Podcasts about Icis

BUFFALO, NY – June 20, 2025 – A new #review was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on June 10, 2025, titled “Beyond DNA damage response: Immunomodulatory attributes of CHEK2 in solid tumors.” In this paper, led by first author Helen Qian and corresponding author Crismita Dmello from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, researchers compiled growing evidence that the CHEK2 gene, long known for its role in repairing DNA damage, may also influence how tumors respond to immunotherapy. Their analysis suggests that problems in CHEK2 function might make cancer cells more vulnerable to immune system attacks, highlighting a new opportunity to improve treatment outcomes in solid tumors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer treatment; however, they are effective in only a subset of patients. This review suggests that tumors with reduced CHEK2 activity may accumulate more mutations that produce signals the immune system can recognize. These signals, known as neoantigens, help immune cells identify and destroy cancer cells more effectively. The review connects this process not only to CHEK2's established role in the DNA damage response but also to a newly proposed function in shaping the immune environment of tumors. CHEK2 normally helps maintain genomic stability by enabling precise DNA repair. When this function is lost, cells rely on more error-prone repair methods, leading to additional mutations. These mutations can increase tumor mutational burden, which has been linked to better outcomes with immunotherapy. Beyond DNA repair, the review highlights a second mechanism: activation of the cGAS-STING pathway. This pathway detects fragments of damaged DNA and triggers inflammation that attracts immune cells to the tumor. The authors highlight studies where CHEK2-deficient tumors responded better to PD-1 inhibitors, a common type of immune checkpoint inhibitor. In both lab models and early-stage clinical settings, CHEK2 loss was associated with increased infiltration of CD8+ T cells—immune cells essential for attacking cancer cells. In cancers such as glioblastoma and renal cell carcinoma, which are typically resistant to immunotherapy, reduced CHEK2 expression was linked with more favorable immune activity and higher expression of interferon-related genes. The compiled evidence points to CHEK2 as a potential biomarker for identifying patients likely to respond to immunotherapy. In addition, combining CHEK2 inhibitors with existing immunotherapies may enhance anti-tumor effects, particularly in cancers with limited treatment options. The review notes that some clinical trials using the CHEK1/2 inhibitor prexasertib alongside immune checkpoint therapies have already shown promising early results. “The initial results from this Phase I clinical trial support the immunomodulatory role of CHEK2 expression and even suggest CHEK2 potentiates immunosuppression.” Although more research is needed to confirm these mechanisms and improve treatment approaches, this review underscores the expanding role of DNA repair genes like CHEK2—not only in maintaining genome integrity but also in helping the immune system fight cancer. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28740 Correspondence to - Crismita Dmello - stellacpak@outlook.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26pEBc0itk Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Is China's strategic push for chemical self-sufficiency reshaping the global petrochemical landscape? John Richardson, senior consultant at ICIS, joins The Chemical Show to share insights on how misjudged growth expectations for China, shifting demographics, and the rise of state-driven capacity expansions have led to the deepest, longest downturn in industry history. John and host Victoria Meyer examine why capacity was built around hopes for perpetual strong Chinese demand, only for real estate and demographic headwinds to alter the trajectory—creating a world of oversupply, negative margins, and mounting uncertainty. Their conversation covers the ongoing impact of trade tensions, the real drivers behind Chinese investment decisions, and why shutting down uneconomical assets is becoming a pressing necessity, especially in Europe and Asia. John and Victoria also weigh the challenges and promises of AI and data intelligence in a conservative, data-guarded sector, and offer advice for industry leaders navigating persistent market disruption. For chemical professionals, these perspectives highlight why adaptability, intelligence, and innovation will be critical in mastering both today's volatility and tomorrow's opportunities. Discover more about the following topics: How China's pivot from growth to self-sufficiency is reshaping global petrochemicals. Why chemicals face their worst business cycle ever, with Asian producers bleeding money on polyethylene. How tariffs and shifting policies create constant uncertainty for chemical companies. Why China's government-backed enterprises compete on strategy, not just cost. How data and artificial intelligence will separate industry winners from losers. “We've all assumed that polymer sciences are, you know, composites and stuff and playing with the same basic molecules, but maybe not.”  — John Richardson 00:00 Chemical Industry Insights by John 06:08 Domestic Chemical Manufacturing Expansion 08:48 Polyethylene Margins: China vs. Middle East 11:31 Tariffs and Global Business Perspectives 14:43 China's Trade Resilience Amid Challenges 20:23 Data Sharing's Impact on AI 23:50 Debating Productivity's True Impact 26:34 AI: Industrial Revolution or Renaissance? 30:49 Innovative Multi-Pane Glass Advancements 31:43 Innovative, Stronger Glass Advances  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com 

The worst chemicals downturn in living memory is forcing ratings agencies to downgrade more companies and raising fears of bankruptcies. -          Chemical company earnings have been bottom-of-cycle since 2023-          Leverage (borrowing) is high compared to historical levels-          Low earnings increase pressure on leverage, raises risk of default-          Fitch has downgraded more chemical companies over last 12-18 months-          Extended trough in chemicals may lead to bankruptcies-          Operating rates have not recovered as they did after Global Financial Crisis-          Fitch expects gradual recovery from 2026-          A lot more closures needed to rebalance market – could delay recovery-          Ratings agencies look at company costs, strategies and compare to peers-          Diversification of geography and product helps manage riskIn this ICIS Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews Guillaume Daguerre who leads Europe chemicals for ratings agency Fitch, John Richardson from the ICIS market development team, ICIS Insight Editor Tom Brown and Paul Hodges, chairman of New Normal Consulting. Click here to register for the ICIS/European Association of Chemical Distributors (Fecc) distributors CEO round table on Monday 16 June. 

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.

Recent revisions of recycled content targets from major brands have led to questions about just how committed companies are to reducing their consumption of virgin plastic - but what are the underlying issues behind such decision? In this third episode of Sustainably Speaking, ICIS' Senior Executive, Business Solutions Group John Richardson is joined by Mark Victory and Matt Tudball, Senior Editors for Recycling  Europe, and Helen McGeough, Global Analyst Team Lead for Plastic Recycling at ICIS to dive deeper into this topic.  Key topics covered during the discussion include:   Revised down recycled content targets do not mean lower recyclate demand The impact on current and future investment decisions for both mechanical and chemical recycling  The importance of improving access to good quality feedstock The role of consumers and consumer pressure  Spreads between packaging and non-packaging grades remain high, particularly for recycled polyolefins  The impact of regulation on the US and European markets

Gas grid operators on the Trans-Balkan corridor have been working to enable traders to access natural gas via Greek LNG terminals or pipelines for shipments to Ukraine at a unified discounted tariff.The bundled transmission capacity product launched in May could open opportunities for diversification and tightening security of supply.Nevertheless, many traders say the format may not be compliant with EU network codes and insist they had limited information prior to the first auction held in May.As the five TSOs are preparing a new round of auctions, the Greek regulator RAE has started a consultation and companies are expected to submit their views by 9 June 2025.ICIS reporter Aura Sabadus has collected 15 questions from gas traders active regionally and invited Sotirios Bravos (DESFA), Nikola Delev, (Bulgartransgaz), Marius Lupean, (Transgaz), Liviu Duminica, (VMTG) and Andrii Prokofiev (GTSOU) to answer them in detail. 

