Podcast appearances and mentions of Kathleen Moore

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

In this episode, Dr Rachel Grisham and Dr Kathleen Moore discuss newly approved treatments for low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) and how recent research has transformed the therapeutic landscape for these patients, including:Molecular distinctions between low-grade and high-grade serous ovarian cancer that can guide therapy selectionThe recently approved targeted therapy combination regimen of avutometinib and defactinib for KRAS-mutant LGSOC (RAMP 201)Promising future directions for patients with LGSOC based on ongoing studies such as RAMP 301 and CHAMELEON Presenters:Rachel Grisham, MDSection Head of Ovarian CancerMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterDirector Gynecologic Medical Oncology, MSKCC WestchesterNew York, New YorkKathleen N. Moore, MD, MS, FASCODeputy Director and Cancer Therapeutics Co-LeadStephenson Cancer Center at the University of OklahomaProfessorDepartment of OB/GynASCO BODOklahoma City, Oklahoma Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Please visit answersincme.com/YMJ860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, experts in gynecologic oncology discuss the evolving clinical roles of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) in ovarian cancer, focusing on CDH6-targeted ADCs. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Identify the rationale for using antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC); Evaluate the evidence for emerging CDH6-targeted ADCs in the treatment of patients with PROC; Outline expected clinical implications of the evidence for emerging CDH6-targeted ADCs in the treatment of PROC.

This week, two local actors join us on the show to celebrate the Bard of Avon's 461st birthday. Also, education reporter Kathleen Moore discusses the latest shake up in the Capital Region higher education scene: the announcement that The Albany College of Pharmacy and Russell Save College intend to merge. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr Kathleen Moore, Dr Ritu Salani, Dr Shannon Westin and moderator Dr Angeles Alvarez Secord share their perspectives and summarize recently presented data from the SGO 2025 annual meeting guiding the management of ovarian cancer. CME information and select publications here.

In the first episode of A Deep Dive into HRD Testing in Ovarian Cancer, a three-part podcast series sponsored by AstraZeneca, we're speaking with Dr. Kathleen Moore about HRD testing in ovarian cancer and its clinical significance in helping aid precision medicine approaches.   Dr. Kathleen Moore is a Professor of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Associate Director of Clinical Research and Director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase I Program at the Stephenson Cancer Center. A graduate of the University of Washington School of Medicine, WA, Dr. Moore completed her residency in gynecology at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, PA and completed a fellowship in gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, OK. She is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology as well as gynecologic oncology and hospice and palliative care.   For more information, visit: https://www.azprecisionmed.com/tumor-type/ovarian-cancer/hrd-testing.html For patient resources, please visit TestForHRD.com.   This podcast does not necessarily reflect the opinions of AstraZeneca and are the spokeperson's opinions and experience.

In the first episode of A Deep Dive into HRD Testing in Ovarian Cancer, a three-part podcast series sponsored by AstraZeneca, we’re speaking with Dr. Kathleen Moore about HRD testing in ovarian cancer and its clinical significance in helping aid precision medicine approaches. Dr. Kathleen Moore is a Professor of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Associate Director of Clinical Research and Director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase I Program at the Stephenson Cancer Center. A graduate of the University of Washington School of Medicine, WA, Dr. Moore completed her residency in gynecology at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, PA and completed a fellowship in gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, OK. She is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology as well as gynecologic oncology and hospice and palliative care. For more information, visit: https://www.azprecisionmed.com/tumor-type/ovarian-cancer/hrd-testing.html For patient resources, please visit TestForHRD.com. This podcast does not necessarily reflect the opinions of AstraZeneca and are the spokeperson's opinions and experience.

In the first episode of A Deep Dive into HRD Testing in Ovarian Cancer, a three-part podcast series sponsored by AstraZeneca, we’re speaking with Dr. Kathleen Moore about HRD testing in ovarian cancer and its clinical significance in helping aid precision medicine approaches. Dr. Kathleen Moore is a Professor of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Associate Director of Clinical Research and Director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase I Program at the Stephenson Cancer Center. A graduate of the University of Washington School of Medicine, WA, Dr. Moore completed her residency in gynecology at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, PA and completed a fellowship in gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, OK. She is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology as well as gynecologic oncology and hospice and palliative care. For more information, visit: https://www.azprecisionmed.com/tumor-type/ovarian-cancer/hrd-testing.html For patient resources, please visit TestForHRD.com. This podcast does not necessarily reflect the opinions of AstraZeneca and are the spokeperson's opinions and experience.

Bishop Mariann Budde delivered a sermon, directed at President Trump, following his inauguration. Hayden Stengler with KCSB News spoke with Dr. Kathleen Moore, a religious studies professor at UC Santa Barbara, to learn more. Photo credit: C-SPAN

