Podcasts about medical oncologist

When your doctor says you need “cancer treatment,” do you know what that actually means?Most people immediately think of chemotherapy. But if you or someone you love is facing a cancer diagnosis, understanding the full range of treatment options could be the difference between feeling overwhelmed and feeling empowered.Dr. Katie Deming sits down with Dr. Jason Konner, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, to break down the three main types of systemic cancer treatment used today: chemotherapy, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies.Chapters:03:43 – Three Main Types of Cancer Treatment16:34 – Why First-Line Therapies Matter20:48 – Combining Holistic and Conventional Care31:23 – Essential Questions to Ask Your Oncologist43:42 – When and Why to Seek a Second OpinionDr. Konnor shares the insider perspective on second opinions, what those complex drug names really mean, and how to build the kind of relationship with your medical team that leads to better outcomes.You'll learn how some patients unknowingly sabotage their own care and what questions can instantly make you a more informed patient. Listen and learn how to walk into any oncologist's office with confidence, ask the right questions, and truly understand your options.Don't let medical jargon and complex choices keep you in the dark when clear thinking matters most.Reserve Your Spot for the June PSYCH-K® Online Workshop: https://www.katiedeming.com/psych-k-june-2025 Transform your hydration with the system that delivers filtered, mineralized, and structured water all in one. Spring Aqua System: https://springaqua.info/drkatieMORE FROM KATIE DEMING M.D. Download Your Free Webinar & Ultimate Guide to Water Fasting to Heal Cancer and Chronic Illness https://www.katiedeming.com/prolonged-water-fasting/ Work with Dr. Katie: www.katiedeming.comEmail: INFO@KATIEDEMING.COM 6 Pillars of Healing Cancer Workshop Series - Click Here to Enroll Follow Dr. Katie Deming on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/katiedemingmd/ Please Support the Show Share this episode with a friend or family member Give a Review on Spotify Give a Review on Apple Podcast DISCLAIMER: The Born to Heal Podcast is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for seeking professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Individual medical histories are unique; therefore, this episode should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease without consulting your healthcare provider.

In this episode of Conversations in Lung Cancer Research, we welcome A/Prof Bryan Chan, a senior Medical Oncologist and this years TOGA ASM Convener. Bryan, affiliated with multiple institutions including Adam Crosby Cancer Center and Griffith University, discusses his comprehensive career journey from fellowship at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto to his current roles in Australia. The discussion highlights the benefits of overseas fellowships, the development of clinical trials, and his leadership in thoracic oncology at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. Bryan also touches upon the challenges and rewards of balancing private and public practice and pioneering quality improvement initiatives. The episode concludes with an exciting preview of the upcoming TOGA Annual Scientific Meeting, which Bryan is convening. Medical professionals and anyone interested in the latest in lung cancer research and practice will find valuable insights in this conversation with Bryan. (00:00) Welcome and Introduction(00:41) Guest Introduction: Associate Professor Brian Chan(02:12) Brian's Fellowship Experience at Princess Margaret Cancer Center(03:44) Benefits of Overseas Fellowships(06:58) Transitioning Back to Australia(08:29) Balancing Public and Private Practice(10:08) Establishing a Quality Committee(15:02) Building a Clinical Trials Unit(18:15) Advice for Junior Consultants(21:19) TOGA Annual Scientific Meeting Preview(25:39) Conclusion and Farewell 

May is bladder cancer awareness month and our podcast is timely - Advances in bladder cancer treatment options and how these advances are changing patient treatment pathways. Christine la Rose, Patient and Support Lead for BEAT Bladder Cancer Australia is joined by Urologist & Robotic surgeon from Macquarie University Hospital and St George Hospital Sydney - Professor David Gillatt, Medical Oncologist from Chris O'Brien Lifehouse and Macquarie University Hospital Sydney - Dr Alison Zhang and Medical Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialist at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Sydney - Annie McAlister. We explore the progress that has been made in treating bladder cancer and the impact of these treatments. www.beatbladdercanceraustralia.org.au

Send us a textWelcome to the latest Series of Supportive Care Matters, a podcast hosted by Medical Oncologist and International Cancer Survivorship Expert, Professor Bogda Koczwara AM.The landscape of cancer survivorship is evolving before our eyes. As treatment advances allow people with metastatic cancer to live longer, we're witnessing the emergence of a population that exists in what medical oncologist Dr Lori Spoozak calls "the place in between" – not curable but not actively dying.In this eye-opening conversation, researchers Associate Professor Nick Hart and Dr. Andrea Smith (who herself lives with metastatic breast cancer) explore the unique challenges faced by those living with advanced cancer. While survivorship programs have traditionally focused on post-treatment care, metastatic patients are typically on treatment for life, navigating constant healthcare interactions, accumulating side effects and facing the certainty rather than just the fear of disease progression.The discussion reveals how metastatic cancer patients have often fallen through the cracks – excluded from survivorship programs yet not appropriately served by palliative care services that focus primarily on end-of-life needs. This growing population faces what Dr. Smith describes as supportive care needs "on steroids" – intensified physical, psychological, financial and practical challenges that require specialised approaches.Hart and Smith share their ground-breaking work developing the first international standards for metastatic cancer survivorship care, now translated into 14 languages to guide implementation worldwide. They emphasise that improving care requires action on multiple fronts: better education for healthcare professionals, redesigned care models, dedicated peer support programs and recognition that survivorship care is everyone's responsibility rather than the domain of any single provider.Whether you're a healthcare professional, researcher, patient advocate or someone living with cancer, this conversation challenges conventional thinking about survivorship and offers a compelling vision for more inclusive, responsive care. Discover why supporting those living for years with incurable cancer represents both an urgent challenge and a tremendous opportunity to enhance quality of life for this overlooked population.Visit www.oncologynews.com.au for show notes and more information about Supportive Care Matters.This conversation is proudly produced by the Podcast Team at The Oncology Podcast, part of the Oncology Media Group Australia.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care. Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy. Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine. Dr. Davide Soldato So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma. Dr. Harriet Kluger Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there. When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients. Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body. Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%. So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice? Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible. Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader. So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study. What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate. Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution. I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients? Dr. Harriet Kluger The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks. Dr. Davide Soldato And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis? Dr. Harriet Kluger I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected. Dr. Harriet Kluger There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting. So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy. Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined. Dr. Davide Soldato Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts? Dr. Harriet Kluger I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen. Dr. Davide Soldato Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results? Dr. Harriet Kluger You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator? Dr. Harriet Kluger So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is going to be just a mechanism of action? Of course, we don't have the results from this trial but just wondering if you could give us a general comment or your opinion on the topic. Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's a really great question. The trial of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was our answer to the fact that bevacizumab is not manufactured by the same company as pembrolizumab, and we're trying to give a practical answer to our next study that might enable us to take this approach further. But it does turn out from our preclinical studies that bevacizumab and VEGF receptor inhibition aren't actually the same thing in terms of the effects on the blood-brain barrier or the perilesional tumor microenvironment in the brain. And these studies were done in mice and in in vitro models. Very different effects. The lenvatinib has stronger effect on the tumors themselves, the tumor cells themselves, than the bevacizumab, which has no effect whatsoever. But the lenvatinib doesn't appear to tighten up that blood-brain barrier. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you. I think that's very interesting, and I think it's going to be interesting to see also results of these trials to actually improve and give more options to our patients in terms of different mechanism of action, different side effects. Because in the end, one thing that we discussed is that some combination may be useful in some specific clinical situation while others cannot be applicable, like, for example, an all immunotherapy-based combination. Just one final comment, because I think that we focused a lot on the intracranial response and progression-free survival. You briefly mentioned this but just wanted to reinforce the concept. Did you see any differences in terms of intracranial versus extracranial response for those patients who also had extracranial disease with the combination of pembro and bevacizumab? Dr. Harriet Kluger So the responses were almost always concordant. There were a couple of cases that might have had a body response and not an intracranial response and vice-versa, but the vast majority had concordant response or progression. We do believe that it's a biological phenomenon. The type of tumor that tends to go to the brain is going to be the type of tumor that will respond to whatever the regimen is that we're giving. In the previous trial also, we saw concordance of responses in the body and the brain. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. Just to highlight that really the combination is worth pursuing considering that there was not so much discordant responses, and the results, even in a phase 2 trial, were very, very promising. So thank you again, Dr. Kluger, for joining us today and giving us a little bit of insight into this very interesting trial. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases," which gave us the opportunity to discuss current treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma and future direction in research for melanoma brain metastasis. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   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.

Josh & Triple M are hosting a Cancer Council Biggest Morning Tea on Friday May 9th at The Aussie Hotel at 10:30am! If you want to come along just be there at 10:30am for FREE food & DRINK featuring good times!!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Immunotherapy continues to produce impressive outcomes in NSCLC and in this podcast we discuss some of the latest advances in this evolving area. Key publications and important considerations for patient care are discussed by Helen Westman, Lung Cancer Nurse Consultant at Royal North Shore Hospital Sydney, Dr Margie McGrath, Medical Oncologist at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and Greenslopes Private Hospital in Brisbane and Julie Teraci, Clinical Nurse Consultant in Melanoma from the Cancer Network in WA. This is a member-only episode. Access the full podcast by entering your log in details here - https://www.cnsa.org.au/resource/episode-15-advances-in-lung-cancer-treatment-with-immunotherapy-the-nursing-perspective.html https://www.cnsa.org.au/learn/podcast.html

The Inn at Dromoland is the venue for this evening's launch of a new book on Clare's Brian O' Looney. Brian O' Looney, who lived during the 19th century, was a scholar, poet and Gaelic Revivalist'. The author of the book, entitled Brian O'Looney 1828-1901 –Clareman, scholar, poet and Gaelic revivalist, is Professor Peter Daly. Peter, who hails from Kilmaley, is a retired Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of Medicine from St. James's Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin respectively. To discuss this further, Alan Morrissey was joined by Peter Daly. Photo(C): ClareFM

David Page, MD, Medical Oncologist, Providence Cancer Institute- Portland, OregonCME Credit Available for all Providence ProvidersIn order to claim CME credit, please click on the following link: ⁠https://forms.office.com/r/HYizW1rrvv (or copy & paste into your browser)Accreditation Statement: Providence Oregon Region designates this enduring material activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1  creditTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.Providence Oregon Region is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.Planning Committee & Faculty Disclosure: The planning committee and faculty have indicated no relevant financial relationships with an ACCME-defined ineligible company. Their planning contributions were evidence-based and unbiased. All financial relationships (if any) have been mitigated.Original Date: March 18, 2025End Date: March 18, 2026

David Page, MD, Medical Oncologist, Providence Cancer Institute- Portland, OregonCME Credit Available for all Providence ProvidersIn order to claim CME credit, please click on the following link: ⁠https://forms.office.com/r/HYizW1rrvv (or copy & paste into your browser)Accreditation Statement: Providence Oregon Region designates this enduring material activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1  creditTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.Providence Oregon Region is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.Planning Committee & Faculty Disclosure: The planning committee and faculty have indicated no relevant financial relationships with an ACCME-defined ineligible company. Their planning contributions were evidence-based and unbiased. All financial relationships (if any) have been mitigated.Original Date: March 18, 2025End Date: March 18, 2026

Send us a textDr. Alessandra Maleddu, MD ( https://www.uchealth.org/provider/alessandra-maleddu-md/ ) is a Medical Oncologist specializing in the care of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas at the University of Colorado Cancer Center.Dr. Maleddu treats patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas, and she has a special interest in desmoid tumors (aka desmoid fibromatosis), as well as leiomyosarcoma and treatment delivery in the elderly population.Dr. Maleddu completed her training in Italy and the UK. She did her Sarcoma Fellowship at the University College London Hospital in 2020, her general oncology training at the University of Bologna and her MD from the University of Cagliari in Italy.Important Episode Link - https://www.desmoidtumors.com/#AlessandraMaleddu #MedicalOncologist #UniversityOfColorado #Sarcoma #DesmoidTumors #Oncology #Cancer #ProgressPotentialAndPossibilities #IraPastor #Podcast #Podcaster #Podcasting #ViralPodcast #STEM #Innovation #Science #Technology #ResearchSupport the show

Send us a textConfronting the Fear of Cancer RecurrenceWelcome to the latest Series of Supportive Care Matters, a podcast hosted by Medical Oncologist and International Cancer Survivorship Expert, Professor Bogda Koczwara AM.The fear of cancer returning is a silent struggle for many survivors, often overshadowing their recovery. In Episode 1 of this new Series, Bogda explores this deep-seated anxiety with experts Professor Sophie Lebel and Associate Professor Ben Smith.They unpack the realities of recurrence fears — why they persist, who is most affected and how they impact daily life. Research shows nearly every cancer survivor experiences some level of worry, but for 40%, it becomes a significant source of distress. Caregivers, too, often share in this burden.Sophie and Ben highlight the need for better interventions, especially for underrepresented groups, and share practical strategies for managing fear in clinical settings. From open conversations to structured support pathways, they highlight ways to help survivors move forward with confidence.Join us for an insightful discussion on breaking the cycle of fear and fostering a more supportive, hopeful survivorship journey.Visit www.oncologynews.com.au for show notes and more information about Supportive Care Matters.This conversation is proudly produced by the Podcast Team at The Oncology Podcast, part of the Oncology Media Group Australia.

In this episode of Onc Now, Jonathan is joined by Dr Dave Cescon, a Medical Oncologist and Clinician Scientist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Together, they explore the transformative impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors, challenges in liquid biopsy research, and the potential of mRNA vaccines in oncology.  Timestamps: (02:44) -Swimming in Toronto: Competitive vs. Open Water  (08:06) -From Internal Medicine to Breast Cancer Research  (14:09) -Translational research and circulating tumour DNA  (19:53) -The role of CDK4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer  (29:04) -FDA approval of ribociclib for high-risk early breast cancer  (31:45) -The future of mRNA vaccines for personalised cancer care  (37:34) -Dave's research challenges and innovations  (39:13) -Three wishes for healthcare 

Recorded live from the 13th Australasian Symposium of the Perioperative Medicine Special Interest Group, in collaboration with Summit III and the PeriOperative Quality Initiative (POQI). The theme of the meeting is ‘Improve the quality, enhance the value, protect the future'. This piece provides insights into our guest's career, the intersection of medicine and writing and the importance of compassion in healthcare. She discusses her background, including her education, her writing for The Guardian, and the content of her recent plenary session about shared decision-making and medical paternalism. We end with some focus on empathy and kindness in patient care, illustrated by a poignant email our guest received from a terminally ill patient. Presented by Desiree Chappell with Ranjana Srivastava, OAM, Medical Oncologist, Monash Health, Melbourne, Fulbright Scholar, Harvard University, a two-time recipient of the Fulbright Award, writer and columnist for The Guardian Newspaper. Enjoy our guest's writing here: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/ranjana-srivastava Buy our guest's books here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Dr.-Ranjana-Srivastava/author/B00IMYJJPI

Dr. Steven Ades, - Medical Oncologist at the University of Vermont Medical Center, joins Kurt & Anthony to talk about Prostate Cancer and Screening.

I sit down with Dr William Oh, newly appointed Precision Medicine Director at Yale Cancer Center.  Dr Oh is a Medical Oncologist who has focused mainly on Genitourinary cancers, so we of course talk about prostates.  We discuss high risk populations and of course finding cancer early, knowing family histories and decision making about having surgery.  

Alcohol is a leading cause of cancer, a risk that should be clearly labeled on drinks Americans consume, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy proposed on Friday. The proposed advisory would require approval from congress, an approval that is rarely granted by the federal government. Dr. Katie Kerrigan, a Medical Oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, joins D2 to discuss the extent of alcohol on your physical health and its role in causing cancer.  