JCO PO author Dr. Dean A. Regier at the Academy of Translational Medicine, University of British Columbia (UBC), and the School of Population and Public Health, BC Cancer Research Institute shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Regier discuss the real-world clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multigene panels compared with single-gene BRAF testing to guide therapeutic decisions in advanced melanoma. Transcript Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center in the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Dean A. Regier, Director at the Academy of Translational Medicine, Associate Professor at the School of Population and Public Health, UBC Senior Scientist at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, and also the senior author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dean, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Dean Regier:Thank you. I'm delighted to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So, obviously, you are from Canada, and medicine, or approvals of drugs to some extent, and in fact approvals of gene testing to some extent is slightly different, which we'll come to learn about more today, compared to what we do in the US—and in fact, similarly, Europe versus North America to a large extent as well. Most of the time, we end up talking about gene testing in lung cancer. There is a lot of data, a lot of papers around single-gene panel testing in non-small cell lung cancer versus multigene testing. In fact, a couple of those papers have been published in JCO PO, and it has shown significant cost-effectiveness and benefit and outcomes benefit in terms of multigene testing. So this is slightly, you know, on a similar approach, but in a different tumor type. So, could you tell us first why you wanted to investigate this question? What was the background to investigating this question? And given your expertise in health economics and policy, what are some of the aspects that one tends or should tend to understand in terms of cost-effectiveness before we go into the results for this very interesting manuscript? Dr. Dean Regier:Yeah, of course, delighted to. So, one of the reasons why we're deeply interested in looking at comparative outcomes with respect to single- versus multigene testing— whether that's in a public payer system like Canada or an insurer system, a private system in the United States— is that the question around does multigene versus single-gene testing work, has not typically tested in randomized controlled trials. You don't have people randomized to multigene versus single-gene testing. And what that does, it makes the resulting evidence base, whether it's efficacy, safety, or comparative cost-effectiveness, highly uncertain. So, the consequence of that has been uneven uptake around the world of next-generation sequencing panels. And so if we believe that next-gen sequencing panels are indeed effective for our patients, we really need to generate that comparative evidence around effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. So we can go to payers, whether it be single payer or a private insurer, to say, "Here are the comparative outcomes." And when I say that uptake has been uneven, uptake there's been actually plenty, as you know, publications around that uneven uptake, whether it be in Europe, in the United States, in Canada. And so we're really interested in trying to produce that evidence to create the type of deliberations that are needed to have these types of technologies accessible to patients. And part of those deliberations, of course, is the clinical, but also in some contexts, cost-effectiveness. And so, we really start from the perspective of, can we use our healthcare system data, our learning healthcare system, to generate that evidence in a way that emulates a randomized controlled trial? We won't be able to do these randomized controlled trials for various, like really important and and reasons that make sense, quite frankly. So how can we mimic or emulate randomized controlled trials in a way that allows us to make inference around those outcomes? And for my research lab, we usually think through how do we do causal inference to address some of those biases that are inherent in observational data. So in terms of advanced melanoma, we were really interested in this question because first of all, there have been no randomized controlled trials around next-gen sequencing versus single-gene testing. And secondly, these products, these ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, they are quite expensive. And so the question really becomes: are they effective? And if so, to what extent are they cost-effective? Do they provide a good reason to have information around value for money? Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So now going to the biology of melanoma, so we know that BRAF is one of the tumor-agnostic therapies, it has approvals for melanoma as well as several other tumor types. And in fact, I do trials with different RAF-RAS kinase inhibitors. Now, one of the things that I do know is, and I'm sure some of the listeners know, is the DREAMseq trial, which was a melanoma study that was an NCI Cooperative Group trial that was led by Dr. Mike Atkins from Georgetown a couple of years back, that did show survival benefit of first-line immunotherapy sequencing. It was a sequencing study of whether to do first-line BRAF in BRAF-mutant melanoma followed by checkpoint inhibitors, or vice versa. And the immune checkpoint inhibitors followed by BRAF was actually the one that showed benefit, and the trial had to stop early, was stopped early because of the significant benefit seen. So in that context, before we approach the question of single-gene versus multigene testing in melanoma, one would imagine that it's already established that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab, for that matter, doublet checkpoint inhibitor therapy is better for BRAF-mutant melanoma. And then there's no significant other approvals for melanoma for NRAS or KIT, you know, mucosal melanomas tend to have KIT mutations, for example, or uveal melanomas, for that matter, have GNAQ, and there's no targeted therapies. So, what is the actual need of doing a broader testing versus just testing for BRAF? So just trying to understand when you started looking into this question, I'm sure you kind of thought about some of these concepts before you delved into that. Dr. Dean Regier:I think that is an excellent question, and it is a question that we asked ourselves: did we really expect any differences in outcomes between the testing strategies? And what did the real-world implementation, physician-guided, physician-led implementation look like? And so, that was kind of one of the other reasons that we really were interested is, why would we go to expanded multigene panel sequencing at all? We didn't really expect or I didn't expect an overall survival a priori. But what we saw in our healthcare system, what happened in our healthcare system was the implementation in 2016 of this multigene panel. And this panel covered advanced melanoma, and this panel cost quite a bit more than what they were doing in terms of the single-gene BRAF testing. And so when you're a healthcare system, you have to ask yourself those questions of what is the additional value associated with that? And indeed, I think in a healthcare system, we have to be really aware that we do not actually follow to the ideal extent randomized controlled trials or trial settings. And so that's the other thing that we have to keep in mind is when these, whether it's an ICI or a BRAF MEK inhibitor, when these are implemented, they do not look like randomized controlled trials. And so, we really wanted to emulate not just a randomized controlled trial, but a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to really answer those real-world questions around implementation that are so important to decision making. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Sure. And just to understand this a little better: for us in the United States, when we talk about multigene testing, we generally refer to, these days, whole-exome sequencing with whole-transcriptome sequencing, which is like the nuclear option of of the testings, which is not necessarily cheap. So, when you talk about multigene testing in your healthcare system, what does that look like? Is it a 16-gene panel? Is it a 52-gene panel? What is the actual makeup of that platform? Dr. Dean Regier:Excellent question. Yeah, so at the time that this study is looking at, it was 2016, when we, as BC Cancer—so British Columbia is a population right now of 5.7 million people, and we have data on all those individuals. We are one healthcare system providing health care to 5.7 million people. In 2016, we had what I call our "home-brew" multigene panel, which was a 53-gene panel that was reimbursed as standard of care across advanced cancers, one of them being advanced melanoma. We have evolved since then. I believe in 2022, we are using one of the Illumina panels, the Focus panel. And so things have changed; it's an evolving landscape. But we're specifically focused on the 53-gene panel. It was called OncoPanel. And that was produced in British Columbia through the Genome Sciences Centre, and it was validated in a single-arm trial mostly around validity, etc. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining that. So now, onto the actual meat and the science of this project. So, what are some of the metrics from a health economy standpoint that you did look at? And then, methodology-wise, I understand, in the United States, we have a fragmented healthcare system. I have data only from my institution, for that matter. So we have to reach out to outside collaborators and email them to get the data. And that is different for you where you have access to all the data under one umbrella. So could you speak to that a little bit and how that's an advantage for this kind of research especially? Dr. Dean Regier:Yeah. In health economics, we look at the comparative incremental costs against the incremental effectiveness. And when we think about incremental costs, we think not just about systemic therapy or whether you see a physician, but also about hospitalizations, about all the healthcare interactions related to oncology or not that a patient might experience during their time or interactions with the healthcare system. You can imagine with oncology, there are multiple interactions over a prolonged time period depending on survival. And so what we try to do is we try to—and the benefit of the single-payer healthcare system is what we do is we link all those resource utilization patterns that each patient encounters, and we know the price of that encounter. And we compare those incremental costs of, in this case, it's the multigene panel versus the single-gene panel. So it's not just the cost of the panel, not just the cost of systemic therapy, but hospitalizations, physician encounters, etc. And then similarly, we look at, in this case, we looked at overall survival - we can also look at progression-free survival - and ask the simple question, you know, what is the incremental cost per life-year gained? And in that way, we get a metric or an understanding of value for money. And how we evaluate that within a deliberative priority setting context is we look at safety and efficacy first. So a regulatory package that you might get from, in our case, Health Canada or the FDA, so we look at that package, and we deliberate on, okay, is it safe and is it effective? How many patients are affected, etc. And then separately, what is the cost-effectiveness? And at what price, if it's not cost-effective, at what price would it be cost-effective? Okay, so for example, we have this metric called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is incremental cost in the numerator, and in this case, life-years gained in the denominator. And if it is around $50,000 or $100,000 per life-year gained—so if it's in that range, this ratio—then we might say it's cost-effective. If it's above this range, which is common in oncology, especially when we talk about ICIs, etc., then you might want to negotiate a price. And indeed, when we negotiate that price, we use the economic evaluation, that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, as a way to understand at what price should we negotiate to in order to get value for money for the healthcare system. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining those very interesting terminologies. Now, one question I have in the context of what you just mentioned is, you know, like the drug development space, you talked about efficacy and safety, but then on the safety side, we talk about all-grade adverse events or treatment-related adverse events—two different terminologies. From a healthcare utilization perspective, how do you untangle if a patient on a BRAF therapy got admitted for a hypoxic respiratory failure due to COPD, resulting in a hospitalization from the cost, overall cost utilization, or does it not matter? Dr. Dean Regier:We try to do as much digging into those questions as possible. And so, this is real-world data, right? Real-world data is not exactly as clean as you'd get from a well-conducted clinical trial. And so what we do is we look at potential adverse event, whether it's hospitalization, and the types of therapies around that hospitalization to try- and then engage with clinicians to try to understand or tease out the different grades of the adverse event. Whether it's successful or not, I think that is a real question that we grapple with in terms of are we accurate in delineating different levels of adverse events? But we try to take the data around the event to try to understand the context in which it happens. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining that, Dean. So, again to the results of this manuscript, could you go into the methodology briefly? Believe you had 147 patients, 147 patients in one arm, 147 in the other. How did you split that cohort, and what were some of the characteristics of this cohort? Dr. Dean Regier:So, the idea, of course, is that we have selection criteria, study inclusion criteria, which included in our case 364 patients. And these were patients who had advanced melanoma within our study time period. So that was 2016 to 2018. And we had one additional year follow. So we had three total years. And what we did is that we linked our data, our healthcare system data. During this time, because the policy change was in 2016, we had patients both go on the multigene panel and on the single-gene BRAF testing. So, the idea was to emulate a pragmatic randomized controlled trial where we looked at contemporaneous patients who had multigene panel testing versus single-gene BRAF testing. And then we did a matching procedure—we call it genetic matching. And that is a type of matching that allows us to balance covariates across the patient groups, across the multigene versus BRAF testing cohorts. The idea again is, as you get in a randomized controlled trial, you have these baseline characteristics that look the same. And then the hope is that you address any source selection or confounding biases that prohibit you to have a clean answer to the question: Is it effective or cost-effective? So you address all those biases that may prohibit you to find a signal if indeed a signal is there. And so, what we did is we created—we did this genetic matching to balance covariates across the two cohorts, and we matched them one-to-one. And so what we were able to do is we were able to find, of those 364 patients in our pool, 147 in the multigene versus 147 in the single-gene BRAF testing that were very, very similar. In fact, we created what's called a directed acyclic graph or a DAG, together with clinicians to say, “Hey, what biases would you expect to have in these two cohorts that might limit our ability to find a signal of effectiveness?” And so we worked with clinicians, with health economists, with epidemiologists to really understand those different biases at play. And the genetic matching was able to match the cohorts on the covariates of interest. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:And then could you speak on some of the highlights from the results? I know you did survival analysis, cost-effectiveness, could you explain that in terms of what you found? Dr. Dean Regier:We did two analyses. The intention-to-treat analysis is meant to emulate the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. And what that does is it answers the question, for all those eligible for multigene or single-gene testing: What is the cost-effectiveness in terms of incremental life-years gained and incremental cost per life-years gained? And the second one was around a protocol analysis, which really answered the question of: For those patients who were actually treated, what was the incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness? Now, they're different in two very important ways. For the intention-to-treat, it's around population questions. If we gave single-gene or multigene to the entire population of advanced melanoma patients, what is the cost-effectiveness? The per-protocol is really around that clinical question of those who actually received treatment, what was the incremental cost and effectiveness? So very different questions in terms of population versus clinical cost and effectiveness. So, for the intention-to-treat, what we found is that in terms of life-years gained is around 0.22, which is around 2.5 months of additional life that is afforded to patients who went through the multigene panel testing versus the single-gene testing. That was non-statistically significant from zero at the 5% level. But on average, you would expect this additional 2.5 months of life. The incremental costs were again non-statistically significant, but they're around $20,000. And so when we look at incremental cost-effectiveness, we can also look at the uncertainty around that question, meaning what percentage of incremental cost-effectiveness estimates are likely to be cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds? Okay? So if you are willing to pay $100,000 to get one gain of life-years, around 52.8% of our estimates, in terms of when we looked at the entire uncertainty, would be cost-effective. So actually that meets the threshold of implementation in our healthcare system. So it's quite uncertain, just over 50%. But what we see is that decision-makers actually have a high tolerance for uncertainty around cost-effectiveness. And so, while it is uncertain, we would say that, well, the cost-effectiveness is finely balanced. Now, when we looked at the population, the per-protocol population, those folks who just got treatment, we actually have a different story. We have all of a sudden around 4.5 or just under 5 months of life gained that is statistically significantly different from zero, meaning that this is a strong signal of benefit in terms of life-years gained. In terms of the changes in costs or the incremental costs, they are larger again, but statistically insignificant. So the question now is, to what extent is it cost-effective? What is the probability of it being cost-effective? And at the $100,000 per life-year gained willingness-to-pay, there was a 73% chance that multigene panel testing versus single-gene testing is cost-effective. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So one of the questions I have here, this is a clarification both for myself and maybe the listeners also. So protocol treatment is basically if you had gene testing and you have a BRAF in the multigene panel, then the patient went on a BRAF treatment. Is that correct? Dr. Dean Regier:It's still physician choice. And I think that's important to say that. So typically what we saw in both in our pre- and post-matching data is that we saw around 50% of patients, irrespective of BRAF status, get an ICI, which is appropriate, right? And so the idea here is that you get physician-guided care, but if the patient no longer performs on the ICI, then it gives them a little bit more information on what to do next. Even during that time when we thought it wasn't going to be common to do an ICI, but it was actually quite common. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Now, did you have any patients in this study who had the multigene testing done and had an NRAS or a KIT mutation and then went on to those therapies, which were not captured obviously in the single-gene testing, which would have just tried to look at BRAF? Dr. Dean Regier:So I did look at the data this morning because I thought that might come up in terms of my own questions that I had. I couldn't find it, but what we did see is that some patients went on to clinical trials. So, meaning that this multigene panel testing allowed, as you would hope in a learning healthcare system, patients to move on to clinical trials to have a better chance at more appropriate care if a target therapy was available. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:And the other question in that context, which is not necessarily related to the gene platform, but more on the variant allele frequency, so if you had a multigene panel that captured something that was present at a high VAF, with suspicion that this could be germline, did you have any of those patients? I'm guessing if you did, probably very low number, but I'm just thinking from a cost-effective standpoint, if you identify somebody with germline, their, you know, first-degree relative gets tested, that ends up, you know, prevention, etc. rather than somebody actually developing cancer subsequently. That's a lot of financial gains to the system if you capture something early. So did you look at that or maybe you're planning to look at that? Dr. Dean Regier:We did not look at that, but that is a really important question that typically goes unanswered in economic evaluations. And so, the short answer is yes, that result, if there was a germline finding, would be returned to the patient, and then the family would be able to be eligible for screening in the appropriate context. What we have found in economic evaluations, and we've recently published this research, is that that scope of analysis is rarely incorporated into the economic evaluation. So those downstream costs and those downstream benefits are ignored. And when you- especially also when you think about things like secondary or incidental findings, right? So it could be a germline finding for cancer, but what about all those other findings that we might have if you go with an exome or if you go with a genome, which by the way, we do have in British Columbia—we do whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing through something called the Personalized OncoGenomics program. That scope of evaluation, because it's very hard to get the right types of data, because it requires a decision model over the lifetime of both the patients and potentially their family, it becomes very complicated or complex to model over patients' and families' lifetime. That doesn't mean that we should not do it, however. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So, in summary Dean, could you summarize some of the known and unknowns of what you learned and what you're planning in subsequent steps to this project? Dr. Dean Regier:Our North Star, if you will, is to really understand the entire system effect of next-generation sequencing panels, exome sequencing, whole genomes, or whole genomes and transcriptome analysis, which we think should be the future of precision oncology. The next steps in our research is to provide a nice base around multigene panels in terms of multigene versus single-gene testing, whether that be colorectal cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, etc., and to map out the entire system implications of implementing next-generation sequencing panels. And then we want to answer the questions around, “Well, what if we do exomes for all patients? What if we do whole genomes and transcriptomes for all patients? What are the comparative outcomes for a true tumor-agnostic precision oncology approach, accounting for, as you say, things like return of results with respect to hereditary cancers?” I think the challenge that's going to be encountered is really around the persistent high costs of something like a whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing approach. Although we do see the technology prices going down—the "$1,000 genome" or “$6,000 genome" on whatever Illumina machine you might have—that bioinformatics is continuing to be expensive. And so, there are pipelines that are automated, of course, and you can create a targeted gene report really rapidly within a reasonable turnaround time. But of course, for secondary or what I call level two analysis, that bioinformatics is going to continue to be expensive. And so, we're just continually asking that question is: In our healthcare system and in other healthcare systems, if you want to take a precision oncology approach, how do you create the pipelines? And what types of technologies really lend themselves to benefits over and above next-generation sequencing or multigene panels, allowing for access to off-label therapies? What does that look like? Does that actually improve patients? I think some of the challenges, of course, is because of heterogeneity, small benefiting populations, finding a signal if a signal is indeed there is really challenging. And so, what we are thinking through is, with respect to real-world evidence methods and emulating randomized controlled trials, what types of evidence methods actually allow us to find those signals if indeed those signals are there in the context of small benefiting populations? Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you so much, Dean. Sounds like a very exciting field, especially in the current day and age where cost-effectiveness, financial toxicity is an important aspect of how we improve upon what is existing in oncology. And then lots more to be explored, as you mentioned. The last minute and a half I want to ask about you as an individual, as a researcher. There's very few people who have expertise in oncology, biomarkers, and health economics. So could you tell us for the sake of our trainees and early career physicians who might be listening, what was your trajectory briefly? How did you end up doing what you're doing? And maybe some advice for people who are interested in the cost of care, the cost of oncology drugs - what would your advice be for them very briefly? Dr. Dean Regier:Sure. So I'm an economist by training, and indeed I knew very little about the healthcare system and how it works. But I was recruited at one point to BC Cancer, to British Columbia, to really try to understand some of those questions around costs, and then I learned also around cost-effectiveness. And so, I did training in Scotland to understand patient preferences and patient values around quality of care, not just quantity of life, but also their quality of life and how that care was provided to them. And then after that, I was at Oxford University at the Nuffield Department of Population Health to understand how that can be incorporated into randomized control trials in children. And so, I did a little bit of learning about RCTs. Of course, during the way I picked up some epidemiology with deep understanding of what I call econometrics, what others might call biostatistics or just statistics. And from there, it was about working with clinicians, working with epidemiologists, working with clinical trialists, working with economists to understand the different approaches or ways of thinking of how to estimate efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. I think this is really important to think through is that we have clinical trialists, we have people with deep understanding of biostatistics, we have genome scientists, we have clinicians, and then you add economists into the mix. What I've really benefited from is that interdisciplinary experience, meaning that when I talk to some of the world's leading genome scientists, I understand where they're coming from, what their hope and vision is. And they start to understand where I'm coming from and some of the tools that I use to understand comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. And then we work together to actually change our methods in order to answer those questions that we're passionate about and curious about better for the benefit of patients. So, the short answer is it's been actually quite a trajectory between Canada, the UK. I spent some time at the University of Washington looking at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center, looking at precision oncology. And along the way, it's been an experience about interdisciplinary research approaches to evaluating comparative outcomes. And also really thinking through not just at one point in time on-off decisions—is this effective? Is it safe? Is it cost-effective?—not those on-off decisions, but those decisions across the lifecycle of a health product. What do those look like at each point in time? Because we gain new evidence, new information at each point in time as patients have more and more experience around it. And so what really is kind of driving our research is really thinking about interdisciplinary approaches to lifecycle evaluation of promising new drugs with the goal of having these promising technologies to patients sooner in a way that is sustainable for the healthcare system. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Awesome. Thank you so much for those insights and also giving us a sneak peek of your very successful career. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. 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 ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. Thank you. 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.      