Has something in this episode resonated with you? Get in touch! What is the Summer SeriesA collection of listener favourites from Structured Literacy Podcast to help you prepare for 2025.  Today's Episode.This week, we are discussing dyad reading or assisted reading. The paper I'm sharing is The Effects of Dyad Reading and Text Difficulty on Third Grader's Reading Achievement. It was published in  2017 by Lisa Brown, Kathleen Moore, Bradley Wilcox, and Tyson Barrett.   And they're from the Utah State University.   The journal that was published was the Journal of Educational Research.   The main focus of this study was to, in the author's words, replicate previous research about dyad reading. What is the Research to the Classroom series?Hi there. Welcome to the Structured Literacy Podcast. It's Jocelyn here, and I am so pleased to welcome you this week because we have a brand new series for you. One of the things I remember so vividly is being in school as a teacher and then leader,   Really wanting to keep up with readings and research and just not having the bandwidth to do it.   So we've started a brand new series for you called Research to the Classroom. It's a series of three episodes on a topic.   The first episode is a discussion of a research paper.   The second episode shares some specific instructional routines or very practical applications of this research.   The third episode is a conversation with a real live teacher who is employing these practices in their classrooms and can share the good things and the tricky bits with you to help you shortcut success. While evidence-informed programs are seen in many schools, this doesn't make adopting evidence-informed practices effortless or stress-free. The Reading Success in the Early Primary Years Teach Along will give you the confidence to make nuanced decisions about early reading instruction, regardless of the program your school uses, and get the best outcome for every student. While evidence-informed programs are seen in many schools, this doesn't make adopting evidence-informed practices effortless or stress-free. The Reading Success in the Early Primary Years Teach Along will give you the confidence to make nuanced decisions about early reading instruction, regardless of the program your school uses, and get the best outcome for every student. For more information about today's episode, visit www.jocelynseamereducation.comQuick LinksJocelyn Seamer Education HomepageThe Resource RoomThe Evergreen TeacherShopYoutube channelFacebook Page#jocelynseamereducation #literacy #bestpractice #earlyprimaryyears #primaryschool #primaryschools #primaryschoolteacher #earlyyearseducation #earlyyearseducator #structuredliteracy #scienceofreading #classroom #learning #learningisfun #studentsuccess #studentsupport #teacherlife #theresourceroom #theevergreenteacher #upperprimary #upperprimaryteacher #thestructuredliteracypodcast #phoneme #grapheme #phonics #syntheticphonics

At the Bathhouse: Tenakee Tells Tales In this episode, Sitka Tells Tales travels to Tenakee Springs to share stories revolving around a focal point in the community, the public hot mineral springs. As stories and readings from Linda Buckley, Carlene & Kevin Allred, Dave Zeiger-Wagner, Ann Symons, Kathleen Moore & Becky Meiers reflect, it is not just a place to soak, but also to sing and think in and connect with each other. Tenakee Springs is a small community of about 100 -150 people located on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska This episode and the Tenakee event also celebrates the KCAW Raven Radio translator upgrade project, Major funding for the upgrade project from the Murdock Charitable Trust and Rasmuson Foundation. Original broadcast on kcaw.org August 20th, 2024 Edited by Ellen Frankenstein Sound Mix/Design/Additional Editing Dave Emmert Hosts: Ellen Frankenstein & Rachel Myron Music by Linda Buckley, Laura Strong, Carlene Allred, Dave and Anke. An Artchange, Inc. & KCAW Raven Radio Production. Sitka Tells Tales Website Sitka Tells Tales on Facebook @14milesalaska on Instagram kcaw.org

Episode 290 - Charles and Kathleen Moore lose their appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court to fight a tax. What does that mean for the wealthy?

A team of BakerHostetler lawyers, led by Partners Andrew Grossman and Jeff Paravano, represented clients Charles and Kathleen Moore at the Supreme Court, arguing that realization is required for federal taxation of income without apportionment pursuant to the 16th Amendment and that the mandatory repatriation tax was a tax on property. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 20, 2024. Join Jeff and Andrew as they discuss the Supreme Court's opinion. Questions & Comments: agrossman@bakerlaw.com; JParavano@bakerlaw.com

The US Supreme Court brought a muted end last week to its biggest tax case in years, but the arguments that propelled the case are far from over, especially about what the court's ruling could mean for future attempts to enact a wealth tax. The court voted 7-2 to uphold the mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time tax on past foreign corporate profits. Washington state residents Charles and Kathleen Moore had challenged the constitutionality of the tax, arguing that it had forced them to pay $14,729 in taxes on the profits of an Indian company in which they'd invested even though the company's profits were never distributed to them. But the case's significance went far beyond the Moores. Many had feared that striking down the tax not only would lead to billions of dollars in refunds to giant multinational companies that were the tax's primary targets, but also would call into question a host of other taxes based on similar legal principles. The Supreme Court said the tax was constitutional, and stressed that its ruling was narrow, with any outside issues left for another time. But that left unanswered questions about what the ruling could mean for any future wealth tax. Many such proposals would tax wealthy people's “unrealized” gains on investments—profits that haven't actually been distributed or monetized—which was the same issue over which the Moores questioned the repatriation tax. And while the court's ruling was narrow and set aside the realization issue, at least four of the nine justices supported the idea that income should have to be realized before it could be taxed, a signal that any future wealth tax could have a hard time passing legal muster before the court. This edition of Talking Tax has two interviews with two very different perspectives on the Moore ruling. Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport spoke first with Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University's law school, who wanted to see the tax upheld, and then with Andrew Grossman and Jeff Paravano, attorneys for BakerHostetler who represented the Moores and wanted to see the tax struck down. Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Join Dr. Robert Neff as he interviews Drs. Kathleen Moore and Charles Leath, III to discuss the latest NRG Oncology updates on upcoming studies, research, and trials. The focus for the podcast is to bridge the gaps between SGO members and NRG Oncology.   Some questions covered during the interview: Since NRG just celebrated its 10-year anniversary during the Summer Meeting, what is the vision for NRG in the next 10 years?What are some of the successes within the past year for the Ovary Subcommittee?What were the most important highlights from the Cervix and Vulvar Subcommittee?Are there opportunities for new members to be involved? This episode was created by Dr. Robert Neff, 2023-2024 member of the SGO Education Committee's Clinical Trials Management/Concepts Subcommittee. Thanks to Drs. Moore and Leath, III for your contribution to this episode.Moderator:Robert Neff, MDSpeakers:Kathleen Moore, MDCharles Leath, III, MD Sound engineered and produced by Betheon Whyte on behalf of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. 