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and his guests Dr. Ann Wu and Dr. Alexa White discuss the article "Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study" and the editorial "Growing Evidence for the Role of Air Pollution in Breast Cancer Development"  TRANSCRIPT The guests on this podcast episode have no disclosures to declare.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy.  Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Anna Wu and Dr. Alexander White. Dr. Wu is a professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of UCS, while Dr. White is an investigator in the Epidemiology branch of the Environment and Cancer Epidemiology Group at the National Institute of Health.  Today, we will be discussing the article titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study,” and the accompanying editorial.  So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Wu, Dr. White. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for having us. Dr. Alexandra White: Yes, thank you so much for the invitation to be here. Dr. Davide Soldato: So before going in depth about the results of the study that was published in the JCO, I was wondering if you could give us like a brief introduction and a little bit of background about what was known about air pollution as a risk factor for breast cancer and what was the evidence before this study was conducted. Dr. Alexandra White: Okay. I can start with that question. So, there's been research for decades looking at the relationship between air pollution and breast cancer. And it's been a really challenging question to address for a number of reasons. One being that it can be really difficult to assess exposure to air pollution and many previous studies have had really limited information on people's residences over time. But in general, what we thought leading up to this study was that evidence was most consistent that exposure to traffic related pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide was more consistently related to a higher risk of breast cancer. The evidence for fine particulate matter or PM2.5 was less consistent. More recently, there have been a few large, well conducted studies that have supported a positive association. This new study in the multiethnic cohort led by Dr. Wu is really important because it really demonstrated that, in this large study of over 50,000 women in California, that they also do see an association with PM2.5.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much for the introduction. So, Dr. Wu, we just want to hear a little bit more about the results. So, what was the association that was observed for PM2.5? And specifically, the study that you ran was focused on a very diverse population, a multiethnic cohort, and so I was wondering if you observed any type of differences when you consider the different populations that were included in your study. And if you could also give us a little bit of what was the composition of the women that were enrolled in this cohort. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for the question. So, the multiethnic cohort study is a cohort of over 200,000 individuals who were enrolled when they lived in Hawaii or California. For the air pollution studies that we've been conducting, we have focused on primarily the California participants. And in this instance for the breast cancer study, it was based on roughly 56,000 individuals out of- there were about 100,000 because half of them were men and they were not included. Of the California participants, 75% of them were African Americans or Latinos and they were self-identified as these racial ethnic groups when they enrolled in the study. And this was a particularly important consideration for us because in most of the studies that have been published so far on-air pollution and breast cancer, as well as other cancer sites, most of those studies were conducted among whites in the US or whites in Europe. And even if they included non-white populations, the numbers tend to be small so that they were not able to conduct racial ethnic specific analysis. So, we were particularly interested in examining these other racial ethnic groups because we know from other studies that racial ethnic minority groups tend to live in communities of low socioeconomic status and those communities also tend to have higher levels of various types of environmental pollutants. And so, it was important for us to actually try to tease apart these various interrelated factors.  So, what we found was that per 10 micrograms per cubic meter, we had a 28% increased risk overall in all participants combined that meet across the racial ethnic groups. We actually did not see any differences or significant differences in the hazard ratios by race ethnicity and they were in general quite compatible with each other. But we did see a stronger finding among the white participants in our study. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you, a lot, Dr. Wu. So, I think it's very interesting the fact that in the end you observed that air pollution is a significant risk factor across all the ethnicities that were included in the study. But I think that one very strong point of the manuscript and one very strong point of the analysis was that in the end you also corrected for a series of different factors because we know that the incidence of breast cancer can be modified, for example, by familial history or BMI or smoking habits or also alcohol consumption. And a lot of these risk factors were included in your analysis. And so, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit whether you observed any significant differences when you observed or included also these risk factors in your analysis, or whether the association for air pollution as a risk factor stands even when we consider all of these other elements. Dr. Anna Wu: Yes. So, we considered all the well-established breast cancer risk factors. And in this situation, we were particularly interested in considering smoking, alcohol intake, use of menopausal hormones, history of diabetes, body mass index, family history, as well as physical activity, because many of these risk factors, such as, for example, diabetes and body mass index, they are risk factors for breast cancer, and air pollution, have also been found to increase risk of these factors.  So, in our analysis, we first adjusted for all of these potential confounders in a mutually adjusted manner, so all of them were considered. In addition, we also conducted stratify analysis. So as an example, we stratified the analysis to examine whether the hazard ratio associated with PM2.5 provided comparable risk estimate or hazard ratio estimates for never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Although we did not see significant heterogeneity by these various subgroups, we did see a significantly stronger effect of PM2.5 among individuals who did not have a family history of breast cancer.  Interestingly, our finding was also stronger among individuals who were never smokers and light alcohol drinkers, even though the results were not significantly different. So, we surmised that maybe individuals who already had a high risk because of other established risk factors for breast cancer, we were less likely to be able to observe the effect of air pollution. But it's important to note that other studies, such as the ones that Dr. White has conducted, have also looked at various subgroups, and I think part of the limitation that all of us have is that once you subdivide the study population, even if you start out with a large sample size, often the sample size gets cut in half or a third. And so, we still lack the statistical power to be able to observe significant differences. But I think it is important to note that, in fact, the hazard ratio estimates are actually quite comparable, but we did see a hint of stronger effects among never smokers, and people who were light alcohol drinkers. So, I think this is an area that we certainly need to continue to investigate since there are other subgroups, such as menopausal status, such as hormone receptor status of breast cancer, that we need to consider in future studies. There's still a lot of work we need to do to sort this out, to actually figure out who are the women who are the most susceptible to the exposures. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. White, I would really love a comment from you on this specific area and specifically on what still needs to be done. And related to this, a question actually, for both of you, because I think that from a methodological point of view, there is a lot of work that goes into deciding how we are going to assess the exposure to air pollution. So which type of data are we going to use? Which type of data are we currently using in the epidemiological studies that have been conducted and in the one that we are discussing right now in JCO? And what are the caveats for this data that we are using? Meaning, I think that we use mostly residential addresses, which means that we are looking at the exposure where people actually live, which might not be the place where they spend most of their time. For example, if someone is working, maybe they could be more exposed and have higher exposure when they are at work compared to when they are at home. So, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an overview as to what is the methodological standard of care right now in terms of this analysis and what can we do better to refine and understand this specific factor as Dr. Wu was mentioning? Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so I'm happy to take a first stab at that question. So, I think it's important to note just how far we've come. I think even a few years ago, air pollution was really not considered a risk factor for breast cancer. And a lot of the work that we've been doing and others have really moved this forward in terms of understanding this as a risk factor. And as I mentioned earlier, there have been a lot of challenges in exposure assessment. And to get to your question, I think that our studies in general are doing better at looking at exposure over more years, residences, more time. We know that cancer takes time to develop, and we can't rely on just a single snapshot of exposure. But as you mentioned, almost all of the studies published have really exclusively focused on residential estimates of exposure. And so, there's a real need to understand the exposures that people are experiencing in other aspects of their life, from their commute to their jobs, to really capture that totality of exposure.  And then I think one of the points that Dr. Wu was alluding to as well as we know that breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease, so risk factors for breast cancer vary by tumor subtypes, by menopausal status at diagnosis. And a lot of studies have really focused on considering breast cancer as a combined outcome, and that might be missing some really important signals where we might have a stronger effect for certain subtypes due to the fact that there's different biologic pathways that are underlying these subtypes or by menopausal status. And so having large study populations where, as we discussed earlier, would really give us the power to look among these smaller groups of women who might be more susceptible and those with younger women, we know that incidence of cancer is rising in young people, and we need to understand the risk factors for that. And most of our studies are really focused on older individuals, so I think that's one important gap, as well as having the power to really look at different differences by tumor subtypes. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think it's very interesting, and I think one point both of you made in the original article and in the accompanying editorial is also the fact that we tend to look at these risk factors in people who are actually aged, while we maybe should be looking at this in an earlier phase of development and potentially during puberty. Do you think that we should design studies that are more focused on this population even though I think that they will take a lot of time to produce significant results?  Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah. I think that it is really important to consider how exposure during early life is related to breast cancer risk. We know that exposures during pregnancy or even as early as during puberty might be particularly relevant for breast cancer. And I think a lot of our studies have really been up against the challenge of the fact that exposure monitoring for air pollution really didn't start until the 1990s. And so, it's challenging, especially for these older cohorts, to get back at that time period that might be relevant. But I think that's something that definitely newer cohorts are going to be able to address, and I think it's going to be really important, and also will give us some clues to better understand the important windows of exposure, but also that might provide clues for the biologic pathways as well that are relevant. Dr. Davide Soldato: And just a related question, because I'm not aware of this, but are there right now cohorts that are specifically looking at this in the US or in other parts of the world? If you are aware of that, of course.  Dr. Alexandra White: There have been some cohorts that have focused on exposure during these hypothesized windows of susceptibility, but I don't think they've been able to follow those women long enough to develop breast cancer. One of the things that we're working on in the sister study is trying to expand our assessment of air pollution exposure back in time to try to get at these earlier windows of exposure. So, I'm hoping that it's something we'll be able to comment on and at least for some of the women in our cohort who are younger. But I don't know, Dr. Wu, if you're familiar with any other populations that are doing this now?  Dr. Anna Wu: Well, NCI funded several new cohorts in the last couple years that are really focused on trying to get a much more refined exposure assessment. So, I know colleagues at University of Michigan that are peers and also Dr. Wei Zheng at Vanderbilt, they are putting together newer cohorts that are younger and also trying to include a range of exposure, not just air pollution, but really environmental exposures. Those cohorts I think have the potential in the future to try to address some of these questions, but again, it will take at least another number of years before there are a sufficient number of endpoints so that they can actually do these types of studies.  Another possibility is that there are a number of big cohort studies in Asia. The age of diagnosis tends to be earlier in Asia. I know that investigators in China are very interested and concerned with the air pollution effects in China. I think there are potentials that in other countries where the age of breast cancer diagnosis is actually younger than in the US and if they establish in a manner that allows them to assess air pollution that they may have opportunities.  And I think the other way to try to address this question, whether there are studies where you can actually tap into either biomarkers or pathology samples so you won't be actually studying air pollution in a large population, but you're actually narrowing it down to try to see if you see any signals in a way that would give you some additional clues and insights as to the mechanism. So I think we're going to have to piece together various types of study to try to answer the questions because one type of study like these observational air pollution studies, will allow us to address one slice of the questions that we have and then we need to put together other studies so that we can address other aspects that we're interested in to put it together. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much both of you. That was very interesting.  Coming back to the results of the manuscript, we really focused up until now on PM2.5. But it's true that inside of the study you evaluated different pollutants. So, I was wondering whether you saw a similar association for other pollutants that were included in the study or whether the association for higher risk was observed only for PM2.5. Dr. Anna Wu: The results for NO2, NOx, PM10, and carbon monoxide were actually very compatible with the risk estimates that other studies have published as well as from the meta-analysis. So, I would say that our results from the other pollutants are actually very consistent with other results. I think one difference is that our PM2.5 estimates were based on the satellite-based PM2.5 estimates, whereas all the other pollutants were based on monitoring station estimates from EPA sponsored air monitoring stations. So, they are not measured in the same way. And I think different studies over time have used either monitoring station type measures for other pollutants. And I think we were particularly interested in PM2.5 because the measurement of PM2.5 in the monitoring world didn't start until around 2000. So, studies up until that time were less able to actually provide the assessment of PM2.5 as good as we can for air pollution. There's always misclassification. So, I think it's a matter of how much misclassification in the assessment. But, again, we are really limited in really just having exposure over one part of adult life.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And one potentially related question. We are speaking in general about air pollution, but I think that since we are considering residential addresses, probably we are capturing more either traffic pollution or pollution that comes from probably industries or stuff like that, which is mostly related to residential areas or the place where people live. But I think that in the end we also think about air pollution as something that can come from different forms. And one very interesting point, Dr. White, that you made in your editorial is also that there is a global change also in the way we are faced with air pollution. For example, you made the example of wildfires in your editorial and how this might potentially change exposure to air pollution, maybe for limited times, but with concentrations that are fairly higher compared to what we generally observed. So, I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on that and also, if there is potentially a way to also consider this in future epidemiological studies. Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so when we talk about exposure to fine particulate matter, PM2.5, we're assessing exposure to particles that are based on the size of the particle, and we're really not evaluating the types of particles that people are experiencing exposure to. And we know that, in general, that PM2.5 composition really varies geographically due to differing sources of exposure. So, like you were saying, there might be a stronger contribution to industry or from agriculture or from traffic. And so that could really change the PM2.5 exposure profile that individuals experience. And so it could be that this is another really important area that this research needs to consider, which could really help us identify what sources of exposure are most relevant.   Wildfires are a really important growing concern. We know that wildfires are increasing in both intensity and duration and frequency, and we really don't understand the long-term health impacts of wildfires. But we know that wildfire associated PM2.5 might be one of the most dominant contributors to PM2.5 moving forward. And although we've seen historic declines in PM2.5 in the US after the Clean Air Act, those declines have really stalled. PM2.5 itself is projected to increase over the next few decades, so understanding different PM2.5 composition profiles and the sources that drive them can really help us identify the most important targets for any potential interventions. And wildfire PM2.5 in particular may be of concern because it's a combustion byproduct, and so it's thought to have more of the components that might, we hypothesize, are most relevant for breast cancer, such as PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or metals. And so, these components are thought to act as endocrine disruptors, which may be particularly relevant for breast cancer. So, I think understanding this changing landscape of PM2.5 moving forward is going to be really important in understanding how PM2.5 contributes to cancers beyond just breast, but as well as other female hormone driven cancers and all of the cancers really.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, one closing remark, because I think that in general, we have been really in a field of primary prevention for breast cancer where we were focusing on individual behaviors, for example, smoking cessation, reduction in alcohol intake, reduction of BMI, increase of physical activity. But I think that the evidence that is accumulating in the last three years or so is telling us more and more that we also need to shift the perspective on prevention going not only on individuals, but also as including environmental risk. So, I was wondering, how can we include this new evidence in the policies that we implement and how policymakers should act on the data that we have available right now? Dr. Anna Wu: I think it's really important that this new information is communicated to all the stakeholders, including our policymakers, so that they are, first of all, really aware that any changes and not actually adhering to current guidelines can have long lasting consequences, deleterious consequences. And I think it's important to also note that over 90% of the world actually live in areas where PM2.5 exceeds the limit. We have observed increases in breast cancer in many middle- and low-income countries, so I think it's particularly important to emphasize that this is really not just a western country issue, it is really a global issue. Dr. Alexandra White: I agree. And I would just add to that that air pollution is not something that an individual can really change on their own. There are things you can do, you can monitor air quality, you can try to live in a home that's far away from traffic. But really these are large scale problems that really require large scale solutions. And we know that policy changes can be effective here and that this is something that, in my opinion, is not something that we leave to the individual to change. This is something that we as a society should encourage change for the health of everyone. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, thank you very much again, Dr. Wu, Dr. White, for joining us today on the podcast. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you. Dr. Alexandra White: Thank you so much for having us.  Dr. Davide Soldato: So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article and accompanying editorial titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidents in the Multiethnic Cohort Study.”  If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   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.      

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Giselle de Souza Carvalho provides a summary on  "Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies" by Bhardwarj, et al and "US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Capivasertib With Fulvestrant for Hormone Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer With PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alterations" by Dilawari et al published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.  TRANSCRIPT Giselle Carvalho: Hello and welcome to JCO Article Insights episode for the December issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host Giselle Carvalho, Medical Oncologist in Brazil focusing on breast cancer and melanoma skin cancers and one of the ASCO Editorial Fellows at JCO this year. Today, I will be discussing two articles. The first one is “Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies,” and the second one is the “US FDA Approval Summary on Capivasertib with Fulvestrant  for HR-positive HER2-negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alteration.”  As we know, 65% to 70% of all breast cancers are HR-positive HER2-negative and this is also the most common subtype of metastatic breast cancer. The current standard of care for frontline therapy of patients with luminal metastatic disease is a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy. However, as new endocrine and targeted therapies gain approval, choosing the best systemic therapy upon disease progression after frontline therapy is a topic of ongoing debate. Nearly 40 to 50% of HR-positive breast cancers have actionable genomic alterations and molecular testing should be a routine recommendation for patients with metastatic HR-positive HER2-negative disease. This can be performed repeating tissue biopsy at the time of progression or from archival tissue. Treatment options after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors include alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA mutant tumors as seen in the SOLAR-1 trial, or capivasertib with fulvestrant in patients with a tumor mutation in (PI3K)–AKT–PTEN pathway as seen in the CAPItello-291 study, which will be discussed further.  In approximately 30% of patients, progression on frontline endocrine plus CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment is caused by endocrine resistance, frequently involving activating mutations in ESR1. For those tumors, elacestrant, an oral SERD is an option as demonstrated in the EMERALD trial. For patients with a BRCA mutation, PARP inhibitors represent another option. If no mutations are detected, everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, can be used based on the BOLERO-2 results. The phase 2 MAINTAIN and PACE trials, along with the phase 3 postMONARCH trial support changing the endocrine therapy backbone with or without switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor. In less resourced areas, fulvestrant monotherapy is still an option to delay cytotoxic chemotherapy, though its efficacy is limited when used as a single agent. Finally, after progression on at least one line of chemotherapy, antibody drug conjugates including sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan may be an option.  Now focusing on the PI3K AKT PTEN signaling pathway, activating mutations in PIK3CA and AKT1 and inactivating alterations in PTEN occur in approximately half of luminal breast cancers. In June 2023, the CAPItello-291 trial was published and treatment with fulvestrant plus capivasertib, a PTEN AKT inhibitor, demonstrated a 3.6 month PFS benefit compared to fulvestrant alone, regardless of the presence of AKT pathway alterations. However, for those with tumors without AKT pathway alteration, an exploratory analysis showed that although there was a numerical improvement in PFS, it did not meet statistical significance, indicating that the biomarker positive population primarily drove the positive results noted in the overall population. Therefore, capivasertib plus fulvestrant was approved by the US FDA in November 2023 exclusively for patients with PI3K/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations after progression on an aromatized inhibitor with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The approved schedule of capivasertib is slightly different from that of other agents used in breast cancer. It is 400 milligrams taken orally twice a day for four days per week every week in a 28-day cycle in combination with fulvestrant. Diarrhea, rash and hyperglycemia were the most commonly reported grade three or four adverse events in the interventional group. I would like to highlight that even though the CAPItello trial excluded patients with glycosylated hemoglobin levels higher than 8% or those diagnosed with diabetes who required insulin, hyperglycemia occurred in 19% of biomarker positive patients treated with capivasertib, with nearly 2% of this population experiencing grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia and some patients experiencing life threatening outcomes such as diabetic ketoacidosis.  By way of comparison, hyperglycemia of any grade was three times higher with alpelisib therapy in the SOLAR-1 trial, occurring in 64% of the patients and grade three or higher hyperglycemia was seen in 37% of the patients. Diarrhea was the most common treatment related adverse event experienced by 77% of the biomarker positive population. Prompt use of the antidiarrheal drugs when needed, such as loperamide must be encouraged as untreated diarrhea can lead to dehydration and renal injury. Cutaneous rash occurred in 56% of the biomarker positive population in the interventional group and 15% experienced a grade 3 or 4 rash. Nearly half of the patients with cutaneous adverse reactions required treatment and this was the leading reason for dose reduction of capivasertib.  In the biomarker positive population, the improvement in medium PFS were 4.3 months by investigator assessment. Overall survival data from the CAPItello-291 trial is still immature, but quality of life data was recently published in September this year and was assessed by the 30 item QLQ C30 questionnaire and the QLQ BR23, the breast module. According to Oliveira et al, global health status and quality of life were maintained for a longer period with capivasertib fulvestrant than with placebo fulvestrant except for symptoms of diarrhea which were significantly worse in the capivasertib group. The median time of deterioration of global health status and quality of life was twice as long in the capivasertib group being almost 25 months versus 12 months in the placebo fulvestrant group. These data reinforced the use of capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations who have progressed after an aromatase inhibitor-based therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. This is Giselle Carvalho. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. See you next time.   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.  

