Podcasts about ludwig institute

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

Ilyce Glink, CEO of Best Money Moves financial wellness company, joins Lisa Dent to discuss how the Dow is down 600+ points. Then, Glink shares the results from a new study from Ludwig Institute which states that a majority of Americans can’t achieve a minimal quality of life with their current wage.

“Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome”. These were the wise words of the late Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's former business partner. What he meant by that was that if you incentivize good and productive business behavior, your business will grow. If you reward bad and unproductive behavior, your business and, ultimately, the consumer, will suffer. Since the 1980s, the economic and legal frameworks we've used have incentivized bad behavior. Today, we'll discuss Shareholder Primacy, which is the idea that a firm's primary responsibility is to maximize value for its shareholders. Its proponents believe that by maximizing value for shareholders, there is greater accountability, more incentives to invest in productive capabilities, and a higher likelihood of risk-taking leading to innovation. From the 80s to the 2000s, these ideas reigned supreme across economic and legal circles. They helped shape law and policy to create the highly corporatized economy we see today. But now, some of the flaws of this framework are beginning to manifest. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP remain high relative to prior decades. Corporate profits now make up 12% of GDP, down from its peak of 12.8% in 2021, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This is at a time when most Americans are still reeling from inflation earlier in the 2020s. A recent report from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity found that the bottom 60% of households are out of reach of a minimal quality of life. Using the framework of shareholder primacy, a time of high corporate profits should translate to a high standard of living. But we just aren't seeing that.Why? Well, it depends on who you ask. I sat down with Harrison Karlewicz, a P.hD candidate at UMass Amherst, whose work shows that investing in equities doesn't always translate to investment in productive assets that will help companies grow. Instead of efficiently channeling savings to companies that need resources, like we're taught financial markets are for, they have become a place where speculation can lead to rent-seeking. There was a lot of nuance to the conversation. Financial markets weren't all good or all bad. But, I think we have to be realistic about the role financial markets and assets play in the economy. Our conversation touched a lot upon how businesses can be better structured to invest in assets that will help the company grow and provide good-quality products to consumers.Mr. Karlewicz is wrapping up his dissertation at UMass Amherst, where he works with Lenore Palladino, a Political Economist, on projects about corporate governance, industrial organization, and financialization. He is a research assistant at UMass's Political Economy Research Institute and a Fellow at McClave and Associates, an economic consulting firm. He has taught economics and math at Springfield College and Berkshire Community College. His work has been published by multiple outlets such as the Roosevelt Institute and Jacobin. Harrison earned his bachelor's degree in economics and political science from Seattle Pacific University and his master's from Bard College in Economic Theory and Policy. Together, we discussed the Robinhood-Gamestop debacle, the differences between public and private financial markets, and how policy can better incentivize investment in productive capabilities. To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/

New figures from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) show a bleaker picture of the U.S. economy than federal reports indicate. True Weekly Earnings are down and the real cost of living is soaring — contradicting headline unemployment stats. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A new analysis by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Policy finds 1 in 4 middle class households living in functional unemployment, not earning enough or making the benefits that enable them to live a comfortable life. The BIDEN ADMIN was cooking the books. HHS secretary Bobby Kennedy says the NIH will no longer publish in big pharma-controlled scientific journals like The Lancet. A lifelong democrat realizes he'd been brainwashed before becoming a republican.

Understand the financial pros and cons of marriage, from taxes to credit scores, and how it impacts your future. Is the economy as bad as people think it is? How does your spouse's credit and debt affect your finances? Hosts Sean Pyles and Elizabeth Ayoola discuss marriage and money to help you understand the financial implications of tying the knot. But first, NerdWallet Senior News Writer Anna Helhoski interviews Eugene Ludwig, chair of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, about why traditional economic data may not accurately reflect the financial struggles of middle- and low-income Americans. They explore how unemployment statistics overlook underemployment, why inflation feels worse for lower-income earners, and how policymakers could improve economic measurement tools. Then, NerdWallet Personal Finance Writer Lauren Schwahn joins Sean and Elizabeth to break down the financial side of marriage. They discuss how taxes work for married couples, whether getting married affects your credit score, and how to protect your finances when one partner has significant debt. They also cover estate planning advantages, health care decision-making, and strategies for managing money as a couple with different financial backgrounds. How to dispute credit report errors to get mistakes or outdated information off your credit history: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/dispute-credit-report  In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: marriage and money, financial benefits of marriage, marriage tax penalties, combining finances, marriage effect on credit score, debt and marriage, should I get married for financial reasons, estate planning for couples, joint bank accounts pros and cons, student loans and marriage, how to protect finances in marriage, marrying someone with bad credit, mortgage and marriage, how to talk about money before marriage, economic perception vs reality, cost of living vs wages, how inflation affects real wages, and CPI accuracy. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend.

