings from the inaugural Bridging the Gaps in Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Multiple Myeloma Conference. Dr Danilov is the Marianne and Gerhard Pinkus Professor of Early Clinical Therapeutics, medical director of the Early Phase Therapeutics Program for the Systems Clinical Trials Office, co-director of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center, and a professor in the Division of Lymphoma in the Department of Hematology & Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation at City of Hope in Duarte, California. In our exclusive interview, Dr Danilov highlighted recent advances and controversies in the treatment of select patients with hematologic malignancies. He noted chemotherapy-free regimens that are shifting treatment paradigms in mantle cell lymphoma, preferred and emerging BTK inhibitors for the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and the evolution of CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Dr Danilov concluded by taking a forward glance at future developments like BTK degraders and novel CAR T-cell therapy targets.
A full-service clinic focused on Oncology and Hematology services at Oaklawn Hospital is up and running.The Oncology and Hematology Clinic is back to full service, thanks to a partnership with Bronson Battle Creek.In this Oaklawn Health Matters episode, lead Oncology/Hematology registered nurse Alicia Lang talks about what it means for patients in Marshall and Calhoun County.Episode ResourcesOaklawn Hospital website and Oncology/HematologyAbout OaklawnOaklawn was founded in 1925 as a 12-bed hospital in a residential home, funded by a group of visionary philanthropists. Now, almost ten decades later, we've evolved into a highly regarded regional health care organization, licensed for 77 acute care beds and a 17-bed inpatient psychiatric unit. We've continued to be an independently owned not-for-profit hospital, with our main campus residing on the same site as the original hospital, providing facilities, equipment and technology that are usually only found at larger health systems. We enjoy a reputation for advancing medicine and providing compassionate, personal care. Our service area includes Calhoun County and parts of Branch and Eaton counties with a medical staff of more than 300 providers representing over 55 specialties. For information, visit www.oaklawnhospital.org.Oaklawn Health Matters is produced by Livemic Communications.
Blood editor Dr. Laurie Sehn discusses the topic of "Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: defining and managing high-risk subsets" featuring Drs. Mark Roschewski, Grzegorz Nowakowski, and Neha Mehta-Shah, who each contributed to the articles featured in the review series on high-risk aggressive lymphoma.See the full review series on high risk lymphoma in volume 144, issue 25 of Blood.
Dr. Jamie Wells is back—and this time, she brought a book. We cover everything from biomedical design screwups to the glorified billing software known as the EHR. Jamie's new book, A Clinical Lens on Pediatric Engineering, is a masterclass in what happens when you stop treating kids like small, drunk adults and start designing medicine around actual human factors. We talk about AI in pediatric radiology, why drug repurposing might save lives faster than biotech IPOs, and the absurdity of thinking one-size-fits-all in healthcare still works.Jamie's a former physician, a health policy disruptor, a bioethicist, an MIT director, and a recovering adjunct professor. She's also a unicorn. We dig into the wonk, throw shade at bad design, and channel our inner Lisa Simpsons. This one's for anyone who ever wondered why kids' hospitals feel like hell and why “make it taste like bubblegum” might be the most important clinical innovation of all time. You'll laugh, you'll learn, and you might get angry enough to fix something.RELATED LINKSJamie Wells on LinkedInBook: A Clinical Lens on Pediatric Engineering (Amazon)Book on SpringerDrexel BioMed ProfileGlobal Blockchain Business CouncilJamie's HuffPost ArticlesFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Drs. Brander and Cohen discuss the growing role of measurable residual disease (MRD) testing in CLL and its clinical implications.
Drs. Cohen and Brander review toxicity and treatment management in CLL, specifically addressing the considerations that go into subsequent lines of treatment for patients who relapse following doublet, or even triplet, therapy.
HY USMLE Q #1402 – Hematology
Drs. Brander and Cohen discuss an ongoing debate in the management of CLL about BTK and BCL2 inhibitor combinations in the frontline treatment of CLL. Is it better to combine BTK and BCL2 inhibitors, or to start with one or the other as monotherapy?
Drs. Lipsky and Allan discuss the emerging role of immunotherapy in the management of patients with CLL, including CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies.
This month's FLOW delves into the 'Iron Ladies' research - they investigate iron deficiency's prevalence among women with bleeding disorders, the importance of routine screening, the challenges in setting standardized care practices, and the historical exclusion of women from clinical trials. Featuring Dr. Megnahn McCormick, a doctor passionate about treating iron deficiency. Program Notes: Episode Links: Bloodstream Media: https://www.bloodstreammedia.com/ The Iron Ladies Study: The Iron Ladies: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Iron Deficiency in Females With Bleeding Disorders - McCormick - Haemophilia - Wiley Online Library A study presenting the data available through the ATHN dataset on women and girls with bleeding disorders* A Cross-Sectional Study of Women and Girls with Congenital Bleeding Disorders: The American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network Cohort | Journal of Women's Health *includes a discussion on how participation in the dataset is not complete and how work is being done to remedy this! An article about the impact of Thalidomide on FDA regulation: How medical research changed after thalidomide More in depth on Thalidomide: Clinical Trials in Pregnancy and the “Shadows of Thalidomide”:Revisiting the Legacy of Frances Kelsey - PMC Information about what is identified as a “normal” hemoglobin; and how women who are iron-replete hemoglobin values are similar to men: “These findings highlight sex-based inequities that lead to normalization of disease states and the critical need to update hematologic ranges truly reflective of iron repletion.” Sex, lies, and iron deficiency: a call to change ferritin reference ranges | Hematology, ASH Education Program | American Society of Hematology 2021 article, Iron Ladies: Variation in the Identification and Management of Iron Deficiency in Women with Bleeding Disorders: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497121030202 How's Your Flow? We wanna know (Calendly link): https://calendly.com/flowtalk/flow-talk-period-pain-stories HOST: Jessica RIchmond Website: jrich.online IG, @jessicalaurenrichmond Twitter @geniuspills Tik Tok @jrichsocal HOST: Sarah Watson Website: sarahwatsonlpc.com Podcast: Behind The Bedroom Door Facebook: @sarahwatsonlpcsextherapy IG @swsxtherapy Twitter @swsextherapy Presenting Sponsor: #Takeda, visit bleedingdisorders.com to learn more. Connect with BloodStream Media: Find all of our bleeding disorders podcasts on BloodStreamMedia.com BloodStream on Facebook BloodStream on Twitter Check out Believe Limited's Other Work: BloodFeed: bloodfeed.com Bombardier Blood: bombardierblood.com Hemophilia: The Musical: breakingthroughhemophilia.com My Beautiful Stutter: mybeautifulstutter.com/ Stop The Bleeding!: stbhemo.com Teen Impact Awards: teenimpactawards.com The Science Fair: thesciencefair.org
In this week's episode, we' ll learn about how TET3 has a key role in GVHD. In mice, a deficiency of Tet3 in donor T cells inhibited pathogenic immunoglobulin class switching and suppressed lung fibrosis. Accordingly, TET3 may be a new therapeutic target in chronic GVHD. After that: rilzabrutinib, a BTK inhibitor for ITP. In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment produced rapid and durable platelet responses, with acceptable safety, in adults with immune thrombocytopenia who had failed multiple previous therapies. Finally: exploring pre-TCR surface expression patterns in T-cell ALL. Co-inhibition of the interleukin-7 receptor and pre-T cell receptor pathways may play a therapeutic role for a subset of T-lymphoblastic leukemias.Featured Articles: Deficiency of T follicular helper cell Tet3 DNA demethylation inhibits pathogenic IgG2c class switching and chronic GVHDSafety and efficacy of rilzabrutinib vs placebo in adults with immune thrombocytopenia: the phase 3 LUNA3 studySurface pTα expression predicts LCK activation and preclinical synergy of LCK and JAK coinhibition in adult T-ALL