JCO PO authors Dr. Philippe Bedard (Staff Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto) and Dr. Alberto Hernando Calvo (Medical Oncologist at Vall d´Hebron University Hospital) share insights into their JCO PO article, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab,” one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Bedard and Hernando Calvo discuss how combined transcriptome and ctDNA longitudinal analysis associates with pembrolizumab outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.  Today we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philippe Bedard, Staff Medical Oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, as well as by Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo, Medical Oncologist at the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, both authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab.”  Thank you for joining us today. Phil and Alberto. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Thank you. Dr. Philippe Bedard: Great to be with you. Thanks for having us.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the reasons we do this podcast, as some of the listeners who listen to this podcast regularly may know, is to bring in novel approaches and try to understand how the field is moving towards a space where we are understanding biomarkers better. So your manuscript that was published in JCO Precision Oncology fulfills many of those criteria. And interestingly enough, I was at a conference at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer last month earlier in November and a lot of excitement at SITC was revolving around novel transcriptomic biomarkers, proteomic biomarkers or imaging based biomarkers. So could you tell us a little bit about why you started looking at biomarkers? This is an extremely competitive field. Why did you think that looking at the transcriptome is somewhat different from or more interesting from tumor mutational burden PDL-1 than other biomarkers that we currently use? And that question is for you Alberto to start off.  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So I think gene expression profiles may have a predictive performance as compared to already existing biomarkers and this was one of the points that we describe in our manuscript. The gene expression signature that we developed back in 2019 at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology was initially developed based on over 45 different tumor types and tested in over 1000 patients treated with antiPD-1 and anti PDL-1. And back then and in this manuscript, we proved that for instance the gene expression signature VIGex that we developed has a potential complementary role to other predictive biomarkers. In this case, we observe this predictive power with ctDNA dynamics and we then see a correlation with other existing biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden. So I don't think we need to use one or the other, but rather they may have additive predictive power. So we need to better individualize predictive biomarkers based on tumor types and select the best combination possible to improve the performance.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree that one size does not fit all, especially in the landscape of immunotherapy. From your perspective, when you developed the original signature, how did you choose what genes to look at? I looked at the manuscript, on the methodology side, some of the signatures are pro-inflammatory STING interferon gamma based, so how did you try to identify that these are the 7 to 10 or whatever number of signatures on the transcriptome side? And then why did you try to combine it with ctDNA based changes?  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Back in our initial manuscript, published in Med from Cell Press, we developed the VIGex gene expression signature, as I mentioned, with taking into consideration over 1000 tumor samples from FFPE that we can consider real world samples because they are from real patients coming from the clinic notes as part of real investigational protocol doing or performing biopsies on patients. We did observe after doing a VIGex research and doing different tests, we eventually collected these 12 different genes. Because there is a combination of both genes involved in the interferon gamma pathway, we have genes associated with Tregs as well as T cell memory cells. So it's not only looking at genes that are associated with T cell activation or CD8+ T cell infiltration, but also looking at genes that may be overactivated, overexpressed, an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. So it was both selecting genes, the minimum number of genes to do it more scalable and having the minimum dataset of genes and including in the signature genes that are already at targets for immune sequent inhibitors or are being tested in immunotherapy combinations.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. And Phil, for the sake of our listeners, could you elaborate upon this aspect of using ctDNA? So this was tumor-informed ctDNA from what I understood in the manuscript. You guys basically try to use it to understand changes in the ctDNA with treatment and then try to combine it with the transcriptome signature. How did the idea come up initially and how did you plan on combining this with an RNA-based signature? Because I have seen manuscripts and other data where people are either using one or the other, but not necessarily both together. So how did you guys come up with that idea? Dr. Philippe Bedard: Well, we thought that this was a great opportunity to look at the combination of the transcriptome as well as the ctDNA dynamics because we had run an investigator-initiated phase 2 clinical trial called INSPIRE at our institution at Princess Margaret from 2016 to 2018, where patients across five different tumor groups received single agent pembrolizumab. And we really did a deep dive on these patients where there were tumor biopsies before and while on treatment. We did exome sequencing, we did RNA sequencing to capture the transcriptome. And in a prior analysis, we had partnered with Natera to look at their Signatera assay, which is a bespoke ctDNA assay, to look at ctDNA dynamics using this test and the association with response outcomes as well as survival outcomes. So we thought that this was a really unique data set to try and address the question of whether or not there was complementarity in terms of looking at the transcriptome and transcriptome signatures of IO benefit together with the ctDNA dynamics. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a patient treatment standpoint, it sounded like you mostly tried to include individuals who were treated with pembrolizumab. Did this not include individuals who were treated with chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab? Just pembrolizumab alone? And if that's the case, some of the tumor types there included, from what I remember, ovarian cancer and some other unusual cancers that don't necessarily have approvals for single agent pembrolizumab, but perhaps in the TMB-high setting. So can you elaborate on the patient selection there for the study?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question. So at the time that the study was designed in 2015, this was really the early days of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, so we didn't have the approvals that we have now in specific tumor types for immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations. So when the study was designed as an investigator initiated clinical trial, the idea was really to capture patients across different tumor types - so head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and a kind of mixed histology solid tumor cohort, where we knew that there were some patients who were going to be immunotherapy responsive, where there was already approvals or evidence of single agent activity, and others where the responses were more anecdotal, to try and understand in a phase 2 clinical trial with kind of a deep dive, which patients benefited from treatment and which didn't. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting approach. Going to the results, Alberto, could you help us understand some of the important findings from these data? Because there's different sections of how you tried to look at the response rates, the survival, looking at the immune deconvolution, if you could explain that. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So the first thing that we tried was to further confirm the external validation of this immune gene expression signature, VIGex in the INSPIRE asset. So what we observed at VIGex-Hot, the category defined by VIGex-Hot tumor microenvironment, was associated with better progression free survival. After including that in a multivariable analysis adjusted by other biomarkers such as TMB, PDL-1 or tumor type, this was also confirmed for overall survival. So then the next step was to really try to hypothesize if the addition of ctDNA dynamics, taking into consideration the ctDNA quantification at baseline as compared to cycle three, if those dynamics could further improve the predictive performance of VIGex categories taken in the baseline samples. What we did observe was that, for instance, VIGex-Hot tumors in baseline tumor samples that were having a ctDNA decrease, as I mentioned before on cycle three assessment as compared to baseline, were having both better progression free survival and better prognosis overall. Another important finding was the evaluation of response rate across tumor types considering both biomarkers. I would say the most important finding is that when we were considering a cold tumor microenvironment in baseline samples before pembrolizumab initiation plus an increase in ctDNA values, what we observed is that those patients were having a 0% response rate. So this may help as a future strategy either for intensification of immunotherapy regimens in a more individualized way or for an early stop to immunotherapy and try to avoid financial toxicities as well as toxicities for our patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From the data that you showed, it seems that there was a strong correlation, as you sort of mentioned, between individuals that had ctDNA clearance and baseline immune pro-inflammatory signatures. So do you really need the transcriptome signature or could the ctDNA just serve as an easy quick surrogate? Because from a cost standpoint, doing whole transcriptome sequencing or more RNA sequencing or tissue standpoint, where tissue is often limited, can become a big issue. So do you think that validation of this may perhaps more revolve around using ctDNA as an easier metric or surrogate? Or am I overestimating the utility of ctDNA? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think it's a really good question. In our data set which was relatively small, there were 10 patients who had ctDNA clearance, meaning ctDNA that was positive at baseline was not detected. And so 9 out of those 10 patients, as you alluded to, were VIGex-Hot. So the question is a good one, could you do the same with just ctDNA clearance alone, particularly in identifying these patients who really do well, who have long term disease control on immunotherapy? I think it's a tough question to answer because the field is also changing in terms of sensitivity of detection of ctDNA tests. So we know now that there are newer generations of tests which can detect even at logs down in terms of allele variants in the circulation. So I think we need more data to address the question. I think it is important as to what is the best test, what is the endpoint that we should be using from a drug development point of view in terms of really trying to push and understand which treatment regimens are the most effective and have early readouts in terms of activity. Because we all recognize in the clinic that radiographic response doesn't tell the whole story, especially early radiographic assessments using RECIST or other criteria that we apply in clinical trials. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a clinical trial standpoint, we often talk about validation of these studies. You may have heard of other tests where, for example, the NCI iMatch, which is incorporating transcriptome sequencing based approach to stratify patients as an integral biomarker for treatment stratification. Is that something that you guys are thinking of using, this approach where individuals who are signature highly inflamed perhaps get lesser therapies or there's a de-intensification of some sort similar to what people are trying to do with ctDNA-based approaches? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think that's a great question. I think it makes a lot of sense. And certainly, with the new wave antibody drug conjugates in terms of identifying patients who have expression of targets for antibody drug conjugates, that's very attractive as an approach because we don't necessarily have IHC markers for all of the different targets of antibody drug conjugates. We don't necessarily have IHC markers to completely understand different contributions to the tumor microenvironment and whether or not tumors are inflamed. But it's also a challenging approach too because RNA-seq currently is not a routine clinical test. Sometimes there are issues, particularly in patients who have stored specimens that are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded in terms of the quality of the RNA for RNA sequencing. And it's not always feasible to get pre-treatment biopsies and turn them around in an approach. So I think it is an attractive approach for clinical trials, but it's a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's not something that is ready for clinical prime time today in 2024. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the other interesting observations that I came across in your manuscript was that tumor mutational burden, interestingly, did not correlate with signature high tumors. What is the explanation for that? Because generally you would expect a TMB high to perhaps also have an immune gene high signature. Could it have something to do with the tumor types because there was a heterogeneous mixture of tumor type? Or I'm not sure. What else could you possibly think of that you didn't see those correlations or just sample size limitations? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So our findings are consistent with prior data suggesting for instance T cell inflamed gene expression profile was also not correlated with tumor mutational burden and both biomarkers in a prior publication. So to have additive predictive performance for identifying patients most likely to benefit from anti PD-1 regimen, so we somehow were expecting this observation, the fact that both biomarkers are not very correlated. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So given the proof of concept findings from your study, Phil, what is the next interesting step that you guys are thinking of to expand this? Would you think that a nivolumab-ipilimumab treated cohort would have similar findings? Or is this a treatment specific single agent immunotherapy specific correlation that you found versus something else that you may find in a nivo-ipi cohort or a doublet immune checkpoint cohort?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: The findings are really hypothesis generating. They require additional validation. And you're quite right, there may be nuances in terms of specific tumor types, combinations with other immunotherapy or combinations with chemotherapy or other agents. So I think it would be great if there are other data sets that are collecting this type of information that have ctDNA dynamics and also have transcriptome and potentially exome or genome analysis to look at these types of questions because the field is moving quickly and we really need more data sets in order to understand some of the nuances and greater numbers to validate the signals that we see. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And one thing, as you said, the field is definitely moving very quickly. I was meeting with a company an hour back and they have an imaging-based approach using fresh tissue to look at pharmacodynamic biomarkers. And I used to work in the NCI with a group that was very interested and they developed an immuno-oncology pharmacodynamic panel that has been used and published in a few clinical trials where they did phosphorylation status. So the final theme that comes out of most of these research based studies that are being done is that one size does not fit all. But the question that comes to my mind is how many things do you necessarily need to combine to get to a predictive biomarker that is useful, that is patient centric, and that perhaps is able to identify the right therapy for the right patient. What is your take on that, Phil?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question too. The challenge is it depends on the context in terms of what degree of positive predictive value do you need as well as the negative predictive value to drive clinical decisions. So I think in certain situations where you don't have other approved treatment options and with a therapy that is potentially low toxicity and low financial toxicity, then I think the bar is very high in terms of being able to really confidently identify that patients aren't going to benefit. I think the nuance and the challenge becomes when you move into earlier lines of therapy, or when you talk about combinations of agents, or trying to understand within the context of other available options, particularly with treatments that have significant side effect profiles as well as financial risks, then it becomes a much more nuanced question and you really need comparative studies to understand how it fits versus the existing treatment paradigm. So I'm not really answering your question with a specific number because I think it's hard to give you a number. Some of that we also need input from patients in terms of what kind of level of validation do you need and what kind of level of discrimination do you need in order to drive decisions that are meaningful for them. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely early days, as you pointed out. More and more work in this field will hopefully lead us in the direction that we all want to go in.  Now, going to a different aspect of this podcast, which is trying to understand the trajectories for both of you, Phil and Alberto. And as you mentioned, this project seemed to have started in 2015. So I'm guessing there's a history there between Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron. Could you highlight that a little bit? And then perhaps, Alberto, after that you could tell us a little bit about your career when you worked at Princess Margaret as a fellow and then now back at Vall d'Hebron. Phil, you as well. Dr. Philippe Bedard: So absolutely. We have a long history of collaborating with Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona. It's really a great cancer institution with a lot of like minded individuals. We have a formal partnership and we have a lot of informal links in terms of scientists and clinicians who we work with and who we collaborate with on early phase clinical trials, as well as through different investigator networks and other translational projects. So this was really how this collaboration came about and we were fortunate to have Alberto, who came to work with us for two years and brought this great idea of looking at this signature they had developed at Vall d'Hebron in their phase one group and applying it to a data set that we had through the INSPIRE clinical trial.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sounds like a very successful academia-academic collaboration, which is very nice to see. So, Alberto, could you tell us a little bit about your career trajectory and how you ended up at Princess Margaret and then back at Vall d'Hebron and what you do currently? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So I did my oncology residency at Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona, Spain. Then I decided to further specialize in early drug development as well as head and neck cancer oncology. So I decided to pursue a clinical research fellowship under the supervision of Phil Bedard, among others. And so we decided to further validate the signature that we had developed both in the cancer genomic lab at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology and the phase one unit at Vall d'Hebron, and apply the signature that have been originally tested in patients receiving anti PD-1 or anti PDL-1 combinations in early phase clinical trials. In the phase 2 clinical trial of INSPIRE, where we also had ctDNA dynamics and allowed us to test both biomarkers and see that additive predictive power when we were using both. That was one of my research topics under the mentorship of Dr. Bedard and my fellowship at Princess Margaret. And this was one of the manuscripts describing all the findings of this collaboration between Vall d'Hebron and Princess Margaret Cancer Center. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And then, Phil, if you could highlight some of the things that you've done over the course of your career and perhaps some advice for early career junior investigators and trainees.  Dr. Philippe Bedard: I finished my oncology, medical oncology training at the University of Toronto in 2008. And then I did a breast cancer fellowship in Brussels at Breast International Group. At the time, I was really intrigued because it was really kind of the early days of microarray and RNA signatures in terms of expressing signatures were being used as part of a clinical trial that BIG was running called the MINDACT Study. And so when I finished my fellowship, I came back to Princess Margaret, started on staff. I've been here now for 15 years. I was fortunate to work with the phase 1 group and kind of my career has sort of morphed in terms of early drug development as well as genomics. I've been involved with the American Association for Cancer Research project GENIE, where I'm the current chair. This is really an international data sharing project with panel based sequencing, which both Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron have contributed to. And I've been fortunate to work with a number of really talented early career investigators like Alberto, who spend time with us in our drug development program and launched transitional research projects that leverage some existing data sets at their own institutions and also bring together with different research groups at our institution to lead to publications like this one. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. This was very exciting. Phil and Albert, thanks for joining us today and thank you for allowing us to discuss your interesting manuscript and hopefully we'll see more of this biomarker work from you guys in the near future, perhaps published in JCO Precision Oncology.   And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.     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.