Today's Episode.This week, we are discussing dyad reading or assisted reading. The paper I'm sharing is The Effects of Dyad Reading and Text Difficulty on Third Grader's Reading Achievement. It was published in  2017 by Lisa Brown, Kathleen Moore, Bradley Wilcox, and Tyson Barrett.   And they're from the Utah State University.   The journal that was published was the Journal of Educational Research.   The main focus of this study was to, in the author's words, replicate previous research about dyad reading.  What is the Research to the Classroom series? Hi there. Welcome to the Structured Literacy Podcast. It's Jocelyn here, and I am so pleased to welcome you this week because we have a brand new series for you. One of the things I remember so vividly is being in school as a teacher and then leader,   Really wanting to keep up with readings and research and just not having the bandwidth to do it.   So we've started a brand new series for you called Research to the Classroom. It's a series of three episodes on a topic.   The first episode is a discussion of a research paper.   The second episode shares some specific instructional routines or very practical applications of this research.   The third episode is a conversation with a real live teacher who is employing these practices in their classrooms and can share the good things and the tricky bits with you to help you shortcut success. Spelling Success in Action 2 - Prefixes and Suffixes is now available for pre-order. Morphology is important to teach our students. It improves spelling, vocabulary, comprehension and knowledge about parts of speech. Our program covers instruction from words to sentences with differentiated content. For more information, visit www.jocelynseamereducation.com Quick LinksJocelyn Seamer Education HomepageThe Resource RoomThe Evergreen TeacherShopYoutube channelFacebook Page#jocelynseamereducation #literacy #bestpractice #earlyprimaryyears #primaryschool #primaryschools #primaryschoolteacher #earlyyearseducation #earlyyearseducator #structuredliteracy #scienceofreading #classroom #learning #learningisfun #studentsuccess #studentsupport #teacherlife #theresourceroom #theevergreenteacher #upperprimary #upperprimaryteacher #thestructuredliteracypodcast #phoneme #grapheme #phonics #syntheticphonics