Erica Campbell walked away from corporate life, took a hard left from the British Embassy, and found her calling writing checks for families nobody else sees. As Executive Director of Pinky Swear Foundation, she doesn't waste time on fluff. Her team pays rent, fills gas tanks, and gives sick kids' parents the one thing they don't have—time. Then, breast cancer hit her. She became the patient. Wrote a book about it. Didn't sugarcoat a damn thing. We talk about parking fees, grief, nonprofit burnout, and how the hell you decide which families get help and which don't. Also: AOL handles, John Hughes, and letters from strangers that make you cry. Erica is part Punky Brewster, part Rosie the Robot, and part Lisa Simpson—with just enough GenX Long Island sarcasm to make it all land. This one sticks.RELATED LINKSPinky Swear FoundationThe Mastectomy I Always Wanted (Book)Erica on LinkedInThink & Link: Erica Campbell“Like the Tale of a Starfish” - Blog Post“Cancer Diagnosis, Messy Life, Financial Support” - Blog PostFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In this special episode, Dr. Shaji Kumar from the Mayo Clinic speaks with Blood editor Dr. Laurie Sehn on a paper recently published in Blood, "Eliminating the Need for Sequential Confirmation of Response in Multiple Myeloma". The findings demonstrate eliminating the need for sequential confirmation of response in multiple myeloma. The study, involving 583 episodes of progression, found that simultaneous confirmation of disease progression using two different markers (e.g., serum protein electrophoresis and serum free light chain assay) was 98% accurate, compared to 82% for sequential confirmation. This suggests that simultaneous confirmation could improve clinical trial accuracy and reduce false censoring. The International Myeloma Working Group is set to revise its response criteria to incorporate these findings, potentially simplifying disease assessment and reducing the need for multiple blood draws.
Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "A Whipple of Choice” by Dr. Carl Forsberg, who is an Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at Air Force War College. The article is followed by an interview with Forsberg and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Forsberg shares his experience with an uncommon cancer treated by a new therapy for which no directly relevant data were available. Transcript Narrator: A Whipple of Choice, by C. W. Forsberg, PDH I sat across from a hepatobiliary surgeon on a gray October afternoon. “To be frank,” he told me, “we don't know what to recommend in your case. So we default to being conservative. That means a Whipple surgery, even though there are no data showing it will improve your outcome.” The assessment surprised me, diverging from my expectation that doctors provide clear recommendations. Yet the surgeon's willingness to structure our conversation around the ambiguity of the case was immensely clarifying. With a few words he cut through the frustrations that had characterized previous discussions with other physicians. I grasped that with an uncommon cancer treated by a novel therapy with no directly relevant data, I faced a radical choice. My situation that afternoon was worlds away from where I was 5 months earlier, when I was diagnosed with presumed pancreatic cancer at the age of 35. An early scan was suspicious for peritoneal metastasis. The implications seemed obvious. I prepared myself for the inevitable, facing my fate stoically except in those moments when I lingered next to my young son and daughter as they drifted to sleep. Contemplating my death when they were still so vulnerable, I wept. Then the specter of death retreated. Further tests revealed no metastasis. New doctors believed the tumor was duodenal and not pancreatic. More importantly, the tumor tested as deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), predictable in a Lynch syndrome carrier like me. In the 7 years since I was treated for an earlier colon cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) immunotherapy had revolutionized treatment of dMMR and high microsatellite instability tumors. One oncologist walked me through a series of recent studies that showed extraordinary responses to ICI therapy in locally advanced colon and rectal tumors with these biomarkers.1-4 He expressed optimism that my cancer could have a similar response. I embarked on a 24-week course of nivolumab and ipilimumab. After 6 weeks of therapy, a computed tomography (CT) scan showed a significant reduction in tumor size. My health rebounded as the tumor receded. This miraculous escape, however, was bound by the specter of a Whipple surgery, vaguely promised 6 months into my treatment. At the internationally renowned center where I was diagnosed and began treatment with astonishing efficiency, neither oncologists nor surgeons entertained the possibility of a surgery-sparing approach. “In a young, healthy patient like you we would absolutely recommend a Whipple,” my first oncologist told me. A second oncologist repeated that assessment. When asked if immunotherapy could provide a definitive cure, he replied that “if the tumor disappeared we could have that conversation.” My charismatic surgeon exuded confidence that I would sail through the procedure: “You are in excellent health and fitness—it will be a delicious surgery for me.” Momentum carried me forward in the belief that surgery was out of my hands. Four months into treatment, I was jolted into the realization that a Whipple was a choice. I transferred my infusions to a cancer center nearer my home, where I saw a third oncologist, who was nearly my age. On a sunny afternoon, 2 months into our relationship, he suggested I think about a watch-and-wait approach that continued ICI therapy with the aim of avoiding surgery. “Is that an option?” I asked, taken aback. “This is a life-changing surgery,” he responded. “You should consider it.” He arranged a meeting for me with his colleague, the hepatobiliary surgeon who clarified that “there are no data showing that surgery will improve your outcome.” How should patients and physicians make decisions in the absence of data? My previous experience with cancer offered little help. When I was diagnosed with colon cancer at the age of 28, doctors made clear recommendations based on clear evidence. I marched through surgery and never second-guessed my choices. A watch-and-wait approach made sense to me based on theory and extrapolation. Could duodenal tumors treated by ICIs behave that differently from colorectal cancers, for which data existed to make a watch-and-wait approach appear reasonable? The hepatobiliary surgeon at the regional cancer center told me, “I could make a theoretical argument either way and leave you walking out of here convinced. But we simply don't know.” His comment reflects modern medicine's strict empiricism, but it foreclosed further discussion of the scientific questions involved and pushed the decision into the realm of personal values. Facing this dilemma, my family situation drove me toward surgery despite my intuition that immunotherapy could provide a definitive cure. The night before I scheduled my Whipple procedure, I wrote in my journal that “in the face of radical uncertainty one must resort to basic values—and my priority is to survive for my children. A maimed, weakened father is without doubt better than no father at all.” To be sure, these last lines were written with some bravado. Only after the surgery did I viscerally grasp that the Whipple was a permanent maiming of the GI system. My doubts lingered after I scheduled surgery, and I had a final conversation with the young oncologist at the cancer center near my home. We discussed a watch-and-wait approach. A small mass remained on CT scans, but that was common even when tumors achieved a pathological complete response.5 Another positron emission tomography scan could provide more information but could not rule out the persistence of lingering cancer cells. I expressed my low risk tolerance given my personal circumstances. We sat across from one another, two fathers with young children. My oncologist was expecting his second child in a week. He was silent for moments before responding “I would recommend surgery in your situation.” Perhaps I was projecting, but I felt the two of us were in the same situation: both wanting a watch-and-wait approach, both intuitively believing in it, but both held back by a sense of parental responsibility. My post-surgery pathology revealed a pathological complete response. CT scans and circulating tumor DNA tests in the past year have shown no evidence of disease. This is an exceptional outcome. Yet in the year since my Whipple, I have been sickened by my lack