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Domenica Lorusso discuss the practice-changing results of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which evaluated pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as treatment for previously untreated, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, I'm Linda Duska, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serve as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. On today's episode, we'll be discussing a new standard of care for previously untreated, high- risk locally advanced cervical cancer. This follows the ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which I will be referring to as KEYNOTE-A18 for the rest of this podcast, which demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy improved both progression-free and overall survival compared to chemoradiotherapy alone. I was a co-author of this study, and I'm delighted to be joined today by the study's lead investigator, Dr. Domenica Lorusso, for today's discussion. She is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. She's at Humanitas University Rosano and the director of the Gynecologic Oncology Unit at the Humanitas Hospital San Pio in Milan, Italy. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Lorusso, it's great to be speaking with you today. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's a great pleasure to be here. Thank you. Dr. Linda Duska: So I was hoping you could start us out with some context on the challenges associated with treating patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Yes. I have to make a disclosure because in my experience as a gynecologist, cervical cancer patients are the most difficult patients to treat. This is a tumor that involves young patients [who often have] small kids. This is a very symptomatic tumor. More than 50% of patients report pain. Sometimes the pain is difficult to control because there is an infiltration of the pelvic nerves and also a kind of vaginal discharge, so it's very difficult to treat the tumor. Since more than 25 years, we have the publication of 5 randomized trials that demonstrate that when we combine platinum chemotherapy to radiation treatment, we increase overall survival by 6%. This is the new standard of care – concurrent chemoradiation plus brachytherapy. This is a good standard of care because particularly modern, image-guided radiotherapy has reported to increase local control. And local control in cervical cancer translates to better overall survival. So modern radiotherapy actually is able to cure about 75% of patients. This is what we expect with chemoradiation right now. Dr. Linda Duska: So what are the key takeaways of A18? This is a really exciting trial, and you've presented it a couple of times. Tell us what are the key takeaways that you want our listeners to know. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, this is our trial. This is a trial that we did together. And you gave me the inspiration because you were running a randomized phase 2 trial exploring if the combination of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiation was able to give signals of efficacy, but also was feasible in terms of toxicity. There were several clinical data suggesting that when we combine immunotherapy to radiotherapy, we can potentially increase the benefit of radiotherapy because there is a kind of synergistic effect between the two strategies. Radiotherapy works as a primer and immunotherapy works better. And you demonstrated that it was feasible to combine immunotherapy to concurrent chemoradiation. And KEYNOTE-A18 was based on this preliminary data. We randomized about 1,060 patients to receive concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy or concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy in combination with pembrolizumab followed by pembrolizumab for about two years. Why two years? Because in more than 80% of cases, recurrence in this patient population occurred during the first two years. So the duration of treatment was based on the idea to provide protection to the patient during the maximum time of risk. And the trial had the two primary endpoints, progression free and overall survival, and met both the endpoints, a significant 30% reduction in the risk of progression that was confirmed. At the 3-year follow up, the observation was even better, 0.68. So 32% reduction in the risk of progression. And more importantly, because this is a curative setting, 33% reduction in the risk of death was reported in the experimental arm when pembro was combined with chemoradiation. Dr. Linda Duska: That's amazing. I wanted to ask you, a prior similar study called CALLA was negative. Why do you think A18 was positive? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, there are several discussions about that. I had the possibility to discuss several times with the PI of CALLA, Brad Monk. The idea of Brad is that CALLA was negative because of using durvalumab instead of PD-1 inhibitor, which is pembrolizumab. I do not have exactly the same impression. My idea is that it's the kind of patient population enrolled. The patient population enrolled in KEYNOTE-A18 was really a high-risk population; 85% of that patient were node positive, where the definition of node positivity was at least 2 lymph nodes in the pelvis with a short diameter of 1.5. So, we are very confident this patient was node-positive, 55% at the grade 3 and 4 diseases. So this is really a high-risk population. I remember at the first presentation of CALLA, I was honored to discuss the CALLA trial when it was first presented at IGCS a few years ago. And when I received the forest plot of Calla, it was evident to me that in patients with stage III and node positive there was a signal of efficacy. And we have a huge number of patients with node positive. So in my opinion this is the reason why KEYNOTE-A18 is positive. Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot and I think you're right about that. The INTERLACE trial results were recently published. How should we interpret these results in the context of A18? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: So it's very difficult to compare the 2 trials. First of all, in terms of population. The population enrolled in INTERLACE is a low-risk, locally advanced but low risk population; 76% were stage II, 10% were stage I, 60% were node-negative patients. So, first of all, the population is completely different. Second is the type of radiotherapy that was provided. INTERLACE is a 10-year long trial, but in 10 years the quality and the technique of radiotherapy completely changed. Only 30% of patients in INTERLACE received what we call the modern image-guided brachytherapy, which is important because it provides local control and local control increases overall survival. And third, we read the paper. I'm not a methodologist, but there are some methodological biases in the paper. All the statistical design of the trial was based on PFS, but PFS was evaluated at physician description. And honestly, I never saw a trial that had no pre-specified timeline for radiological evaluation. It's very difficult to evaluate progression in cervical cancer because the fibrosis related to radiotherapy changes the anatomy in the pelvis. And I think that the radiological evaluation is important to address if the patient is progressing or not. Particularly, because the conclusion of CALLA is that the PFS was mainly in favor of distant metastasis. So really, it's difficult for me to understand how distant metastasis may be evaluated with the vagina visit. So really, it's very difficult to compare the two trials, but I have some concerns. And also because of toxicity in the study, unfortunately 30% of patients did not complete concurrent chemoradiation because of residual toxicity due to induction chemotherapy. So I wanted to be sure in the context of modern radiotherapy, if really induction chemo adds something to modern radiotherapy. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, I have two more questions for you. As we move immunotherapy into the front line, at least for these high risk locally advanced cervical cancer patients that were eligible for A18, what does that mean then for hopefully those few that develop recurrence in terms of second line therapy? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Well, Linda, this is a very important question. We do not have data about immuno after immuno, but I would not completely exclude this hypothesis because in KEYNOTE-A18, the patient received treatment for a well-defined time period. And for those patients not progressing during immunotherapy, I really guess if there is a space for the reintroduction of immunotherapy at the time of recurrence. In this moment we have 30% of patients in KEYNOTE-A18 in the control arm that receive immunotherapy after progression, but still we have 11% of patients that receive immunotherapy in combination with concurrent chemoradiation and then receive, again, immunotherapy in later line of therapy. I think we need to collect these data to capture some signals and for sure we have the new drug. We have antibody drug conjugate. The trials are ongoing exploring the role of antibody drug conjugate, particularly in immune pretreated patients. So I think this is a very interesting strategy. Dr. Linda Duska: I was going to ask you, “What are the next steps,” but I think you already answered that question. You talked about the second line. If you were going to redesign a study in the frontline, what would it look like? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Probably one question that I would like to answer – there are two questions in my opinion in KEYNOTE-A18 – one is induction immunotherapy. Linda, correct me if I'm wrong, you reported very interesting data about the immune landscape change when you use induction immunotherapy. And I think this is something that we need to explore in the future. And the second question is the duration of maintenance. Because, again, we decided for two years based only on the epidemiology of recurrence, but I guess if one year may be enough. Dr. Linda Duska: I think this sequencing question is really important, that the induction immunotherapy was actually GY017. I can't take credit for that, but I think you're right. I think the sequencing question is really important. Whether you need the concurrent IO or not is an important question. And then to your point about the 2 years, the length of the need for maintenance therapy is a question that we don't know the answer to. So there are lots of really important questions we can continue to ask. I want to thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights with us on the podcast today. You're always so thoughtful about this particular study and cervix cancer in general and also for your great work to advance the care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's our work - we progress together. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes. And we thank the patients as well. The over 1,000 patients that went on this trial during a pandemic. Right? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Absolutely. Without their generosity and their trust, we would not be able to do this trial. Dr. Linda Duska: So we're very grateful to them and we thank our listeners for your time today. 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. Thank you all.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Linda Duska @Lduska Dr. Domenica Lorusso   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   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. Domenica Lorusso: Consulting or Advisory Role: PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro Biopharma, Novartis, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, ImmunoGen, Seagen Research Funding (Inst.): PharmMar, Clovis, GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Incyte, Roche, Pharma&, Corcept Therapeutics, Alkermes Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Menarini  