Cease fires on both business and war fronts are the focus of this month's European polyethylene (PE) & polypropylene (PP) podcast, from the US and China de-escalating their eye-watering tariffs battle for 90 days, to the India-Pakistan ceasefire.Senior editors Vicky Ellis and Ben Lake look at May's price trends, how US-China trade relations are influencing sentiment in Europe, and are joined by senior editor Nadim Salamoun to discuss Trump's announcement regarding lifting sanctions on Syria, and how Pakistan's market responded to its ceasefire with India.They also highlight ICIS coverage from the latest Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) in Thailand, including how petrochemical demand may ramp up as US lifts Syrian sanctions, how South Korea is mulling petchem rationalization, and another ICIS podcast on Asian C2 players' survival strategies.

BANGKOK (ICIS) -- Northeast Asia ethylene and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) markets have seen a slower-than-expected tempo of spot talks for June cargoes, with the main driver of uncertainty being unclear start up timelines from new ethylene derivative expansions, particularly from Chinese PVC. Around 1.5million tonnes/year new PVC supply may face start-up postponements Import discussions on ethylene slow pending clearer demand picture  PVC demand clouded by India-Pakistan tensions amid pre-monsoon season In this chemical podcast, ICIS editors Jonathan Chou and Josh Quah discuss their findings from the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) 2025, held in Bangkok, Thailand.

BANGKOK (ICIS)--Over the past week, Asia ethylene players arrived in Bangkok, Thailand, to reflect on the industry's drift towards oversupply, and probe opportunities for continued survival as supply-demand balance changes enter the horizon.  Feedstock cost competitiveness, ethane conversion considerations still on the table Consolidation a complex question, but looking more necessary for survival  SE Asia's new supply may cause supply-demand balance changes for Indonesia In this chemical podcast, ICIS editor Josh Quah discusses some insights gleaned from the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) 2025, held in Bangkok, Thailand.