of gratitude for my good fortune, driven by a difficult recovery and a sense that my surgery had been superfluous. Following surgery, I faced complications of which I had been warned, such as a pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, and pancreatic enzyme insufficiency. There were still more problems that I did not anticipate, including, among others, stenoses of arteries and veins due to intraabdominal hematomas, persistent anemia, and the loss of 25% of my body weight. Collectively, they added up to an enduringly dysfunctional GI system and a lingering frailty. I was particularly embittered to have chosen surgery to mitigate the risk that my children would lose their father, only to find that surgery prevented me from being the robust father I once was. Of course, had I deferred surgery and seen the tumor grow inoperable or metastasize between scans, my remorse would have been incalculably deeper. But should medical decisions be based on contemplation of the most catastrophic consequences, whatever their likelihood? With hindsight, it became difficult not to re-examine the assumptions behind my decision. Too often, my dialogue with my doctors was impeded by the assumption that surgery was the obvious recommendation because I was young and healthy. The assumption that younger oncology patients necessarily warrant more radical treatment deserves reassessment. While younger patients have more years of life to lose from cancer, they also have more years to deal with the enduring medical, personal, and professional consequences of a life-changing surgery. It was not my youth that led me to choose surgery but my family situation: 10 years earlier, my youth likely would have led me to a watch-and-wait approach. The rising incidence of cancer among patients in their 20s and 30s highlights the need for a nuanced approach to this demographic. Calculations on surgery versus a watch-and-wait approach in cases like mine, where there are no data showing that surgery improves outcomes, also require doctors and patients to account holistically for the severity of the surgery involved. Multiple surgeons discussed the immediate postsurgical risks and complications of a pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not the long-term challenges involved. When asked to compare the difficulty of my prior subtotal colectomy with that of a pancreatoduodenectomy, the surgeon who performed my procedure suggested they might be similar. The surgeon at the regional cancer center stated that the Whipple would be far more difficult. I mentally split the difference. The later assessment was right, and mine was not a particularly bad recovery compared with others I know. Having been through both procedures, I would repeat the subtotal colectomy for a theoretical oncologic benefit but would accept some calculated risk to avoid a Whipple. Most Whipple survivors do not have the privilege of asking whether their surgery was necessary. Many celebrate every anniversary of the procedure as one more year that they are alive against the odds. That I can question the need for my surgery speaks to the revolutionary transformation which immunotherapy has brought about for a small subset of patients with cancer. The long-term medical and personal consequences of surgery highlight the urgent stakes of fully understanding and harnessing the life-affirming potential of this technology. In the meantime, while the field accumulates more data, potentially thousands of patients and their physicians will face difficult decisions on surgery verses a watch and- wait approach in cases of GI tumors with particular biomarkers showing exceptional responses to ICI therapy.7,8 Under these circumstances, I hope that all patients can have effective and transparent conversations with their physicians that allow informed choices accounting for their risk tolerance, calculations of proportionality, and priorities. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Miami. Today, we are so happy to be joined by Dr. Carl Forsberg, Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at the Air Force War College. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "A Whipple of Choice." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Carl, it is such a thrill to welcome you to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Well, thank you, Mikkael, for having me. I'm looking forward to our conversation. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So am I. I wanted to start, Carl, with just a little bit of background about you. It's not often we have a historian from the Air Force College who's on this podcast. Can you tell us about yourself, where you're from, and walk us through your career? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Sure. I was born and raised in Minnesota in a suburb of Minneapolis-St. Paul and then went to undergraduate on the East Coast. I actually started my career working on the contemporary war in Afghanistan, first as an analyst at a DC think tank and then spent a year in Kabul, Afghanistan, on the staff of the four-star NATO US headquarters, where I worked on the vexing problems of Afghanistan's dysfunctional government and corruption. Needless to say, we didn't solve that problem. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. Dr. Carl Forsberg: I returned from Afghanistan somewhat disillusioned with working in policy, so I moved into academia, did a PhD in history at the University of Texas at Austin, followed by postdoctoral fellowships at Harvard and Yale, and then started my current position here at the Air Force War College. The War Colleges are, I think, somewhat unusual, unique institutions. Essentially, we offer a 1-year master's degree in strategic studies for lieutenant colonels and colonels in the various US military services. Which is to say my students are generally in their 40s. They've had about 20 years of military experience. They're moving from the operational managerial levels of command to positions where they'll be making strategic decisions or be strategic advisors. So we teach military history, strategy, international relations, national security policy to facilitate that transition to a different level of thinking. It really is a wonderful, interesting, stimulating environment to be in and to teach in. So I've enjoyed this position here at the War College quite a lot. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I have to tell you, as someone who's been steeped in academic medicine, it sounds absolutely fascinating and something that I wouldn't even know where to start approaching. We have postdoctoral fellowships, of course, in science as well. What do you do during a postdoctoral fellowship in history and strategy? Dr. Carl Forsberg: It's often, especially as a historian, it's an opportunity to take your dissertation and expand it into a book manuscript. So you have a lot of flexibility, which is great. And, of course, a collegial environment with others working in similar fields. There are probably some similarities to a postdoc in medicine in terms of having working groups and conferences and discussing works in progress. So it was a great experience for me. My second postdoc occurred during the pandemic, so it turned out to be an online postdoc, a somewhat disappointing experience, but nevertheless I got a lot out of the connections and relationships I formed during those two different fellowships. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, there are some people who used the pandemic as an excuse to really just plow into their writing and get immersed in it. I certainly wrote one book during the pandemic because I thought, “Why not? I'm home. It's something where I can use my brain and expand my knowledge base.” So I imagine it must have been somewhat similar for you as you're thinking about expanding your thesis and going down different research avenues. Dr. Carl Forsberg: I think I was less productive than I might have hoped. Part of it was we had a 2-year-old child at home, so my wife and I trying to, you know, both work remotely with a child without having childcare really for much of that year given the childcare options fell through. And it was perhaps less productive than I would have aspired for it to be. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's terrifically challenging having young children at home during the pandemic and also trying to work remotely with them at home. I'm curious, you are a writer, it's part of your career, and I'm curious about your writing process. What triggers you to write a story like you did, and how does it differ from some of your academic writing? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah. Well, as you say, there is a real difference between writing history as an academic and writing this particular piece. For me, for writing history, my day job, if you will, it's a somewhat slow, painstaking process. There's a considerable amount of reading and archival work that go into history. I'm certainly very tied to my sources and documents. So, you know, trying to get that precision, making sure you've captured a huge range of archival resources. The real narrative of events is a slow process. I also have a bad habit of writing twice as much as I have room for. So my process entailed a lot of extensive revisions and rewriting, both to kind of shorten, to make sure there is a compelling narrative, and get rid of the chaff. But also, I think that process of revision for me is where I often draw some of the bigger, more interesting conclusions in my work once I've kind of laid out that basis of the actual history. Certainly, writing this article, this medical humanities article, was a very different experience for me. I've never written something about myself for publication. And, of course, it was really driven by my own experiences of going through this cancer journey and recovering from Whipple surgery as well. The article was born during my recovery, about 4 months after my Whipple procedure. It was a difficult time. Obviously kind of in a bad place physically and, in my case, somewhat mentally, including the effects of bad anemia, which developed after the surgery. I found it wasn't really conducive to writing history, so I set that aside for a while. But I also found myself just fixating on this question of had I chosen a superfluous Whipple surgery. I think to some extent, humans can endure almost any suffering with a sense of purpose, but when there's a perceived pointlessness to the suffering, it makes it much harder. So for me, writing this article really was an exercise, almost a therapeutic one, in thinking through the decisions that led me to my surgery, addressing my own fixation on this question of had I made a mistake in choosing to have surgery and working through that process in a systematic way was very helpful for me. But it also, I think, gave me- I undertook this with some sense of perhaps my experience could be worthwhile and helpful for others who would find themselves in a situation like mine. So I did write it with an eye towards what would I like to have read? What would I like to have had as perspective from another patient as I grappled with the decision that I talk about in the article of getting a Whipple surgery. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if I could back up a little bit. You talk about the difficulty of undergoing a Whipple procedure and of recovery afterwards, a process that took months. And this may come across as a really naive question, but as, you know, as an oncologist, my specialty is leukemia, so I'm not referring people for major surgeries, but I am referring them for major chemotherapy and sometimes to undergo a bone marrow transplant. Can you educate us what makes it so hard? Why was it so hard getting a Whipple procedure, and what was hard about the recovery? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah, it was a long process. Initially, it was a 14-day stay in the hospital. I had a leaking pancreas, which my understanding is more common actually with young, healthy patients just because the pancreas is softer and more tender. So just, you know, vast amount of pancreatic fluid collecting in the abdominal cavity, which is never a pleasant experience. I had a surgical drain for 50-something days, spent 2 weeks in the hospital. Simply eating is a huge challenge after Whipple surgery. I had delayed gastric emptying for a while afterwards. You can only eat very small meals. Even small meals would give me considerable stomach pain. I ended up losing 40 lb of weight in 6 weeks after my surgery. Interestingly enough, I think I went into the surgery in about the best shape I had been in in the last decade. My surgeon told me one of the best predictors for outcomes is actual muscle mass and told me to work out for 2 hours every day leading up to my surgery, which was great because I could tell my wife, "Sorry, I'm going to be late for dinner tonight. I might die on the operating table." You can't really argue with that justification. So I went in in spectacular shape and then in 6 weeks kind of lost all of that muscle mass and all of the the strength I had built up, which just something discouraging about that. But just simply getting back to eating was an extraordinarily difficult process, kind of the process of trial and error, what worked with my system, what I could eat without getting bad stomach pains afterwards. I had an incident of C. diff, a C. diff infection just 5 weeks after the surgery, which was obviously challenging. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. Was it more the pain from the procedure, the time spent in the hospital, or psychologically was it harder? Dr. Carl Forsberg: In the beginning, it was certainly the physical elements of it, the difficulty eating, the weakness that comes with losing that much weight so quickly. I ended up also developing anemia starting about two or 3 months in, which I think also kind of has certain mental effects. My hemoglobin got down to eight, and we caught it somewhat belatedly. But I think after about three or 4 months, some of the challenges became more psychological. So I started to physically recover, questions about going forward, how much am I going to actually recover normal metabolism, normal gastrointestinal processes, a question of, you know, what impact would this have long-term. And then, as I mentioned as well, some of the psychological questions of, especially once I discovered I had a complete pathological response to the immunotherapy, what was the point to having this surgery? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And the way you explore this and revisit it in the essay is absolutely fascinating. I wanted to start at the- towards the earlier part of your essay, you write, "The surgeon's willingness to structure our conversation around the ambiguity of the case was immensely clarifying." It's fascinating. The ambiguity was clarifying to you. And the fact that you appreciated the fact that the surgeon was open to talking about this ambiguity. When do you think it's the right thing to acknowledge ambiguity in medicine, and when should we be more definitive? When do you just want someone to tell you, “Do this or do that?” Dr. Carl Forsberg: That's a great question, which I've thought about some. I think some of it is, I really appreciated the one- a couple of the oncologists who brought up the ambiguity, did it not at the beginning of the process but a few months in. You know, the first few months, you're so as a patient kind of wrapped up in trying to figure out what's going on. You want answers. And my initial instinct was, you know, I wanted surgery as fast as possible because you want to get the tumor out, obviously. And so I think bringing up the ambiguity at a certain point in the process was really helpful. I imagine that some of this has to do with the patient. I'm sure for oncologists and physicians, it's got to be a real challenge assessing what your patient wants, how much they want a clear answer versus how much they want ambiguity. I've never obviously been in the position of being a physician. As a professor, you get the interesting- you start to realize some students want you to give them answers and some students really want to discuss the ambiguities and the challenges of a case. And so I'm, I imagine it might be similar as a physician, kind of trying to read the patient. I guess in my case, the fact was that it was an extraordinarily ambiguous decision in which there wasn't data. So I think there is an element, if the data gives no clear answers, that I suppose there's sort of an ethical necessity of bringing that up with the patient. Though I know that some patients will be more receptive than others to delving into that ambiguity. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you know, it's an opportunity for us to think holistically about our patients, and you as a patient to think holistically about your health and your family and how you make decisions. I believe that when we're in a gray zone in medicine where the data really don't help guide one decision versus the next, you then lean back towards other values that you have to help make that decision. You write beautifully about this. You say, "In the face of radical uncertainty, one must resort to basic values, and my priority is to survive for my children. A maimed, weakened father is without doubt better than no father at all." That's an incredibly deep sentiment. So, how do you think these types of decisions about treatment for cancer change over the course of our lives? You talk a lot about how you were a young father in this essay, and it was clear that that was, at least at some point, driving your decision. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah, I certainly have spent a lot of time thinking about how I would have made this decision differently 10 years earlier. As I mentioned the article, it was interesting because most of my physicians, honestly, when they were discussing why surgery made sense pointed to my age. I don't think it was really my age. Actually, when I was 23, I went off to Afghanistan, took enormous risks. And to some extent, I think as a young single person in your 20s, you actually have generally a much higher risk tolerance. And I think in that same spirit, at a different, earlier, younger stage in my life, I would have probably actually been much more willing to accept that risk, which is kind of a point I try to make, is not necessarily your age that is really the deciding factor. And I think once again, if I were 70 or 60 and my children, you know, were off living their own lives, I think that also would have allowed me to take, um, greater risk and probably led me to go for a watch-and-wait approach instead. So there was a sense at which not the age, but the particular responsibilities one has in life, for me at least, figured very heavily into my medical calculus. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting how you define a greater risk as watch and wait, whereas a surgeon or a medical oncologist who's making recommendations for you might have defined the greater risk to undergo major surgery. Dr. Carl Forsberg: And I thought about that some too, like why is it that I framed the watch and wait as a greater risk? Because there is a coherent case that actually the greater risk comes from surgery. I think when you're facing a life and death decision and the consequence, when you have cancer, of course, your mind goes immediately to the possibility of death, and that consequence seems so existential that I think it made watch and wait perhaps seem like the riskier course. But that might itself have been an assumption that needed more analysis. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Do you think that your doctor revealing that he also had young children at home helped you with this decision? Dr. Carl Forsberg: I think in some ways for a doctor it's important to kind of understand where your patient is in their own life. As a patient, it was interesting and always helpful for me to understand where my physicians were in their life, what was shaping their thinking about these questions. So I don't know if it in any way changed my decision-making, but it definitely was important for developing a relationship of trust as well with physicians that we could have that mutual exchange. I would consider one of my primary oncologists, almost something of a friend at this point. But I think it really was important to have that kind of two-way back and forth in understanding both where I was and where my physician was. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I like how you frame that in the sense of trust and hearing somebody who could make similar considerations to you given where he was in his family. One final question I wanted to ask you. You really elegantly at the end of this essay talk about revisiting the decision. I wonder, is it fair to revisit these types of decisions with hindsight, or do we lose sight of what loomed as being most important to us when we were making the decisions in real time? Dr. Carl Forsberg: That's a great question, one that is also, I think, inherent to my teaching. I teach military history for lieutenant colonels and colonels who very well may be required, God willing not, but may be required to make these sort of difficult decisions in the case of war. And we study with hindsight. But one thing I try to do as a professor is put them in the position of generals, presidents, who did not have the benefit of hindsight, trying to see the limits of their knowledge, use primary source documents, the actual memos, the records of meetings that were made as they grappled with uncertainty and the inherent fog of war. Because it is, of course, easy to judge these things in hindsight. So definitely, I kept reminding myself of that, that it's easy to second guess with hindsight. And so I think for me, part of this article was trying to go through, seeing where I was at the time, understanding that the decision I made, it made sense and with what I knew, it was probably the right decision, even if we can also with hindsight say, "Well, we've learned more, we have more data." A lot of historical leaders, it's easy to criticize them for decisions, but when you go put yourself in their position, see what the alternatives were, you start to realize these were really hard decisions, and I would have probably made the same disastrous mistake as they would have, you know. Let's just say the Vietnam War, we have our students work through with the original documents decisions of the Joint Chiefs in 1965. They very frequently come to the exact same conclusions as American policymakers made in 1965. It is a real risk making judgments purely on the basis of hindsight, and I think it is important to go back and really try to be authentic to what you knew at the time you made a decision. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: What a great perspective on this from a historian. Carl Forsberg, I'd like to thank you, and all of us are grateful that you were willing to share your story with us in The Art of Oncology. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Well, thank you, and it's yeah, it's been a, it's a, I think in some ways a very interesting and fitting place to kind of end my cancer journey with the publication of this article, and it's definitely done a lot to help me work through this entire process of going through cancer. So, thank you. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, thank you so much. 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. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Carl Forsberg is a Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at the Air Force War College.
Video: https://mehlmanmedical.com/hy-usmle-q-1393-hematologyIG: https://www.instagram.com/mehlman_medical/Telegram: https://mehlmanmedical.com/subscribe/FB: https://www.facebook.com/mehlmanmedical
In this week's episode, we'll learn more about the identification and characterization of stem cell-like leukemia blasts using single cell multi-omics, cyclophosphamide as a treatment for non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity in patients treated with B-cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, targeted CAR T-cell therapies, and how differences in glycosylation affect the clearance of human plasma-derived and recombinant von Willebrand factor concentrates.Featured Articles:Single-cell panleukemia signatures of HSPC-like blasts predict drug response and clinical outcomeCyclophosphamide mitigates non-ICANS neurotoxicities following ciltacabtagene autoleucel treatmentEnhanced α2-3–linked sialylation determines the extended half-life of CHO-rVWF
In this How I Treat Series episode Dr. Thomas Ortel leads a discussion with author Dr. Patrick Foy on his paper “How I diagnose and treat thrombocytopenia in geriatric patients”. See the full How I Treat series on geriatric hematology in volume 143 issue 3 of Blood Journal.
In the In Conversation With series, a part of the free DDW podcast, DDW speaks with members of the drug discovery industry about their work and how it helps turn science into business. In this episode, Megan Thomas is in conversation with Dr Emil Lou, Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Minnesota. They discuss the promising results of a recent clinical trial he led focused on gastrointestinal cancers, the potential impact of continued clinical success on the future of these hard-to-treat cancers, and the key challenges that must be addressed to sustain progress. Dr Lou also explores the evolving role of multiplexed gene editing in tackling immunosuppressive or heterogeneous solid tumours, the complexities of forging academia-industry partnerships to support early-phase innovation, and the scientific breakthroughs he believes will shape the next five years in cancer research. You can listen below, or find The Drug Discovery World Podcast on Spotify, Google Play and Apple Podcasts.
Watch the NEJM In Studio video of this interview at NEJM.org. David Jones is the Ackerman Professor of the Culture of Medicine at Harvard University. Harleen Marwah, the interviewer, is an Editorial Fellow at the Journal. W. Xue and D.S. Jones. Debating Race and the Diagnosis of Anemia — How Medicine Moved Away from Race-Based Standards. N Engl J Med 2025;392:2168-2173.