Send us a textStomach cancer, often referred to as gastric cancer, is a sneaky cancer.  Its symptoms can be easily mistaken for more benign conditions like indigestion or acid reflux, making early detection a challenge. In our latest podcast episode, we delve into this complex disease with the help of two esteemed experts: gastroenterologist Dr. Walid Chaloub, and Dr. Ritu Mukherji, a medical oncologist from MedStar Georgetown Cancer Institute in D.C. Host Debra Schindler explores the biology of stomach cancer with her physician guests to understand how mutations in the DNA of stomach cells can lead to uncontrolled growth and tumor formation. This formidable disease often goes unnoticed until it has advanced significantly, highlighting the critical need for awareness and early detection. Dr. Mukherji shares the various risk factors associated with stomach cancer, including smoking, diet, and certain bacterial infections like H. Pylori. She emphasizes the importance of molecular testing in diagnosing and treating this disease, as it can reveal specific mutations that may be targeted with personalized therapies. The episode also explores the different diagnostic tools available, such as endoscopy and CT scans, and the role of tumor markers in assessing the presence of cancer. While these tools are invaluable, Dr. Mukherji stresses that they are not foolproof, underscoring the importance of comprehensive testing and expert analysis. One of the most enlightening parts of the discussion is the potential for treatment and even cure. While surgery is a common approach, not all patients are candidates. The podcast highlights the evolving role of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapies, offering hope to those battling this disease. Listeners will gain a deeper understanding of the symptoms to watch for, the importance of genetic predispositions, and the latest advancements in treatment. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in learning more about stomach cancer, whether for personal knowledge or to support a loved one. Tune in to this informative episode to arm yourself with the knowledge needed to recognize the signs of stomach cancer early and explore the treatment options available. Your Health, or that of someone you care about, could depend on it.---For more episodes of MedStar Health DocTalk, go to medstarhealth.org/doctalk.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Suzanne George and Liz Salmi discuss their JCO article "Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality" TRANSCRIPT TO COME Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO's After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Liz Salmi, Researcher and Patient Advocate, and by Dr. Suzanne George, who works as a Medical Oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute where she acts as the Chief of the Division of Sarcoma. She is also Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Today, we are going to discuss with Suzanne and with Liz the article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” So thank you for speaking with us, Suzanne, Liz. Liz Salmi: Thanks for having us. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, thanks. Dr. Davide Soldato: I just want to make a brief introduction because I think that the concept of patient partner research is very wide and I'm not sure that all of the readers of JCO really have a deep understanding because I imagine that there are a lot of ways we can involve patient and patient advocates in the research process. And so I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an introduction about the concept. Dr. Suzanne George: Sure. I think the point that you raise is really important because there are many terms that are used, patient-partnered research, patient advocacy, but I don't think that there's a single definition as to what that actually means. In the context of our work, we've sort of summarized our experience through something called the PE-CGS or the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing network. And in that project, which is a Moonshot funded network, the intention is to have participants in research be true partners working with traditional academic research teams in order to develop networks specifically focused on cancer genomics. So what we've done, every center is a little bit different in the network, but we're really having research participants not just act, but really work on the research team from the beginning of the project inception all the way through the research project. Liz Salmi: What brings me to the PE-CGS network is my 17 years experience as a person living with a low grade glioma, brain tumor or brain cancer and involving patients in the co-design of research is super critical because patients bring unique lived experiences that can shape research questions, study designs and outcome measures in ways researchers might not anticipate. And we're finding this through our network. So through my work, including my patient experience and brain tumor focused study designs, I've seen firsthand that patient insights can drive more practical implementations that ultimately benefit both patients and the researchers. And so the particular project I work on in the network, we've got like five different arms and different groups of cancer types that are being represented, so I'm basically focusing on the OPTIMUM study around how brain tumor patients can help in this study design. So in this project I serve as not just a participant in the research, but also as a patient co-investigator. Dr. Davide Soldato: That is very interesting. And I think that we really captured the essence of patient-partnered research by having both of you here talking with us about the PE-CGS. And the second question that I wanted to ask is: I really think that the network focuses on something that is quite important right now and currently in medical oncology - so cancer genome sequencing, access to novel therapies - and I think that it's really challenging to imagine a way in which we can really get our patient and get patient advocates to help us designing new trials who are looking into this. And I just wanted to know, do you think that there is something that is particularly challenging when we are speaking specifically about cancer genomics and access to this type of drugs that are targeting specific molecular alteration? Because I think that in general it might be a little bit easier, maybe I'm biased on this, so you can also tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's a little bit easier when we are trying to design, for example, behavioral intervention or things that are more commonly found in oncology and a little bit more complicated when we are speaking about genomics. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that's part of what this network is trying to address, which is really what are the barriers and the opportunities around cancer genomics from the patient perspective and how do we make sure that that perspective is included as we're thinking about study design and inclusion? As Liz mentioned, this network has five different networks within the network, five different centers, and each center is slightly different with the population that it engages with. And so there's diversity there in terms of reaching out to different patient communities and partner communities around potential barriers for genomics research. I think one of the things though that we're finding across the network is that people want to be part of this work. People that have a lived experience of cancer want to help move the field forward. And what we ended up writing about was some of the barriers that get in the way of that. It's awesome to have people like Liz that are like all in and then there's people who are on the other end of the spectrum that want to share their information to help move the field forward around genomics, but then there's all these barriers at the systems level that get in the way of that. So I think that that's one of the challenges we're trying to overcome and learn about across the network. Liz Salmi: Yeah, I think I bring this really interesting, I can't say I'm really interesting, but I think I bring this really niche perspective. Not only am I a person living with a brain tumor and I'm a co-investigator but also like a participant in this study. I also, in my day job, I'm an investigator as part of the director of communications and patient initiatives on the OpenNotes lab at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. And our lab really focuses on how open, transparent communication between doctors and patients improves care. And that's been going on for longer than I've been around on our team. But what I bring to that lab is I focus on engaging both patients and clinicians in spreading the awareness about the power of how easy access and transparent communication, access to information across healthcare settings helps patients feel more involved and informed in their care.   And I work specifically, it's a really niche area. I work on projects that aim to expand access to notes and test results in diverse care settings, really helping tailoring initiatives so that various patient communities can understand how they can be involved in these types of research projects. Ultimately that's what brought me into this space. I might be one of the first generation of patients that actually starts helping co-design studies on things like this. And I think that across a lot of healthcare settings cancer is really what we're focused on. But patients are now increasingly being involved as research collaborators. And there's many different funding institutions such as the NCI but also PCORI they now mandate that funders reflect a shift towards more patient centered research frameworks. So it's like the PE-CGS network isn't the only group that's being funded to do research in this way. And I think other investigators, even outside of the cancer space, but specifically in cancer, need to learn how to do research in this way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I agree. And I think the other thing that we need to do is if people want to participate and that participation in many of these networks has to do with record sharing and data sharing, the system needs to accommodate that. If people want to share their information in order to allow research to be performed, then we need to make sure that that can happen, and that it's not that the institution systems don't connect with someone else's systems or that you to pay X, Y and Z dollars for the data to go A, B and C, or that some places are on this EHR and some places are on that EHR and so, sure, you can share it, but you have to go through all of these hurdles in order to make it happen. When a patient signs a consent form that says, “I want my data to be used,” we as an investigator community, we owe it to that patient to make sure that their information is being part of the data set that will be used for learnings. And that's part of what we wrote about, is the lots of behind the scenes things that just get in the way and that we need to work towards improving. Liz Salmi: Both Suzanne and I are really passionate about this stuff. And as a person living with a brain tumor for the last 17 years, I'm a chronic research participant. I always, always, am really curious. I'm like, “Yes, let me contribute my data. Whether that's electronic health record data or maybe I'm being interviewed about certain aspects of the cancer care experience.” And the one thing that bummed me out for like the first 10 years of being this chronic research participant is I would enroll in things, I'd be interviewed for things, I'd fill out these surveys and then I never heard anything about what happened with that information and that time I spent. And people would send me like a $10 gift card to Amazon, like, “Thanks for participating,” but really what I wanted to know is like, did you do anything with that? How did that inform things? So that really annoyed me to the point where I was like, I'm just going to be part of the research process and really figure out how we share that information back to everybody who had spent so much time. And so my participation in this space is like, “Let's change it. Let's give people information back.” And now I know it takes a really long time to have a finding that could be published somewhere that we then get it back. But closing the loop on the communications gap is something I'm really passionate about. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that we are changing a little bit this perspective? I feel like we are getting a little bit better in creating patient communities of patients who are included in specific clinical trials. And then we do the effort of creating a community, of keeping people really involved with the research that they are participating in. I think that we are not quite there yet, but I think that we are making some kind of steps in that direction. For example, trying also to inform patients to participate in the study when the publication that is related to that specific study comes out. What is the benefit? What have we discovered? I think that we are not quite there yet. There is a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way I think we communicate these to patients who participated in research. But I have the impression that we are making some steps forward. So I don't know. Do you share the same thoughts? Liz Salmi: So Dr. George talked about the PE-CGS network and then there's five different cancer types being studied. So the thing I can reflect on is what we've done in the, this is a really long acronym but, Optimizing Molecular Characterization of Low Grade Glioma. Say that 10 times fast. So our particular group is people who donate tissues about their brain tumors. We're really collecting data from people with multiple brain surgeries over time, which is really complicated and to make that process easier. And then once those tissue samples are stored somewhere, studying that information about what changes in the brain tumors over time and then also giving those results back to people so they can take that research level data and bring it back to their neuro oncology team and say, “Hey. Here's what I found out, “and having a conversation. So, this is a long multi touch point study and in order to do that, to even make that possible is the individual patients need to understand what's in it for them. They're donating precious tissue in order to make the research process work. And so in order to do that, it's not just the investigators saying, “Hey. Give us your brain tissue, peace out.” It is we have a whole research advisory council of people living with these particular tumor types who help us co-design how do we do that outreach, how do we explain why this is important, or how do we message the importance of this work so they understand,“Oh, this is what's in it for me and this is what's in it for other people like me.” And from there then with that process, which again I mentioned, all of these multi-step processes, once we're able to understand how patients want to hear that information, what's in it for them, then we bring it back to like those bench scientists, investigators going, “Okay. And here's how this workflow should work for the patients,” and design everything around the patient experience before we even care about what's happening from the scientist researcher perspective. Dr. Suzanne George: I agree. I think to your point, I think the fact that we're all here today talking about this is just like you said, is that we are making progress, right? Like we're even here having this conversation. Just like you said, I think there's opportunities to improve and further refine the communication and the involvement back in the patient community. When I think- if I put on my clinical investigator hat, I'm very involved in PE-CGS, but my primary research interest historically has been clinical trials and drug development. And I think that our approach in communicating results back has just not been consistent. But I do think that there's opportunities, just like you said, to provide summaries of information to loop back. I don't think that we've completely solved: What do we do? How do we provide information back to loved ones of patients that may no longer be alive that participated? How do we provide information to people who maybe we don't have their contact information? What if we lose track of them? How do we also make sure that we give people the choice to know? Do you want to know about this or would you rather just participate and then give space to that research? Because maybe that's how people's best for them. So I think that you're right, we're making progress, but I think that there's also a lot more that we can do. So I'm glad we're talking about it. Dr. Davide Soldato: How much do you think that directly involving patients in this process, like asking them directly and co-designing the trial from the very beginning and understanding the level of information? This might also be another question inside of the question. So first, how much co-designing this type of research helps, and then do we also need to further refine at that level of communication, different communication depending on the level of information that different people want to have? Because I think that that's another level of complexity that we need to work towards at a certain point. We need to work on that first level of giving back the information. But then I think that there is also the other point of providing the information and information that should also be probably adapted to the cultural belief of different patients, to the ethnicity or to whatever cultural background or social background or whatever they may place their most interest in. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that you're 100% right on all of those points. I think those are all topics that need to be considered. We may be able to get to a certain degree of granularity around those communication points, but on the other hand, we also want to be able to communicate broadly and accessibly as possible. One of the interesting things about PE-CGS, as Liz was mentioning, is each of the five centers has a slightly different focus. For example, one of the centers is focused on American Indians and Tribal Nations, and the communication practices coming out of that center are really unique and really very special and something that's been really, I think for me, very fascinating to hear about. Because to your point, like, just the strategy and what's considered appropriate is just different. I think if we hope to build a research world where our research participants and research data come from a broad swath of the population that really represents the population, the only way that we're going to be able to do that is find ways that bring meaning across the population as well. And that may be different based on where people are coming from and where people are at in their own journeys and in their own lives. But it's on us to be open to that and like to hear that, so we can do the right thing. Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think that this is one of the objectives of the PE-CGS, really trying to bring this type of research participation to really diverse and underrepresented populations, not only in terms of cultural background, but I also think about different types of tumors. Like Liz was referring about brain cancer or low grade glioma, which is a very niche population. And I also think about sarcomas, for example, the degree of variability that we have in that specific type of disease is such that we really need to probably find different ways to communicate also inside of this diversity in terms of single patient and experiences, but also in terms of single diseases. You were speaking a little bit before about the fact that the manuscript is really on the barriers that we would need to identify and then to change to make this system a reality. We were talking a little bit about consenting information and consenting the sharing of information, and I think that you make a very interesting point about the consent process when we are designing research. Could you give a little bit of your impressions about giving informed consent? What we need to change, how can we improve? Dr. Suzanne George: The bottom line is the consent process needs to be simple, clear, and transparent. And sometimes I feel, because the traditional way that we've always gone about consent is frequently consent is as it should be in many ways. These consent forms are developed from a regulatory framework. What are we required to do to consent and how do we meet those requirements? Sometimes that becomes directly at odds with how do we do this simply, clearly and transparently? And I think as a research community, we have to be able to find a common ground there. That has to include regulatory requirements, that has to include IRBs. When we think about consents and work with our patient communities on this, everybody agrees the consents need to be more simple, except the IRB or maybe the IRB agrees, but it's this tension between how do we make it simple, clear and transparent and not get so bogged down in the regulatory that we lose that intent. Liz Salmi: It's complicated. As a person, I mentioned, I'm a chronic research participant living with a brain tumor for 17 years. I remember enrolling in studies and seeing things that are just so complicated. I'm like, “Well, I'm just going to sign off.” I imagine somewhere somebody who knew more than me said, “I should just fill out this thing.” And then as I switched to the research world, I spent more time digging into, “Wow, this is a really complicated consent,” versus, “This is a really streamlined consent and I love this.” And throughout my work with Dr. George and others on the PE-CGS network, an example of a good consent that's easy for people to understand is what the NIH All Of Us research project did, where they're trying to get a million people, more than that, signed up to be in this longitudinal study. And their consent is to go to their website and they have a whole bunch of short YouTube videos. There's a kind of like a quiz involved and they're animated, they have multiple languages involved. And I signed up for that study and I was like, “This is a beautiful consent.” And it's a very plain language. And more consents like that. If you're looking for a good example, go there. I have not been paid by them in any way. I'm a participant in their study. I'm not sure if you guys and your listeners are aware, but there was I think, October 19th of this year or 2024, there was a special communication published in JAMA on an update on the Helsinki Principles for Medical Research involving human participants. And what they're saying is an ethical update is patient engagement in research, which emphasizes the need for continuous, meaningful engagement with research participants and their communities throughout the research life cycle, before, during and after studies. And so this is what we're talking about here. And it's now been embedded in these updated principles. Dr. Suzanne George: That's really great and I agree with you. I think the All Of Us consent process is very accessible. It feels like you can understand it. But the other thing is that, again, I also am not directly involved with All Of Us, but the other thing about it is that they also have a high-touch way to consent where they have navigators and people that will go into communities in a very resource intensive way. So there's all different ways to go about it. We need to find a way that we can balance the complexity around regulatory and the simplicity and transparency that we need in cancer research. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that in terms of patient engagement we are doing better in academic sponsored research compared to sponsored research? A little bit of a provocative question maybe. Dr. Suzanne George: I think that's a really interesting question. I think this idea of participant engagement and involvement is being infused across the research community. And in part, the FDA has prioritized it as well. I think the industry sees the FDA prioritizing this as well. And I think that there are many companies that are involving participant and advocacy communities in different ways in the study design, in the study process early on. So I think it's happening. Liz Salmi: I'll be spicy. I've been a participant, I've been an investigator, co-investigator on studies and I have been reached out to often by pharma of, “Hey Liz, brain tumor patient advocate, would you be kind of like the poster child of our study or be involved in that way?” And I personally want to have no work in that space. I have no interest. However, I am approached, and other people living with cancer have been approached, by industry about lending their likeness or being commercials. And I don't think there's enough education to patient advocates of what that necessarily means, pros and cons. But I also can't speak on behalf of all of the patient advocates who might want to see that's a way that they could lend their voice and advance research. I personally think that there needs to be more involvement from the academic side of creating spaces where patients can be involved in the co-design of research and they also get compensated for their time fairly at the same level or some version of it in a way so they don't just jump to the pharma side of things. But that's an opinion that I have. Opinions. Dr. Suzanne George: I think it's really interesting the point that you make about providing more awareness or information about what it even means to do these things from a patient side. I certainly don't know that side as well, but I do see, often, the term patient advocate used very frequently in many different contexts that mean many different things. And I think that there's an opportunity there for understanding more about what that really means and what it can mean. Liz Salmi: Yeah. We want to involve patients, we want to do patient engagement. The BMJ or the British Medical Journal, have this new policy in place for patients as reviewers of research. And what I find interesting with the BMJ is they also ask patients to declare their conflicts of interest. So this is kind of a new space. If you're involved in patient research or perhaps working with pharma, patients, if you're involved at that level, should also be declaring their conflicts of interest if they're getting paid by a pharma. Or do I have a conflict now that I'm doing this cool ASCO podcast? Maybe. But do we want to overburden patients with tracking all this information? So it's a new world. The more we have access to information, the more we share information, the more we can read studies and we co-design, there's a new space I think over the next 5 to 10 years where how do we define this in a transparent way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I think you're right. I know that we're getting long, but I just want to say one other thing about that, which is that you're right. If we're bringing patients in to be partners, then we have to treat each other that way. We have to acknowledge- I think this issue that you raise about compensation and about paying people for their time or acknowledging people for their time, I think that's really important and very under-discussed. Liz and I were at the annual meeting for the PE-CGS and someone was there giving a talk about- this was a guest speaker that was giving a talk about a very large high impact grant and that included a patient advocacy kind of module, let's say. And they put in a specific funding and budget for that component that included compensation for the people- from the people in the advocacy community that were spending their time. And the PI of this project, again, not to get into the details of it, but they were sharing that they got a fair bit of pushback on that. But the PI pushed back and said, “Listen, we're compensating other people for their time. These guys, we want them to be partners, we need to treat them as such.” And I think that also again, kind of we're in a new space, but if we're going to do it right, then we have to acknowledge that we're partners. Dr. Davide Soldato: But I think that maybe an experience like the PE-CGS probably can be also a network for expanding awareness for patient advocates and also for creating sort of a new culture about what does that mean and how can we also improve on that part. Because in the end, if we want to engage, we also need to provide patients with the instruments to engage in a way that we think it's both useful for them, that can make research better, but can also make them at the exact same level as everyone who is participating in that research, which I think it's the bottom line of all the concepts that we are discussing right now. Liz Salmi: Yep. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, I agree. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I think we have covered a lot of things. Just wanted to make one last reference to a point that Suzanne mentioned earlier, which is the interoperability of systems. And I think that when we come to the cancer genome, that is very important, being able to share information, especially for those diverse and less common cancer types that we were discussing earlier. There is a lot of work in gaining all that information and we need to be able to gather all of that information in the same place to advance research. You were mentioning before that the process is actually very complicated and I was wondering if in the network you are already working on some potential ways to address this type of issue. Dr. Suzanne George: I think our first step is really just calling it out, acknowledging how hard this is and what the barriers are. Oftentimes I think in research, we don't talk enough about what our methodologic barriers are. We talk more about what our results are, but not like how hard it is. But like in our projects, the Count Me In project, my network that I'm involved with, we're doing rare tumors. We can only do the United States and Canada because of privacy issues. And we're doing a completely web based platform. So we have the technology. But the privacy laws are impeding our ability to involve other parts of the world. And even within the United States, it's not as easy as we would like to get records. For example, despite the fact that people are saying, “Yes, use my records.” But then it's like, “Okay. Well, that's not that easy. How are we going to get them?” We had to hire a third party vendor in order to get the records, in order to manage all the different consents and releases that were needed across all these different hospital systems. So I think the first question is just calling it out and then from there working together as a community to try to see what the solutions can be, because we need to come up with those solutions. Liz Salmi: Yeah, we're in the same camp as Dr. George and the fact that of the five partners, we're not associated with one particular institution. So we can reach out around the country and get access to those records. And we need them at multiple points in time, over time and it takes a lot of effort and work. And it's not like you could just, say, call hospital A and they have all the information. It's like all of the calls to all of the other sites. And it's not just from one surgery, it's from two or more surgeries. But also the way that people stay involved, and, by people, I mean patients and family members, there's this promise that at some point you're going to get some sort of information in response. Like, it's the “what's in it for me?” aspect of it. We do interviews with those who've been enrolled in the study, those who could be potential enrollees in the future because they've only had one surgery. And what we're learning overall is there's this altruistic nature that people have of- they want to participate in the research because they're like, “Here's my horrible cancer experience. I know other people are going to go through this as well.” There's this guiding light of “I want to do something, and I'm not going to be the person that creates the cure, discovers the genome or whatever for this particular cancer type. But my little bit of participation in this multiplied by 20, 30, 100, 1000 people, is what is going to lead us to the next phase in development and is going to move the needle for this particular tumor type or other cancer types.” And so what I think the impact in this space and participant engagement isn't just something we figure out, like a little research method and a little finding for one small tumor type, it's like the methods to do that is the big impact. The method around participant engagement can impact even beyond the cancer community. Dr. Davide Soldato: Yeah. As Suzanne was saying, we need to be in a system that really helps us and allows us to do that. So I think that you really have a lot of things to work on inside of the network. Dr. Suzanne George: I think one thing that I would say is I think that this issue of interoperability is acknowledged as a challenge. We refer to several different initiatives across the US where this is supposed to ideally change over time. I think people want it to change over time. I think investigators at the ERTC want it to change over time. I think different countries are working on this. And I think, again, the first step is getting us at the table talking about it, and then figuring out ways to move it forward. And I think it's there. I think that there is the will. We just have to figure out the how and continue to work on that together, because there's just a tremendous opportunity. I live in the rare tumor space, and between the FDA and the EMA and the regulatory, the national and the international research groups, the patient communities, people want this to be solved and I do hope that we will be able to get there. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I would like to thank Liz and Suzanne for joining us today. Dr. Suzanne George: Thanks for having us. Liz Salmi: Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato: Suzanne, Liz, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   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.     DISCLOSURES Liz Salmi Speaking Honoria: Medscape. Research Funding (Inst): Abridge AI, Inc., Yosemite. Dr. Suzanne George Honoraria CStone Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role Blueprint Medicines, deciphera, Bayer,  Lilly, UpToDate, Research to Practice, MORE Health, Daiichi, Kayothera, Immunicum, BioAtla   Research Funding Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Daiichi Sankyo RD Novare, Merck, Eisai, SpringWorks Therapeutics, TRACON Pharma, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla, IDRx, NewBay Pharma, Acrivon Therapeutics   Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company name: UptoDate Stock and Other Ownership Interests Abbott Laboratories and Pfizer Recipient: An Immediate Family Member

THE MEDICAL RECORD: ONTARIO PROPOSES EMPOWERING NURSE PRACTITIONERS TO LEAD MEDICAL CARE IN LTC FACILITIES Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Alisa Naiman, a family doctor practicing comprehensive primary care in Toronto, Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Dr. Jamie Spiegelman, Internal Medicine and Critical Care Physician at Humber River Hospital. Ontario's new long-term care bill proposal would allow nurse practitioners to oversee residents' medical care, replacing physician medical directors. The bill also mandates dementia care programs and addresses abuse. Funding for adult day programs, and two innovative pilot projects focusing on emotional care and home-based services is also included. CANADA'S TOBACCO GIANTS PIVOT TO WELLNESS PRODUCTS AMID LANDMARK $32.5B SETTLEMENT Libby is joined by Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society. Canada's top tobacco companies may face a landmark class-action settlement to cover healthcare costs, damages to smokers, and fund research. Smoking rates have dropped from 27% to 12% in the past 25 years, with teen smoking falling to just 2%. Some provinces are considering age-based sales bans. FORD'S LEGISLATION TO DISMANTLE HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS DELAYED UNTIL NEXT YEAR Libby is joined by Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown. Ontario has proposed legislation to allow the removal of homeless encampments and expand police powers on public drug use, following requests from 12 city mayors. However, the bill won't be debated or passed until early next year.