Last week I moderated the Truth in Beauty Panel, Surfactants Edition, at the 15th ICIS World Surfactants Conference, brought to you by the Independent Beauty Association. This episode features that conversation! How has misinformation impacted the surfactants sector? Disclaimer - surfactants are chemicals that are fundamental for much of what we have become accustomed to societally, from transportation to infrastructure and more. In cosmetics, they enable many of the different product formats, such as lotions and cleansing products. The panel included Dennis Abbeduto from Colonial Chemical, Claire Mcgahan from Stepan Company and Women in Chemicals, and Neil Burns, who put on the conference with ICIS. Big thank you to Colonial Chemical for sponsoring IBA to help make this conversation happen! Disclaimer, we had some recording challenges at the conference so this was a re-record - for those in attendance, worth a second listen since we covered a bit more! Interested in supporting the podcast? Please share, subscribe and write a review! If it's accessible, we also have a Patreon which you can find at patreon.com/theecowell

In 2010, the Association for Information Systems formed a special interest group () to nurture an international community of academics that study the role of digital technologies in fostering environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development. Fifteen years later, we sit down with , the current SIGGreen president, to reflect on the progress we have made. What do we know about how digital technologies help greening our planet? What efforts in empirical, theoretical, and design work is still needed? Is our role to understand the role of digital technologies or do we need to push and enact change ourselves? We conclude that environmental questions and problems are now firmly on the radar screen of our discipline but more work needs to be done for information systems academics to transform the way we think about and use digital technologies.  Episode reading list Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG Battle in Cities: How an Integrated Information Ecosystem can Contribute to the Achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427-461. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299. Hasan, H., Ghose, A., & Spedding, T. (2009). Editorial for the Special Issue on IT and Climate Change. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 19-21. Watson, R. T., Corbett, J., Boudreau, M.-C., & Webster, J. (2011). An Information Strategy for Environmental Sustainability. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 28-30. Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An Agenda for 'Green' Information Technology and Systems Research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17-40. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework for IT-Enabled Business Transformation. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 197-236. Kahlen, M., Ketter, W., & van Dalen, J. (2018). Electric Vehicle Virtual Power Plant Dilemma: Grid Balancing Versus Customer Mobility. Production and Operations Management, 27(11), 2054-2070. Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2016). Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(8), 521-536. Corbett, J., & El Idrissi, S. C. (2022). Persuasion, Information Technology, and the Environmental Citizen: An Empirical Study of the Persuasion Effectiveness of City Applications. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101757. Degirmenci, K., & Recker, J. (2023). Breaking Bad Habits: A Field Experiment About How Routinized Work Practices Can Be Made More Eco-efficient Through IS for Sensemaking. Information & Management, 60(4), 103778. Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising Information Systems Scholarship For a Circular Economy: Review, Synthesis, and Directions For Future Research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148-183. Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (2025). Values. . The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. Hovorka, D. and Corbett, J. (2012) IS Sustainability Research: A trans-disciplinary framework for a ‘grand challenge”. 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. Hovorka, D. S., & Peter, S. (2021). Speculatively Engaging Future(s): Four Theses. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 461-466. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), . Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital Sustainability in Information Systems Research: Conceptual Foundations and Future Directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936-952. Gray, P., Lyytinen, K., Saunders, C., Willcocks, L. P., Watson, R. T., & Zwass, V. (2006). How Shall We Manage Our Journals in the Future?  A Discussion of Richard T. Watson's Proposals at ICIS 2004. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(14), 2-41. Saldanha, T. J. V., Mithas, S., Khuntia, J., Whitaker, J., & Melville, N. P. (2022). How Green Information Technology Standards and Strategies Influence Performance: Role of Environment, Cost, and Dual Focus. MIS Quarterly, 46(4), 2367-2386. Leidner, D. E., Sutanto, J., & Goutas, L. (2022). Multifarious Roles and Conflicts on an Inter-Organizational Green IS. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 591-608. Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of Sustainable Technologies: A Mixed-Methods Study of German Households. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673-691. Melville, N. P. (2010). Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1-21. Edwards, P. N. (2013). A Vast Machine. MIT Press. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. Over the Hedge. (2006). . McPhearson, T., Raymond, C. M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fagerholm, N., Nagatsu, M., Olafsson, A. S., Niko, S., & Vierikko, K. (2021). Radical Changes are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1(5), .   

From Trump's tough tariffs talk to pivotal recycling legislation, ICIS senior analysts and editors pick their top themes from the 11th ICIS World Polyolefins Conference in Cologne.Joining senior editor manager Vicky Ellis on the podcast are senior editor Ben Lake, senior analyst for PE Lorenzo Meazza, ICIS consultant Les Bottomley, senior recycling analyst Egor Dementev and senior analyst Alex Tomczyk.They discuss highlights from the conference, including examples of tariffs from US' history, how Europe's market views the tariffs headache, one speaker's view that AI could be “better at purchasing chemicals” than human buyers, and how polyolefins must get their head out of the sand on Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) rules or lose to other packaging.

Tariffs are shaking up the global chemical industry this year, creating uncertainty and shifting longstanding trade routes in unexpected ways. Victoria Meyer is joined by Joseph Chang and Al Greenwood of ICIS Chemical Business to break down the latest round of tariffs, including the dramatic 145% rate on Chinese imports and the sweeping, if temporary, 10% baseline affecting nearly every other country. They analyze how chemical markets from the US to Europe and Asia are being impacted, exploring falling product prices, disrupted supply chains, and the broader economic pressures facing manufacturers and end users alike.  With insights into policy-driven chaos, shifting sourcing strategies, and the growing ripple effects on sectors like housing and automotive, this episode highlights why strategic scenario planning, supply chain transparency, and adaptability are more critical than ever for chemical leaders.  Get ready for an in-depth look at these topics this week: Exploring the 2025 tariff policies and how they are reshaping chemical trade flows The economic ripple effects of the tariff policies Supply chain resilience and why chemical companies must map their entire supply chains Energy market dynamics: what is benefitting US chemical producers and what are the challenges Strategic planning in uncertainty and navigating the 90-day tariff pause Killer Quote: "Look at your supply chains. Which products are you getting from Vietnam? Which products are you getting from lower tariff countries? And see where is the most advantageous supplier with the tariffs, and also look at product substitution... You have to be cognizant, not just of your supplies, but also your products. Which products could be affected by influx of displaced shipments?" - Al Greenwood  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Sponsored by:Canadian Petrochemical Summit: https://www.cdnpetrochemcialsummit.ca Join chemical industry leaders, innovators, and experts at the Canadian Petrochemical Summit—the premier event for advancing the future of Canada's petrochemical sector. Set in the Canadian Rocky Mountains from June 17-19 this event will help you stay ahead of the curve. See you in the Rockies.

In this podcast, ICIS analyst Jasmine Khoo and Mason Liang talk about the current situation and outlook for the methyl methacrylate (MMA) market.

Asia propylene (C3) market is likely to see tighter short-term supply as China propane dehydrogenation (PDH) producers are now faced with surging propane import costs due to the US-China tariff hikes. While downstream demand and end-user consumption could be negatively impacted on tariff barriers. In this chemical podcast, ICIS senior analyst Joey Zhou and analyst Seymour Chenxia discuss what changes Asian C3 market is going to embrace in the US tariff upheaval. And the topics will be focusing on: 1.     Asia propylene price trends and forecasts2.     China PDH run rate could fall below 60％ on surging costs3.     Run rate for other production routes likely to rise4.     Tariff impact to C3 derivatives and end-user consumption 

SINGAPORE (ICIS)—With the implementation of import tariffs by the US, aromatics trade flow from Asia might see a shift, especially on the back of disparities in tariff rates on different countries. High volumes exported in Jan-Feb, slowdown from Mar onwards South Korea, possibly affected, as one of the major exports of aromatics to the US Global macroeconomic growth to witness a slowdown amid trade war In this chemical podcast, ICIS market specialist Samuel Wong discusses the potential impact of US tariffs on the Asian aromatics markets.

Chemical companies all over the world will suffer if the new US tariffs trigger a full-blown trade war.-          Tariffs will be bad news for the US and for the global economy-          Europe polymers producers might get short-term relief if EU imposes tariffs on US polyethylene (PE)-          US tariffs means China may now target other countries-          Chemical industry will become more regional-          If US becomes more isolated China could move closer to Europe, form new trading bloc-          Europe's chemical industry has its back against the wall-          3.4% of European chemicals capacity has shut down -          EU attitude to energy pricing has reversed – they now want to reduce them-          Chemical industry now has unprecedented access to high level Commissioners-          Energy demand will soar – AI will use as much as chemicals-          Electricity production needs to double to full electrify chemicals, other sectors-          Survival of EU as a free trade zone is important-          Chemicals CEOs can seize an opportunity if competitors closeIn this Think Tank podcast, ICIS journalist Will Beacham interviews Cefic director general Marco Mensink, John Richardson from the ICIS market development team and Paul Hodges, chairman of New Normal Consulting.

Join the ICIS content team to hear about some of the key discussions had at Plastics Recycling Show Europe on 1-2 April in Amsterdam. Topics include: Impact of high feedstocks on recyclers' margins Impact of legislation across recycled polymers markets Updates on chemical recycling  Brands' positions on recycled content US tariffs - how will they impact Europe's recycled polymers markets?  If you are interested in taking part in the Regulation Test and Learn mentioned by Alexandra during the podcast, please click here to register your interest and arrange an introduction and overview of the program. 

SINGAPORE (ICIS) -- India's PVC demand is expected to strengthen in the short term, driven by agricultural sector demand and restocking, but ample supply and policy uncertainties may weigh on market sentiment. Weak demand, high inventories pressure prices to multi-year lows ADD final findings delayed; uncertainty around implementation persists Oversupply concerns rise with new capacities, trade barriers in focus In this chemical podcast, ICIS market specialist Aswin Kondapally discusses recent market conditions, along with the near-term outlook.