Rafael Fonseca is a distinguished Haematologist at Mayo Clinic, specialising in multiple myeloma and related plasma cell disorders. He earned his medical degree at Universidad Anáhuac in Mexico, and went on to complete his residency in Internal Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida, USA followed by a Hematology and Oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Timestamps 01:44 – Quickfire questions 07:25 – CAR-T cell therapy 10:48 – Anti-CD38 antibodies 13:31 – Minimal residual disease 14:30 – Bispecific antibodies 15:31 – Antibody-drug conjugates 19:04 – ASCO 2025 21:24 – Genetic discoveries 26:28 – Fonseca's three wishes
Allyson with a Y. Ocean with two Ls. And zero chill when it comes to changing the face of cancer care. Dr. Allyson Ocean has been quietly—loudly—at the center of every major cancer breakthrough, nonprofit board, and science-backed gut punch you didn't know you needed to hear. In this episode, she joins me in-studio for a conversation two decades in the making. We talk twin life, genetics, mitochondrial disease, and why she skipped the Doublemint Twins commercial but still ended up as one of the most recognizable forces in oncology. We cover her nonprofit hits, from Michael's Mission to Let's Win Pancreatic Cancer to launching the American Jewish Medical Association—yes, that's a thing now. We get personal about compassion in medicine, burnout, bad food science, and microplastics in your blood. She also drops the kind of wisdom only someone with her résumé and sarcasm can. It's raw. It's real. It's the kind of conversation we should've had 20 years ago—but better late than never.RELATED LINKS:– Dr. Allyson Ocean on LinkedIn– Let's Win Pancreatic Cancer– NovoCure Leadership Page– Michael's Mission– American Jewish Medical Association– The POLG Foundation– Cancer Buddy App (Bone Marrow and Cancer Foundation)– Dr. Ocean at OncLiveFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Sponsored by Invivyd, Inc.Nobody wants to hear about COVID-19 anymore. Especially not cancer patients. But if you've got a suppressed immune system thanks to chemo, radiation, stem cell transplants—or any of the other alphabet soup in your chart—then no, it's not over. It never was. While everyone else is getting sweaty at music festivals, you're still dodging a virus that could knock you flat.In this episode, Matthew Zachary and Matt Toresco say the quiet part out loud: many immunocompromised people may not even know they have options beyond vaccines. Why? Because the system doesn't bother to tell them. So we're doing it instead. We teamed up with Invivyd to help get the word out about tools other than vaccines that can help prevent COVID-19. We break down the why, the what, and the WTF of COVID-19 risk for cancer patients and why every oncologist should be talking about this.No fear-mongering. No sugarcoating. Just two guys with mics who've been through it and want to make sure you don't get blindsided. It's fast, funny, and furious—with actual facts. You've got more power than you think. Time to use it.RELATED LINKSExpand Their OptionsInvivydMatt Toresco on LinkedInOut of Patients podcastFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In this week's episode, we'll hear about new insights into PU.1-mutated agammaglobulinemia. Researchers show that haploinsufficiency of the master transcriptional regulator PU.1 causes agammaglobulinemia and dendritic cell deficiencies. These patients experience an array of infectious and non-infectious complications, but not leukemia. After that: venetoclax-based induction therapy in younger patients with AML. Venetoclax plus decitabine was associated with superior safety and non-inferior response rates compared to intensive chemotherapy. Is it time to consider lower-intensity therapy beyond older and unfit patients? Finally, a focus on venous thromboembolism. Researchers link BGAT, an enzyme pivotal to determining blood type, to risk of future VTE. They say high plasma levels of BGAT contribute to risk above and beyond what can be explained by von Willebrand factor and Factor VIII.Featured Articles:One hundred thirty-four germ line PU.1 variants and the agammaglobulinemic patients carrying themVenetoclax and decitabine vs intensive chemotherapy as induction for young patients with newly diagnosed AMLHisto–blood group ABO system transferase plasma levels and risk of future venous thromboembolism: the HUNT study
In this episode, we discuss the recent proceedings at the FDA ODAC meeting on AQUILA trial in smoldering myeloma and STRAGLO in R/R DLBCL, and provide an update to our audience on some of the clinically relevant data presented from those trials, along with insights from the panelists. Here is the link to the webpage with FDA briefing documents and slides: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/may-20-21-2025-meeting-oncologic-drugs-advisory-committee-05202025#event-materialsHere is the youtube link for FDA proceedings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ecyDbK9ezc
EPISODE DESCRIPTIONLisa Shufro is the storyteller's storyteller. A musician turned innovation strategist, TEDMed curator, and unapologetic truth-teller, Lisa doesn't just craft narratives—she engineers constellations out of chaos. We go way back to the early TEDMed days, where she taught doctors, scientists, and technocrats how not to bore an audience to death. In this episode, we talk about how storytelling in healthcare has been weaponized, misunderstood, misused, and still holds the power to change lives—if done right. Lisa challenges the idea that storytelling should be persuasive and instead argues it should be connective. We get into AI, the myth of objectivity, musical scars, Richard Simmons, the Vegas healthcare experiment, and the real reason your startup pitch is still trash. If you've ever been told to “just tell your story,” this episode is the permission slip to do it your way. With a bow, not a violin.RELATED LINKSLisa Shufro's WebsiteLinkedInSuper Curious ArchiveEight Principles for Storytelling in InnovationStoryCorps InterviewCoursera Instructor ProfileWhatMatters ProjectFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Join host Jennifer Semenza as she speaks with Dr. Kelly Perlewitz, Acting Director of Hematology and Oncology at Providence Cancer Institute. Dr. Perlewitz discusses the importance of early cancer detection and shares practical tips for prevention. Learn about various cancer screenings, lifestyle changes, and the role of genetics in cancer development. Dr. Perlewitz also highlights the significance of mental health in treatment and offers advice on supporting loved ones through a cancer diagnosis. Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on this and other health related topics. How to help protect yourself against cancer | ProvidenceEarly awareness is key to combating head and neck cancerLung Cancer Screening Saves LivesMapping your health journey with genetics testingTo 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
In part two of the How I Treat Series on Transfusion Medicine Dr. Erica Wood interviews the "How I Manage Major Hemorrhage" author group: Drs. Jeannie Callium, Keyvan Karkouti, and Ron George.Find the full published review series in Volume 145 Issue 20 of Blood Journal.
In this week's episode we'll learn about how frequent blood donation affects clonal hematopoiesis in older, male blood donors; the effect of immune microenvironment on response to bispecific antibodies in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and the feasibility of adding blinatumomab to early consolidation therapy in CD19-positive Ph-negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic lymphoma.Featured ArticlesClonal Hematopoiesis Landscape in Frequent Blood DonorsIntegrative genomic analysis of DLBCL identifies immune environments associated with bispecific antibody responseUpfront Blinatumomab Improves MRD Clearance and Outcome in Adult Ph-negative B-lineage ALL: The GIMEMA LAL2317 Phase 2 Study
What happens when you blend the soul of Mr. Rogers, the boldness of RuPaul, and just a pinch of Carrie Bradshaw? You get Sally Wolf.She's a Harvard and Stanford powerhouse who ditched corporate media to help people actually flourish at work and in life—because cancer kicked her ass and she kicked it back, with a pole dance routine on Netflix for good measure.In this episode, we unpack what it means to live (really live) with metastatic breast cancer. We talk about the toxic PR machine behind "pink ribbon" cancer, how the healthcare system gaslights survivors when treatment ends, and why spreadsheets and dance classes saved her sanity. Sally doesn't just survive. She rewrites the script, calls out the BS, and shows up in full color.If you've ever asked “Why me?”—or refused to—this one's for you.RELATED LINKS:Sally Wolf's WebsiteLinkedInInstagramCosmopolitan Essay: "What It's Like to Have the 'Good' Cancer"Oprah Daily Article: "Five Things I Wish Everyone Understood About My Metastatic Breast Cancer Diagnosis"Allure Photo ShootThe Story of Our Trauma PodcastFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Drs. Pemmaraju and Bose discuss the revised International Working Group criteria for anemia response in patients with myelofibrosis, outlining new definitions for transfusion status, gender-specific hemoglobin thresholds, and benchmarks for major and minor responses.
Fahad Faruqi, MD, Doctor of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Northwestern Medicine, joins Lisa Dent to discuss former President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis. Dr. Faruqi discusses the difference between ‘terminal’ and ‘incurable’ and what it means for Biden’s health.
Drs. Bose and Pemmaraju review secondary myelofibrosis arising from polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia and how it differs from primary myelofibrosis that develops de novo.