Singer-songwriter Judy Collins has been performing and making music for nearly seven decades. The 84-year-old Grammy winner with 55 albums under her belt is coming to Saratoga Springs to perform this month, and she joins us on this episode of "The Eagle" to talk about the show, her career, and the key to longevity. Also on this episode, education reporter Kathleen Moore has the latest on the closing of the College of Saint Rose in Albany. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this day in legal history, December 4th, in 1969, a significant and controversial event in the history of law enforcement and civil rights occurred in Chicago, Illinois. Fred Hampton, a charismatic leader of the Black Panther Party, and fellow Panther Mark Clark were tragically killed during a predawn raid by a special tactical unit of the Cook County, Illinois, State's Attorney's Office, alongside the Chicago Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This incident not only sparked widespread outrage but also raised profound legal and ethical questions about law enforcement practices.The raid was ostensibly conducted to search for illegal weapons. However, it later emerged that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO operation, had specifically targeted the Black Panther Party as part of a broader effort to disrupt and discredit radical political organizations. The details of the raid revealed a deeply troubling scenario: most of the nearly 100 shots fired came from law enforcement, while evidence suggested that only one shot was fired by the Panthers.Fred Hampton, who was only 21 years old, had been rapidly rising as a prominent and influential figure in the Black Panther Party. Known for his powerful oratory and organizing skills, Hampton was instrumental in brokering a nonaggression pact among Chicago's powerful street gangs and was actively involved in developing community service programs.The deaths of Hampton and Clark led to numerous lawsuits and legal actions. In 1970, a federal grand jury concluded that the raid was "ill-conceived" and resulted in "unjustified use of excessive force." Subsequent civil suits led to a settlement in 1982, where the City of Chicago, Cook County, and the federal government agreed to pay $1.85 million to the survivors and the families of Hampton and Clark.This incident remains a stark reminder of the tensions between law enforcement and civil rights, highlighting issues of police brutality, racial injustice, and the limits of lawful governmental action. It has since become a significant case study in law schools and criminal justice programs, examining the balance between law enforcement objectives and the protection of civil liberties.Sandra Day O'Connor, a towering figure in American jurisprudence, passed away at 93 on December 1, 2023. Born on March 26, 1930, O'Connor grew up on her family's Arizona ranch, a challenging environment that instilled in her a strong work ethic. Graduating high school at 16, she attended Stanford University, and at the age of 19, entered Stanford Law School, where she was one of only five women in her class. Despite graduating near the top of her class, O'Connor faced gender-based employment barriers, eventually finding work in the San Mateo County, California, county attorney's office.Her legal career was marked by several firsts: she was the first woman to lead a state senate as Arizona Senate majority leader in 1973, and in 1981, she broke centuries-old barriers as the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, she was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and became a pivotal vote on contentious issues, including preserving a woman's right to abortion and upholding affirmative action on college campuses. Her philosophy was one of incremental change, avoiding sweeping pronouncements in favor of building consensus. Over time, her views evolved, reflecting a growing liberal inclination, especially evident in her critical alliance to affirm Roe v. Wade's central holding in 1992.O'Connor's impact went beyond court rulings. She was an advocate for breast cancer awareness and Alzheimer's research, the latter influenced by her husband's diagnosis. Post-retirement, she focused on civics education, founding iCivics to provide free online resources. In 2009, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama.Justice O'Connor's legacy is profound. She demonstrated that the judiciary is not just a place for legal acumen but also for humanity, empathy, and a deep understanding of the evolving societal landscape. Her passing marks the end of an era, but her influence on the legal profession and the lives of Americans will endure for generations.Former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93 | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the legality of Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement, which has been challenged by President Joe Biden's administration. The settlement involves Purdue's wealthy Sackler family owners, who would receive legal immunity in exchange for paying up to $6 billion to settle lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. This deal was initially upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Biden administration contends it could set a precedent for wealthy individuals and corporations to evade mass-tort liability through bankruptcy.The central legal question is whether U.S. bankruptcy law allows for Purdue's restructuring to include legal protections for the Sacklers, who haven't filed for personal bankruptcy. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019, largely due to lawsuits alleging that its OxyContin medication fueled the opioid epidemic, causing over half a million U.S. overdose deaths in two decades. The proposed settlement, approved by a U.S. bankruptcy judge in 2021, is estimated to provide $10 billion in value to creditors, including governments, hospitals, and individual victims.While the Biden administration and eight states initially challenged the settlement, all states dropped their opposition after the Sacklers increased their contribution to the settlement fund. The 2nd Circuit ruled that allowing lawsuits against the Sacklers would undermine Purdue's bankruptcy settlement. The Sackler family, while denying wrongdoing, expressed regret about OxyContin's role in the opioid crisis. The administration argues that the settlement is an abuse of bankruptcy protections and alleges that the Sacklers withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to the $6 billion settlement. Despite opposition from the administration, over 60,000 personal injury claimants support the settlement and the Sacklers' legal immunity, emphasizing the need for the funds in addressing the opioid crisis.US Supreme Court set to review Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlementBayer is currently facing heightened scrutiny as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews a significant case involving its Roundup weedkiller, amid mounting legal challenges and investor pressure. This attention comes after a series of recent trial losses, where plaintiffs successfully argued that Roundup causes cancer, overturning Bayer's previous nine-trial winning streak. The ongoing Philadelphia trial, involving Pennsylvania resident Kelly Martel's claim of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup use, is particularly critical in determining the trend of these litigations.Key factors influencing the trial outcomes include judicial decisions allowing jurors to consider regulatory issues and a shift in plaintiffs' strategy focusing on chemicals in Roundup besides glyphosate, its active ingredient. Bayer, which acquired Roundup through its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, maintains the product's safety but faces about 50,000 lawsuits. In 2020, Bayer agreed to a $9.6 billion settlement for existing lawsuits but couldn't cover future claims.Bayer's recent losses include a $1.56 billion verdict, which it plans to appeal. The company attributes these losses to what it perceives as improper evidence presented in court, particularly concerning regulatory rulings on glyphosate. However, plaintiffs' lawyers argue that new studies support the cancer link and have recently emphasized the presence of other toxins in Roundup, enhancing its cancer-causing potential.As more trials are expected in 2024, Bayer remains selective in settlements, reassuring investors of its financial reserves for litigation. The outcome of Martel's case, expected to be decided soon, could further influence the legal landscape for Bayer and its handling of Roundup-related lawsuits.As Bayer confronts mounting Roundup losses, all eyes on Philadelphia trial | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear oral arguments in Moore v. United States, a pivotal tax-law case with potentially wide-ranging implications. The case centers on the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax imposed by the 2017 tax law, which taxes companies' past foreign earnings. Charles and Kathleen Moore, a retired couple, are challenging this tax over a $14,729 tax bill related to their investment in an Indian company. Their case raises the question of whether income must be "realized" to be taxed, a decision that could impact future wealth taxes and existing tax provisions.Tax experts, including academics and practitioners, are concerned that a ruling in the Moores' favor could undermine large sections of the U.S. tax code, potentially affecting taxes based on unrealized income. This includes international taxes designed to combat profit-shifting and taxes on sophisticated investments. At the state level, such a ruling could erode tax bases, as many states use federal adjusted gross income as a starting point for their tax calculations.The case's outcome could necessitate new legislation and regulation, provoke a surge in litigation, and destabilize state tax systems. Additionally, the case is being closely watched for its potential impact on the U.S.'s participation in the OECD's new 15% global minimum tax. With the Supreme Court's decision expected by June, the tax world is bracing for the potential consequences of this landmark case.Tax World Is Nervous as Court Arguments in Moore Case Approach Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Got an opinion? If you're listening on the iHeartRadio app, tap the red microphone icon to record & send us your thoughts. Don't have the app? Get it free here ---> https://news.iheart.com/apps/ Follow WGY on social media: instagram.com/wgyradio twitter.

It isn't every day that a dispute over a $14,729 tax bill gets every corner of the tax world paying attention—but the potential ramifications of the dispute now before the Supreme Court go far beyond that. The court will hear oral arguments next month in Moore v. United States, in which Charles and Kathleen Moore, a retired couple from Washington state, are arguing that the “mandatory repatriation tax” should be declared unconstitutional. That tax, enacted as part of the 2017 tax-overhaul law, imposed a one-time levy on accumulated foreign corporate profits when the US changed its tax system so as to tax foreign profits going forward. It also led to the Moores' $14,729 tax bill, which they had to pay on earnings of an Indian machine-tool company in which they'd invested, even though the earnings weren't distributed to them. If the high court rules in the Moores' favor, it could lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in refunds to giant multinational companies that paid the mandatory repatriation tax. Some observers think it could also play havoc with other taxes on foreign income, partnership taxes, and other forms of tax that are similarly based on undistributed income. The Moores and their supporters distinguish the mandatory repatriation tax from other provisions, and contend it can be struck down without disrupting the rest of the tax code. The US Chamber of Commerce said in a brief supporting the Moores that such concerns were "badly overblown." Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport spoke about the Moore case with Reuven Avi-Yonah, a law professor at the University of Michigan, who specializes in corporate and international taxation. Avi-Yonah filed a friend-of-the-court brief with two other law professors last month urging the Supreme Court to reject the Moores' challenge. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Dr Kathleen Moore from OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center in Oklahoma City discusses treatment decision-making for real-world cases and approved and investigational treatment strategies for the management of ovarian cancer.