Doctors James Ferriss, Linda Duska, and Jayanthi Lea discuss the promise and the challenges of targeting the immune system with immune checkpoint inhibitors, or ICIs, in cervical and endometrial cancers. They also examine emerging data that support the use of ICIs in recurrent cervical cancer, the potential for curing some patients with advanced endometrial cancer, and molecular factors that make cervical cancer a good target for immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. James Stuart Ferriss, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm an associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics and the Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Johns Hopkins Medicine. In today's episode, we'll be discussing the use of immunotherapy in cervical and endometrial cancers to advance the treatment of these malignancies. I'm delighted to be joined by two acclaimed experts in this space, Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Jaya Lea.   Dr. Duska is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serves as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Dr. Lea is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and chief of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures related to all episodes of the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Drs. Duska and Dr. Lea, it's great to have you on the podcast today.  Dr. Linda Duska: Thanks, Dr. Ferriss.  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Thanks, Dr. Ferriss.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, let's get started. In recent years, we've had a revolution in the treatment of advanced endometrial and cervical cancers with improved outcomes for patients treated with immunotherapy. And when we say immunotherapy, we're specifically talking about immune checkpoint inhibitors today. A few of these agents have actually been approved in the United States for the management of these diseases. In our discussion, I'd like to review the promise and challenges of targeting the immune system in patients with advanced endometrial and cervical cancers, as well as review the most recent evidence we have in these spaces.  Let's start with cervix. We've had a lot of improvements in outcomes here, Dr. Lea, and with cervical cancer, we've seen improved overall survival with the incorporation of immunotherapy along with chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy for advanced and recurrent disease. Can you remind us why cervical cancer is a good target for immunotherapy?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Yes, Dr. Ferriss. Immunotherapy for cervical cancer is supported by several molecular factors. And I think first and foremost, it's so important to remember that the majority of cervical cancers are HPV-positive. And HPV-positive cancers can induce a high level of inflammation, but this high level of inflammation actually contributes to evasion of immune surveillance. What it also does is that it's responsible for the induction of PD-L1. And we've seen several studies that have shown that cervical cancers express PD-L1 anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of cases. Other pertinent factors to consider are that cervical cancer can be considered a tumor with a high tumor mutational burden. So, the number of somatic mutations that we see in the DNA can be considered as a proxy for neoantigens. And so the higher the level of neoantigens, the more immunogenic the tumor. And then lastly, about 1 in 10 cervical cancers present with microsatellite instability, which is an already established key biomarker for the response team in care.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, thinking about targeting PD-L1, what clinical evidence do we have that supports the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in recurrent cervical cancer?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: We now have several studies that have shown a benefit for immune checkpoint inhibitors. For example, KEYNOTE-158 was a phase 2 basket [trial] that investigated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, in multiple cancer types. And specifically for patients with previously treated advanced cervical cancer, we were able to see an overall response rate of about 15% in those patients who had PD-L1 positive. And similarly, the EMPOWER CERVICAL-1 study, which was a phase 3 randomized trial that investigated the efficacy of cemiplimab, which is another PD-1 inhibitor, versus investigator's choice of single agent chemotherapy, showed a significant difference in median overall survival and progression-free survival in the cemiplimab group. There are several other studies that have investigated the efficacy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in cervical cancer. One specific PD-1 inhibitor is nivolumab. In CHECKMATE-358, nivolumab was associated with an overall response rate of 26% in women who had recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Duska, do you have any thoughts?  Dr. Linda Duska: I'm really interested in PD-L1 as a biomarker because in the KEYNOTE-A18 study, which we're going to get to, 95% of patients were PD-L1 positive by CPS, which is the scoring system that we use in cervix cancer. And some of the studies that you already mentioned, including BEATcc, which we're also going to talk about, reported results where PD-L1 wasn't even considered. And so it begs the question, since PD-L1 is actually – again, depending on when in the course of disease you look at it, but more recent studies suggest 95% of cervical cancers express PD-L1, and – agnostic is the word I was looking for – it seems at least in BEATcc and similar trials that PD-L1 is agnostic, but I wonder if PD-L1 is really a good biomarker for response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy and I wonder what your thoughts are.  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I think that's an excellent question. To your point, that's correct that we saw in KETYNOTE-A18 that more than 90% of the patients had PD-L1 positivity and the result is sort of generalizable to all comers. That's still a matter of debate as to how we see PD-L1 as a biomarker to incorporate checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of patients.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, let's talk about the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the frontline setting. Until recently, we haven't seen much improvement in overall survival since the introduction of anti-angiogenic therapy to the chemotherapy backbone, and that was in GOG 240. Let's talk about the changes that have recently occurred in this space.  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: So, we've had some very exciting data specifically from initially KEYNOTE-826 and its primary metastatic or first line salvage settings. So, KEYNOTE-826, which was a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial was very practice-changing for us because it showed that incorporation of pembrolizumab to the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer, really changed the landscape for treatment in this group of patients. So, keep in mind that prior to the study, the standard of care was carboplatin, or cisplatin with paclitaxel plus or minus bevacizumab, which yielded a median overall survival range in anywhere from 13 to 17 months depending on whether you use bevacizumab or not. And then adding pembrolizumab to that regimen, increase the median overall survival to 24 months, which is very promising.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: If I remember correctly, KEYNOTE-826 allowed investigators choice, use of bevacizumab, and initially we were unsure about which regimen was best. Has there been additional data since?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: There has been additional data since. And another study that was done in the same vein was the BEATcc trial, which also looked at the different checkpoint inhibitors, atezolizumab in combination now with bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy. And the control arm for this study was the GOG 240 regimen, which included bevacizumab. And this study showed both a progression-free and overall survival difference. The median overall survival in this study was 32 months with the incorporation of the checkpoint inhibitor to the bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy. So, the way that I look at it is that the BEATcc trial basically confirmed the findings of KEYNOTE-826 and highlights that it is important for us to incorporate checkpoint inhibition with immunotherapy along with bevacizumab when we're treating patients with a recurrence.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Also, folks with primary advanced treatment for cervical cancer, this would be a great regimen, is that right?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Absolutely. Primary advance, we would want to use the same regimen for that.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Okay. What about locally advanced in primary treatment? What advances have we seen?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: So we've had some major changes in that field as well, especially with the recent KEYNOTE-A18 data where pembrolizumab was administered in combination with external beam radiation and concurrent chemotherapy. And this study showed that there was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemoradiation alone. Specifically, the progression-free survival at 24 months using pembrolizumab with chemoradiation was 68%, and 57% when in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for disease progression was 0.7 and no new safety signals were observed, which is fantastic, especially given the 0.7 hazard ratio that received PFS.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Yeah, absolutely. These patients with locally advanced cervical cancer often are quite symptomatic, and the prospect of adding chemo, radiation, and now immunotherapy on top of that is really encouraging to see that it was such a well-tolerated regimen. I believe that there were patient-reported outcomes recently reported at SGO.  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Absolutely. So, the safety profile of pembrolizumab and chemoradiation was consistent with the known profile of the individual treatment components. And no new safety signals emerged in the pembrolizumab chemoradiation arm. So, you're right. It was very well tolerated.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: What would you say are the takeaways for folks who are seeing these patients in the community? These locally advanced cervical cancer patients that are now adding immunotherapy in a space that we have not used routinely in the past in terms of combining it with chemo radiation in gynecologic cancer. What are some things they should be looking out for?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Well, I think that with the hazard ratio of 0.7 and the patient-reported outcomes showing no new signal, I think we can say that there is a positive benefit-to-risk profile of adding pembrolizumab in combination with chemoradiation, and that we should feel comfortable using this regimen. Now, of course, we have individualized patient care, and be able to know when to use bevacizumab, when to use immunotherapy. So, taking the whole patient into consideration becomes important. But for those individuals who are able to receive these drugs who don't have concrete issues to not receive these drugs [then I'd say we could] incorporate them since the safety profile is set.  Dr. Linda Duska: I would add to that, Dr. Ferriss, that right now we only have FDA approval in the U.S. for stage 3-4A disease, and that's 2014 staging. Mind you, we are now in 2018, so we should be very careful in and follow the correct FIGO staging. But the FDA only gave approval for stage 3-4A disease, even though the study included patients with earlier stage disease and positive nodes.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: That's a great point, thank you.  So, Dr. Duska, thinking about endometrial cancer and advanced endometrial cancer, we have seen a similar revolution in the care of patients over the past few years, with major shifts in our approach. Can you remind us how we got here?  Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, I would say in the ‘90s and before, and maybe even in the early 2000s, we used a lot of radiation for endometrial cancer as adjuvant therapy following surgery. The general consensus and what we were all taught was that this was a chemotherapy-resistant disease. And then we learned from a variety of GOG at the time, Gynecologic Oncology Group trials, that this disease is actually chemosensitive. And we went through a series of chemotherapy drugs, ranging from adriamycin cisplatin to taxel adriamycin cisplatin, and finally to taxel and carboplatin, demonstrating that this disease is actually quite chemosensitive.  With this realization came the idea that maybe it would be important to combine chemotherapy and radiation particularly in high-risk endometrial cancer cases, so those with positive nodes or patients with high-risk histology such as clear cell or serous cancers. So two very important trials were done, one of them was PORTEC-3 and the other was GOG-258, which looked at combining chemo and radiation together to see if we could do better than one or the other alone. And they were very different trials, and they looked at different populations of patients and they looked at different things. For example, PORTEC-3 randomized patients to receive chemotherapy and radiation versus radiation alone, while 258 looked at chemotherapy and radiation versus chemotherapy alone. Without going into a great amount of detail, I think what we learned from both of those studies, and I think surprised many of us, that the arms that included chemotherapy, those patients did better.  In fact, the results of GOG-258 can be interpreted – and this is somewhat controversial – but can be interpreted that many of these high-risk patients don't need radiation at all, or perhaps need tumor-directed radiation. For example, chemotherapy followed by tumor-directed radiation either to the vaginal cuff, because the vaginal cuff is at risk for recurrence, or perhaps to an area of concern, maybe the cervix if there were cervical involvement or if there is a particular concern for local recurrence in a particular patient. So, I think the pendulum has swung from almost always using radiation alone to, in more modern day, using chemotherapy and using radiation much more sparingly, and then comes immunotherapy.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, update us on the results of NRG-GY018 and RUBY?  Dr. Linda Duska: So, we've already talked about the KEYNOTE basket trials, which really contributed a lot to our understanding of the importance of MMR deficiency and microsatellite unstable disease. The KEYNOTE-158 study and the GARNET study showed us how important it was for women with MMRd and MSI endometrial cancer to receive checkpoint inhibition, and actually with remarkable response rates to women who had already been pretreated. But we also learned from the GARNET trial, which included MMRp patients, that the response rates in MMRp were not that great. And that led to KEYNOTE-775, which looked to combine pembrolizumab with a VEGF inhibitor, lenvantinib, to see if we could make the cold tumor hot. And indeed, we could. And not only could we improve the response rate in patients with MMRp tumors, but we could also improve the response rate in patients with MMRd tumors. They did better with the combination than they did with pembro alone.  That led to the idea of combining checkpoint inhibitors with chemo upfront. The idea there was we were going to take paclitaxel and carboplatin, which were our backbone for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, and add immunotherapy to that. And to your point, GY018 and RUBY trials did just that. And they allowed MMRd and MMRp patients and combined paclitaxel and carboplatin, either with dostarlimab in the case of RUBY, or pembrolizumab in the case of GY018. These studies, both of which were reported and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, showed remarkable findings in the upfront setting and potentially in the curable setting. And the OS data for RUBY were presented at SGO this year and were remarkable for MMRd patients. In the whole population, in the whole group in RUBY, there was a 16.4-month improvement in overall survival with the addition of dostarlimab which is just huge.  When you look at the MMRd group, I think Dr. Powell described the overall survival improvement as unprecedented. I believe that was the word that he used. Also, he called it very robust, with a hazard ratio of 0.32 for the group that got dostarlimab, and a median OS that was not reached. So really remarkable. In addition, in the MMRp group, there was a seven-month improvement in OS that was significant. So that's really amazing in the RUBY trial. It's also of note that the RUBY trial allowed carcinosarcomas, whereas the GY018 study did not. So, I think it's fair to say that these results apply to carcinosarcomas.  It's also really important to note that many of the patients in the immunotherapy group who received placebo, 41% of them got IO in a later treatment line, and these OS data still stand. So that's really interesting and hypothesis-generating. For GY018, we don't have mature OS data yet, so we can't talk about OS. But we saw a similar improvement in PFS in both arms, in the d and the pMMR, with an OS trend in both arms that was also reported at SGO. GY018 was a little bit different though, because they unblinded at the time of the PFS reporting last year, and so those patients were unblinded a lot earlier than the RUBY patients were. So, to interpret the data in that vein, the OS data is not mature, but we anticipate looking at the PFS curves and the preliminary OS curves, that the OS data will also be statistically significantly improved in core pembrolizumab in GY018.  What's also really interesting, and we haven't talked about molecular subtypes, is that when we look at the molecular subtypes in RUBY, and I'm sure we're going to see data on the molecular subtypes in GY018 coming up, different molecular subtypes of endometrial cancer respond differently to IO. And so, there's going to be lots of really interesting data coming our way soon that we're really excited to see, and that will help us triage patients appropriately into treatment regimens.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Lea, did you have a thought?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Yeah, I just wanted to comment that looking at the dMMR survival curve in the file that was presented recently, one thing that really strikes me is the importance of adding the IO at the time of initial treatment. The separation of the curves persists. And, like you just mentioned, Dr. Duska, I mean, some of those patients who received placebo then later on went to get an IO treatment, but at the same time, we still see a vast separation of those curves. So, I think it's really important to note that immunotherapy should be used upfront, especially in dMMR.  Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I completely agree with that. And I think that might be– I mean, this is just a hypothesis, but I think that that might be why we saw a difference with the addition of immunotherapy in the MMRp group, because it's possible that the chemotherapy created an immune environment that made the checkpoint inhibitor work more successfully than it would have otherwise. So, a really good point. You definitely need to include dostarlimab or pembrolizumab with the chemotherapy and then as maintenance therapy after.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, you mentioned, we're increasingly thinking about endometrial cancer in smaller and smaller buckets of patients with very prescribed molecular profiles. We don't yet have enough information to specifically tailor treatment. How are you approaching that today in patients that you see in clinic?  Dr. Linda Duska: Well, the MMR, and I'm interested in what you both are doing also, it's easy with the MMRd and MSI high patients. Those patients all should receive a checkpoint inhibitor, no question. The patients that are p53 mut, I test them for HER2, because we do have data to suggest that atezolizumab or TDX-d might be useful in those individuals, HER2 positive. And then the remaining patients, also called the NSMPs. That's a difficult group. I'm interested to know how you all manage them. I think that's the group where more clinical research is really needed to determine what the best treatment regimen for them is. But I'm interested in both of your thoughts on that.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Dr. Lea?  Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I would have to say that I do exactly like you do, Dr. Duska.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: And I would say our approach is very similar. And we have a robust discussion always about the use of immunotherapy with chemotherapy and in patients who are proficient MMR. But I think that most of us believe that the PFS data is certainly compelling. And now the OS data from RUBY, very compelling in both groups. And so, we are routinely recommending the use of immunotherapy along with chemotherapy in these advanced patients.  Dr. Linda Duska: I've heard the argument made that GY018 required measurable disease, and so does not necessarily apply to patients without measurable disease. I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think there were clinical trial reasons why that was a requirement rather than biologic reasons. In addition, as we already discussed, RUBY included carcinosarcomas and GY018 did not. I don't think there's a reason to only use dostarlimab for carcinosarcomas, but that said, I don't know that pembrolizumab has an indication for carcinosarcomas. The devil's in the details, don't get too lost in the weeds. I think the take-home message here is that it's really important to use IO, particularly for the MMRd patients with endometrial cancer, upfront. And based on the OS that we saw in both RUBY and preliminarily in GY018, we may be curing some people with this regimen, and I think we should focus on that. The overall survival for advanced endometrial cancer is not great, and if we can improve that and potentially cure some people, that's a huge advance for our patients.  Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Do you envision a day that we might even ask the question, “Do we need to do surgery?”  Dr. Linda Duska: So, the rectal data would support that assertion. I'm not sure that endometrial cancer and rectal cancer are the same thing. And I think that taking out a postmenopausal woman's uterus is a lot less morbid than potentially radiating or taking out somebody's rectum. I think a different question would be, is there a day when we would stop doing no dissection? We could definitely debate that, but I don't see that happening. Do you see that happening anytime soon? A stopping of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer? Dr. Jayanthi Lea: I don't see that happening anytime soon. And I think, as you said, taking out the uterus, tubes, and ovaries, it does provide us with some information about whether you're even dealing with a secondary primary. But also, it's from a quality-of-life standpoint. If a woman has a large uterus, that's uncomfortable. Postmenopausal bleeding, avoiding bleeding during the course of treatment, so many reasons why I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to want to not do surgery for these patients. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: So, we'll put a plug in for our fellow gynecologic oncologists that we still have a role to play in the incorporation of treatment regimens for patients with advanced uterine cancer. So it's not just medicine, there's still a role for surgery.  Dr. Linda Duska: I think that's very fair, yeah. Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Okay. I think that's all the time we have for today.  I want to thank our listeners for their time, and you'll find the links to all the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And 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. Thank you.  Dr. Linda Duska: Thank you. Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Thank you. 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.    Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. James Stuart Ferriss Dr. Linda Duska @LDuska Dr. Jayanthi Lea   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. James Stuart Ferriss: Honoraria: National Board of Medical Examiners Dr. Linda Duska: Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma Researching Funding (Inst): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Syndax, Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Cerulean Pharma, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn Dr. Jayanthi Lea: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche

Gene Ludwig, head of the The Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, joins us to discuss 'functional unemployment', and how we can improve the well-being of middle- and lower-income Americans through economic research and education.Facepalm America: facepalmamerica.comTwitter: @FacepalmUSAFind Beowulf: @BeowulfRochlenBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/facepalm-america--5189985/support.

The fintech revolution has been more successful at working with banks than at trying to replace them, points out Gene Ludwig, former Comptroller of the Currency, chair of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, and co-founder of Canapi Ventures. Those with “must have” products will fare far better in 2024 than those with “nice to have” tools, he says.

Dr. Beth Weaver is a Professor in the Department of Cell and Regenerative Biology and the Department of Oncology/McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. She is co-Leader of the Developmental Therapeutics Program at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Beth studies a group of commonly used chemotherapy agents to better understand how they work, who will respond to these treatments, and how to make resistant tumors more sensitive to these drugs. Outside of work, Beth enjoys spending time with her family. She, her husband, and their two children enjoy making fun group Halloween costumes, and she also brings this creativity into entertaining and hosting themed parties. Beth received her B.S. in biochemistry from Brown University and her Ph.D. in biomedical sciences from the University of California, San Diego. Afterwards, Beth conducted postdoctoral research at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research before joining the faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has received various awards and honors during her career. These have included receipt of the Bothwell Prize and the Women's Health Research Mentorship Award from UW-Madison. In addition, she has been named an American Cancer Society Research Scholar, a Romnes Faculty Fellow by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and a University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Ride Scholar. In this interview, she shares more about her life and science.

Opthea, an Australian based biopharmaceutical company is dedicated to transforming retinal disease treatments and elevating patients' vision and quality of life. Join Firas Rahal, MD, in a captivating episode as he engages with Opthea's Founder and Chief Innovation Officer, Megan Baldwin, PhD.Explore the compelling journey from oncology to ophthalmology, unraveling strategic decisions, navigating competitive landscapes, and achieving triumphs in clinical trials. Dr. Baldwin unfolds her remarkable career trajectory, from a PhD at the University of Melbourne to pivotal roles at Genentech and the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research.Tune in for exclusive insights, including:Opthea's strategic approach to revolutionizing eye careClinical Trials: A deep dive into their success and impactComparison with Other Drugs: Differentiating factors and unique contributionsFuture Directions: Exploring new horizons and clinical opportunitiesCommercialization Timeline: Anticipated milestones and FDA approval strategiesListen now for a compelling journey through Opthea's vision as they continue to shape the landscape of ophthalmological advancements.Opthea: Opthea.comMegan Baldwin, PhD: LinkedInFiras Rahal, MD ois.net/robert-rothman-md

Even when the economy is booming and unemployment is low, millions of Americans still face economic hardship. And in the last few years the United States has dealt with supply chain challenges, inflation and financial instability. The economic tools we have to identify, address and talk about those problems aren't always up to the task, and sometimes the picture we get is hard to match with reality. Gene Ludwig is a longtime financial advisor to Wall Street, and founder of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity. His organization aims to help middle and low-income families achieve prosperity, in part by developing new headline statistics for economic data that bring us closer to truly understanding Americans' experiences. Ludwig joins Heather Boushey from Biden's Council of Economic Advisors on stage at the Aspen Institute, for a conversation about how to truly invest in American industry from the ground up. What principles and policies will help achieve national security and a strong economy that supports workers? Gillian Tett, U.S. editor-at-large of Financial Times, moderates the conversation.