Listen in as Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, and Ryan Haumschild, PharmD, MS, MBA, CPEL, discuss how to manage the multidisciplinary care of patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) from both the allergy/immunology and pharmacy perspective, including:Strategies to better identify patients presenting with features of SM to facilitate timely diagnosisCurrent guideline-recommended treatment approachesEmerging data on new targeted agents for SMPharmacist-led strategies to help patients achieve better outcomes (e.g., specialist referral, polypharmacy counseling, and anaphylaxis education)PresentersJonathan A. Bernstein, MDProfessor of MedicineDivision of Rheumatology, Allergy and ImmunologyDepartment of Internal MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicinePartner Advanced Allergy Services, LLCPartner Bernstein Clinical Research Center, LLCCincinnati, OhioRyan Haumschild, PharmD, MS, MBA, CPELVice President of Pharmacy, AmbulatoryEmory HealthcareWinship Cancer InstituteAtlanta, GeorgiaFull link to program page:https://bit.ly/3HcA8z2
In this two-part series, Dr. Erica Wood talks with Drs. Masja de Haas, Helen Savoia, and Stella Chou about their articles in the How I Treat Series on Transfusion Medicine. Topics include noninvasive prenatal testing for red blood cell and platelet antigens, transfusion cases in sickle cell disease, and pregnant patients who are alloimmunized to RBC antigens. Find the full published review series in Volume 145 Issue 20 of Blood Journal.
In this week's episode, we'll learn about stopping myeloma maintenance therapy in the modern era. New research suggests that many patients in remission can discontinue lenalidomide, remaining treatment-free, without jeopardizing disease response. After that: a novel congenital neutropenia syndrome. Mutations in the COPZ1 gene impact myeloid differentiation and development of neutropenia. Researchers describe the mechanisms and propose a treatment strategy for restoring granulopoiesis. Finally, ruxolitinib maintenance therapy after allogeneic transplant. In a phase 2 study, this treatment strategy was associated with low rates of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Investigators say the use of JAK inhibitors in this context warrants further study.Featured Articles: Sustained bone marrow and imaging MRD negativity for 3 years drives discontinuation of maintenance post-ASCT in myelomaA new severe congenital neutropenia syndrome associated with autosomal recessive COPZ1 mutationsLow rates of chronic graft-versus-host disease with ruxolitinib maintenance following allogeneic HCT
Hematology-oncology physician Yousuf Zafar discusses his article, "The personalization of cancer care in 2025." He traces the evolution of cancer treatment over the past two decades, moving through waves of cytotoxic chemotherapy, biologic therapies, immunotherapies including groundbreaking CAR-T therapy, and now precision oncology, which targets treatments to the specific molecular profile of a patient's cancer. While these advancements have significantly improved survival and quality of life, Yousuf highlights the resulting increase in care complexity and the widening gap in outcomes between specialized centers (where only 20 percent of U.S. patients are treated) and community practices (where 80 percent of care occurs), particularly impacting rural areas where 66 percent of counties lack an oncologist. The conversation explores how digital health solutions, such as remote case reviews connecting community oncologists with subspecialists, can help bridge this divide and improve access. Importantly, Yousuf stresses that personalized care extends beyond treatment to encompass vital patient support for financial burdens, mental well-being, and survivorship. Actionable takeaways emphasize the need for collaboration, resources for community oncologists, investment in digital health tools, and a continued focus on patient-centered support throughout the cancer journey. Our presenting sponsor is Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Microsoft Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow, is transforming how clinicians work. Now you can streamline and customize documentation, surface information right at the point of care, and automate tasks with just a click. Part of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare, Dragon Copilot offers an extensible AI workspace and a single, integrated platform to help unlock new levels of efficiency. Plus, it's backed by a proven track record and decades of clinical expertise—and it's built on a foundation of trust. It's time to ease your administrative burdens and stay focused on what matters most with Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow. VISIT SPONSOR → https://aka.ms/kevinmd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST → https://www.kevinmd.com/podcast RECOMMENDED BY KEVINMD → https://www.kevinmd.com/recommended
Listen to ASCO's JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine's premier educational forum. Transcript Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions. One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.” 1. Microscopic Mayhem: Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience. 2. TNM Torture: Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can. NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more! 3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown: Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there. 4. Dosage Deadlock: One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner! 5. Criteria Catatonia: Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on! 6. Kaplan-Meier Killer: Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again. 7. Lymph Node Lobotomy: For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor. If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds! Final Thoughts I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece. At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought! Dr. Mikkael SekeresHello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last." Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us. Dr. David JohnsonGreat to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career. Dr. David JohnsonSure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh my. Dr. David JohnsonThere are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives. Dr. Mikkael SekeresMy word. Dr. David JohnsonI went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds. Dr. Mikkael SekeresNot ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine. Dr. David JohnsonIt was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine. Dr. Mikkael SekeresThat sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency. Dr. David JohnsonWell, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do'. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh, wow. Dr. David JohnsonSo it's quite challenging. Dr. Mikkael SekeresWell, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now? Dr. David JohnsonWell, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself. Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it. And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients. So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing. Dr. Mikkael SekeresSo I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well. How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited? Dr. David JohnsonYeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place. I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology. The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction. And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated? Dr. David Johnson That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha' moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last." Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today. Dr. David JohnsonThank you very much for having me. 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. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.
On this Mother's dray, we honor the heart of every mother — the love she gives, the sacrifices she makes, and the quiet strength she carries every single day. But today, we also pause to ask: how can mothers take care of themselves? How can faith and medicine guide them to nurture not just others, but their own beautiful, essential selves? Whether you are a mother, lost a mother, hope to be one, or are simply someone who has been touched by the love of a mother, this episode is for you. Together, let's explore what it means to mother others — and to mother ourselves — through the lens of both faith and wellness.Please join my two special guests on the podcast:Dr. Shabana Dewani is board certified in Medical Oncology, Hematology, and Internal Medicine—and a joy to listen to! You'll be able to hear her passion for how takes care of herself and advocates for other mothers. Pastor Jennifer Jackson offers faith perspective and self care for women. She provides us her learnings as she went through her own breast cancer diagnosis. She strives to help women through life, whether it's a book, her own radio show, or by mentoring them. You'll be uplifted by our discussion with Jennifer she talks about what faith says about women taking care of themselves.Learn More About Jennifer Jackson here.InstagramFacebookIf you want to buy my book, click the link below.Their Legacy, Their Light She Carries: A Breast Surgeon's Mission to Serve and Inspire HopeStay Connected with Dr. Deepa Halaharvi:TikTok: @breastdoctorInstagram: @drdhalaharviTBCP Instagram: @thebreastcancerpodcastWebsite: https://drdeepahalaharvi.com/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@deepahalaharvi5917Instagram: @thebreastcancerpodcast
In this episode, we discussed the management of systemic mastocytosis with Dr. Daniel DeAngelo from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Here are the key studies we discussed:Midostaurin https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1513098?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govAvapritinibEXLPORER study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01538-9PATHFINDER study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01539-8Bezuclastinib: APEX trial: https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/144/Supplement%201/659/530240/Apex-Part-1-Updated-Assessment-of-BezuclastinibHSCT for Advanced SM: https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.2018
In this week's episode, we'll learn more about how measurable residual disease might help guide decisions about post-transplant gilteritinib maintenance in FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia, or AML; how stemness contributes to chemotherapy resistance in AML; and effects of babesiosis on red blood cells from individuals with sickle cell disease, sickle cell trait, and wild-type hemoglobin. Featured Articles:Measurable residual disease and post-transplantation gilteritinib maintenance for patients with FLT3-ITD-mutated AML GATA2 links stemness to chemotherapy resistance in acute myeloid leukemia Babesiosis and Sickle Red Blood Cells: Loss of Deformability, Heightened Osmotic fragility and Hyper-vesiculation
D.O. or Do Not: The Osteopathic Physician's Journey for Premed & Medical Students
Send us a textIn today's episode we have the pleasure of speaking to Dr. Anna Levy, D.O. Dr. Levy is an oncologist who works in the very specialized area of liver related cancers. Dr. Levy is Medical Director of Hepatobiliary Malignancies and the Hepatic Artery Pump Infusion Program, based at the R.J. Zuckerberg Cancer Center. Dr Levy is is Board certified in Internal Medicine, Hematology, and Medical Oncology. She is Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health Medical School. Dr. Levy earned her medical degree at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine followed by an Internal Medicine Residency at the Christiana Care Health System and ultimately completed her fellowship in Medical Oncology and Hematology at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center.Dr. Levy will delve into the life of an oncologist and the difficulties treating very sick patients. She will discuss the difficulties of work life balance and how her family and home life allow her to “keep her cup full." Dr. Levy will discuss the problem of suicide, among physicians specifically among high stress professions such as Hematology/ Oncology. Dr. Levy will share her journey which started as an emigre from the Ukraine. She will tell us about her discovery of Osteopathic Medicine and how she developed a love for oncology, a difficult and complex specialty. Please join us in our discussion with this remarkable physician. . . a discussion you won't want to miss!