Dr Kathleen Moore from OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center in Oklahoma City discusses treatment decision-making for real-world cases and approved and investigational treatment strategies for the management of ovarian cancer. CME information and select publications here (https://www.researchtopractice.com/MTPOvarian23/Part1)

Join Don to learn more about our 2023-2024 MASB Board of Directors President Kathleen Moore.

Episode 239 - The ultra-wealthy are rooting for Charles and Kathleen Moore in their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to fight a tax.

On this day, June 28th, in legal history, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and ruled that quota systems could not be used in college admissions, but programs that incentivize accepting minority applicants are permissible. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a landmark Supreme Court case decided on June 28th, 1978. The Court ruled that a university's admissions criteria, which used race as the sole basis for admission decisions, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case revolved around Allan Bakke, a white male applicant who was rejected from medical school at the University of California at Davis due to a racial quota system. The Court determined that the quota system was unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights laws. They applied strict scrutiny, stating that the government must have a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means to justify race-based actions. The Court acknowledged that race could be considered as a factor in admissions, but rejected the use of a quota system that excluded candidates based solely on race.The Supreme Court has upheld a Pennsylvania law in a narrow 5-4 decision that requires companies to face lawsuits within the state when they register to do business there. The ruling leaves room for a potential future challenge to the law on different constitutional grounds. Opponents of the law expressed concern that it could lead to other states adopting similar registration requirements. The case involved a former employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Co. who wanted to bring a lawsuit against the company in Pennsylvania, even though it is not based there. Justice Samuel Alito, while ruling in favor of the plaintiff in this case, suggested that the law could be challenged under the commerce clause in the future. The court's decision was based on a precedent set in a 1917 case involving a similar law in Missouri. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented, arguing that the ruling infringed upon the authority of other states to adjudicate disputes involving their citizens.State Registration Law Feared by Business Upheld by Justices (1)The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a tax case regarding foreign earnings, raising concerns about the extent of Congress' taxing powers. The case revolves around internal revenue code Section 965, which aimed to prevent foreign earnings from permanently evading US taxation during a transition to a new international tax regime. The plaintiffs, Charles and Kathleen Moore, are seeking a refund of $14,729 through their challenge to the tax. However, the case has broader implications, as the government estimates the tax will generate $340 billion over a decade. The Moores and other groups argue that allowing the tax would provide Congress with the authority to pursue new revenue streams, such as a federal wealth tax. The Moores' representatives argue that the tax is not authorized under the federal government's power to tax income as defined by the Sixteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously dismissed the suit, ruling that taxable income doesn't have to be realized. The Moores argue that only realized income is taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment, and the tax violates the constitutional requirement for direct taxes to be proportionally applied to each state's population. The case has garnered interest from organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Cato Institute, which submitted briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. The outcome of the case will have implications for Congress' taxing powers and the interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment.Galvanizing International Tax Case Accepted by Supreme Court (2)(ORDER LIST: 599 U.S.) MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2023 CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 21-1596 ARDOIN, LA SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. V. ROBIThe US Supreme Court has rejected a legal theory that would grant state legislatures unchecked power over elections. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled against Republican state legislators in a case involving North Carolina's House of Representatives districts. The legislators sought to embrace the "independent state legislature" doctrine, which would remove the role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. Critics argue that the doctrine poses a threat to democratic norms and could lead to further voter restrictions and extreme partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court's ruling still allows federal courts to review certain election-related cases and potentially challenge state court decisions. The decision does not establish a clear legal test for determining when state courts have overstepped their bounds in election matters. The issue is expected to resurface in future cases when state courts reject legislatively drawn maps and take it upon themselves to draw districts.US Supreme Court rejects bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections | ReutersA law professor at the University of Colorado, Paul Campos, has filed a lawsuit against the university and its law school dean, Lolita Buckner Inniss, alleging pay discrimination and retaliation. Campos, who is the only Latino faculty member, claims that he is paid less than his white colleagues. He also accuses Inniss of retaliating against him for raising concerns about his compensation and for taking parental leave. According to a 2021 pay study conducted by the university, Campos earned nearly $14,000 less per year than white law faculty. In addition, Campos alleges that he received a low faculty rating, which he believes was influenced by racial bias and retaliation for taking paternity leave. He claims that Inniss further retaliated against him by removing him from the law school's faculty evaluations committee and preventing him from teaching a course. Campos argues that the university has failed to provide evidence of offensive and biased language, as alleged.Law professor sues University of Colorado over discrimination claims | ReutersSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX cryptocurrency exchange, has lost his bid to dismiss most of the criminal charges brought against him by the U.S. government. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan denied Bankman-Fried's request, clearing the way for his trial scheduled for October 2. Bankman-Fried is accused of orchestrating a multibillion-dollar fraud by stealing funds from FTX customers to cover losses at his hedge fund, Alameda Research. Prosecutors also allege that he misled investors and made illegal contributions to U.S. political campaigns in the names of his colleagues. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty and denied stealing funds but admitted to inadequate risk management at FTX. The judge ruled that the charges against Bankman-Fried were valid and that the alleged misappropriated funds constituted property. Bankman-Fried had also argued that some charges were improperly brought without consent from the Bahamas, where he was arrested and extradited. A second trial is scheduled for March 11 on charges brought after his extradition.Bankman-Fried loses bid to toss criminal charges over FTX's collapse | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Kathleen Moore, MD, MS, and Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, provide expert insights on key updates and new clinical trial data presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting for cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, including:ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY: phase III study of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy followed by dostarlimab maintenance in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer outcomes by BICRCCTG CX.5-SHAPE: phase III trial of radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection compared with simple hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection in low-risk, early-stage cervical cancer Final OS results from KEYNOTE-826: phase III study of CT with or without pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancerDUO-O: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study of durvalumab plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab and then maintenance bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and no BRCA1/2 gene alteration MIRASOL: an initial report from a phase III study of mirvetuximab soravtansine vs investigator's choice of CT in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high expression of FRαPatient-reported outcomes from the phase III ENGOT-EN6/RUBY trial of dostarlimab plus standard-of-care CT in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancerPresenters:Kathleen Moore, MD, MSAssociate Director, Clinical ResearchDepartment of Gynecologic OncologyStephenson Cancer Center, University of OklahomaOklahoma City, OklahomaNicoletta Colombo, MD, PhDAssociate Professor of Obstetrics and GynecologyEuropean Institute of OncologyUniversity of Milan-BicoccaMilan, ItalyContent supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novocure Inc., and Seagen Inc.Link to full program, including a downloadable highlights slideset and ClinicalThought commentaries: bit.ly/43Q5CBI