Fresh from the European Coatings Show 2025 in Nuremberg, Germany, ICIS looks over the key talking points and challenges facing the key sectors.The main challenges are the ongoing sluggish demand, coupled with the wider geopolitical volatility and economic headwinds.Attending ECS '25 for ICIS and speaking on this podcast are: Mathew Jolin-Beech on acrylic acid (AA), acrylate esters, and methyl methacrylate (MMA) Jane Gibson on phenol, acetone, and refinery solvents Nick Cleeve on isopropanol (IPA), Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM), Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) Heidi Finch on TIO2 and epoxy resins

The new European Commission talks the talk on rescuing chemicals but has not yet turned words into action as deindustrialisation gathers pace.-          Change of tone from new Commission-          New strategic dialogue with chemicals on competitiveness-          Well intentioned, but not enough detail on action plan-          Conflict between competitiveness and Green Deal objectives -          Watering down or delaying existing legislation moves the goalposts, adds legal uncertainty-          US has a patchwork of state-level and federal regulation-          EU-US regulatory alignment is moving towards divergenceThis podcast was recorded on 26 March. ICIS journalist Will Beacham interviews Thomas Delille and Peter Sellar of UK-US based law firm Squire Patton Boggs.

European propylene oxide (PO) and styrene monomer (SM) will remain oversupplied following the closure of LyondellBasell and Covestro's flagship complex in the Netherlands, but the erosion of local capacity is leaving markets increasingly fragile.  In this podcast, ICIS Insight editor Tom Brown speaks to Nicole Simpson, ICIS markets editor for PO, and Fergus Jensen, senior editor for styrene, about the likely fallout from the planned shutdown. Europe PO market chronically oversupplied, operating rates remain low Further shutdowns needed for PO market to come back into balance LyondellBasell may be able to meet demand from Europe, US plants Styrene market also looks to more shutdowns, but closure further reduces Europe capacity Domestic market increasingly dependent on imports, making the market increasingly fragile Shipping delays and plant outages having a more dramatic impact Still over 700,000 tonnes excess capacity in Europe PO market PO remains difficult to transport, infrastructure limited to allow imports to Europe Players starting to invest in import facilities, but remain in early stages POSM capacity continues to exceed demand, but PO a more of a driver than styrene Three other POSM units remain in Europe

In episode 2 of our new Sustainably Speaking podcast, ICIS' Senior Executive, Business Solutions Group John Richardson is joined by Mark Victory, Senior Editor for Recycling, Europe, and Helen McGeough, Global Analyst Team Lead for Plastic Recycling at ICIS to talk about the importance of investment in Europe's recycling industry. Topics covered in this episode include:  Need for improvement in collection and sorting capacity Importance of high quality waste to allow chemical recycling scale up Investment needed to address Europe's structural shortages of recycled material  Imbalance between EU Member States for infrastructure investment The financial and economic cost of not investing in, and dealing with EU waste

The chemicals sector M&A market could see the start of a revival this year, with private equity firms and other strategic investors keen to put war chests of capital to work in a muted growth environment, but political and economic factors remain a concern.In this podcast, ICIS insight editor Tom Brown speaks to Federico Mennella, managing director for industrials at investment bank DC Advisory, about the economic outlook and shifting trends in global chemicals dealflow. Rebound still expected but timing has been pushed back towards the end of the year on trade uncertainty, energy pricing and economic stability Strategic investors have war chests of cash and are looking to M&A in difficult organic growth environment Interest strong for North America chemical sector opportunities due to competitive energy pricing Questions over whether a financial investor could do something with Europe assets that the current owner cannot Private equity continues to drive M&A Increasing trend for bids for assets not in play More flexibility in transactions, with investors taking certain assets out of a wider package Global M&A activity has remained below pre-pandemic levels in size and volume Slight rebound occurring, multiples slightly lower Financing costs remain elevated compared to pre-COVID era Disconnect between buyers and sellers on valuations narrowing

SINGAPORE (ICIS)-- Asia and Mideast isocyanates prices climbed rapidly immediately after the Lunar New Year holiday, followed by sharp corrections in mid to end-February. Ample supply has weighed on overall sentiment, and limited recovery in demand is expected for the rest of March.  Asia MDI, TDI prices fall after Lunar New Year holiday  Ample Asian supply to keep buyers in China, SE Asia cautious  Post-Ramadan recovery in Middle East to be capped by sufficient availability In this podcast, ICIS markets editor Shannen Ng and markets reporter Isaac Tan discuss market conditions and expectations for the near future.

SINGAPORE (ICIS)--The northeast Asian propylene import markets have been weighed down by lengthening supply amid restarts at propane dehydrogenation (PDH) units. However, lower affordability levels from derivatives such as propylene oxide (PO) have also curbed import demand.  NE Asia propylene prices cool on weaker demand amid lower affordability levels Oversupply a central issue in northeast Asia for PO makers  Tight SE Asia propylene supply likely to continue amid shutdowns In this latest podcast, ICIS senior editor Julia Tan speaks with markets editor Shannen Ng to discuss market conditions and expectations for the near future.

BARCELONA (ICIS)--The European Commission's Clean Industrial Deal may not be radical enough to reverse the decline of Europe's petrochemical industry. Member states urged to lower energy bills by cutting taxes to legal minimums Improve infrastructure and connections to ease flow of renewable electricity €100 billion to support EU-made clean manufacturing, but questions over how chemicals can access the money Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for energy-intensive industries to partner with renewable energy providers More measures against unfair foreign competition Measures to boost circular economy and recycling But nothing game-changing or radical enough  In this Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews ICIS senior energy reporter Gretchen Ransow, ICIS chief news correspondent for Europe, Tom Brown and Nigel Davis from the ICIS market development team.

Explore the intersection of performance and sustainability in the cleaning industry, as Victoria Meyer delves into the insights and innovations shared at the 2025 American Cleaning Institute (ACI) annual meeting. Joined by industry experts Jim Griffin from SCT and Ned Weintraub from Noble AI, this episode emphasizes the cautious optimism prevailing in the industry, driven by a renewed focus on smarter supply chains and the practical application of sustainability. Discover how the industry is navigating the decade of supply chain challenges and shifting trends towards consumer value-driven sustainability with a "small s." Key takeaways from the convention emphasize a balance between innovation and market readiness, highlighted by advances in AI and the quest for multifunctional, sustainable ingredients. Victoria, Jim, and Ned discuss the delicate process of aligning corporate capabilities with consumer expectations while addressing regulatory hurdles and the industry's ongoing journey towards water conservation and innovative, eco-friendly practices. Dive into these transformative trends and prepare your business for the path ahead with insights from The Chemical Show's latest episode. Learn more about the following topics this week: The cautious optimism of 2025: chemical industry pulse at ACI The 5 trends shaping cleaning and chemical industries in 2025 Innovations driven by consumer archetypes and their needs like water protection, reduced waste, and performance The future of cleaning: water-free formulations with Jim Griffin of SCT AI's role in chemical innovation with Ned Weintraub of NobleAI Killer Quote: "The theme that came through is sustainability is great, but the products in use really need to perform. It's not enough that there's a green label, it's that it needs to perform and meet what customers want." --Victoria Meyer  Other links:   Register for The 40th World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global this March 17 – 21 in Houston, Texas. The Chemical Show audience receives a special discount of 5%. Register today using code WPC2025ChemShow5%. Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors:The World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global brings together people across the chemical industry - from executives to strategists and business analysts to petrochemical experts.  WPC provides unmatched market intelligence and insights to unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary! >>>>VISIT THEIR WEBSITE TO REGISTER AND USE THE CODE WPC2025ChemShow5% for 5% discount off conference fees.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 30th, Women in Chemicals started off the new year with a chemical markets outlook! Watch this recorded presentation on the current state of the chemical industry from the team at ICIS (Independent Commodity Intelligence Services), State of the Industry with ICIS, to get insights on the economic outlook, sustainability & circularity initiatives & trends, supply/demand imbalances, and other major supply chain trends for 2025. Panelists included: Kevin Swift - Senior Economist, Global ChemicalsAlex Lidback - Vice President, Head of Chemical AnalyticsCorbin Olson - Senior Analyst/Researcher, Plastics RecyclingJoshua Dill - Analyst, Plastics RecyclingThis event was sponsored by Chemformation.Click HERE to download the slides from this event.

Navigating the shifting landscape of the chemical industry and the global economic climate, Tony Potter and Kurt Barrow from S&P Global join host Victoria Meyer to offer a comprehensive market update for 2025. They delve into the global supply and demand dynamics of feedstocks like oil and NGLs and unpack the impact of geopolitical changes, including the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency. Touching on the Chinese market's massive capacity expansions and the European chemical industry's crossroads, this episode provides an insightful analysis of how market forces are reshaping the industry. Victoria, Tony, and Kurt explore critical topics such as decarbonization and sustainability, emphasizing the ongoing challenges and advancements in circularity, advanced recycling, and the integration of green technologies. They also discuss strategic responses to global market imbalances and the significance of staying prepared for future investments.   Learn more about the following topics this week: Navigating the chemical industry's perfect storm: massive overcapacity in China, European plants at a breaking point, and North American resilience The tension between sustainability goals and market reality. Changes in leadership and trade policies are reshaping the industry and what smart companies are doing to prepare. Who's actually paying for sustainability initiatives? Looking at Europe's aging chemical infrastructure and how some 50-year-old plants may get a new lease on life due to carbon border adjustments Why industry veterans advise looking past current market conditions and political uncertainties to prepare for growth in the 2030s  "Downturns are just good for pruning... it is the opportunity to make your organization a little bit leaner. We all need to shed costs, but becoming lean is also about becoming fit for future growth. The industry does need to invest to grow... it doesn't matter who the President of the United States is. You're going to build a refinery, an energy plant, or whatever to last 40 years, maybe 50 years. It's going to see a few presidents." - Tony Potter, S&P Global  Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  Thank you to our sponsors:The World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global brings together people across the chemical industry - from executives to strategists and business analysts to petrochemical experts.  WPC provides unmatched market intelligence and insights to unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary! >>>>VISIT THEIR WEBSITE TO REGISTER AND USE THE CODE WPC2025ChemShow5% for 5% discount off conference fees.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this episode of the Women in Data podcast hosted by Cecilia, Manca Vitorino shares her journey from journalism to a data leadership role at ICIS, part of LexisNexis. Initially a markets reporter, Manca's exposure to data-driven journalism led her to identify automation and data visualization opportunities, sparking her transition into data.   She discusses how skills from journalism—investigating, verifying, and storytelling with data—are directly transferable to data analysis. Manca emphasizes the importance of solving problems and articulating solutions for career growth, rather than just seeking out job titles. She also highlights the growing need for data literacy across all industries.   Reflecting on her own experience, Manca talks about the challenges of moving into a technical role, managing imposter syndrome, and leveraging her communication skills to excel. This inspiring episode encourages listeners to explore how their existing skills can open doors to data-driven careers.