In this episode, we continue with a special series close to my heart: Decoding Destiny: Navigating Breast Cancer with Genetic Insight. Dr. Eleonora Teplinsky unpacks the challenges of living with a BRCA-positive diagnosis and the critical role of genetic testing in managing hereditary breast cancer risk. Dr. Teplinsky offers actionable advice for individuals and families, covering when to begin testing for younger generations, managing long-term risks, and addressing the emotional complexities of genetic knowledge while making proactive health choices. Whether you're a BRCA carrier, a breast cancer survivor, or considering genetic testing, this episode delivers expert insights and practical guidance to help you take charge of your health and future. Don't miss this important discussion about genetic awareness and building a foundation of health for the next generation. Thank you to AstraZeneca for making this episode possible!  

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered host Dr. Narjust Florez discusses the future of lung cancer research in Brazil and the largest lung cancer screening program in South America. The episode was recorded during the IASLC 2024 Latin America Conference on Lung Cancer held in Bogota, Columbia. Guests: Clarissa Baldotto is a Medical ) Oncologist at D'Or Rio De Janeiro and President Elect for the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) Guest: Dr. Francisco Sarmento is a Thoracic Radiologist from Hospital Royal Portuguese in Brazil.

THE MEDICAL RECORD: DO YOU CARE ABOUT CALORIE COUNTS? Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Fahad Razak, General Internist at Unity Health Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Healthcare Data and Analytics at the University of Toronto, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a family doctor practicing in Toronto, and Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Libby gives an update post-cataract procedure and we explore a study out of England that reveals the extent to which calorie counts actually influence our menu choices when we go to restaurants.  CALLS FOR PM TRUDEAU TO INCLUDE RETIREES IN HIS $250 REBATE Libby Znaimer is now joined by Will Stewart, a Conservative Strategist and Senior Vice President with Enterprise Canada, and Tom Parkin, a social Democratic commentator. PM Trudeau has excluded some very important groups from the $250 rebate cheques his government will be sending out to some 18.7 million Canadians. One of those important groups are pensioners who still pay tax! We've heard from our listeners who called in to express their disappointment about it. Opposition leaders in Ottawa are calling on Trudeau to make it so that they are included. HOW THE LOONIE'S DROP IN VALUE IS IMPACTING CANADIAN SHOPPERS + THOSE TRAVELLING TO U.S.  Libby Znaimer is joined by Moshe Lander, Senior Lecturer of Economics at Concordia University in Montreal and Stephen Fine, President & Managing Editor of SnowbirdAdvisor.ca. How are Canadian shoppers and those travelling to the U.S. being impacted by the drop in the value of the loonie? Our experts weigh in.

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology poem, "Episteme” by Dr. Michael Slade, who is a medical oncologist at Washington University School of Medicine. The poem is followed by an interview with Slade and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Dr Slade highlights the tension between what is known and unknown and what spoken and unspoken as physicians try to care for our patients without destroying their ability to live with their disease. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Episteme, by Michael J. Slade, MD, MSCI  I know you know, must know. The tides have woken you night after night after night, borrowed blood flowing in and now out, unaided by your dwindling marrow. You must know your story is read and written in a perfecta tense. You must know the end somewhere deep in your empty bones.   Still, you speak of summers, of fish caught or lost beneath the calm surface of a distant lake. “There's nothing to do in December,” you say, skin pale in the cool light leaking from the door. It's late now, deep in the evening and my knees ache as I nod and wonder about a different world where you were not you and this was all decided months ago.   “Day by day,” I mutter and shuffle to my next door, leaving you alone to wait on the cataclysm, on that night when the blood of strangers runs wild and catches your breath, that night in the ICU, where they wait, tube in hand as you sweat and shake, where I still promise to care for you knowing, knowing you will never wake again. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira. I'm a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. Michael Slade, a Medical Oncologist at Washington University School of Medicine. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology poem, “Episteme.”  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  Mike, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Dr. Michael Slade: Thank you, Lidia. It's great to be here. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's a pleasure to have you. Let's start by talking a little bit about your relationship to writing prose, poetry. Is this something that you've always done? Do you want to share with us a little bit about what it means to you and when you have time to write? Dr. Michael Slade: I'd say, I have absolutely no formal training as a poet or honestly in anything else, but this is something I've done since college. And especially starting in medical school, this was really a deliberate practice for me to try to find a way to unload some of the harder experiences that we can go through as medical providers. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's interesting to hear you say that. Many of our authors have talked about using their writing as a way of processing emotionally difficult experiences and just very important meaningful experiences. But there's so much artistry in your work. I just wanted to ask you a little bit more about that. How do you find the relationship to not just the writing as a way of processing, but as art that you want to share and publish. I've seen that you've published poems, quite a few of them in the last year alone. Dr. Michael Slade: Yeah, I would say the publishing piece of this came very far down the road for me, that I've been writing for over a decade before I think I even submitted anything for publication. And for me, the ability to publish is more of a- Is a way of putting yourself out there and as a motivation to really re-examine what you've written and not just scrawl it on a piece of paper and sort of stick it back on a shelf somewhere, but to be able to go back to some of these experiences and really delve a little bit deeper, both with the language, but also what was the experience? Why was this meaningful? And often things that end up in print for me are things that I've been playing with for a number of years. It is just sort of an ability to go deeper there is the reason why I have published some of these works. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I am very interested in the theme of time and your use of pronouns. There's a lot of negotiating. What is yours and what is your patients'? I assume the “I” is the oncologist, right? In this particular case, since the readership of JCO are mostly clinical oncologists, it's sort of meant to be an affiliation with a reader. And there's a lot of “I,” but then there's a lot of mine. Can you talk a little bit about how you have chosen to address the patient directly and your colleagues directly and put yourself out there using first person as well? Dr. Michael Slade: I think certainly, as I wrote this, and I tend to write a lot as I come off of sort of tough stretches of clinical work, and as I wrote this, I think, I was trying to capture a little bit of the anguish that I think a lot of us feel as oncologists, especially around this question of what we know and what is knowledge for the oncologist. The reality is the things that we know sort of above the neck tend to be very statistical, that we say, “Oh, the chances of you responding,” “The chances of you surviving,” “The chances of you being cured,” it's very numbers based, but it's probabilistic. And when we talk to patients and often when we talk to ourselves, we really use this idea of knowing in a very different way, that we know that something's going to happen because of our past experience or because of what we're seeing right in front of us. I think that's something that I think a lot of oncologists probably identify with very closely is that what do we do when we feel like we know something in a way that's almost deeper than the academic way that we speak of knowing. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk about that. And that is, in fact, the title you chose for your poem. Why not just use the word knowledge? Tell us a little bit about that choice. Dr. Michael Slade” When we talked about knowing, both academically and my background before I came to medicine, as I trained in philosophy, we talked about epistemology or episteme. Often, we talk about knowing both in medicine and in sort of the wider philosophical discussions, we talk about it in this very abstract way that if you were to sit down with a patient and really try to unpack it, they're not going to have any idea. This isn't relevant to practical life in a lot of ways. They want to know, “Am I going to be cured?” “Am I going to have this side effect?” “Am I going to make it out of the hospital?” And the type of knowing that we do within science is not that type of knowing. It's all probabilistic. And to me, I think, trying to pull back a little bit, and by using the sort of Greek root, it sort of places this idea of knowledge at a remove that I think is useful. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Mike, I've often used the analogy that poetry is almost like abstract art sometimes, because it invites the reader to imagine things. So if we think of this poem sort of as art, can we walk through this together and take it from the top and see what we see or what these ideas trigger? You start directly by addressing the I know, you know, you must know. And then you present the case, if I got this right, of somebody with a dwindling marrow, that's an empty bone, so an inefficient marrow. And I assume, since you're a bone marrow transplanter, that means this patient had a disease that was incurable here, and you sort of insist that you must know. Tell me a little bit about that tension, that emotional tension that comes up for me as I read that, those opening lines where you're sort of insisting that you must know something that you're not sharing with me that you know. Dr. Michael Slade: I think for me, that's really trying to express the gap that can emerge between those of us who do this professionally and our patients who have to live through these experiences. And we can say, “I have seen this story play out so many times, and I know things are not going well. I know how this is going to end.” But for the patient, this is, obviously, every patient is an n-of-1 with their own experience, and they may have had family members with similar diseases, they may have had friends. They may join these really wonderful patient support groups where people can sort of talk about what the process of cancer treatment is. But for the patient, they are living through it day to day. And we may feel with our accumulated knowledge that it's very clear how things are going and that either their optimism or pessimism or sort of whatever the patient's base emotional reaction is to the clinical situation is fundamentally incorrect. It's like you have to put these pieces together in the way that I do. And the reality is that there is a huge gap that can emerge between us and our patients, and it can lead to frustration and anguish and a lot of negative emotions, I think, from clinicians that aren't aimed at the patient, but they're really aimed at the fact that we feel like we're not talking about the same situation. I think that's what that first piece of the poem is really trying to capture, is that anguish at that type of gap. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And you say it very clearly. You say, “You must know your story is read and written in the perfect tense.” It's almost like you're shouting it here, right? Dr. Michael Slade: But in sort of a weird, obscure way that if you tried to tell a patient sort of a grammatical metaphor for how poorly their hospitalization was going. Most patients, unless they're English literature professors, will look at you as sort of with this, “What are you talking about?” I think, again, it's that gap. It's this very academic, removed way that we often look at this, especially when we're trying to shield ourselves from this very human anguish of knowing that there's this real person in front of you who's not doing well and that you feel like you kind of know how the story is going to end. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's go a little deeper into that then. It's really about your feelings then here. It's your frustration. You want the patient to mirror back to you that they get how bad this is, and they can't because they are trapped in that body, in that situation. And as you just say, and then you say in the lines that follow, “they are coming up for air.” They're thinking of the summer and the fish that may be caught or not caught. They may know it somewhere, but they can't quite recite that back to you. And that leads the writer, the author, to voice this inner tension. Did I get that right? Dr. Michael Slade: I think that's exactly it. And sort of towards the end of that verse, there's also sort of this counterfactual that certainly different choices can always be made in the course of treatment. And especially for us clinicians when we're encountering a patient who interprets their disease a little bit differently than we do, and they say, “Oh, I feel fine. Why do I need chemo after surgery?” Or, “Oh, I feel fine. Why do I need a bone marrow transplant?” And sometimes people will make choices which makes their immediate life better, but we are always stuck in this sort of feeling of, “Oh, man. If only we had done things a little bit differently.” I acknowledge that we just can't align our views of the world, but still at the same time saying, “Well, I don't know, things would have been better if you'd listened to me. Maybe you made the right choice for you and your disease process.” So it's always that gap between what we know academically and what we sort of know below the neck. And then for patients, their experience is often very different from ours because they have to live through this. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm interested in the physician narrator experience here, and I was really impressed by the fact that you convey the tension on the emotional load. But the only thing that you write and communicate directly to the reader is the physical aching, when you say, “it's the evening and my knees ache,” and then you say “I shuffle,” suggesting that you're physically tired. I just wonder if you could talk a little bit more about that, the way that you have inserted the fatigue factor of the narrator here, but through the description of physical symptoms. Dr. Michael Slade: I think there's a little bit of blending there, because I think on the one hand, certainly this emotional anguish, mental anguish can certainly manifest as fatigue, and sometimes can be sort of a little bit of a metaphorical blend there. But I think the other thing that we often really struggle with as physicians and as other providers is how much are we letting ourselves get into the story that the patient is experiencing, but even the story that we're trying to objectively put together. And because, for example, we had a patient who tried a treatment and they had a rare side effect, a lot of us will admit, “Hey, I had a patient with a bad outcome when they got X,Y,Z.” Even if the data looks really good because of my own emotional processing or I do my best. And I know a lot of other physicians talk about this, but if you are tired, hungry, under or over caffeinated, having bad things going at home a lot of times for us, we worry about letting our personal lives bleed into our interactions with patients. And that's really challenging because I think we are at our best when we bring our humanness into the clinic room, into the hospital room. We also have to make sure that we're not saying, “Oh, am I just down because I'm tired, and that's why I think this patient's going to do poorly?” Or is it actually supported by the evidence in front of us? So I think the way that the narrator kind of moves in and out of this piece and how much they are a part of the story is a big piece of the poem. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is a very big piece of the poem. And as I read some of the other poems you've written, I think that I was also impressed by this construction of the boundaries and the separateness between the patient and the physician narrator and how you negotiate that when you're waiting for a result, when you're waiting for time, when you say it's really the patient's story, but it's yours too. There's a fluidity about this perspective. Did I get that right? Dr. Michael Slade: I think that's an absolutely wonderful way to describe it. I think fluidity in particular is, yeah, that we think of things as very separate from each other and that I'm me and you're you and there's your family and there's the rest of the team. But all of this stuff, not to get too sort of hippie with it, but there's so much resonance when you're in these relationships that you have with patients. And especially in cancer care, we have very deep, often very prolonged and somewhat intense relationships with patients and their families as they go through this stuff. Boundaries can become blurred. And again, I think it's challenging because sometimes we are at our best when we blur those boundaries a little bit. But there's certainly- you can be pulled into a patient's story in a way that is not helpful for you long term, but even not helpful for the patient short term. And I think that's the challenge. And you're right. I spend a lot of my work sort of thinking about this. And a lot of my professional life is also thinking about this. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I would say it a little differently. And it's that you are co-constructing an ‘us' that is between you and they, or you and he or she, or however you see this. And that's the mind part. Others have talked about cases where there is a deep connection between physician and patient, where the physician is invited to be a co-editor of that patient narrative. I think there's a lot of richness in that. And I think that your work and your poetry certainly takes us right there.  And so with that, I want to take us to the end of the poem, which is terrifying.There's going to be, you use the word ‘cataclysmic', which means, this is an upheaval, something violent about to happen. And the way I interpret it is your patient is neutropenic and septic and shaking and rigoring and is getting transfused. And the “They,” which isn't you or your team, it's the ‘they' are waiting for it too and going into probably an intubation in the ICU. And then there's this promise that you won't abandon the patient while ‘they' are going to be doing these things. And we already know how this story is going to end. Is that what you are trying to convey? Dr. Michael Slade: It's funny because until you sort of read it out, I was like, I didn't realize how much I threw our ICU colleagues under the bus as part of this poem. So if any of you guys are listening, I have immense respect and value for what you do. But no, and this is sort of the big question that we run into with these patients and what's the right response when we feel like we can see the future and then we turn out to be correct. How do we not, I guess, insulate ourselves from that in a way that's not helpful for us and it's not helpful for the patient? And yeah, so that's sort of, as I said, you read the story sort of as it was laid down, but yeah. What do you do? What's the right response when you feel like you're getting to the end and that you feel like you've seen it coming for weeks? And I think that's really the challenge. And the poem sort of suggests an answer to that question. But I think everybody kind of has their own process that they have to go through. As you see, unfortunately, as an oncologist, case after case of folks that- cancer is tough and our treatments are getting better, but I'm a myeloma physician. I have cured zero patients so far. And that's hard at the end of the story. It's always hard. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is hard. Can you tell us a little bit about your choice of language and why you keep repeating the ‘knowing' and then italicize it at the end, just to add another dimension of emphasis there? Dr. Michael Slade: As someone who loves language and has always been interested in it from a philosophical perspective, but literary perspective as well, there's really, really sharp limitations to what language can express. And we can unpack and define and redefine and suggest. But there's something- often, we in these situations, run up into a place where words are totally insufficient. And I feel like often what we end up doing and what I end up doing in writing but I think even in our interactions with people, we just sort of use the same words over and over again, hoping that somehow the meaning will morph mid-interaction and suddenly we'll have that connection with someone where they'll hear what we're trying to say. And for me, I kept coming back to this idea of knowing, knowing, knowing. The narrator's trying to express something that they just can't quite get their arms around. And I think the best and the closest I can get to in similar situations is something like this, is trying to write out these experiences in a way that kind of captures that feeling. I hope I at least captured a piece of it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Certainly. I loved your writing and I think you did. Despite how difficult it is to talk about this and how difficult it must have been for you to live through it, there's a real gentleness about the way you take the reader through this. And it evolves. Really, it flows beautifully. So thank you for that. Dr. Michael Slade: I very much appreciate the writing. And I will say to the folks who read the original version of this poem, both in my personal life and then at JCO, this is not the original form the poem was in. So I think other people have layered in their experiences here. And again, I love to see this come out on the other end and say, this is more beautiful than what I started with. So I have a lot of gratitude to folks who have given me some pointers about how to improve this. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's lovely to hear you say that. To end this, I would love to hear you tell me a little bit about comments, perhaps, that colleagues or even patients may have made based on work that you've published or what you hope that people will take away from this. Dr. Michael Slade: I had published maybe one poem back in medical school, and then I published something as a fellow. And I remember in our program, we have this big office and we basically all have cubicles, and we have sort of the computers all set up, and we're in and out, you know, seeing consults and everything else. And I had published something in JCO a few years ago, that was about indirectly the experience of trying to be on call and triage patients and all this. I had maybe three or four different fellows within the week that that was published, sort of stick their head over and be like, “I never read poetry, but I saw your name on this. So I flipped to the back of the JCO magazine and read it.” And that captured so many of the feelings that I've had this year in a way that I couldn't put on paper. Again, I've been writing stuff since college and most of it sits in a folder somewhere and it's never read by anybody. So the idea that it could go out into the world and could make people have that sort of sense of catharsis that I'm not alone in this. Somebody else has had this experience and had this feeling.  I've had that same experience with some of my very brilliant colleagues who paint or who participate in other sorts of artistic endeavors. And it's nice to know that there's a community of people out here. We're all just trying to navigate the same stuff. And if we can sort of help each other, if we can capture these experiences and retranslate them in a way that people can process their own, sometimes, grief. I think it's really wonderful. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yes. To create a thoughtful community and accompany one another. Well, thank you for sharing your art and your wisdom and your knowing with us today, and please keep writing.  And for our listeners, until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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.   Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.   Guest Bio: Dr. Michael Slade is a Medical Oncologist at Washington University School of Medicine.