Listen to this live podcast from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting with Oncology Data Advisor and Kathleen Moore, MD!

GUEST OVERVIEW: Ian Miles Cheong is a Malaysian gaming journalist and right-wing political commentator. He is known for his commentary on United States politics, particularly his support of Donald Trump.

Join Viewless Wings for an extraordinary day of poetry readings and book signings by celebrated current and former SF Bay Area Poets Laureate at the 2023 Bay Area Book Festival on Sunday, May 7 (11 am - 5 pm) in the Viewless Wings booth (#96). James Morehead (Poet Laureate - Dublin, CA and host of the Viewless Wings Poetry Podcast), Sarah Kobrinsky (former Poet Laureate - Emeryville, CA), Kathleen Moore (former Poet Laureate - San Ramon, CA), and Kimi Sugioka (Poet Laureate - Alameda, CA) will be on hand, including the debut of Morehead's newly released book, "The Plague Doctor." Selections from participating poets are featured on this weeks episode. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/viewlesswings/support

Choreographer Agnes de Mille, whose narrative works were often driven by multifaceted female characters, changed the course of American dance. As we approach the 30th anniversary of de Mille's death, former American Ballet Theatre dancer Kathleen Moore and New York Public Library for the Performing Arts curator Linda Murray join to discuss the enduring relevance of de Mille's art.A transcript of this episode is available here: thedanceedit.com/transcript-episode-150More about The De Mille Working Group's upcoming program at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts: nypl.org/events/programs/2023/04/03/agnes-de-mille-womens-narratives-and-agencyVisit/add to the Dance Media Events Calendar: dancemediacalendar.com/Get the latest dance news direct by subscribing to our free newsletters. Find the ones that match your interests: dancemagazine.com/subscribe

Featuring perspectives from Drs Michael Birrer and Kathleen Moore, including the following topics: Gynecologic Oncology   Introduction (0:00) Ovarian Cancer    PARP inhibitors as primary maintenance (8:11) PARP inhibitors for recurrent and metastatic disease (19:04) Antibody-drug conjugates: Mirvetuximab soravtansine; upifitamab rilsodotin (31:39) Endometrial Cancer   Immunotherapy for metastatic disease (43:49) Selinexor as maintenance therapy (51:33) Other novel agents (56:52) Cervical Cancer   Immunotherapy for metastatic disease and the antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin (1:01:00) CME information and select publications

Proceedings from our Year in Review webinar on the management of gynecologic cancers. Featuring perspectives from Drs Michael Birrer and Kathleen Moore, moderated by Dr Neil Love.

Got an opinion? If you're listening on the iHeartRadio app, tap the red microphone icon to record & send us your thoughts. Don't have the app? Get it free here ---> https://news.iheart.com/apps/ Follow WGY on social media: instagram.com/wgyradio twitter.

CME credits: 0.25 Valid until: 29-09-2023 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/5-things-you-need-to-know-in-cervical-cancer-new-and-emerging-agents/14102/ The global burden of cervical cancer is immense, especially for patients who have failed first-line therapy. Second-line interventions have historically had low response rates of short duration. But the landscape is changing with new and emerging agents in late-stage clinical trials, including antibody- drug conjugates, immunotherapy regimens, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapies. Join Drs. Robert Coleman and Kathleen Moore as they discuss and distill the “need to know” findings about these more effective therapies—therapies destined to improve outcomes for patients whose cervical cancer has failed first-line therapy.

Luke 14:25-33

Join Dr. Kathryn Mills as she interviews Drs. Allan Covens, Charles Leath, Kathleen Moore, and Matt Powell to discuss the latest NRG Oncology updates on upcoming studies, research, and trials. The focus for the podcast is to bridge the gaps between SGO members and NRG Oncology.  This episode was created by Kathryn Mills, MD, a member of the SGO Education Committee's Clinical Trials Management/Concepts Subcommittee. Thanks to Drs. Covens, Leath, Moore, and Powell for your contribution to this episode. Moderator:  Kathryn Mills, MD Speakers:Allan Covens, MD, FRCSC Charles Leath, MD Kathleen Moore, MD Matt Powell, MDSound engineered and produced by Betheon Whyte on behalf of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

Bulletin 8 14 22 Special thanks to The Rev. Kathie Moore for leading the service and preaching!