In today's episode, supported by Replimune, we had the pleasure of speaking with Anna C. Pavlick, BSN, MSc, DO, MBA, about the use of RP1 plus nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Dr Pavlick is a professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology & Medical Oncology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York; as well as the founding director of the Cutaneous Oncology Program at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian. In our exclusive interview, Dr Pavlick discussed the rationale for investigating this combination in patients with advanced melanoma who have received prior immune checkpoint inhibition, key efficacy and safety findings from the phase 1/2 IGNYTE trial (NCT03767348), and where the future may be headed regarding the use of oncolytic viruses in melanoma.
Video: https://mehlmanmedical.com/hy-usmle-q-1361-hematologyIG: https://www.instagram.com/mehlman_medical/Telegram: https://mehlmanmedical.com/subscribe/FB: https://www.facebook.com/mehlmanmedical
We dive into the recognition and management of blast crisis. Hosts: Sadakat Chowdhury, MD Brian Gilberti, MD https://media.blubrry.com/coreem/content.blubrry.com/coreem/Blast_Crisis.mp3 Download Leave a Comment Tags: Hematology, Oncology Show Notes Topic Overview Blast crisis is an oncologic emergency, most commonly seen in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Defined by: >20% blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow. May include extramedullary blast proliferation. Without treatment, median survival is only 3–6 months. Pathophysiology & Associated Conditions Usually occurs in CML, but also in: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) Transition from chronic to blast phase often reflects disease progression or treatment resistance. Risk Factors 10% of CML patients progress to blast crisis. Risk increased in: Patients refractory to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (e.g., imatinib). Those with Philadelphia chromosome abnormalities. WBC >100,000, which increases risk for leukostasis. Clinical Presentation Symptoms often stem from pancytopenia and leukostasis: Anemia: fatigue, malaise. Functional neutropenia: high WBC count, but increased infection/sepsis risk. Thrombocytopenia: bleeding, bruising. Leukostasis/hyperviscosity effects by system: Neurologic: confusion, visual changes, stroke-like symptoms. Cardiopulmonary: ARDS, myocardial injury. Others: priapism, limb ischemia, bowel infarction.
In this week's episode, we'll hear about how researchers look toward the lung, and find uniquely programmed blood stem cells. This study is the first to fully characterize hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in the adult human lung. After that: researchers develop a neural network-based probabilistic classifier, DLBclass, that assigns all diffuse large B-cell lymphomas into one of five genetic subtypes. It's an inclusive taxonomy that they say provides actionable genetic information in almost all patients with DLBCL. Finally, new insights on NETS, or neutrophil extracellular traps. In the liver vasculature, NET removal leads to secondary inflammation, resulting in new waves of NETS that may impact future infection. We'll review these and other findings from this recent mouse model study.Featured Articles:Decoding functional hematopoietic progenitor cells in the adult human lungDLBclass: a probabilistic molecular classifier to guide clinical investigation and practice in diffuse large B-cell lymphomaDonor regulatory T-cell therapy to prevent graft-versus-host disease
Hear From Her: The Women in Healthcare Leadership Podcast Series
How are 3 women leaders in hematology who are passionate about research and patient care facing the massive cuts to critical healthcare programs? Find out in the new episode of Women in Healthcare Leadership. This podcast is not available for CME/CE/CPD credits. Please visit the Medscape homepage for accredited CME/CE/CPD activities. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/11002495?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu
Arthur Robin Williams is an associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. A.R. Williams. Death and Taxes — Is Alcohol the Solution? N Engl J Med 2025;392:1665-1667.
Are you a physician overwhelmed by late-night charting? Dr. Mary Leung, board-certified in internal medicine, medical oncology, and hematology — and now a certified life coach — knows your struggle firsthand.Dr. Mary completed her medical education at the University at Buffalo School of Medicine. She went on to complete her residency in Internal Medicine and her fellowship in Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. Her solid clinical background, combined with her experience as a certified life coach, gives her a unique and compassionate perspective on physician burnout and well-being.In this empowering livestream, discover how Dr. Mary went from burnout and after-hours charting to confidently finishing her clinical day on time. Learn the exact tools and mindset shifts that transformed her routine and helped her rediscover joy in medicine.✅ Why charting was draining her energy✅ How coaching transformed her time and mindset✅ How she helps physicians regain control, clarity, and time✅ Steps to build a meaningful, sustainable medical careerDr. Mary founded Shining With Gratitude MD to guide physicians through their unique journeys. Her mission: help doctors feel better, live fuller lives, and fall in love with medicine again.Connect with Dr. MaryLinkedIn Mary Leung, MDFacebook Mary LeungWebsite https://www.shiningwithgratitudemd.com
In this week's episode we'll learn more about how phosphoseryl-tRNA kinase inhibition promotes cell death in acute myeloid leukemia, or AML; APOE gene variants and their association with post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant outcomes in AML; and pathways by which chronic inflammation and oxidative stress may lead to cardiomyopathy in patients with sickle cell disease.Featured Articles:PSTK inhibition activates cGAS-STING, precipitating ferroptotic cell death in leukemic stem cells Common Hereditary Variants of the APOE Gene and Posttransplant Outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia 17R-Resolvin D1 Protects Against Sickle Cell Related Inflammatory Cardiomyopathy in Humanized Mice
Patricia Zettler is a professor of law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. P.J. Zettler, T.L. Wagener, and M.L. Berman. What's Next for Nicotine? The Coming Legal and Political Battles over an FDA Proposal. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1461-1463.