Women's health continues to be an important issue for many of us, and more and more medical technoplogy startups are getting on board with turning their attention to women's health issues across the globe. Dr. Vinona Bhatia, a trailblazer in medicine, technology, and global health, is here this week to discuss her work in cancer screening and care both here and in Africa, as well as advocating for inclusive leadership, networking, and mentorship. This week's episode 143 of How Women Inspire Podcast is about unlocking barriers to cancer screening and care! This episode was created in partnership with the Nasdaq Foundation. Together, we are working to educate, inspire, and engage women from diverse backgrounds on venture investing and entrepreneurship. Did you know that only 2% of venture funding goes to women-led companies? Together, we are working to show that women are the new face of venture investing.In this episode of How Women Inspire Podcast, Vinona Bhatia is sharing the importance of  innovation to meet women's needs and wants in healthcare and actionable steps you can take right now to seek opportunities to make a difference. Vinona Bhatia is a Medical Oncologist trained at U Penn and UCSF, with an MPH in Global Health and Population from Harvard. Vinona is the Founder of Partnering for Cancer Innovation, an organization working to improve outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients, and ensure that cancer is treated equitably in all parts of the world. Her primary goal is to unblock millions of individuals from the barriers they face accessing cancer screening and care.Some of the talking points Julie and Vinona go over in this episode include:The shift in focus from general women's health to specific issues like menopause and perimenopause.The importance of not being elitist about innovation and recognizing that innovation can take many shapes and forms.The need for clinical studies pre-launch of medical technologies to ensure effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Seeking opportunities and educating oneself to make a difference.Thank you for listening! If you enjoyed this episode, take a screenshot of the episode to post in your stories and tag me!  And don't forget to follow, rate, and review the podcast and tell me your key takeaways!Learn more about How Women Inspire at https://www.howwomenlead.com/podcast CONNECT WITH VINONA BHATIA:LinkedInPartnering for Cancer InnovationCONNECT WITH JULIE CASTRO ABRAMS:LinkedIn - JulieHow Women LeadHow Women InvestHow Women GiveInstagram - HWLLinkedIn - HWLFacebook - HWL

THE MEDICAL RECORD:  A MEASLES OUTBREAK & CATARACT PROCEDURES Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and former head of BC Cancer, Dr. Iris Gorfinkel, a family doctor based in Toronto and Dr. Fahad Razak, Canada Research Chair in Data Informed Healthcare Improvement at the University of Toronto and a general internist at a Toronto hospital. We discuss a measles virus outbreak in New Brunswick, get reaction to Donald Trump nominating RFK Jr. to head the U.S. government Department of Health and Human Services and what to consider if you are undergoing a cataract procedure. IT'S WORLD COPD DAY Libby Znaimer is joined by Henry Roberts, Director and a co-founder of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Canada. Today marks World COPD Day. COPD is a progressive lung disease with symptoms like shortness of breath and chest tightness to name just a few. It affects about 1.5 million Canadians and possibly about a million more who are undiagnosed. Henry is here to raise awareness and answers listeners' questions.

The fibroblast growth factor receptor-3 (FGFR-3) inhibitor TYRA-300 has been found safe with dose-dependent responses and disease control in the Phase I SURF301 trial. The study included 41 patients who had been heavily pre-treated for their advanced solid tumors with activating FGFR3 mutations/fusions, bringing the hope of avoiding toxicities from the use of non-specific pan-FGFR inhibition. The findings were reported by Ben Tran, MBBS, FRACP, at the 2024 EORTC-NCI-AACR 2024 Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Symposium held in Barcelona, Spain. Tran is a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Melbourne, Australia. He also is Chair of the Germ Cell Tumour Subcommittee for the Australian and New Zealand Urological and Prostate Cancer Trials.

THE MEDICAL RECORD:  WHAT IS THE ONE MEAL A DAY DIET? Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and former head of BC Cancer, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a family doctor practicing in Toronto,  and Dr. Jamie Spiegelman, internal medicine and critical care physician at Humber River Hospital. Have you heard of the one meal a day diet? It's a dietary trend that even high-profile figures like Bruce Springsteen subscribes to. The question is: how healthy is it for you? We discuss that and other health related topics of the week. HOW TORONTO IS PREPARING FOR TAYLOR SWIFT CONCERTS     Libby Znaimer is joined by Stuart Green, spokesperson with the TTC, Trevor Brodie, Director of Operations at Amsterdam Brewhouse and Tony Elenis, President and CEO of The Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) Our local restaurants, hotels, and public services have been in preparation mode ahead of Taylor Swift's concert series and the wave of fans coming into town for that. THE STATUS OF TORONTO POLICE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION     Libby Znaimer is now joined by Clayton Campbell, President of the Toronto Police Association. Toronto Police Services is hiring! Their board adopted a motion for a five year plan. The TPA discusses recruitment and also the resources they require as they deal with auto theft and more.

THE MEDICAL RECORD PANEL: ONTARIO LAUNCHING A NURSING PROGRAM & CANCER PATIENTS IN THE ER  Libby Znaimer is joined by Dr. Fahad Razak,  General Internist at Unity Health Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Healthcare Data and Analytics at the University of Toronto, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a family doctor practicing comprehensive primary care in Toronto, and Dr. Malcolm Moore, Medical Oncologist of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. This week: there's an interesting study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on people going to emergency rooms just before being diagnosed with cancer, or being diagnosed with cancer while there. On the positive side, the first new nursing program in 20 years was announced. It comes after the Ford government announced restrictions on medical school admission designed to boost the number of doctors here in Ontario. DONALD TRUMP HAS WON THE U.S. ELECTION Libby Znaimer is joined by Whitley Yates, a Republican strategist and founder and owner of The Niche Agency, as well as Dr. Chris Cooper, a Political Science Professor at Western Carolina University. After months of coverage and dramatic twists and turns in the U.S. Presidential contest, Donald Trump secured a decisive victory. We discuss that and analyze some of the promises he's made during the campaign. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE UPDATED COVID-19 VACCINES AVAILABLE NOW Libby is joined by Pharmacist Molly Yang, Director of Pharmacy Innovation; Professional Affairs at Whole Health Pharmacy. Have you had the latest COVID-19 booster? What about the flu shot? The latest guidance is to take them together, but there are also other vaccines Zoomers should be getting to prevent difficult and possibly debilitating bouts of illness.

The Power of Movement: Exercise and Lung Cancer-- a Conversation with Experts Description: In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Narjust Florez leads a discussion about the role exercise plays in complementing cancer treatment and how clinicians can work with patients to add regular exercise to their daily regimen. Guest: Dr. Morten Quist is an associate professor at Copenhagen University and a Physiotherapist Clinician-Researcher with 20 years expertise prescribing exercise for patients with cancer at the University Hospital of Copenhagen (Rigshospitalet). He is the Co-founder of the “Body and Cancer” and Founder of the EXHALE programs. Guest: Nancy Campbell is a Clinical Exercise Physiologist in the Zakim Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and she is a Certified ACE Personal Trainer, and has earned the American College of Sports Medicine Cancer Exercise Trainer Certification. Guest: Dr. Paulo Bergerot is a Medical Oncologist at Oncoclinicas in Brazil, where he specializes in GU malignancies, and focuses on research in the area of exercise and cancer. He has created a remote exercise program for cancer survivors.

Sustained responses and long-term overall survival have resulted from checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced melanoma, transforming the prognosis for as many as half of patients. This is according to 10-year survival outcomes from the Phase Ill CheckMate 067 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma that were reported at the ESMO Congress 2024. At the conference, Oncology Times reporter, Peter Goodwin, caught up with James Larkin, FRCP, PhD, Professor and Medical Oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London.

  Clement Manyathela speaks to Specialist Physician & Medical Oncologist, Dr Omondi Ogude about the effects of chemotherapy on the body and brain.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Fauzia Riaz, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Oncology at Stanford University. We'll discuss the common misconceptions surrounding breast cancer care and the critical role of screening and diagnosis. We will explore treatment options for early-stage and invasive cancers as well as examine how to manage breast cancer during different times in a women's life. Additionally, we'll review personalized care plans and the importance of adhering to treatment guidelines. Dr. Riaz will share insights on managing side effects and navigating sensitive conversations with patients regarding fertility preservation. We'll address quality of life issues from the initial stages of breast cancer through more aggressive diagnoses. Lastly, we will highlight the latest advancements in the field and discuss emerging therapies that are shaping the future of breast cancer care. Read Transcript CME Information: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/medcastepisode91 Claim CE: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/Form.aspx?FormID=3103

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Stephen Liu moderates a discussion about the management of relapsed SCLC, which remains a very challenging cancer to treat, despite recent progress. Guest: Dr. Malinda Itchins is a Medical Oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital, Visiting Medical Officer for Thoracic Cancers at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, and Faculty at the University of Sydney. She is the Board Director and Lung Cancer Chair for the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and the Scientific Committee Advanced NSCLC Group Co-Chair for the Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia (TOGA). Guest: Dr. Jacob Sands is an Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School and Thoracic Medical Oncologist at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, where he leads the Clinical Research Program in SCLC. Jacob is also Co-founder and President of the Rescue Lung Society, a 501(c)3 society focused on advancing lung cancer screening.

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price sits down with Dr. Geoffrey Liu, Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Center and a Canadian leader in opening dozens of clinical trials. Dr. Liu gives a rundown of everything you need to know about ALK-positive lung cancer - what is ALK, how common is it, how this type of lung cancer is treated, and some of the most recent clinical trial updates.

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price sits down with Dr. Christopher Booth, Medical Oncologist and Health Services Researcher at Queen's University, to talk about Common Sense Oncology. CSO is an initiative Started by Dr. Booth amongst Canadian and global partners to ensure that patients have access to cancer treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter irrespective of where they live or their healthcare system. Learn more at https://commonsenseoncology.org/

Episode Notes My guests include; Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner. His administration is going through a few challenges recently such as much needed repairs to the jail. Initial estimates for emergency repairs are at about $17 million. I also ask about the recent school safety threats and the arrest of a 15 year old in connection to them. Next, I speak with two brothers who understand the streets better than most. Meet Brandon and Bryan Mathis. They were the victims of abuse from their father, gang members and leaders and quite honestly lucky to be alive. They are now helping to save our youth and lives thru the SWITCH program and Memphis Allies. They tell me how. Finally, prostate cancer claims thousands of lives a year an$ is the number two killer of men in this country. Dr. Samuel Riney, Medical Oncologist and interim Medical Director, Methodist Cancer Institute joins me share the importance of getting tested and possibly saving your life. That and more Monday both on air and online from 6-7 pm on 91.7 FM WYXR. Also, WYXR.org, the Tunein app, Facebook Live, YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. It's time to talk!