We're trying to get back on a regular schedule.... In this episode we cover a love letter from an Officer to an Enlisted member that was found wedged behind the locker in a ships berthing, as well as continue with the FRC namesakes and cover the CGC Kathleen Moore. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thedisgruntledsailor/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thedisgruntledsailor/support

Featuring perspectives from Drs Antonio González-Martín, Joyce Liu and Kathleen Moore, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Clinical Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer (2:23) Novel Treatments and Strategies Under Investigation (46:04) CME information and select publications

Featuring perspectives from Ms Jennifer Filipi, Dr Kathleen Moore, Dr Krishnansu Tewari and Ms Deborah Wright, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Primary Ovarian Cancer: Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy (11:48) PARP Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy (29:29) Adherence in the Maintenance Setting (1:02:06) Novel Strategies and Clinical Trials (1:15:55) NCPD information and select publications

There are few annual traditions more beloved in Albany than the annual blossoming of hundreds of thousands of tulips in Washington Park each May. Tulip blooms are dazzlingly vibrant but short-lived, lasting mere weeks. But they are perennial plants, and there is gardening work to be done once they wilt and fade that will ensure they return next year. On this episode of "The Eagle," Albany City Gardener Jena Commerford shares tips for tending tulips. Also on this episode, education reporter Kathleen Moore discusses the results of local school board elections that saw a record voter turnout this week.

On this Episode of LETSTALKABOUTIT Jamie and Kirsten interview psychic medium Kathleen Moore. They discuss her gift, and the benefits and challenges that come with it. Listen to learn about her abilities to heal and connect people with their spiritual soul. @kirstensellers_ @jamiemcgrady_ @kathleen.moore.31 https://www.kathleenmoorepsychicmedium.com https://www.facebook.com/kathleenmoorepsychic

Featuring perspectives from Drs Mansoor Mirza, Kathleen Moore and David O'Malley, moderated by Dr Robert Coleman, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Optimal Biomarker Evaluation and Management of Treatment-Naïve Advanced Ovarian Cancer (OC) — Kathleen N Moore, MD, MS (5:05) Treatment of Recurrent OC; Ongoing Research Efforts with PARP Inhibitors for Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed Disease — David M O'Malley, MD (28:50) Recognition and Management of Side Effects Associated with PARP Inhibitor Therapy for OC — Mansoor Raza Mirza, MD (49:59) Novel Investigational Agents and Strategies in OC — Robert L Coleman, MD (1:09:14) CME information and select publications

Proceedings from a daylong symposium hosted in partnership with Florida Cancer Specialists, featuring key clinical presentations and papers in breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, genitourinary cancers, gynecologic cancers, lung cancer, lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. Featuring perspectives from Drs Arjun Balar, Johanna Bendell, Axel Grothey, Brad S Kahl, Shaji K Kumar, Kathleen Moore, Loretta Nastoupil, William K Oh, David M O'Malley, Robert Z Orlowski, Hope S Rugo, Gregory J Riely, David R Spigel and Sara M Tolaney, moderated by Neil Love, MD.

A special audio program developed from the tenth in a series of 11 integrated webinars held in association with the 2020 ONS Annual Congress. Featuring perspectives from Dr Emmanuel S Antonarakis, Ms Gretchen Santos Fulgencio, Dr Kathleen Moore, Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Dr Michael J Pishvaian and Ms Deborah Wright.

Paper: The 2020 SGO Annual Meeting Report Hosted by: Dr. Warner Huh, Immediate Past President of SGO Featuring: Dr. Kenneth Kim, Scientific Program Co-Chair, 2020 Virtual Annual SGO MeetingDr. Kathleen Moore,  Scientific Program Co-Chair, 2020 Virtual Annual SGO Meeting

Paper: The 2020 SGO Annual Meeting Report Hosted by: Dr. Warner Huh, Immediate Past President of SGO Featuring: Dr. Kenneth Kim, Scientific Program Co-Chair, 2020 Virtual Annual SGO MeetingDr. Kathleen Moore,  Scientific Program Co-Chair, 2020 Virtual Annual SGO Meeting

PARP Inhibition in Four Common Cancers: Biology, Clinical Research Database and Therapeutic Strategy. Featuring Emmanuel S Antonarakis, MD, Kathleen Moore, MD, Michael J Pishvaian, MD, PhD and Melinda Telli, MD. Moderated by Neil Love, MD. Produced by Research To Practice.