The rapid rise of data centers has put many power industry demand forecasters on edge. Some predict the power-hungry nature of the facilities will quickly create problems for utilities and the grid. ICIS, a data analytics provider, calculates that in 2024, demand from data centers in Europe accounted for 96 TWh, or 3.1% of total power demand. “Now, you could say it's not a lot—3%—it's just a marginal size, but I'm going to spice it up a bit with two additional layers,” Matteo Mazzoni, director of Energy Analytics at ICIS, said as a guest on The POWER Podcast. “One is: that power demand is very consolidated in just a small subset of countries. So, five countries account of over 60% of that European power demand. And within those five countries, which are the usual suspects in terms of Germany, France, the UK, Ireland, and Netherlands, half of that consumption is located in the FLAP-D market, which sounds like a fancy new coffee, but in reality is just five big cities: Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin.” Predicting where and how data center demand will grow in the future is challenging, however, especially when looking out more than a few years. “What we've tried to do with our research is to divide it into two main time frames,” Mazzoni explained. “The next three to five years, where we see our forecast being relatively accurate because we looked at the development of new data centers, where they are being built, and all the information that are currently available. And, then, what might happen past 2030, which is a little bit more uncertain given how fast technology is developing and all that is happening on the AI [artificial intelligence] front.” Based on its research, ICIS expects European data center power demand to grow 75% by 2030, to 168 TWh. “It's going to be a lot of the same,” Mazzoni predicted. “So, those big centers—those big cities—are still set to attract most of the additional data center consumption, but we see the emergence of also new interesting markets, like the Nordics and to a certain extent also southern Europe with Iberia [especially Spain] being an interesting market.” Yet, there is still a fair amount of uncertainty around demand projections. Advances in liquid cooling methods will likely reduce data center power usage. That's because liquid cooling offers more efficient heat dissipation, which translates directly into lower electricity consumption. Additionally, there are opportunities for further improvement in power usage effectiveness (PUE), which is a widely used data center energy efficiency metric. At the global level, the average PUE has decreased from 2.5 in 2007 to a current average of 1.56, according to the ICIS report. However, new facilities consistently achieve a PUE of 1.3 and sometimes much better. Google, which has many state-of-the-art and highly efficient data centers, reported a global average PUE of 1.09 for its facilities over the last year. Said Mazzoni, “An expert in the field told us when we were doing our research, when tech moves out of the equation and you have energy engineers stepping in, you start to see that a lot of efficiency improvements will come, and demand will inevitably fall.” Thus, data center load growth projections should be taken with a grain of salt. “The forecast that we have beyond 2030 will need to be revised,” Mazzoni predicted. “If we look at the history of the past 20 years—all analysts and all forecasts around load growth—they all overshoot what eventually happened. The first time it happened when the internet arrived—there was obviously great expectations—and then EVs, electric vehicles, and then heat pumps. But if we look at, for example, last year—2024—European power demand was up by 1.3%, U.S. power demand was up by 1.8%, and probably weather was the main driver behind that growth.”

When a cyberattack hits, can your company quickly identify if it's mechanical mishap or malicious intervention? Join Victoria Meyer as she sits down with Robert Lee, CEO of renowned cybersecurity firm Dragos, to delve into the critical distinctions between IT (Information Technology) and OT (Operational Technology) cybersecurity. From safeguarding chemical facilities and power grids to the financial and national security risks tied to under-resourced OT security, Rob provides invaluable insights into the world of protective digital networks. Rob shares his journey from the U.S. Air Force to establishing Dragos, including the pivotal moments and ethical stands that led him away from offensive cyber operations. Emphasizing the importance of scenario-based planning and risk assessment, this episode explores how companies can better prepare for potential cyber threats and the rising expectations from regulatory bodies.  Join us to learn more about these topics this week: Origin story of Rob Lee: US Airforce to National Security Agency to CEO of Dragos Cybersecurity: Information Technology (IT) versus Operation Technology (OT)  Advising boardrooms about cyber security risks: Scenario-based approach in cybersecurity The role of executives and boards in cybersecurity Leadership as a young CEO  "Most governments, most board of directors, most business leaders are surprised to find that 95%, not a made-up statistic, about 95 percent of all the budget to cybersecurity efforts is going to the IT side of the house, not the OT side of the house. But you generate all your revenue and have all your safety impact and your business impact and national security impact on the other side of the house." - Robert Lee, CEO of Dragos   Other links:  Ep 34 Taking on 2021: Navigating a Cyber Attack, Acquisitions and More with Brad Beauchamp Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

Navigating the complex regulatory landscape between China and the U.S., Peter Huntsman, CEO of Huntsman Corporation, sheds light on the critical challenges and opportunities within the global chemical industry. Host Victoria Meyer sits down with Peter to discuss the fast-paced approval processes in China compared to the stringent regulations in the U.S., the long-term perspective needed for investments in this industry, and the impact of public detachment from the industrial origins of chemical products. Peter also delves into the intricacies of operating in the European market, influenced by anti-manufacturing policies and geopolitical tensions, and discusses the necessary transformation strategies Huntsman Corporation has adopted over the past two decades. From the Huntsman family legacy to the pivotal role of smart carbon utilization, this episode uncovers the resilience and adaptability required to thrive in the ever-evolving chemical industry. Join us to learn more about these topics this week: Origin of Huntsman: From selling clam shell containers to supplying airplanes with materials The role of chemicals in the energy transition Regulatory challenges: chemical innovation approval delays Administration uncertainty, regulatory risk, and public perception of the chemical industry European regulation and impact Business Transformation: growing, selling, and changing businesses and aligning your organization Characteristics attributed to successful leadership  Killer Quote: "Transformation isn't just a strategy; it's a necessity. The decisions we make today, in an ever-evolving regulatory landscape, will resonate for decades. It's not about chasing carbon neutrality—it's about being smart with carbon utilization and continually innovating for a smarter, more sustainable future."   — Peter Huntsman, CEO of Huntsman Corporation  Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player. ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review.***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

In this episode we're diving deep into the fascinating world of carbon recycling with a trailblazer who's reshaping how we think about waste and sustainability. Our guest is Dr. Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech—a company on a mission to transform our biggest environmental challenge into an economic opportunity. LanzaTech is pioneering a process that takes industrial emissions—the kind of harmful gases that typically contribute to climate change—and recycles them into valuable products like fuels, fabrics, and everyday consumer goods. The concept might sound like science fiction, but it's already science fact. LanzaTech's technology captures carbon emissions from sources like steel mills, refineries, and even municipal solid waste, then feeds those emissions to specially engineered microbes. These microbes act like tiny factories, converting carbon pollution into useful materials. Imagine jet fuel made from industrial waste or yoga pants created from captured carbon—it's not just possible; it's happening. In fact, at the very end of 2024, LanzaTech received a holiday gift from the federal government: a $200 million award from the Dept. of Energy. In this episode, Jennifer and I discuss the path LanzaTech took, including raising $400 million and taking 13 years prior to commercializing its first product. We also touch on her personal journey from her birth in Colombia to her taking the helm at LanzaTech. As you'll hear, this isn't just about reducing emissions; it's about completely rethinking the role of waste in our economy. LanzaTech's vision is one where carbon is no longer a liability but an asset—a resource that can be reused and recycled, over and over again. It's a powerful example of how businesses can align profitability with purpose, and it's precisely the kind of story that inspires hope in these challenging times. So, whether you're an entrepreneur, an environmentalist, or just someone curious about the future of our planet, this is a conversation you won't want to miss.  Discussed in this episode Jennifer recommends reading Quiet by Susan Cain. LanzaTech awarded up to $200 million in federal cash from the DOE LanzaTech is backed by Khosla Ventures. More about Jennifer Holmgren, PhD Dr. Jennifer Holmgren is CEO of LanzaTech. Under her guidance, LanzaTech is developing a variety of platform chemicals and fuels, including the world's first alternative jet fuel derived from industrial waste gases. Given her integral role in the development of this alternative jet fuel, she is also a Director and the Chair of the LanzaJet Board of Directors.  Prior to LanzaTech, Jennifer was VP and General Manager of the Renewable Energy and Chemicals business unit at UOP LLC, a Honeywell Company. While at UOP, she was a key driver of UOP's leadership in low carbon aviation biofuels, and under her management, UOP technology became instrumental in producing nearly all the initial fuels used by commercial airlines and the military for testing and certification of alternative aviation fuel. Jennifer is the author or co-author of 50 U.S. patents and more than 30 scientific publications, and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. In 2003, she was the first woman awarded the Malcolm E. Pruitt Award from the Council for Chemical Research (CCR). In 2010, she was the recipient of the Leadership Award from the Civil Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). In 2015, Jennifer and her team at LanzaTech were awarded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presidential Green Chemistry Award, and she was awarded the BIO Rosalind Franklin Award for Leadership in Industrial Biotechnology. Jennifer was named as #1 of the 100 most influential leaders in the Bioeconomy in 2017 and received the Global Bioenergy Leadership Award in 2018, and the 2020 William C. Holmberg Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Advanced Bioeconomy. In 2021, she received the Edison Achievement Award and the Prix Voltaire Award. In 2022, she was included in ICIS's Top 40 Power Players ranking. Jennifer also has an honorary doctorate from Delft University of Technology. Jennifer is on the Governing Council for the Bio Energy Research Institute in India. The institute was set up by the DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Indian Government) and IOC (Indian Oil Corporation).  She also sits on the Advisory Council for the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University, the National Academies' Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES), the External Advisory Committee for the Advanced Energy Technologies Directorate (AET) at Argonne National Laboratory, the Advisory Council for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), the Halliburton Labs Advisory Board, the Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS International Advisory Council, and the Founder Advisory for The Engine, a venture capital fund built by MIT that invests in early-stage science and engineering companies.  Jennifer holds a B.Sc. degree from Harvey Mudd College, a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MBA from the University of Chicago.