Tumor profiling or genomic testing can give us information about the genes in a person's cancer cells and can help guide doctors to the best possible treatment plan by predicting the risk of recurrence, or when breast cancer returns after initial treatment. If a low risk of recurrence is shown, people with breast cancer and their doctors can choose to pursue a less aggressive treatment plan with confidence. Here today to empower us with information about the power of genomics and to give further insight into how it can positively affect treatment decisions is Medical Oncologist, specializing in Breast Cancer and Cancer Genomics, and Chief Medical Officer at Agendia, Dr. William Audeh.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and Dr. Shelia Garland discuss the JCO article "Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtually Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Address Perceived Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in Cancer Survivors." TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato. I am a Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by JCO author Dr. Sheila Garland. She's a Professor of Psychology and Oncology at Memorial University, and she's the director at the Sleep, Health, and Wellness Lab and Senior Scientist at the Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute. Dr. Garland will be discussing the article titled, “Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtually Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Address Perceived Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in Cancer Survivors.” Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Garland.  Dr. Sheila Garland: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, Dr. Garland, you designed a study that relied on cognitive behavioral therapy to treat insomnia, and then you assessed whether improvement in insomnia would be associated with an improvement in cancer related cognitive impairment. So I wanted to ask if you could give us a little bit of context and explain the rationale between these studies. So how common are these symptoms among cancer survivors, and why do we think that improving insomnia would also improve cognitive function?  Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah, thank you very much. That's a really, really good question. And so cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia has been used to successfully treat insomnia in cancer survivors for quite some time. I think JCO was one of the first publishers to really demonstrate the potency of this intervention to improve insomnia. But as we know, patients will often present not just with insomnia, but insomnia comorbid with pain, fatigue, and very commonly cognitive impairment. If we take a look at the experimental research in sleep, we know that sleep quality and quantity is associated with very important cognitive functions. And so we've had clear sleep deprivation studies where if you're not able to successfully get sufficient quality or quantity of sleep, you're going to have impairments in attention and concentration and memory. So it really makes sense that if we're able to improve sleep in cancer survivors, that we're also able to address maybe some of the other concerns that they would have related to sleep. So this is an important clinical question for the patient's quality of life, but I also think it has important system implications where if we're looking at like resources and efficiency of allocating those resources, if we have an intervention that can treat multiple problems, that means that we can more effectively address lots of symptoms and use fewer resources in doing so. So that was the thought in designing this trial. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very, very clear. So you spoke about the intervention that you implemented in the clinical trial. So I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of context. How long was the intervention? What were the main points addressed? Because you said that, in the end, we already have some data regarding cognitive behavioral therapy for treating insomnia. So I was wondering, did you personalize in any way, the program or the intervention to fit more to the cancer survivors population?  Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah. So it is based on a protocol that has been well researched and has a great deal of evidence of efficacy. But we delivered this intervention over a course of seven weeks. So individuals had individual sessions with a trained therapist, and those sessions lasted about an hour and were over roughly about two months or so. Seven sessions over two months. And because they were delivered individually, there was some adaptation based on the clients' presenting problems. So while there's sort of a standard protocol, if the client is also presented with levels of fatigue or pain or anxiety or depression, the therapist was able to integrate those concepts into the therapy as well. There was nothing for cognitive impairment. So there was no additional intervention for cognitive impairment at all. We weren't doing any memory training or anything like that. So it was strictly the sleep and other symptoms looking at the impact of improving that on not only your perception of your cognitive abilities, but also on performance on a number of neuropsychological test measures. Dr. Davide Soldato: So thank you very much for the detail. And I think that it's very interesting what you said, that the personalization of the intervention would also allow to treat some other symptoms that are distressing for cancer survivors. Like, for example, you mentioned fatigue or anxiety or depression. And I think that this goes back to the first point that you made about the intervention. So being able to treat different symptoms all at one in one single intervention, I think that that is a very intelligent use of resources and also to promote and implement, potentially some interventions that are beneficial for survivors of cancer on different domains and potentially different symptoms. So, going to the results a little bit, what did you observe regarding specifically insomnia with the intervention that you delivered? Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah, so, of course, we wanted to make sure that we were effective in targeting the primary outcome of what the trial was supposed to do, which was we were supposed to treat effectively, treat insomnia, and then determine whether treating that insomnia was related to improvements in cognition. So we were expecting that the intervention itself was going to be successful at improving insomnia, and we were. So we were able to not only demonstrate a statistically, but also a clinically meaningful improvement in insomnia severity. Usually that's measured by a change of about 8.4 on a measure called the insomnia severity index. And the change that we were able to produce was over 11 points. So it was clearly over the clinically meaningful change threshold. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back a little bit to the design of the study, this was a randomized clinical trial. And how did you allocate the participants of the study into which arms? And can you guide us a little bit in the study design?  Dr. Sheila Garland: Yes. A lot of thought went into the study design. We ultimately decided on having a waitlist randomized controlled trial, and this was because there is no other intervention for insomnia that has comparable efficacy. And we felt it would be unethical to not give people the standard treatment that we know works to treat insomnia. So that's where having them wait for a period of time and then receive the treatment was ultimately what we decided on. Overall, we were able to recruit 132 participants, and those were randomized into either receiving treatment immediately or receiving treatment after a two month waiting period. Dr. Davide Soldato: So you mentioned that the intervention was actually very effective for treating insomnia. You reported an improvement in the insomnia severity index of almost 11 points. And as you mentioned, this is both clinically meaningful and it was also statistically significant. Did you see any improvement also on cognitive function, and how did you measure this outcome? Was it self reported, or did you also have some objective measure to see, for example, working memory or some other type of cognitive function? Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah. Also, a lot of thought went into choosing the primary outcome for this. And there's people who have argued compellingly that self reported cognitive function should be the primary target because we know, based on past research, that objective and subjective ratings of cognitive performance do not always correlate well with each other. And taking a very patient oriented approach, we wanted to make sure that we prioritized the patient's perception of their own function. We used one of the subscales of the functional assessment of cancer treatment cognition scale. So it was the Perceived Cognitive Impairment subscale that was what we used as our primary, but we also reported the two other subscales, which was the Perceived Cognitive Abilities and the Impact of Cognition on Quality of Life. We were able to not only discover that there were clinically significant improvements on all three of those subscales, but actually translated into, again, the clinically meaningful change threshold that's been established for the perceived cognitive impairment subscale is, I think it's around, like 5.9 points. So, using that cutoff, 75% of the participants in the trial reported clinically meaningful improvements in their perceived cognitive impairments, compared to just 43% of those participants in the wait list group. And we looked not only at the immediate intervention effects, but also on whether they were durable. So we had follow up assessments of both three months and six months after completing treatment, and the effects on insomnia, as well as the cognitive dimensions, they were maintained.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much for this last remark, because I think that one of the worries I would say that we have when implementing this type of behavioral intervention is that in the end, the change that we produce and the behavioral change that we produce might be effective in the immediate time after completing the intervention. But frequently we sort of see the loss of this benefit that we produce with the intervention at later time points. And I think that this is very important that you also looked at the benefit that was maintained over time for the three and six months after the end of the intervention. And it's true that before we add some data regarding other types of behavioral intervention, for example, for weight loss or some other symptoms and other toxicity that we frequently target with this type of intervention, I was wondering, do you think that it's something specific to cognitive behavioral therapy and the specific symptoms that you were treating, so insomnia, that in the end, produced a durable and meaningful benefit over time?  Dr. Sheila Garland: So I do think that there's something really specific about this type of intervention. With insomnia, you're really changing the person's fear of not sleeping, and you're giving them tools to be able to both prevent the reocurrence of insomnia and also if the reocurrence should happen, they know what to do then to address it themselves. I was very curious about the impact that it might have long term. I actually wasn't sure whether it would have an effect immediately, considering that people do accumulate kind of a sleep debt after having insufficient sleep for a period of time. So I didn't know whether we would see anything immediately. I thought maybe we would need the long term follow ups to see some of the effect. But I guess maybe not surprisingly, at the end of the trial, thinking about when somebody has a good night's sleep, they're feeling the effects even the next day. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you. That was very insightful. Regarding the duration of the intervention, because in the end, this was very short, because it was just seven sessions weekly, and usually also when we design or implement this kind of behavioral intervention, we frequently go for a longer period of time where the patient is subjected to this type of behavioral intervention. Frequently, we see around three, six months of intervention. And so I think it's really amazing the effect that you had on this specific symptom with such a short intervention. So I think that that is also something that speaks to the possibility of further implementing this type of intervention and this type of program for symptom control.   And going back a little bit to what was one of the main questions of the trial that you designed and the results of the article that you published, did you observe a mediating effect of the improvement of insomnia on the cognitive function? So, you said that insomnia improved, and so improved also your primary outcome, which was the scale of the FACT-Cog questionnaire. But did you see whether this improvement in cognitive function was really related and associated to the improvement that you observed in insomnia? Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah. So that was a very, very important question. We needed to first demonstrate that there was a relationship between the intervention and insomnia, and then there was a relationship between insomnia and cognition. And then we did some mediation analyses subsequent to determining both of those, and we found that the change in insomnia was a full mediator of the change in cognition. So we were able to say that it's not just time or it wasn't related to something else, that improving sleep did have this direct effect on the improvement that patients reported in their cognitive impairment.  Dr. Davide Soldato: We spoke a lot about the subjective improvement in cognitive performance. But you said that you also evaluated some specific and objective scale with, for example, I imagine some neuropsychological tests. Did you also observe some improvement for those specific tests, and did you observe the same amount of benefit or the same improvement, we could say, between the subjective and the objective weight of measuring cognitive function?  Dr. Sheila Garland: I think that's where the outcomes become a little less clear. So, we did measure performance based cognition at all of the time points, and we were very careful in selecting these measures. So we followed the guidance provided by the International Task Force on Cognition and Cancer. They had some very specific recommendations about how and what measures we use. So we made sure to use measures that were able to be repeated, so that had multiple forms, that had very identifiable ways to indicate improvements. So we used the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test to measure word recall, both immediately and delayed. We used measures to look at verbal fluency and working memory. Overall, we had six different specific aspects of cognition that we were looking at, immediate word recall, delayed word recall, word retention, verbal fluency, word recognition, and working memory. Some of those presented with a different pattern of change overall. So a little bit trickier to interpret than the person's perception of their own cognition. Dr. Davide Soldato: That's very interesting because it's important to have this kind of objective assessment. But in the end, what we are really trying to target is a symptom that is distressing for cancer survivors. I'm not even sure that sometimes we need all of this detail, or at least that even if these outcomes that are more objectively measured, we do not observe the same amount of benefits. Still, if we are able to produce an improvement in the symptoms and the perception that the survivor or the individual or the patient, whoever we are trying to help in that specific moment and for those specific symptoms, reports an improvement, I think that is already very important. And I totally share the patient oriented approach that you followed in the study.  Going back a little bit to the population, because I think that this speaks a little bit also to potential avenues for further research. You included a population of cancer survivors who completed treatment at least six months before being enrolled in the trial. And relating to the population, I had two questions. So the first one is, do you think that you would have the same kind of results, so the same benefit, also among a population of patients who's in active treatment? And then the second one is a little bit more speculation, but do you think that we will arrive, or do you envision research where we kind of deliver this type of intervention in sort of a preventative way? So if we would be able to identify those patients who might later develop these types of symptoms, could we use this type of intervention sooner? So can we prevent these symptoms even before they appear? And could this be potentially associated also in a less symptoms developed over time and less need to treat these symptoms when they become more severe?  Dr. Sheila Garland: Those are two very, very good questions. The first one is regarding the population. You're right. These people were at least six months out of treatment, and we wanted to make sure that if there was any temporary disruption, that would have maybe been stabilized over that. But most of the people in this trial, and I will mention that we didn't focus on any specific cancer type or site. So this was really a heterogeneous group of cancer survivors, both male and female. The most prevalent diagnosis that we had was breast. But some of these people who were enrolled in the trial had advanced cancer, and as long as their cancer treatment, their regimen was stable, they were eligible to participate in the trial. So I think that's a very important point. If somebody is on a very intensive round of chemotherapy, it can be tricky to implement some of the more aggressive behavioral changes that can come with some of these insomnia treatments, because their level of wellness just isn't there. So during active treatment it can be challenging, but it is definitely not impossible. We would just tweak things a little bit to accommodate their physical well being at that time.  To your next question, though, this is where I think we really need to be going. Just like they've done in the area of, like, physical activity, trying to really strengthen people prior to treatment is the way to go. Because some of my other research looked at symptoms prospectively from the time of diagnosis over the first year, and it's roughly about half of people, at least, this was in my work with women with breast cancer, about half of women with breast cancer come into treatment with clinically significant sleep problems. So, a proportion of those people just continue to have sleep problems or even get worse after it. So there's definitely a role for that, sort of like rehabilitation, not only for maybe physical fitness to try and ward off fatigue, but also getting their sleep on track. I think people are really focused, especially in that early time, about like, “I want to eat right, I want to exercise,” but I say it as many times as I possibly can, that you're not going to make healthy food choices, and you're not going to be getting out there and working out if you're not getting sufficient sleep. So we really need to have sleep there as the foundation and what supports all of those other healthy lifestyle behaviors that people are trying to change. Dr. Davide Soldato: So sort of comprehensive intervention for people undergoing treatment where we kind of identify symptoms that are already there at the beginning, and we deliver some sort of intervention that can target a lot of those symptoms, maybe not all of them, but maybe improving also the way that treatment is perceived or the toxicity that they might develop over treatment. Dr. Sheila Garland: And that's what I think. I think that if you're taking people who are already coming into treatment, that are looking after their health in ways that they can, they may be able to tolerate more aggressive treatments, they might be able to complete more rounds of chemotherapy, just getting them strong, going into treatment that way.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Also still focusing on that very patient oriented perspective that I think it's very important in general for oncologists and also for patients. I think that you were very wise in choosing an intervention that could be also delivered virtually, and this was one of the bases of the intervention. And regarding also the way the intervention was delivered, I had a question regarding the fact that this was actually an intervention that was delivered by professionals. But we also have some, maybe initial evidence, that suggests that some of this cognitive behavioral therapy can also be experienced, or at least the benefits can be obtained by the patients, even when it's self directed. So programs where patients are not actually interacting with a professional, but they are just following these types of programs. So do you think that there is room for both of those? And maybe should we suggest this type of self directed programs for all patients or all survivors and then just refer only those with a more significant or important symptom severity for the intervention with professionals? And this, I think, also goes to the discussion that we had at the very beginning about allocation of resources and ability also to tailor these types of interventions to the needs of different individuals. Dr. Sheila Garland: I think that's really important to consider when looking at what's available for patients. They did a survey in the US of NCI Cancer Centers where they looked at the availability of CBT-I, and it was very low. I think around 20% or so of NCI Comprehensive Cancer Centers had the ability to refer to in-house CBT-I. If we had sort of a stepped care model like you're talking about, we may be able to more appropriately allocate people to the level of care that they need. A line of my research now is going into a specific app delivered cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia tailored to cancer survivors. And so looking at that very point, not everybody needs a provider, but I think that a self help manual or an app is also not going to work for everybody. So you're not going to completely take out the person. And depending on the complexity of the situation that the patient finds themselves in, they may really need that provider to consider all of the other factors. They might need it to encourage adherence or address maybe some of the barriers that would be getting in the way. So having different levels of care and being able to match people not only to the level of care, but also maybe by their preference. So, “I'd like to use an app.” Great, we've got an app for you. Or “I'd like to see somebody.” And I think matching it to people's preferences automatically encourages or enhances their engagement and their motivation to complete because they're getting what their preference would be. Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think that at least if we could use a little bit more of these types of apps or tools or whatever we have out there, maybe we could increase at least that 20%. For example, if only 20% of NCI Cancer Centers, which are already places where care is delivered, probably with a higher attention to these types of symptoms for survivors compared, for example, to community hospitals or to smaller private clinics. So if we could at least have sort of a base and then refer only those that maybe have a higher need for a provider directed therapy or intervention, that maybe would also improve outcomes for a larger part of the population of survivors.   And one other thing that I wanted to ask you is, do you think, in your experience, because this was not really in the trial that you designed, but do you think that we also need cultural adaptation of these types of programs? Meaning, do we need to diversify based, for example, on ethnicity or level of education or, I don't know, just the background that the patient is experiencing? Dr. Sheila Garland: Yeah, very, very good points. There are some studies currently being conducted out of the United States that have looked at cultural adaptations of CBT-I specifically. So there was a trial looking at CBT-I for African American women survivors of breast cancer, and also the Latinx population as well. From the results of those trials, it didn't necessarily improve the effects of intervention, but it improved the engagement, so people were less likely to drop out. So it wasn't always the content. It was how the content was presented. So people were able to visually see themselves more, they were able to relate more to the content in just the way it was presented, which made them go, “Oh, okay. This is why I should be here.” And I think that that's part of the argument that I used for sort of adapting the cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia treatment that's being used in the general population, specifically to people who have had cancer, because people want to know, “All right. You know what? Is this safe for me to do? Will this work for me to do? How do I also do this when I have cancer related fatigue, or how do I do this when I also have pain?” So they want to know that, “Alright. This is right for me.” That's probably, again, relating more to getting people and keeping people engaged with the treatment, maybe even convincing them to do it to begin with, talking about getting buy-in from important leaders in their community to say, “This is something that I would recommend or I would endorse.” And those sort of community level endorsements maybe are just breaking down barriers to get people willing to engage with an evidence based treatment.  Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think especially with cognitive behavioral therapy, because I think that when we propose drugs for treating symptoms or, I don't know, intervention for losing weight or to be more physically engaged, well, the latter that I mentioned might be also a little bit more complicated, depending on the cultural context. But drugs are very easy to accept for the patients in most cases. But I think that cognitive behavioral therapy also has some type of cultural resistance, maybe among some of our patients and cancer survivors.  Dr. Sheila Garland: And I would also include oncologists in there as well. So, some of the treatment providers are not even exactly sure why would talking about this help. So I think separating it out, it's not just I'm going to talk about my sleep, it's that I'm going to engage with my sleep differently and breaking down maybe some of the stigma that, just because we're referring you to cognitive behavior therapy doesn't mean your problems are all in your head, but it means that there's ways that you can think about your sleep and ways that you can behave differently, which will reduce the things that are getting in the way of your sleep functioning the way that it should normally. I think when I talk to patients, and also when I do training with providers, I talk about how we can condition our bed to be associated with things other than sleep. So if we repeatedly snack in front of the tv, even though we've just had supper maybe a half an hour before, if we go and sit down in that chair that we always snack in, we're not hungry, but we find ourselves reaching for something to eat. The same thing can happen at night, where if you repeatedly pair your bed with things other than sleep, if you're thinking in bed, if you're planning, if you're worrying, if you're ruminating, if you know you're doing anything, if you're on your screen or you're watching tv or you're doing anything that's arousal producing, people can find that they're so tired, they're nodding off on the couch. They go up to bed, and all of a sudden, bang, they're wide awake and their mind is turning and they're thinking and they're like, “Why is this happening to me? I was just tired. I was so tired.” People with insomnia can relate to that very easily. That, “Oh, okay. So there's this conditioned association between my bed and wakefulness. How do I get rid of that?” That's where what we think and what we do around our sleep, we can change to be able to make our bed someplace that is strongly associated with sleep and not all of those other activities.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you for the remarks on oncologists and sometimes our resistance to accept this type of intervention. I think that this also speaks to the merit of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which publishes high level evidence also on symptom management, and these types of interventions that are, in the end, effective for our patients.  So I think that this concludes our interview for today. Thank you again, Dr. Garland for joining us.  Dr. Sheila Garland: Thank you Dr. Soldato. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Garland, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, “Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtually Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Address Perceived Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in Cancer Survivors.” If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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.      