Na świecie żyje prawie pół miliona osób, które dożyły 100 lat. Długość życia stale rośnie. Naukowcy z Uniwersytetu Waszyngtońskiego mówią jednak, że istnieje "wiek graniczny", powyżej 120 lat, którego nie da się pokonać. Jest to jednak znacznie więcej niż obecnie oczekiwana średnia długość życia która wynosi około 80 lat. Na przeszkodzie naszej długowieczności stoją choroby. W pierwszej kolejności to choroby układu krążenia, ale na drugim miejscu są nowotwory. Żeby z nimi skutecznie walczyć musimy się dowiedzieć jak odróżnić komórki rakowe od zdrowych, poznać mechanizmy ich powstawania i zatosować najskuteczniejsze metody, które je zniszczą. Na te tematy rozmawiam z Magdaleną Drożdż doktorantką w Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, która zajmuje się genomiką nowotworową i bioinformatyką, procesami mutacyjnymi, wczesnym wykrywaniem chorób nowotworowych i medycyną spersonalizowaną. Zapraszam Borys Kozielski (00:00) Intro (00:22) Wstęp (02:11) Rozmowa z Magdaleną Drożdż (54:39) Zakończenie

Everyone knows that we are not all the same, there is wonderful diversity in our bodies, our genetics, our lifestyles, and our preferences. And yet, when it comes to nutrition, the most successful public health messages are the broad guidelines, which suggests one size can fit all.   Think five-a-day, taking Vitamin D through the autumn and winter, and so on. At the same time, the science behind nutrition, the understanding of our metabolism and of our gut microbiome, has been increasing at a fantastic rate. The question is: how do you bring these two worlds together?   How do you bring the best of intricate nutritional science to a broader population? Could the answer lay in precision nutrition?   It is an emerging and exciting field which helps tailor dietary recommendations and nutritional guidelines, and there is some evidence it can have remarkable health impacts. It is an area which seems to offer huge potential, but exactly how much is yet to be discovered. Karen Vousden, Principal Group Leader, Francis Crick Institute Karen received her PhD from the University of London and following postdoctoral fellowships at the ICR and NCI, she returned to London to establish a research group at the Ludwig Institute.  Returning to the US, she was Chief of the Regulation of Cell Growth Laboratory at the NCI before coming back to the UK to take on the role of Director of the CRUK Beatson Institute in Glasgow.   In 2017, she moved her research group to the Francis Crick Institute in London and served as Chief Scientist for Cancer Research UK from 2016-2022. Karen's research has made contributions to our understanding of how the tumour suppressor protein p53 is regulated and the functions of p53 that contribute to its ability to control cancer progression.   During these studies, her group revealed an unexpected ability of p53 to help cells adapt and survive under transient periods of nutrient starvation.  This work led to a more general investigation of cancer cell metabolism, focused on exploring the role of oxidative stress and serine metabolism in cancer development and metastatic progression. Greg Hannon, Director of Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute Greg Hannon FRS FMedSci is a professor of molecular cancer biology and director of the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute at the University of Cambridge.   Professor Hannon is internationally recognised for his contributions to small RNA biology, cancer biology, and mammalian genomics.  He has a long history in the discovery of cancer genes, beginning with work at CSHL that led to the identification of CDK inhibitors and their links to cancer.   More recently, his work has focused on small RNA biology, which led to an understanding of the biochemical mechanisms and biological functions of RNAi.   Building upon this foundation, he has developed widely-used tools and strategies for manipulation of gene expression in mammalian cells and animals and has generated genome-wide shRNA libraries that are available to the cancer community.   He was among the first to uncover roles for microRNAs in cancer, including the discovery of the miR-17-92 cluster as an oncogene, the placement of miR-34 within the p53 pathways, and the understanding that let-7 and miR-93 are critical regulators of both normal stem cells and tumour initiating cells in several tissues.   His laboratory also discovered the piRNA pathway and linked this to transposon repression and the protection of germ cell genomes. 

What is the True Living Cost in America? How do the CPI - Consumer Price Index - and Unemployment Rate fall short of measuring our economic realities? Guest Gene Ludwig is a former Comptroller of the Currency and now chairman of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity. LISEP provides a more accurate picture of the economic reality for families through the creation of a cost of living metric called TLC, or TRUE LIVING COST, which factors in housing, food, transportation, healthcare, childcare, technology and other miscellaneous. For more related content in our "Priced Out" series on CNET Money, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Frank Furnari, Ph.D., of UC San Diego, shares his work using stem cells as a vehicle to generate models of brain cancer. Focusing on glioblastoma, he explains how tumor avatars could lead to new therapies. Series: "Stem Cell Channel" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 38514]

Do we really understand what's happening in the economic lives of regular Americans? How is inflation hitting people with middle and lower incomes, and what impact will higher interest rates have on them? What societally valuable assets are we ignoring because we don't measure them? Some economists believe we're not collecting the right data, and therefore, we're not getting an accurate picture of what's happening to individuals. Gene Ludwig founded the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity to create new economic indicators for unemployment, earnings, and cost of living. He discusses how and why changes could be made to economic metrics with Duke law professor and risk analyst Sarah Bloom Raskin, and Oren Cass, the director of the conservative think tank American Compass. New York Times writer David Leonhardt moderates the conversation, which took place at the end of June.