Discover how AI is becoming as essential as the internet or mobile phones in the chemical industry with guests Alan Spanos and Chad Macey from ICIS. Alan explains the vision of being a supportive sidekick to customers while discussing the main barriers to AI adoption, emphasizing the importance of trust and effective communication. Meanwhile, Chad highlights the significant role of AI tools in improving decision-making and productivity, and addresses the ethical considerations and potential risks associated with AI technology. Victoria Meyer and her guests delve into personal anecdotes illustrating the rapid evolution of technology, comparing past skepticism about the internet to current acceptance. The conversation progresses to the innovative AI applications at ICIS, such as the ASK ICIS tool, designed to save users time by providing focused, reliable answers from vast data sets. Highlighting transparency, customer support, and continuous innovation, the episode underscores the transformative potential of AI in the chemical industry, all while ensuring ethical usage and customer trust.  Learn more about the following topics this week: The role of technology in chemicals today AI adoption and barriers and the future of work Client engagement with AI and technology tools today Ask ICIS: how are clients are engaging and getting value from ICIS' gen AI tool Trust and transparency in AI: concerns about AI "hallucinations" and ensuring reliable outputs  Killer Quote: "The future of AI in business is not about replacing human expertise but augmenting it. It's about transforming mountains of data into actionable insights, empowering decision-makers to steer their companies towards smarter, faster, and more innovative paths." -- Alan Spanos  Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry Ask ICIS John Richardson Episode 179: How the Global Chemical Market is Shifting with John Richardson of ICIS John Richardson Episode 144: Petrochemicals in 2024: Capacity Overbuild and Codependent Markets with John Richardson of ICIS John Richardson Episode 102: China's Aging Demographics and the Future of the Chemical Industry with John Richardson John Richardson Episode 79: How The China Market Affects Chemical Prices With John Richardson John Richardson Episode 36: How China's Response To Chemicals Is Affecting the World With John Richardson of ICIS John Richardson Episode 22: Understanding Market Demand To Manage Your Business Amid Uncertainty With John Richardson Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

ICIS's Gemma Blundell-Doyle, Energy Market Reporter and Eloise Radley, Deputy Crude Oil Editor, sit down to discuss the main drivers that could influence the global crude oil market in Q1 2025, including OPEC+ supply cuts and Trump's second US presidency. 

Reflecting on the state of mergers and acquisitions in the chemicals and materials industries for 2024 and looking ahead to 2025, Kevin Yttre, President and Managing Director at Grace Matthews, joins host Victoria Meyer on The Chemical Show. Following recent supply chain disruptions and unpredictable business performance, Kevin shares his insights on the improved conditions that have led to increased deal activity and optimism for the future. Emphasizing the importance of steady-state performance for valuation, they discuss the evolving competitive landscape, including heightened interest from private equity and international firms. Victoria and Kevin discuss the increasing sophistication of M&A processes, underscoring the necessity for thorough due diligence and strategic preparation. They explore the ongoing interest from international companies, the influence of private equity in driving competition, and the external factors impacting market stability. Kevin also provides career advice on transitioning into investment banking, highlighting the pivotal role of an MBA and other pathways within the industry. This episode offers valuable insights into the current and future trends in the chemicals and materials sector's mergers and acquisitions landscape, setting the stage for what's to come in 2025.  Join us to learn more about the following topics this week: Observations and assessments on chemicals and materials M&A activity in 2024 Valuation trends in 2024: The current methodologies and commonly used markers for chemical businesses Analyzing the current competitive landscape through private equity activity and the availability of capital Critical factors in M&A in 2025 Leadership and career pathways in M&A  Killer Quote: "Predictability in company performance is key to easier valuation and transaction processes in M&A. Surprises are rarely welcome in this field—steady-state performance is what truly drives value." -- Kevin Yttre  Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry Ep 106: Insights to M&A in Chemical and Materials Industry with Kevin Yttre Grace Matthews Newsletter: Momentum Building into 2025: Strategies for M&A Success (Winter 2024)  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player. ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review.***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

This CEO Is Using Biology To Make The World Better – Dr. Jennifer Holmgren, CEO, LanzaTech $LNZA Name: Dr. Jennifer Holmgren Title: Chair and CEO of LanzaTech Global, Inc. Ticker: LNZA Website: https://lanzatech.com/ Bio: Dr. Jennifer Holmgren is CEO of LanzaTech. Under her guidance, LanzaTech is developing a variety of platform chemicals and fuels, including the world's first alternative jet fuel derived from industrial waste gases. Given her integral role in the development of this alternative jet fuel, she is also a Director and the Chair of the LanzaJet Board of Directors. Prior to LanzaTech, Jennifer was VP and General Manager of the Renewable Energy and Chemicals business unit at UOP LLC, a Honeywell Company. While at UOP, she was a key driver of UOP's leadership in low carbon aviation biofuels, and under her management, UOP technology became instrumental in producing nearly all the initial fuels used by commercial airlines and the military for testing and certification of alternative aviation fuel. Jennifer is the author or co-author of 50 U.S. patents and more than 30 scientific publications, and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. In 2003, she was the first woman awarded the Malcolm E. Pruitt Award from the Council for Chemical Research (CCR). In 2010, she was the recipient of the Leadership Award from the Civil Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). In 2015, Jennifer and her team at LanzaTech were awarded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presidential Green Chemistry Award, and she was awarded the BIO Rosalind Franklin Award for Leadership in Industrial Biotechnology. Jennifer was named as #1 of the 100 most influential leaders in the Bioeconomy in 2017 and received the Global Bioenergy Leadership Award in 2018, and the 2020 William C. Holmberg Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Advanced Bioeconomy. In 2021, she received the Edison Achievement Award and the Prix Voltaire Award. In 2022, she was included in ICIS's Top 40 Power Players ranking. Jennifer also has an honorary doctorate from Delft University of Technology. Jennifer is on the Governing Council for the Bio Energy Research Institute in India. The institute was set up by the DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Indian Government) and IOC (Indian Oil Corporation). She also sits on the Advisory Council for the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University, the National Academies' Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES), the External Advisory Committee for the Advanced Energy Technologies Directorate (AET) at Argonne National Laboratory, the Advisory Council for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), the Halliburton Labs Advisory Board, the Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS International Advisory Council, and the Founder Advisory for The Engine, a venture capital fund built by MIT that invests in early-stage science and engineering companies. Jennifer holds a B.Sc. degree from Harvey Mudd College, a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MBA from the University of Chicago.

Happy New Year! This week's episode will go over important details related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs), with general management strategies for each of the most common iRAEs.

Discover how microscopic quantities of ingredients can make a monumental difference in everyday products. Victoria Meyer talks with Greg Adamson, Senior VP at Givaudan, about the world of fragrances and flavors. Greg brings insights from his journey as a toxicologist, touching on his experiences in both biotech and the household and consumer products industry. They dive into Givaudan's crucial role in creating tastes and scents that are ever-present in our daily lives, and the complex regulations that ensure their safety and efficacy. Greg and Victoria explore the intricate dance between innovation and regulation. From influencing global chemical policies to ensuring that industry practices align with stringent safety standards, Greg discusses how Givaudan navigates these challenges. They also address the critical distinction between hazard and risk, and the pursuit of standardized regulations to simplify global operations. For those in the chemical industry or simply curious about the science behind everyday smells and tastes, this episode sheds light on the innovative and regulatory landscape of flavors and fragrances.  Join us to learn more about the following topics this week: Greg's career moves from Australian toxicologist to leading global regulatory Givaudan's presence in consumer products and the importance of HCPA Regulatory priorities and challenges: striving for national standardized regulations to increase innovation in chemicals The importance of educating regulators and stakeholders on hazards versus risks The importance of leading with passion   Killer Quote: " What I find amazing and actually just a great reflection of our industry is that we are in a global industry, and people are interested in listening and learning from each other in this global marketplace." —Victoria Meyer   Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube.  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player. ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review.***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

Wrap up the year with the best of The Chemical Show! Host Victoria Meyer reflects on 2024 by spotlighting the top five episodes, sharing fun facts about the global audience, and revealing the intriguing listening habits of chemical enthusiasts. From the impact of global markets and sustainability advancements to the significance of strategic timing and audience engagement, this episode offers a comprehensive review of the podcast's most compelling moments and influential guests. Uncover insights from industry leaders like John Richardson, Eric Appelman, and Garab Chakrabarti, while also exploring fascinating data about what makes The Chemical Show listeners unique. With highlights on market outlooks, timely news, and shared episodes, Victoria provides a captivating rewind of the year. Plus, get your hands on the top 10 leadership lessons and the seven trends guide for 2024 — your perfect year-end gifts! Join us to learn more about the following topics this week: Listener demographics including where and how they engage Top audio episode Top video episode Most shared episodes Most frequent guest Episode prompting the most phone calls What it takes to be a top 5 episode  Killer Quote: " What I find amazing and actually just a great reflection of our industry is that we are in a global industry, and people are interested in listening and learning from each other in this global marketplace." —Victoria Meyer   Other links:  Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives Download: 7 Trends Shaping the Future of the Chemical Industry Ep 144: Petrochemicals in 2024: Capacity Overbuild and Codependent Markets with John Richardson of ICIS Ep 145: 2024 Chemical Market Outlook with Steve Lewandowski of Chemical Market Analytics Ep 188: How To Scale Sustainable Technology with Eric Appelman of Aduro Clean Technologies Ep 179: How the Global Chemical Market is Shifting with John Richardson of ICIS Ep 169: Decarbonizing the Chemical Industry with Solugen CEO Gaurab Chakrabarti Ep 148. Exploring Sustainable Technologies and Green Chemicals with with Eric Bober of NexantECA Ep 170. Future of Green Methanol: Challenges and Opportunities with Eric Bober  Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube.  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