Are you in benzo withdrawal? Do you feel stuck? Hopeless? Do you wish you could be more positive? More active? In part two of this three-part series, you will learn tips for improving your physical and mental health. Maintaining a positive mindset during withdrawal may sound like a near impossibility — but it's a goal worth fighting for. And keeping active — while a continuous struggle – can be equally as challenging but just as key to your sanity and success. https://www.easinganxiety.com/post/managing-the-fear-of-benzo-withdrawal-part-2-bfp004Video ID: BFP004 Chapters 00:00 Introduction02:27 Q&A08:15 Feature: Managing the Fear of Benzo Withdrawal (Part 2)23:07 Moment of Peace  Episode Summary Welcome to the second segment of our 3-part series on Managing the Fear of Benzo Withdrawal. This series is derived from a chapter in my book titled, “Managing the Fear,” which focuses on reducing the fear, anxiety, and stress during benzo withdrawal. Before we dive too deep into our featured topic, we will chat a bit and cover a few questions in our Q&A section on short-term use and symptoms in protracted withdrawal.  Feature Series SERIES: Managing the Fear of Benzo Withdrawal In my opinion, fear, and the stress and anxiety related to that fear, cause more distress and more complications during withdrawal than anything else. And this fear is not some natural psychological fear. It's chemically enhanced. On top of the original anxieties we had before our dependence on benzos, we now have a damaged nervous system that can't process fear correctly. A system that can send us into a panic state — both psychologically and physiologically — at the least sign of distress. Above all, stop worrying. Worry, fear and anxiety increase all withdrawal symptoms. Many of these symptoms are actually due to anxiety and not signs of brain or nervous system damage. People who fear withdrawal have more intense symptoms than those who just take it as it comes and think positively and confidently about recovery.— Prof. Ashton, The Ashton Manual This series is broken down into three separate parts: PART 1 (https://www.easinganxiety.com/post/managing-the-fear-of-benzo-withdrawal-part-1-bfp003) — Series Introduction— 1) Taking Responsibility for Your Own Recovery PART 2 (this video)— 2) Keeping Positive— 3) Maintaining Mental and Physical Activity PART 3 (https://www.easinganxiety.com/post/managing-the-fear-of-benzo-withdrawal-part-3-bfp005)— 4) Having Kindness for Yourself and Others— 5) Finding Acceptance of Your Condition  Episode Description Today we discuss two essential elements to maintaining a stable mindset during withdrawal: positivity and activity. 2) POSITIVITYAllowing your feelings to happen, all feelings, is critical to maintaining mental health. A positive mindset is not about suppressing your feelings or glossing over them and putting on a good face. That plan of attack can lead to disaster. What I'm talking about is a positive mindset. You still feel sad, angry, mad, and everything else at different times. But when something happens in your life, you will lean a bit more on the positive side than the negative side. Focus on what is good in your life. 3) ACTIVITYKeeping an active mind and body is critical to success during withdrawal. More and more studies show that keeping your mind active is key to keeping it healthy. This goes double for people with anxiety and triple for people going through benzo withdrawal. And being physically active is equally as important. Studies have shown that the first twenty minutes of exercise garners the most health benefits. Even if you can't do anything else, a brisk walk every day can do wonders. It's not just about exercise, it's about being active.  Resources The following resource links are provided as a courtesy to our listeners. They do not constitute an endorsement by Easing Anxiety of the resource or any recommendations or advice provided therein. — Ashton, C. Heather. Benzodiazepines: How They Work and How to Withdraw (aka The Ashton Manual). 2002. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/.— Babyak, Michael, James A. Blumenthal, Steve Herman, Parinda Khatri, Murali Doraiswamy, Kathleen Moore, Edward Craighead, Teri T. Baldewicz and K. Ranga Krishnan. “Exercise Treatment for Major Depression: Maintenance of Therapeutic Benefit at 10 Months.” Psychosomatic Medicine 62(5)(October 2000):633-38. Accessed April 12, 2018. http://www.hibody.co.uk/Exercise%20treatment%20for%20major%20depression.pdf.— Bach, Richard. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. New York: Creature Enterprises, 1977. Print.— Finding Nemo. DVD. Directed by Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich. Performed by Ellen DeGeneres. Screenplay by Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds. 2003. Buena Vista Pictures, 2003.— Foster, D E. Benzo Free: The World of Anti-Anxiety Drugs and the Reality of Withdrawal. Erie, Colorado: Denim Mountain Press, 2018.— McCarthy, Justin. “More Americans Say Crime Is Rising in U.S.” Gallup. October 22, 2015. Accessed April 12, 2018. http://news.gallup.com/poll/186308/americans-say-crime-rising.aspx.— Meixler, Eli. “‘Remember to Look Up at the Stars.' Read Some of Stephen Hawking's Most Memorable Quotes.” Time. March 14, 2018. Accessed March 15, 2018. http://time.com/5198842/stephen-hawking-quotes-universe-life.— Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. “Global Extreme Poverty.” Our World in Data (Online Resource). 2018. Accessed April 12, 2018. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty.— Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. “Global Rise of Education.” Our World in Data (Online Resource). 2017. Accessed April 12, 2018. https://ourworldindata.org/global-rise-of-education.— Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. “Homicides.” Our World in Data (Online Resource). 2018. Accessed April 12, 2018. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides.  The PodcastThe Benzo Free Podcast provides information, support, and community to those who struggle with the long-term effects of anxiety medications such as benzodiazepines (Xanax, Ativan, Klonopin, Valium) and Z-drugs (Ambien, Lunesta, Sonata). WEBSITE: https://www.easinganxiety.comMAILING LIST: https://www.easinganxiety.com/subscribe YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@easinganx DISCLAIMERAll content provided by Easing Anxiety is for general informational purposes only and should never be considered medical advice. Any health-related information provided is not a substitute for medical advice and should not be used to diagnose or treat health problems, or to prescribe any medical devices or other remedies. Never disregard medical advice or delay in seeking it. Please visit our website for our complete disclaimer at https://www.easinganxiety.com/disclaimer. CREDITSMusic provided / licensed by Storyblocks Audio — https://www.storyblocks.com Benzo Free Theme — Title: “Walk in the Park” — Artist: Neil Cross PRODUCTIONEasing Anxiety is produced by…Denim Mountain Presshttps://www.denimmountainpress.com ©2022 Denim Mountain Press – All Rights Reserved