Dr. Jhanelle Gray, of the Moffitt Cancer Center and chair of the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting Education Program, highlights must-see sessions that explore strategies to advance equity, innovation, and impact across the global cancer community.  Transcript: ASCO Daily News: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for ASCO Daily News. Today I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Jhanelle Gray. She is the department chair of thoracic oncology and co-leader of the Molecular Medicine Program at the Moffitt Cancer Center. She's also a professor at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine and chair of the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting Education Program. Dr. Gray will tell us about the hot topics and must-see educational sessions at this year's [ASCO] Annual Meeting. Dr. Gray's full disclosures are available in the show notes and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Gray, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Jhanelle Gray: Thank you for having me. I am excited to be here with you today and for the opportunity to chat with you about the upcoming 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting and the educational sessions. ASCO Daily News: Well, the theme of the Annual Meeting is advancing equitable cancer care through innovation. Can you tell us how equity and innovation are reflected in the Education Program? And what would you say are the must-see sessions in this year's program? Dr. Jhanelle Gray: I am excited about sharing and hearing the latest advances in our field so we can move toward impact innovation and equity across our global cancer care community. [In] many of the sessions that we have, the attendees will join us either online or in person, and really will help us come together with a common goal of reducing the cancer burden. The presidential theme from Dr. Everett Vokes has really helped us to formulate what these sessions are. A few of them that I think really align with where we want to go for this 2022 ASCO [Annual] Meeting are things such as looking at strategies to advance cancer equity in our cancer clinical trials. We also have sessions such as “Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: The Current Field and Where It Is Headed,” and this touches on our innovation piece. We also have some really great keynote speakers such as a session—our ASCO Town Hall, moderated by Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, a past ASCO president and she'll be talking to us about the future of the conduct of clinical trials after COVID-19. I hope this gives you a sense of the exciting topics we have as we work to identify and address the challenges in this global cancer care field. ASCO Daily News: Thanks. Well, a couple of other sessions that are really trying to address these challenges are 2 joint sessions. So, I'd like to ask you about those. The first one involves ASCO and the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR. And the second one features ASCO and the European Cancer Organization (ECO). Can you tell us about the topics of these sessions and why you think it's important for participants to see these particular sessions? Dr. Jhanelle Gray: Thank you. That's a great question. And thank you to AACR and ECO for their engagement and collaboration in planning and designing these sessions. We work to ensure that both organization's priorities and expertise are truly represented. The ASCO-AACR joint session is titled, “ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Joint Session: The Promise of DNA Damage Response and Repair in Cancer,” and the ASCO-ECO joint session is on HPV vaccination prevention and treatment. These sessions include hot topics in oncology and were planned intentionally with a common approach that is across DNA damage repair and HPV vaccines. I really want the audience to hear: What is the existent data from which we can learn? How do we work to expand upon these gains across various tumor types? What are those key opportunities to expand platforms, and they should include diagnostics and therapeutics across global populations? Overall, I think both of these sessions will help the audience to understand not only what present-day data is, but also learn where these fields are heading in the future. ASCO Daily News: Thank you. Well, the ASCO Voices session is a favorite of the ASCO Annual Meeting. The speakers this year from Nigeria, Ireland, Germany, and the United States will share personal stories focused on equity, global health, and innovation. I've had a chance to interview the speakers and their stories really capture the human spirit and convey a true desire to find innovative ways to improve the lives of patients and survivors. Is this session 1 of your favorites at the [ASCO] Annual Meeting? Dr. Jhanelle Gray: Absolutely. The ASCO Voices is truly a compelling session. It helps to highlight where we should focus in what can seem like a very busy meeting. It helps all of us, including health care professionals, industry partners, caregivers, to take that breath and recenter. Our focus is ultimately the patient, and these personal stories help to crosscut that oncology continuum. We have, of course, chosen those that helped to showcase and support the importance of the presidential theme. And you'll see that many of those have topics focused on issues that are most relevant to global health, innovation, and/or cancer equity. So, congratulations, and looking forward to all of the speakers in this session [and] hearing their talks. ASCO Daily News: Thank you, Dr. Gray. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Before we wrap up the podcast? Do you want to mention maybe some of the sessions that are on top of your list to attend? Dr. Jhanelle Gray: Absolutely. We have also, in addition to the educational session, you'll hear from others throughout these podcasts on the scientific sessions, also obviously looking very much forward to the plenary, looking forward to the award ceremony also. It's just been an absolute pleasure to be working with Dr. Sonali on scientific sessions, as well as obviously Dr. Everett Vokes, our current president. ASCO Daily News: Well, thank you very much, Dr. Gray, for being on the podcast today. And thank you for your work as chair of the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting Education Program. Dr. Jhanelle Gray: It's been an absolute pleasure to spend time with you today. If I can also take a moment to thank the ASCO staff, just what a phenomenal team and so those that are listening, I look forward to seeing you hopefully some of you at least in person at the meeting. ASCO Daily News: Wonderful! Thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you're enjoying the content on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclosure: Dr. Jhanelle Gray: Honoraria: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Axiom HC Strategies, Inivata Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Scientific Affairs, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Loxo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Research Funding (Institution): Array BioPharma, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inivata, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis 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.  

Beowulf talks about the recent jobs report and speaks with Gene Ludwig with The Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity about why unemployment numbers are way undercounted.

It's a new podcast from the producer of The Rick Ungar Show... Facepalm America. Facepalm America looks at the news from a perspective similar to the one you hear on The Rick Ungar Show, but in a slightly more comedic and unfettered way. So check out this episode of Facepalm America and for more episodes, search for Facepalm America on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Or go to bit.ly/facepalmpod This episode: Beowulf speaks with Gene Ludwig of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity and why the unemployment rate doesn't make sense, talks with Igor Volsky of Guns Down America about the new Oath Keeper on the NRA board of directors, and why you should NOT take a bath in borax to unvaxx yourself.

Beowulf speaks with Gene Ludwig of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity and why the unemployment rate doesn't make sense, talks with Igor Volsky of Guns Down America about the new Oath Keeper on the NRA board of directors, and why you should NOT take a bath in borax to unvaxx yourself.

A/Prof Andrew Weickhardt and Dr Ainsley Campbell discuss treatment options for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, with esteemed guest Professor Ian Davis. Andrew Weickhardt is a consultant medical oncologist with a major interest in genitourinary cancers. Andrew has a joint appointment between Austin Hospital and the Olivia Newton John Cancer Research Institute. He oversees the genitourinary clinical trials program at the Austin Hospital. He has published over 20 peer reviewed publications and his research on targeted therapies has been recognised with multiple awards including two American Society for Clinical Oncology Merit Awards. Ainsley Campbell is a medical oncologist and Director of Genetics at Austin Health based in Heidelberg, Victoria. Ainsley has an interest in GU oncology and cancer genetics. Professor Ian Davis is a medical oncologist and is Professor of Medicine and Head of the Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University & Eastern Health, in Melbourne Australia. He is an NHMRC Practitioner Fellow. He holds honorary appointments with the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute (formerly Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research) and Austin Health, is an Associate Professor of the University of Melbourne, and Associate of the University of Sydney. His primary clinical interests are in urologic cancer and melanoma, and his primary research interests are in cancer immunology and the biology of urologic cancers.

Overview: In this episode we learn what a clinical trial is, how they are developed and why they are so important. We also learn about participating in clinical trials, factors to consider and what the process is to get involved. Speakers: Prof Mark Shackleton is the Director of Oncology at Alfred Health, a Professor of Oncology at Monash University, a Victorian Cancer Agency Clinical Research Fellow and Chair of Melanoma and Skin Cancer Trials Ltd. After training in medical oncology and at the Ludwig Institute in Melbourne, he undertook PhD studies at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and postdoctoral work at the University of Michigan, USA. He has received several major prizes for his research, most recently a 2016 Victorian Cancer Agency Clinical Research Fellowship and in 2012, he was awarded the Australian Science Minister's Prize for Life Scientist of the Year. Dr Megan Lyle is a Medical Oncologist with special interests in cancer immunotherapy, melanoma and other skin cancers and gastrointestinal malignancies.  Dr Lyle works at the Liz Plummer Cancer Care Centre at Cairns Hospital, Response Oncology, Far North Day Hospital and Cairns Private Hospital. Dr Lyle also holds a senior lecturer position with James Cook University. Dr Lyle received her Fellowship from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in 2013 having undertaken medical oncology advanced training in Newcastle, NSW. She subsequently completed a clinical research fellowship at Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney in 2013-14. Dr Lyle is published in major international peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Topics Covered In This Episode: What a clinical trial is, and why we need them Who can participate in clinical trials The types of clinical trials and who runs them Designing a clinical trial and establishing trial protocols  What is informed consent The different phases of clinical trials The role of human research ethics committees  How to find out more information about clinical trials Access to trials for remote and rural populations Increase in trials being run in regional areas Telehealth and clinical trials What is a placebo trial What happens after a trial concludes The future of clinical trials For More Information: The Spot On Podcast is brought to you by the Melanoma & Skin Cancer Advocacy Network (MSCAN) - who are providing a new, innovative approach to tackle Australia's national cancer. MSCAN engages with Australia's leading clinicians, researchers and advocates with the aim of increasing the knowledge of those affected by a diagnosis.  MSCAN is grateful to the clinicians interviewed in our podcast series. They have all provided their time and input freely and independently.    The content discussed in these episodes is for information purposes only and should not be considered as medical advice. Please make sure you speak with a medical professional for advice relating to your own specific situation.

— Too many potential cures for cancer disappear in a funding bottleneck. Music Beats Cancer is changing this by leveraging the power and passion of people and music to help raise funds and awareness of promising cancer innovations that would otherwise linger in the Valley of Death. Their mission is to increase the number of cancer-fighting technologies in the product development pipeline so that more solutions make it to those in need. Valeria Teles interviews Dr. Mona Jhaveri, a Founder, Executive Director, And Chairman Of The Board At Music Beats Cancer, And Speaker Dr. Mona Jhaveri launched the nonprofit to address the “Valley of Death,” the growing gap in funding that constrains the translation of cancer research discoveries into clinical applications. Prior to Music Beats Cancer, Jhaveri founded Foligo Therapeutics, Inc. in 2005 to develop and commercialize a DNA-based therapeutic compound as a potential treatment for ovarian cancer. While Foligo was able to initially attract funding from various state-run venture programs and business plan competitions, the company ultimately succumbed to the Valley of Death. Jhaveri realized that breaking this funding bottleneck was a more critical priority than Foligo and rededicated herself to Music Beats Cancer and its mission. Jhaveri holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University. She trained as a post-doctoral fellow at the National Cancer Institute and was granted the SPORE Fellowship Award for Breast Cancer Research at the Lombardi Cancer Center of Georgetown University. She subsequently specialized in intellectual property and technology transfer while at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. To learn more about Dr. Mona Jhaveri and her work, please visit: https://www.musicbeatscancer.org/     — This podcast is a quest for well-being, a quest for a meaningful life through the exploration of fundamental truths, enlightening ideas, insights on physical, mental, and spiritual health. The inspiration is Love. The aspiration is to awaken new ways of thinking that can lead us to a new way of being, being well.   