Uncover the five key themes shaping the household and commercial products landscapes for 2025 as Victoria Meyer delves into insights from the HCPA annual meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. For professionals in the chemical industry, staying informed about regulatory changes, state-level initiatives, and sustainability efforts is crucial.  Victoria explores critical topics such as EPA regulations, state legislation alignment, extended producer responsibility, and the drive towards greener products. State-level regulation shifts are creating complex challenges, and the introduction of new administrations may have significant impacts on policies and business practices. Featuring clips from conversations with industry experts like Steve Caldeira, Steve Bennett, Mike Gruber, Nicholas Georges, and Molly Blessing, this episode provides a deep dive into the priorities and pressing issues within the HCPA.  Join us to learn more about the following topics this week: HCPA's overarching themes: safety, efficacy, appropriate use, and transparency, in products and regulations Building a more effective EPA and keeping consumers safe through PRIA and TSCA Navigating state regulations and driving alignment Making sustainability more available and easier to engage with in the chemical industry  Safe use of household and commercial products Effects of Trump's Administration on the chemical industry  Killer Quote: "Without the federal regulatory system working, or the EPA working effectively, the states step up. And the challenge when the states step up is each of them apply different regulations. There's 50 regulations that potentially have to be monitored, understood, complied with." —Victoria Meyer   Other links:   Download: 10 Leadership Lessons for Chemical Executives   Subscribe to The Chemical Show on YouTube.  ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  Thank you to our sponsors: Celebrating 40 years, the World Petrochemical Conference by S&P Global is the most prestigious global industry gathering for chemical innovation, insight, and collaboration. WPC has a rich history of providing unmatched market intelligence and convening top industry leaders and influential thinkers to discuss the solutions that will unlock pathways for growth and transformation. Join us in Houston, TX, March 17-21, 2025, to commemorate our 40th Anniversary!  Visit their website to learn more.Transforming data into decisions with GenAI precision Access the breadth and depth of ICIS intelligence Fast, reliable answers to your market questionsInsights your way – from summaries to detailed reports Ask ICIS, your AI assistantVisit ICIS.com/ask

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with with Alison Jones about gender diversity in the chemicals world compared to gender diversity in other STEM fields. Alison Jones (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alison-jones-0b08a51/) joined ICIS in 2020 after 18 years at Bloomberg, where she ran the investment research business. At ICIS she plays significant role in championing the business' purpose and leading its long-term growth Strategy. Alison is passionate about diversity, equity and inclusion. She has previously represented Bloomberg on the board of the London Women's Forum (a network of senior women within the financial services industry) and is an executive sponsor of the RELX Menopause Employee Resource Group. Alison loves trying to keep fit (running, cycling and Pilates) when she gets the chance, given her second job as a taxi service to her two children. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

Today's show starts with a discussion with Peter Berthelson, President of Conservation Blueprint, about the integration of pollinator habitats with solar energy projects. They explore how solar farms can double as conservation areas, supporting pollinator populations while generating renewable energy. The discussion highlights the benefits of this synergy for agriculture, sustainability, and biodiversity. ​ Sabrina also interviews Mollie Van Lieu about the partnership between the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) and Kids Eat in Color. They discuss the collaboration's progress in advancing commitments made during the White House Hunger, Health, and Nutrition Summit two years ago. The conversation highlights industry efforts to improve children's nutrition and address hunger through innovative initiatives. Today's third guest is Mark Milam, Senior Editor, Fertilizers, for ICIS. He gives his perspective on the suspended port strike and how could affect the fertilizer industry if workers go on strike again in January, as threatened.  

Join us at The Chemical Summit on October 8-9, 2024 to engage with great leaders, including many guests of The Chemical Show.Visit thechemicalsummit.com for more information and to register. Ep 179 Show Notes  Geopolitical shifts, economic challenges, and sustainability goals are reshaping the global chemical industry. John Richardson, senior consultant at ICIS, joins host Victoria Meyer to delve into the market's uncertainties and logistical issues affecting Europe, the repercussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, and the potential of developing markets like India and Africa. John sheds light on critical issues such as the demand-supply imbalance for commodity chemicals, Europe's struggle with high energy costs, and China's evolving role from a dominant importer to a potential major exporter of synthetic resins. Victoria and John also explore the wider scope of sustainability within the chemical industry, examining Europe's pursuit of a circular economy amidst complex regulatory landscapes and fluctuating geopolitical risks. They discuss the impact of demographic changes on consumer behavior, and the shifting focus towards eco-friendly products. Tune in to gain a comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping the chemical market's future, from rising sustainability efforts to adapting strategic decisions in a dynamically changing global landscape. Join us to gain insights on the following topics this week: Chemical markets in the 2nd half of 2024 and leading into 2025 Overcapacity and supply-demand imbalance China's economic slowdown and demographic changes have significantly impacted global chemical demand. The rising middle class in developing countries, including China, India, and others, has driven increased demand for chemicals and plastics Geopolitical tensions have disrupted supply chains, increased energy costs, and created uncertainty in the market Circularity struggles - infrastructure, regulatory hurdles, and feedstock availability 10 interconnected forces shaping the new global chemical landscape Big commodity chemicals winners and losers "China's historical impact on global polymer demand is profound, but with the shifting sands of demographics and geopolitics, the future may see other developing countries rising, albeit not at the breakneck pace we've witnessed. The global chemical industry must pivot and adapt to these emerging complexities and opportunities." – John Richardson ***Don't miss an episode: Subscribe to The Chemical Show on your favorite podcast player.  ***Like what you hear? Leave a rating and review. ***Want more insights? Sign up for our email list at https://www.thechemicalshow.com  ***Thank you to our sponsor Veson Nautical:From multi-jurisdictional regulations to geopolitics and decarbonization, the maritime ecosystem is more complex than ever. This is creating unprecedented levels of risk exposure. With trusted maritime data and built-for-purpose workflows from Veson Nautical, you can confidently make decisions to better manage risk and maximize profit.For over twenty years, Veson has been co-innovating with the world's largest buyers and sellers of bulk marine freight.  Join their client community and find your decision advantage. Learn more at veson.com 

We discuss a new class of medications, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, and their side effects. Hosts: Avir Mitra, MD Brian Gilberti, MD https://media.blubrry.com/coreem/content.blubrry.com/coreem/Immune_Checkpoint_Inhibitors.mp3 Download Leave a Comment Tags: Oncology Show Notes Overview of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) ICIs are a relatively new class of oncologic drugs that have revolutionized cancer treatment. Unlike chemotherapy, ICIs help the immune system develop memory against cancer cells and adapt as the cancer mutates. Since their release in 2011, ICIs have expanded to 83 indications for 17 different cancers, with approximately 230,000 patients using them. Mechanism of Action Cancer cells can evade the immune system by binding to T cell receptors that downregulate the immune response. ICIs work by blocking these receptors or ligands, preventing the downregulation and allowing T cells to proliferate and attack cancer cells. Common ICIs Risks and Toxicities of ICIs ICIs can lead to autoimmune attacks on healthy cells due to immune system upregulation.

Найнагальніше завдання — захистити решту енергосистеми країни і не дати Росії знищити відновлені об'єктиАвтор: Ора Сабадус, старший журналіст із енергетичних питань Незалежної Комерційної Служби розслідувань (ICIS), кандидат наукНачитала: Олена Русінова

Immunotherapy is a type of novel cancer therapy that leverages the body's own immune system to target cancer cells. In this episode, we focused on the most common type of immunotherapy: immune checkpoint inhibitors or ICIs. ICIs are monoclonal antibodies targeting immune “checkpoints” or brakes to enhance T-cell recognition against tumors. ICI has become a pillar in cancer care, with over 100 approvals and 5,000 ongoing trials. ICIs can lead to non-specific activation of the immune system, causing off-target adverse events such as cardiotoxicities. ICI-related myocarditis, though less common, can be fatal in 30% of cases. Clinical manifestations vary but can include chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, heart failure symptoms, and arrhythmias. Diagnosis involves echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and endomyocardial biopsy. Treatment includes high-dose corticosteroids with potential additional immunosuppressants. Baseline EKG and troponin are recommended before ICI initiation, but routine surveillance is not advised. Subclinical myocarditis is a challenge, with unclear management implications. So let's dive in and learn about cardiotoxicity of novel immunotherapies with Drs. Giselle Suero (series co-chair), Evelyn Song (episode FIT lead), Daniel Ambinder (CardioNerds co-founder), and Tomas Neilan (faculty expert). Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian. This episode is supported by a grant from Pfizer Inc. This CardioNerds Cardio-Oncology series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Giselle Suero Abreu, Dr. Dinu Balanescu, and Dr. Teodora Donisan.  CardioNerds Cardio-Oncology PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes - Cardiotoxicity of Novel Immunotherapies Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) play a crucial role in current oncology treatment by enhancing T-cell recognition against tumors. ICI-related cardiac immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) include myocarditis, heart failure, stress-cardiomyopathy, conduction abnormalities, venous thrombosis, pericardial disease, vasculitis, and atherosclerotic-related events. ICI myocarditis can be fatal; thus, prompt recognition and treatment is crucial. Management includes cessation of the ICI and treatment with corticosteroids and potentially other immunosuppressants. Close monitoring and collaboration with cardiology and oncology are crucial. Rechallenging patients with immunotherapies after developing an iRAE is controversial and requires careful consideration of risks and benefits, typically with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. Show notes - Cardiotoxicity of Novel Immunotherapies What are immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)? ICIs are monoclonal antibodies used to enhance the body's immune response against cancer cells. Currently, there are four main classes of FDA-approved ICIs: monoclonal antibodies blocking cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3), and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1). ICIs can lead to non-specific activation of the immune system, potentially causing off-target adverse events in various organs, including the heart, leading to myocarditis.    The mechanisms of cardiac iRAEs are not fully understood, but they are believed to involve T-cell activation against cardiac antigens, which leads to inflammation and tissue damage.  What are the cardiotoxicities related to ICI therapies? ICI-related cardiac immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) include myocarditis, heart failure, stress-cardiomyopathy, conduction abnormalities, venous thrombosis, pericardial disease, vasculitis,