Dr. Anh Bui ran in high school and at the collegiate level where she found herself injured often. She grew up in San Leandro, CA and was raised in a first-generation immigrant family. San Leandro was a melting pot of low-to-median income households with pockets of crime, and under-resourced and underprivileged youth. Dr. Bui recalls few resources being available to her to manage running injuries and was always in the position to run through pain or sit out and “rest” the entire season. She competed in cross country and track at UC San Diego where her injuries continued to manifest, and while she had access to athletic trainers, she was never exposed to physical therapists for long-term injury prevention. While studying abroad at the Australian Institute of Sport—the Aussie equivalent of US Olympic Training Centers—she became interested in physiology, human performance and biomechanics. While studying under world-renowned exercise physiologists, Dr. Bui knew right away that she wanted to work with endurance athletes. Specifically to correct poor movement patterns and prevent injury. Dr. Bui refers to physical therapy as her second career in life, as her first was in research and academia. After earning her Bachelors of Science in biology at UC San Diego, she worked as a neuroscience research associate at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. She studied neurodegenerative disease, specifically Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). While shadowing a physician and physical therapist who worked with ALS patients, Dr. Bui realized she wanted to become a physical therapist; she wanted to help patients restore function and mobility. Additionally, her background in research and academia compels her to utilize evidence-based research to her practice. Dr. Bui completed her Doctor of Physical Therapy at Columbia University in NYC. She participated in unique electives including advanced orthopedics, management of the running athlete, and women's health. She held leadership roles at Columbia's RunLab clinic, performing running gait evaluations and providing individualized exercise programs to high-level runners. Dr. Bui's favorite aspect of RunLab was employing running gait analysis technology to help runners prevent injury and improve performance. She continued to add to her running gait analysis repertoire during her sports residency in Boulder, CO, which placed her in the mecca of endurance athletes On the running front, you can find Dr. Bui logging tons of miles around the Bay Area. She is coached remotely by Boulder Underground and continues to race in sub-elite 5k- marathon races. Learn more at www.runresilientlydpt.com. Follow Matt: Instagram - @rambling_runner Twitter - @rambling_runner Rambling Runner Podcast Community Corner private Facebook group - www.facebook.com/groups/125544686229661

The average American's financial picture is bleaker than government data suggests, according to the former comptroller of the currency. Research from his new organization, the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, has found that unemployment is higher and household wages are lower than reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

To understand how cancer develops and spreads, and to develop better therapies, it’s critical to understand the tumor microenvironment, the immediate area around a tumor that “helps generate a supportive niche for it to develop and grow.” Johanna Joyce, PhD, joined the podcast to explain that the diverse normal cells around a tumor are enmeshed with cancer cells. They’re integrated. They communicate and influence each other’s functions. Her lab’s goal is “to try and either block this cellular conversation or redirect it towards a more constructive dialogue that helps fight the tumor and not support it.” Johanna Joyce, PhD, is Professor at the University of Lausanne and Full Member of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. 4:32 – What is the tumor microenvironment? 6:00 – Why it’s similar to the immense complexity of a forest’s ecosystem 8:19 – Do tumors somehow create or remodel their microenvironments? 12:42 – “The tumor microenvironment can have a major impact on how a given cancer responds to therapy in a number of different ways…” 18:23 – On the unique aspects of the tumor microenvironment in the brain 22:02 – On her fantastic new study showing that different brain cancers have different microenvironments based on whether the tumors started in the brain or spread to the brain 28:15 – Surprising findings from that study – the immense complexity and diversity of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment 32:12 – How can we translate these findings to the clinic? 36:22 – Why it’s so important to understand how different lifestyles, diets, levels of activity, and environmental exposures impact patients’ tumor microenvironments 38:20 – The impact that American Cancer Society funding had on her career 40:41 – Her message for cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers

Professor Damien Bolton is an academic, a researcher, and a surgeon. He holds numerous positions, as Professor, Head of Department at the Austin Hospital, to an honorary fellow of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. He's published hundreds of papers, book chapters, reviews, and supervised many PhD students. He is also the proud dad of three boys and has a focus and a passion for mens' health. He provides a particular insight, as a specialist in urogenital cancer and urology working with an aspect on which men perceive their identity, on the changing landscape of the discussion around mens' health. Damien talks about parenting, medicine, and shares his thoughts on the importance of teaching boys to ask for help.

In this episode of the Epigenetics Podcast, we caught up with Bing Ren, Ph.D., from the University of California, San Diego and the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research to talk about his work on identifying functional elements of the genome and higher order genome structure.   Dr. Ren’s lab invented an approach for finding cis-elements that involves the identification of transcription factor binding sites and chromatin modification status genome-wide using chromatin immunoprecipitation-based methods. His group demonstrated that this is an effective approach for genome-wide mapping of cis-elements, and their approach has now been widely adopted in the field. Among many other distinctions, Bing Ren's group was also a major contributor to the ENCODE Project.   His lab recently discovered that the mammalian genomes are partitioned into a few thousand megabase-sized domains, which display strong local chromatin interactions but infrequent inter-domain interactions. These domains are surprisingly stable during development and are evolutionarily conserved. The physical partitioning of the genome provides a structural basis for understanding long-range regulatory functions by distal enhancers, which are often located hundreds of kilobases away from their target genes.    In this interview, we discuss the road of Bing Ren's scientific career, his role in the ENCODE Project and Roadmap Epigenome Consortia, and the discovery of Topologically associating domains (TADs).   References The ENCODE Project Consortium (2004) The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project (Science) DOI: 10.1126/science.1105136  Yin Shen, Feng Yue, … Bing Ren (2012) A map of the cis -regulatory sequences in the mouse genome (Nature) DOI: 10.1038/nature11243  Tae Hoon Kim, Leah O. Barrera, … Bing Ren (2005) A high-resolution map of active promoters in the human genome (Nature) DOI: 10.1038/nature03877  Tae Hoon Kim, Ziedulla K. Abdullaev, … Bing Ren (2007) Analysis of the Vertebrate Insulator Protein CTCF-Binding Sites in the Human Genome (Cell) DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.048  R. David Hawkins, Gary C. Hon, … Bing Ren (2010) Distinct Epigenomic Landscapes of Pluripotent and Lineage-Committed Human Cells (Cell Stem Cell) DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2010.03.018  Jesse R. Dixon, Siddarth Selvaraj, … Bing Ren (2012) Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions (Nature) DOI: 10.1038/nature11082  Fulai Jin, Yan Li, … Bing Ren (2013) A high-resolution map of the three-dimensional chromatin interactome in human cells (Nature) DOI: 10.1038/nature12644 Contact   Active Motif on Twitter Epigenetics Podcast on Twitter Active Motif on Linked-In Active Motif on Facebook eMail: podcast@activemotif.com

Please support the show at Patreon.com/mattfradd Today I sit down with Dominican priest Fr. Nicancor Austriaco to discuss evolution, genesis and Adam and Eve. Fr. Nicanor Austriaco is a Catholic priest in the Order of Friars Preachers. Born in the Philippines, he earned his Ph.D. degree in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After completing his doctoral studies, he was a fellow of the International Human Frontier Science Program at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University College London. ... Seriously if I kept going you'd be reading longer than it took to listen to this podcast. He's a smart dude, okay? Show notes (as always) at PintsWithAquinas.com

In this episode Dr. Carlos Faraco speaks with Dr. Don Cleveland of the University of California San Diego regarding his work on drug-based gene silencing therapies. Cleveland and the members of his lab use these therapies, also known as designer DNA drugs, to silence genes involved in the development of various neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease. In addition to these familiar diseases, they also discuss how designer DNA drugs may help those suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease affecting individuals with a history of repeated head injury, including athletes, military personnel, and domestic abuse victims. While the concept of chronic traumatic encephalopathy was first introduced in the early 1900s due to its prevalence in boxers, the cause of the disease has recently come under significant public scrutiny in the US due to several high-profile stories involving football players. Participants Host: Carlos Faraco, Ph.D., Neuroscience 2016-2018 Executive Branch Fellow at the National Institutes of Justice Don Cleveland, Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences Chair, Departmental of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, UCSD Professor of Medicine, Neurosciences, and Cellular and Molecular Medicine, UCSD Member, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Executive Producer: Carlos Faraco, Ph.D., Neuroscience 2016-2018 Executive Branch Fellow at the National Institutes of Justice This blog does not necessarily reflect the views of AAAS, its Council, Board of Directors, officers, or members. AAAS is not responsible for the accuracy of this material. AAAS has made this material available as a public service, but this does not constitute endorsement by the association.

Dr Gareth Bond, Associate Member of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, studies the influence of genetic variants on the origins, progression and treatment of human cancer. SNP - single nucleotide polymorphisms There is great heterogeneity between individuals in their risk of developing cancer, disease progression and responses to therapy. Specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with human cancers. They have the potential to help us identify individuals more at risk of developing cancer, and better target preventative or therapeutic strategies.

Dr Gareth Bond, Associate Member of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, studies the influence of genetic variants on the origins, progression and treatment of human cancer. SNP - single nucleotide polymorphisms There is great heterogeneity between individuals in their risk of developing cancer, disease progression and responses to therapy. Specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with human cancers. They have the potential to help us identify individuals more at risk of developing cancer, and better target preventative or therapeutic strategies.

Dr Gareth Bond, Associate Member of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, studies the influence of genetic variants on the origins, progression and treatment of human cancer. SNP - single nucleotide polymorphisms There is great heterogeneity between individuals in their risk of developing cancer, disease progression and responses to therapy. Specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with human cancers. They have the potential to help us identify individuals more at risk of developing cancer, and better target preventative or therapeutic strategies.

Dr Gareth Bond, Associate Member of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, studies the influence of genetic variants on the origins, progression and treatment of human cancer. SNP - single nucleotide polymorphisms There is great heterogeneity between individuals in their risk of developing cancer, disease progression and responses to therapy. Specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with human cancers. They have the potential to help us identify individuals more at risk of developing cancer, and better target preventative or therapeutic strategies.

Cancer research now generates huge amounts of data, and sophisticated computational tools are needed to answer biological questions. Making sense of this variability at molecular level will help us better tailor treatments to individual cancer patients. Dr Benjamin Schuster-Böckler heads the computational group at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. His work has demonstrated that epigenetic modifications influence the mutational landscape in cancer cells. He studies the effects of DNA-binding proteins on transcription factors, with the aim to understand the regulation (and mis-regulation) of the transcription of important oncogenes and tumour suppressors.

Video microscopy aims to improve target discovery and drug development and to do so generates large volumes of data. Professor Jens Rittscher has a joint appointment between the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, the Target Discovery Institute and the Department of Engineering Science. His research aims to enhance our understanding of complex biological processes through the analysis of image data acquired at the microscopic scale.

Cancer research now generates huge amounts of data, and sophisticated computational tools are needed to answer biological questions. Making sense of this variability at molecular level will help us better tailor treatments to individual cancer patients. Dr Benjamin Schuster-Böckler heads the computational group at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. His work has demonstrated that epigenetic modifications influence the mutational landscape in cancer cells. He studies the effects of DNA-binding proteins on transcription factors, with the aim to understand the regulation (and mis-regulation) of the transcription of important oncogenes and tumour suppressors.

Cancer research now generates huge amounts of data, and sophisticated computational tools are needed to answer biological questions. Making sense of this variability at molecular level will help us better tailor treatments to individual cancer patients. Dr Benjamin Schuster-Böckler heads the computational group at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. His work has demonstrated that epigenetic modifications influence the mutational landscape in cancer cells. He studies the effects of DNA-binding proteins on transcription factors, with the aim to understand the regulation (and mis-regulation) of the transcription of important oncogenes and tumour suppressors.

Cancer research now generates huge amounts of data, and sophisticated computational tools are needed to answer biological questions. Making sense of this variability at molecular level will help us better tailor treatments to individual cancer patients. Dr Benjamin Schuster-Böckler heads the computational group at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. His work has demonstrated that epigenetic modifications influence the mutational landscape in cancer cells. He studies the effects of DNA-binding proteins on transcription factors, with the aim to understand the regulation (and mis-regulation) of the transcription of important oncogenes and tumour suppressors.

Video microscopy aims to improve target discovery and drug development and to do so generates large volumes of data. Professor Jens Rittscher has a joint appointment between the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, the Target Discovery Institute and the Department of Engineering Science. His research aims to enhance our understanding of complex biological processes through the analysis of image data acquired at the microscopic scale.

Video microscopy aims to improve target discovery and drug development and to do so generates large volumes of data. Professor Jens Rittscher has a joint appointment between the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, the Target Discovery Institute and the Department of Engineering Science. His research aims to enhance our understanding of complex biological processes through the analysis of image data acquired at the microscopic scale.

Every cloud has a silver lining: optimisism and persistence Xin Lu, Professor of Cancer Biology and Director of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Oxford branch, speaks about the challenges faced by women in science.

Every cloud has a silver lining: optimisism and persistence Xin Lu, Professor of Cancer Biology and Director of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Oxford branch, speaks about the challenges faced by women in science.

Every cloud has a silver lining: optimisism and persistence Xin Lu, Professor of Cancer Biology and Director of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Oxford branch, speaks about the challenges faced by women in science.

Clotilde Lagier-Tourenne, Assistant Investigator, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla - USA - speaks on "Targeted degradation of sense and antisense C9orf72 RNA foci as therapy for ALS and frontotemporal degeneration - RNA Metabolism: Changing Paradigms in Neurodegeneration” This seminar has been recorded at Area Science Park Trieste by ICGEB Trieste

How do we reconcile our scientific knowledge with our theological knowledge? Father Nicanor Austriaco, O.P. will reflect on how discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology can be understood in light of salvation history and the ultimate purpose of the universe: the desire of the Holy Trinity to share His inner life with persons who are not God. REV. NICANOR AUSTRIACO, O.P., currently serves as an Associate Professor of Biology and an Instructor of Theology at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island. Prior to entering the Dominicans, Father completed his Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was a fellow of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. At M.I.T., Fr. Austriaco worked in the laboratory of Professor Leonard Guarente on the genetics of aging in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. After completing his doctoral studies, he was a fellow of the International Human Frontier Science Program at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University College London in the United Kingdom. Father was ordained to the priesthood on May 21, 2004. He earned his Bachelor’s in Theology, his Master’s of Divinity, and his Licentiate in Theology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and is currently pursuing a Pontifical Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Fr. Austriaco is an Investigator of the Rhode Island-INBRE Program funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a scientific advisor at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and an ethics consultant for St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island. He has intellectual interests both in molecular and cellular genetics and in moral theology. His essays in bioethics have been published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Studia Moralia, Ethics and Medics, and the Linacre Quarterly. His first book, Biomedicine and Beatitude: An Introduction to Catholic Bioethics, was recently published by the Catholic University of America Press.

In recent years, biologists have sequenced the genomes of numerous individuals scattered throughout the planet. They have also been able to obtain genome information from extinct hominin species including the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Altogether this data suggests that the human species evolved from a small population of individuals living in east Africa about 100,000 years ago. In this lecture, using the inseparable and harmonious benefits of faith and reason, Father Nicanor Austracio, O.P. will not only explore the scientific basis for these claims but also begin to reconcile them with the truths of the faith revealed in Sacred Scripture. Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austracio, O.P. is an Associate Professor of Biology at Providence College. He holds a B.S. in Engineering (bioengineering) from the University of Pennsylvania, a Ph.D. in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor of Sacred Theology and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology, both from the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. Father has also served as Fellow of the International Human Frontier Science Program for the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University College London. The subjects for his research and published work range from the life cycle of yeast, to bioethics, to moral theology. His most recent work is a book entitled Biomedicine and Beatitude: An Introduction to Catholic Bioethics, published in December 2011 by the Catholic University of America Press.

Professor Xin Lu talks about the links between cancer and regenerative medicine. Professor Xin Lu is the Director of the Oxford branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. Her lab works toward identifying molecular mechanisms that suppress tumour growth and metastasis and focuses on understanding the factors that lead to uncontrollable cell growth.

Professor Xin Lu talks about the links between cancer and regenerative medicine. Professor Xin Lu is the Director of the Oxford branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. Her lab works toward identifying molecular mechanisms that suppress tumour growth and metastasis and focuses on understanding the factors that lead to uncontrollable cell growth.

Meet the Oxford Branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd (LICR) is a global non-profit organisation committed to improving the understanding and control of cancer though integrated laboratory and clinical discovery.