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Humor Me” by Dr. Stacey Hubay, who is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. The essay is followed by an interview with Hubay and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Dr Hubay share how even though cancer isn't funny, a cancer clinic can sometimes be a surprisingly funny place. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Just Humor Me, by Stacey A. Hubay, MD, MHSc   Most of the people who read this journal will know the feeling. You are lurking at the back of a school function or perhaps you are making small talk with your dental hygienist when the dreaded question comes up—“So what kind of work do you do?” I usually give a vague answer along the lines of “I work at the hospital” to avoid the more specific response, which is that I am an oncologist. I have found this information to be a surefire conversational grenade, which typically elicits some sort of variation on “wow, that must be so depressing” although one time I did get the response “Great! I'm a lawyer and a hypochondriac, mind if I ask you some questions?” After I recently dodged the question yet again, I found myself wondering why I am so reticent about telling people what I do. While discussing work with strangers in our hard earned free time is something many people wish to avoid, I think for me a significant motive for this urge to hide is that I do not actually find the cancer clinic to be an overwhelmingly depressing place. Admitting this to others who are not engaged in this work can lead to at the very least bafflement and at worst offense to those who believe that laughing while looking after cancer patients is a sign of callousness. I am an oncologist who laughs in my clinic every day. Of course, the oncology clinic is sometimes a bleak place to work. Cancer has earned its reputation as a fearsome foe, and the patients I see in my clinic are often paying a heavy toll, both physically and emotionally. Many are grappling with their own mortality, and even those with potentially curable cancers face months of challenging treatment and the torture of uncertainty. Yet somehow, perhaps inevitably, the cancer clinic is not just a place of sadness and tears but also a place of hope and laughter. Although most of us recognize humor and use it to varying degrees, few of us consider it as an academic subject. A few lucky souls in academia have taken on the task of developing theories of humor, which attempt to explain what humor is, what purpose it has, and what social function it serves. Although there are almost as many theories of humor as there are aspiring comedians, most explanations fall into one of three categories: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruous juxtaposition theory.1 Relief theory holds that people laugh to relieve psychological tension caused by fear or nervousness. I suspect this is the most common type of humor seen in a cancer clinic given the weight of fear and nervousness in such a fraught environment. The second category, people being what we are, asserts that sometimes we laugh out of a feeling of superiority to others. It goes without saying that this sort of humor has no place in the clinician patient interaction. Finally, we laugh at absurdity, or as Kant put it, at “the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.”2 This last category is also surprisingly fruitful in the oncology setting. Laughter in the cancer clinic is still to some extent considered taboo. Near the start of my oncology training, I remember laughing until my stomach hurt with my attending staff in the clinic workspace between seeing patients. What we were laughing about escapes me now, but what I do clearly recall is an administrator in a buttoned-up suit striding over to us in high dudgeon. “Don't you people realize this is a cancer clinic?” she admonished us. “This is not a place for laughter!,” she added before striding off, no doubt to a management meeting or some other place where the policy on laughter is more liberal. At this point, my attending and I looked at each other for a beat and then burst into helpless gales of laughter. We do not tend to think all that much about why we are laughing at something, but looking back now, I think at least part of the reason was the absurdity of a person so unfamiliar with the culture of the cancer clinic presuming that physicians and nurses somehow park their sense of humor when they arrive at work and turn into a herd of gloomy Eeyores.  We oncologists are starting to come clean about the fact that we laugh in the clinic and there is now a modest amount of work in the medical literature addressing the use of humor in oncology. One survey of patients undergoing radiotherapy in Ottawa found that a stunning 86% of patients felt that laughter was somewhat or very important to their care, whereas 79% felt that humor decreased their level of anxiety about their diagnosis.3 If we had a drug that decreased anxiety levels in 79% of patients, had minimal to no side effects when used correctly, and cost the health care system zero dollars, should not we be using it?  Sometimes, it is the patient or their family member who introduces an element of humor into an interaction as on one occasion when my patient was filling out a pain survey which included a diagram of the body on which he was asked to circle any areas where he was having pain. As his wife ran through a detailed list of his bowel habits over the past few days, the patient circled the gluteal area on the diagram he was holding, pointed to his wife and said “I've been suffering from a pain in my ass doctor.” His wife looked at him pointedly for a moment before the two of them started laughing and I joined in.  Sometimes, a patient's use of humor serves to level the playing field. Patients with Cancer are vulnerable, and the physician is an authority figure, meting out judgments from on high. My patient from a few years ago was having none of that. I met him when he was referred to me with widely metastatic lung cancer, a diagnosis typically associated with a dismal prognosis. The patient, however, was not buying into any of the usual gloom and doom that is customary for these interactions. As his daughter translated the information I was providing, he tilted his chin down, fixed his gaze on me, and proceeded to smile at me in a disarmingly friendly way while simultaneously waggling his generous eyebrows up and down throughout the interview. Over the course of 45 min, I became increasingly disconcerted by his behavior until eventually, I was unable to finish a sentence without sputtering with laughter. If you think you would have done better, then you have clearly never been on the losing end of a staring contest. By the end of the interview, all three of us had happily abandoned any hope of behaving with more decorum. Laughter and the use of humor require a certain letting down of one's guard, and the fact that all three of us were able to laugh together in this interview took me down from any pedestal onto which I might have inadvertently clambered. One study from the Netherlands noted that patients used humor to broach difficult topics and downplay challenges they faced and concluded that “Hierarchy as usually experienced between healthcare professionals and patients/relatives seemed to disappear when using laughter.  If applied appropriately, adding shared laughter may help optimize shared decision-making.”4 Although it could be a coincidence, it is worth noting that several years after meeting this patient, I discharged him from my practice because he had somehow been cured of lung cancer. Perhaps laughter really is the best medicine.  On other occasions, it might be the physician who takes the plunge and uses humor during a clinical encounter. The same Dutch study by Buiting et al noted that 97% of all specialists used humor in their interactions and all reported laughing during consultations at least occasionally. One of my colleagues, a generally serious sort whose smiles in clinic are as rare as a total eclipse albeit not as predictable, managed to win over his patient with a rare outburst of humor. During their first meeting, the patient listed off the numerous ailments he had experienced in the past including his fourth bout with cancer which had prompted this appointment. As he finished reciting his epic medical history, my colleague looked at him somberly over the rim of his glasses for a moment and asked “Sir, I must ask—who on earth did you piss off?” The patient was so tickled by this interaction that he recounted it to me when I saw him a few weeks later while filling in for my colleague. Although humor is a powerful tool in the clinic, it is of course not something that comes naturally to all of us. Attempts at humor by a clinician at the wrong time or with the wrong patient do not just fall flat but can even be damaging to the physician-patient relationship. Even if a physician uses humor with the best of intentions, there is always the possibility that they will be perceived by the patient as making light of their situation. As Proyer and Rodden5 point out, tact is essential and humor and laughter are not always enjoyable to all people, or to borrow a phrase frequently used by one of my patients, “about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.” Socalled gelotophobes have a heightened fear of being laughed at, and with them, humor and especially laughter must be wielded with great care if at all. All I can say in response to the legitimate concern about the use of humor being misconstrued is that as with any other powerful tool physicians learn to use, one improves with time. As far as PubMed knows, there are no courses in medical faculties devoted to the fine art of the pun or the knock-knock joke. But even if we physicians cannot all reliably be funny on command, perhaps there is something to be said for occasionally being a little less self-serious. One must also be mindful of patients with whom one is not directly interacting—to a patient who has just received bad news, overhearing the sound of laughter in the clinic corridor has the potential to come across as insensitive. Moments of levity are therefore best confined to a private space such as the examination room in which physicians and patients can indulge in anything from a giggle to a guffaw without running the risk of distressing others. The final reason I submit in support of laughing in a cancer clinic is admittedly a selfish one. While humor has been shown to have the potential to reduce burnout,6 the real reason I laugh with patients in my clinic is because it brings me joy. The people at parties who think my job must be depressing are not entirely wrong. I have noticed that when I have a positive interaction with a patient based on humor or laugh with a colleague about something during a meeting, I feel better. Surprise! As it turns out, this is not just an anecdotal observation. In 2022, a study was published whose title was “Adaptive and maladaptive humor styles are closely associated with burnout and professional fulfillment in members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.”7 The SGO has not to my knowledge been widely recognized up to this point for their sense of humor, but I have a feeling that might change. Humor is an essential part of the way I approach many situations, and given that I spend the majority of my waking hours at work, it is neither possible nor I would argue desirable for me to leave that part of myself at the entrance to the cancer center. So to the administrator who admonished my mentor and me to cease and desist laughing in the cancer clinic, I respectfully decline. My patients, my colleagues, and I will continue to laugh together at any opportunity we get. Joy in one's work is the ultimate defense against burnout, and I for one intend to take full advantage of it.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Stacey Hubay, Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “Just Humor Me.”  Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript.   Stacey, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Stacey Hubay: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is our pleasure. So let's start by chatting a little bit about what humor means to you and what led you to write this piece and share it with your colleagues.  Dr. Stacey Hubay: I didn't realize how important humor was to me until recently. I just finished a Masters in Bioethics, which was 20 years in the making, and this was the first time I'd been writing anything that wasn't a case report for many, many years. And there was actually specifically a course called “Writing in Bioethics,” and this was the first thing that came to my mind. And I realized sort of how much humor there is in my day to day work life, which, because none of the other people in this bioethics class of 10 or 14 people were working in oncology, they were surprised. So I thought it would be interesting to write about that. And then when I started thinking about it, I realized how integral it is to most of, I guess not just my practice life, but the way I deal with life. And then I could see a thread going back all the way to the beginning of my practice in oncology, and I'm like, “I should write about this.” And I don't think it's unique to me either. I think it's probably many of us in this field. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is. So let's talk a little bit about humor in the practice of such a serious specialty as we tend to think, or people tend to think of, as in oncology. You talk about humor also connecting you with joy and practice, can you tell us a little bit more about that? Dr. Stacey Hubay: I'm just as surprised, probably as anybody, at least when I first went into this field, which is now more than 20 years ago, how much happiness I found in the field. I meant what I said in the beginning of this essay. When I run into people or strangers, you're getting your hair cut or you're at your kid's volleyball practice, and people always say, “Oh, so what do you do?” And I always say, “I'm in healthcare.” And if they start drilling down, eventually I have to admit what I do. And I say, “I'm an oncologist.” And immediately the long faces and people say, “That must be so terrible.” And I'm like, “Well, it can be, but it's not as bad as you might think.” And they're like, “Oh, it must be very difficult.” And I know that avenue of conversation is closed once or twice. I think I did try saying, “You know what? I have a surprising amount of fun in my clinic with my patients.” And they were aghast, I think is the word I would use. And it made me realize sort of what a taboo it is for many people, including maybe some of us in the field, to admit that we sometimes enjoy ourselves with our patients in our clinics. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk about that. Let's talk about joy, and then from there to laugh. I think the reason why laughter seems sort of stranger than joy is laughter assumes that we see some levity, humor. And some people would say, there's really nothing funny about having humor. And yet you seem to see it and find it and share it with your patients. So take us into your exam rooms and tell us a little bit more about your process. Dr. Stacey Hubay: It's funny, when I think about the humor in my clinics, I don't see myself as the one who's necessarily sort of starting it, although maybe sometimes I do. I think perhaps it's just that I'm more open to it. And I think it's frequently the patients who bring it in with them. Obviously, we know patients in the oncology clinic, they're often very nervous. It's a very anxious time for them. And we are in a position of power compared to our patients, they're very vulnerable. And so sometimes the patient makes a joke, sometimes I wonder if it's a way of testing if that kind of relationship will work with you. They're kind of testing you to see if you will respond to that. And it's also a way of them relieving their own anxiety, because one of the theories about humor is just a way of alleviating tension. It makes sense that oncology is a place where humor would be welcome, because it's one of the most tense places, I think, in medical practice, although I'm not sure it's present in other places like at the ICU.  So the patient often brings it in, and then you respond to it, and if you're on the same wavelength, it sort of immediately establishes this kind of trust between you and the patient. It's not something you can do with everybody. Sometimes some people will not be open to that at any time. And some patients, you have to get to know them quite a bit before that starts to come into the mix. But I find with most people, if you follow them for long enough and you have a good working, therapeutic relationship with them, just like you would the people you like, your friends, your family, that comes into a relationship almost unavoidably. And I used to think, “Oh, I'm not supposed to do that,” when I first came into practice. I'm a serious oncologist, which I am, and I can be a serious oncologist. And I also just didn't have the bandwidth for it. I think I was so kind of focused on, I have to know what I'm doing. Early in my practice, I didn't have the mental energy to devote to that. And then as that part became easier, I became kind of more open, I think, to that, coming into the interactions with my patients. And over time, I started realizing that was probably what I enjoyed the most about my working day. At the end of the day, I'd come home and tell stories, and my kids would be like, “It sounds like you have fun at work.” And I go, “You know? I really do. Surprisingly I do.” Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's so very cool. I think there's so much wisdom in what you just told us, which is that at the beginning, especially when in the first few years of your practice, you really are so focused on being clinically competent that you may be just very nervous about trying anything. And then as you relax, you actually say in your essay that for some people, this may bring relief and may level the playing field. So if there is an opportunity and you're loose enough to find it, you may be able to keep that conversation going. It made me wonder, I don't know if you've had any experience yourself as a patient or accompanying a family member as a caregiver to a medical visit. Have you used humor when you are the patient or when you're accompanying the patient?  Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's an interesting question. I haven't been a patient apart from my routine family medicine visits for quite a long time. But when I was much younger, I was a teenager, I did have that experience. I was maybe 15 or 16. I had some parathyroid issues. And I remember seeing these specialists in Toronto, and they were very serious people. I remember thinking, if I want to become a physician, because it was at the back of my mind at that time, I'm going to be a lot more fun than these people. I'm going to enjoy myself a lot more. And little did I realize how difficult that actually was at the time. But I found them kind of very serious and a little bit intimidating as a 15-year-old kid. I hadn't reflected on that before. I'm not sure if that's something that I'm deliberately pushing back against. I think now if I see a physician as a patient, I probably am much more willing to bring that in if the physician is open to it. But you can usually tell many physicians, you meet them and you're like, “You're not going to even try that kind of thing.” But if they're open to it, I think it would bring me much more fun as a patient as well.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. Do you teach your students or trainees or members of your team to use humor? Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a very interesting question. How do you do that? So I mentioned, I just finished this Masters of Bioethics, and one of the excellent courses in it was how to teach bioethics, which really was a course about how to teach anything. And most of us who are in medicine, we've spent a lot of time teaching without being taught how to teach. In my own practice of teaching, we mostly use one on one with people coming into our clinics and seeing patients with us. And I think mostly some of it's through observation. I will say to people who work with me that we all have to find our own style. It's important, no matter what your style is, to try and connect with patients, because you're trying to create a therapeutic alliance. You're on the same side. The way that works for me is you don't laugh with people you don't trust. When you're trying to make a plan with people in these difficult situations, I think if you've already formed this alliance where they realize you're with them, they're more likely to believe you and trust your recommendations. I tell trainees, I'd say, “This is my way of doing it. And if it works for you, that's wonderful.” But I can see that for some people it's difficult.  Although even the most serious clinicians, one of my very good friends and colleagues who I mentioned in my essay and I talked about, he doesn't make a lot of jokes with his patients, which is perfectly reasonable, but the occasional time he does, the patients were so struck by it because they knew him as such a serious person. They bring it up, “Remember that time my doctor said this,” and they thought it was a wonderful thing. So it's difficult to teach. It's just how would the Marx Brothers teach someone else to be the Marx Brothers? It can't be done. Only the Marx Brothers are the Marx Brothers. Not that I'm comparing myself to the Marx Brothers by any means, but I think you find your own style. Maybe what I'd like to show trainees who come through with me is that it's okay to enjoy the patients, even in a very serious discussion. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, I would almost say that it speaks to the fact that you're very comfortable with your clinical persona in that you can allow yourself to be totally human with them. And if human means that you can both sort of align around seeing some humor or cracking a joke, that is perfectly fine. I have a question for you, and that is that a lot of my patients in my practice, and maybe some of our other listeners come from completely different cultural backgrounds, and many don't speak the same language as I do. So for me, thinking about humor in those situations is impossible just because I just don't even know what we can both accept as funny. And I don't want to be misunderstood. Tell me a little bit about how to think of humor in those situations. Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a good point you make. It makes me think about how when I read Shakespeare's plays, we all think his tragedies are fantastic. And when I read his comedies, I'm like, “This isn't very funny.” Or if even when you watch sort of silent movies from the 1920s, I'm like, “Did people really laugh at this?” So you're right. Humor is very much of its time and place and its culture. And even people from the same time and place might not share the same sense of humor. That being said, somehow it still works with the people who are open to it. Somehow it's not necessary, because you've made a very witty joke, or vice versa, that we all understood all its complexities. It's more the sense that we're laughing together.   And I talk about a gentleman that I met in my practice in this essay, and he didn't speak English, so his daughter was translating for us. And nobody was making any kind of verbal jokes or humor. And this was the first time I was meeting him in consultation, and he just kept making funny faces at me the whole time I was talking, and I didn't know what to do. I was completely bamboozled by this interaction. And it actually ended up being sort of one of the funniest visits I'd had with a patient. By the end of it, I could barely get a sentence out. And I thought, this is absurd. This is a very serious situation. This poor gentleman has stage 4 lung cancer, brain metastasis, but he just wouldn't let me be serious. So I think that humor can transcend cultural, linguistic boundaries amazingly enough. Again, if the person was open to it, this person was almost determined that he was going to make me laugh. It was like he'd set out that by the end of his visit, he was going to make sure that we were having a good time. And I was just, “I'm helpless against this. We're going to have a good time.” I remember coming out of the room, the nurses I was working with, they're like, “What was going on in that room? Is he doing well?”I'm like, “Well, in a way, yes, he is doing well.”   At the end of this visit, we were all in a very good mood. But I'll sometimes use sign language, or I'll make some stab at French or whatever it is that the patient speaks, and then they just laugh at me, which is also fine, because they can kind of see that you've made yourself vulnerable by saying, “You know, it's okay if I can't speak your language.” And they just smile and laugh with me. So it's not that it's a joke so much, it's more that they just feel comfortable with you. But you're right, it is more challenging. It's something I wouldn't usually do in such a situation unless I had gotten to know the patient, their family, reasonably well.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk for a moment about wellness and joy in practice. What gives you the greatest joy in practice?  Dr. Stacey Hubay: Undoubtedly the people that I see and I work with. When you go into medicine and you train, we all train in academic settings. And I had excellent mentors and academic mentors, and the expectation, because you're trained by people who are good at that kind of work and succeeded, is that you might want to pursue that, too. And it took me a while to realize that that's not where I get most of my joy. I like being involved with research and I appreciate that people are doing that work and I love applying that knowledge to my practice. But I get my joy out of actually seeing patients. That wasn't modeled a lot necessarily to us in the academic setting. It's taken me quite a long time to realize that it's okay to lean into that. If that's what I like about my practice and that's what I can bring to the interaction, then that's what I'm going to do. And I started looking back, it would have been nice to realize, it's okay. It's okay to be a clinician who really enjoys seeing patients and wants to do a lot of that. Again, different kinds of people become physicians, but a lot of the people we had as mentors, they had chosen academic careers because, not that they didn't like patients, they often did, but they really wanted to pursue the research aspect of it. And they would try to cut down on their clinical work and say, “It's nice if you don't have two clinics, you can focus on the research.” And I think to myself, but I like doing the clinics and I like seeing the patients, and it would be a shame to me if I didn't have that.  It's not just the patients, but my colleagues as well, who are also great fun to have around, the nurses we work with. Really, it's the interactions with people. Of course, we get joy from all kinds of other things. In oncology, it's good to see patients do well. It's wonderful to apply new knowledge and you have a breakthrough coming from immunotherapy to lung cancer, melanoma. That sort of thing is fantastic, and it gives me joy, too. But I have the feeling that when I retire at the end of my career, I'm going to look back and go, “Remember that interaction with that patient?” Even now, when I think of when I started in clinical settings as a medical student, I remember, I think it was my first or second patient, I was assigned to look after an elderly woman. She had a history of cirrhosis, and she was admitted with hepatic encephalopathy and a fractured humerus after a fall. I didn't know what I was doing at all, but I was rounding every day. And I went to see her on the third day, she was usually confused, and I said, “How are you doing?” She looked at her arm and she said, “Well, they call this bone the humerus, but I don't see anything particularly funny about it.” I thought, “Oh, she's better.” That's actually one of the earliest things I remember about seeing patients.   Or the next year when I didn't realize I was going to pursue oncology. And I was rotating through with an excellent oncologist, Dr. Ellen Warner at Sunnybrook, who does breast cancer. We were debriefing after the clinic, and she said, “Someday, Stacey, I'm going to publish a big book of breast cancer humor.” And I thought, “I wonder what would be in that book.” And that's when I got this inkling that maybe oncology had just as much humor in as every other part of medicine. And that proved to be true.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: What was it, Stacey, that led you to bioethics? Tell us what you learned from your bioethics work. Dr. Stacey Hubay: I think it's because basically I'm a person who leads towards the humanities, and for me, bioethics is the application of philosophy and moral ethics to a clinical situation. And I think medicine, thankfully, has room for all kinds of people. Of course, you have to be good at different things to be a physician. But I always imagined myself, when I went to school, that after a class, you'd sit around a pub drinking beer and discuss the great meaning of life. And I thought, this is my chance to pursue that. And I was hoping to kind of– I didn't think of it as that I was going to this because I was interested in humor and joy in oncology, although I obviously am. I was thinking that I would be able to make a difference in terms of resource allocation and priority setting, and I still want to pursue those things. Things often lead you down a side road. And bioethics, for me, has sort of reminded me of what I like about this work. And because I was surrounded by many people who are not doing that kind of work, who were surprised how much I liked it, it made me think very carefully about what is it that I like about this. So the bioethics degree, it's finally allowed me to be that person who sits around in pubs drinking beer, discussing Immanual Kant and Utilitarianism and whatever moral theory is of flavor that particular day. Dr. Lidia Schapira: What led you to write this particular story and put it in front of your medical oncology colleagues? Is it your wish to sort of let people sort of loosen up and be their authentic selves and find more joy in the clinic? Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a good question! The most immediate impetus was I had an assignment for my degree, and I thought, I have to write something. But I'd been writing down these sort of snippets of things I found funny. Occasionally, I just write them down because they were interesting to me. And because we often relate stories to people, “What did you do today? What was your day like?” And because you tell these stories over and over, they develop some kind of oral, mythical quality. You're like, “Here's what I remember that was funny that happened, and it might have been many years ago now.” And I think I'd been thinking a long time about writing it down and sort of organizing it that way. And I guess having to produce something as part of this degree program was an impetus for me. But I'd always wanted to do it. And I think the main thing was I wanted to make it clear to myself what it is I like about it. It's actually made it, for me, much more clear. It was sort of a nebulous thing that I like my work and what is it like about it. And this is what I like. I like the joy I get from patient interactions. And then a secondary goal is I hope that other people, if they were to read this, they realize it's okay for us to have joy in our work as oncologists. And there is a lot of doom and gloom in the world and in our practices, but there's always, always a chink that lets the light in, there's always some humor in what we do. And so I hope that if other people can find that, too, that they enjoy their practice and they last a long time and ultimately help patients through this difficult journey. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Are you somebody who likes to read stories? And if so, what stories have you read recently that you want to recommend to our listeners? Dr. Stacey Hubay: Oh, I am reading The Master and Margarita because three different people recommended this novel to me over the last three years. When a third person did, I thought, “That's it. Got to read it.” It's a Russian novel from the 1930s that was banned until, I think, the ‘60s or ‘70s. It's like a satire of Russian society in the ‘30s. And actually, what I like about it, I haven't finished it. I'm a third of the way through, as I think it's one of the so-called classic novels, people tell me, but that's funny. A lot of the classic novels are kind of tragedies or romances, and this one is sort of absurd black humor in the face of a difficult situation, which I guess is related to oncology, again. So this sort of oppressive, difficult society, the 1930s and Soviet Union, how do you deal with that? With humor. So I'm quite enjoying it, actually. So I recommend that one.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, you're an amazing storyteller, and I really enjoyed our conversation. Is there any final message that you want to convey to our listeners? Dr. Stacey Hubay: If you have a chance to become an oncologist, you should do it. It's just the best career I can imagine. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, with your laughter and with that wonderful wisdom, let me say, until next time, to our listeners, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.   Guest Bio: Dr. Stacey Hubay is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center.

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, Dr. Giselle de Souza Carvalho interviews Dr. Hatem Azim and Dr. Ann partridge on their JCO article “Fertility Preservation and Assisted Reproduction in Patients With Breast Cancer Interrupting Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy to Attempt Pregnancy,” TRANSCRIPT Giselle Carvalho: Welcome to the JCO Article Insights episode for the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This is Giselle Carvalho, your host. I'm a Medical Oncologist in Brazil focusing on breast cancer and melanoma skin cancers, and one of the ASCO editorial fellows at JCO this year. Today, I will have the opportunity to interview Dr. Hatem Azim and Dr. Ann Partridge, two of the authors of the POSITIVE trial. We will be discussing their trial on “Fertility Preservation and Assisted Reproduction in Patients With Breast Cancer Interrupting Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy to Attempt Pregnancy,” which was published in May this year.  Hello, Dr. Azim and Dr. Partridge. Welcome to our podcast. Dr. Ann Partridge: Hi. Thanks. Dr. Hatem Azim: Hello. Giselle Carvalho: So, beginning with our interview for breast cancer survivors, in addition to the treatment itself, aging is one of the major contributors to infertility. The optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with hormone positive early breast cancer ranges from five to ten years, depending on patient and tumor characteristics. This time interval can be critical for women who wish to attempt pregnancy. One of the main concerns in daily breast cancer oncology practice is whether breast cancer recurrence rates are increased either by temporary interruption of endocrine therapy for pregnancy or by the use of assisted reproductive technologies. Dr. Azim, what about assisted reproductive technology is worrisome regarding breast cancer outcomes? And how do the POSITIVE study results address the concern about worsening breast cancer outcomes either with assisted reproductive technology or endocrine therapy interruption? Dr. Hatem Azim: So, in the primary analysis of the POSITIVE trial, we tried to address one of these questions, whether temporary interruption with endocrine therapy affects breast cancer outcome. And what we found was that interruption did not appear to have a detrimental impact at the median follow up of 41 months. So in the current manuscript, we addressed the second question, whether assisted production of fertility preservation has an impact as well on breast cancer outcome. And we did not find any worsening of outcomes in patients who underwent these procedures compared to those who had a spontaneous pregnancy. Of course, we have relatively short follow up, but at least the outcomes at the median follow up of around 3 to 4 years appears to be reassuring. Giselle Carvalho: I see. Thank you. These are really important outcomes regarding premenopausal patients. So, moving on, results from your study show that after 24 months, 80% of women under 35 years old had at least one successful pregnancy, while the same was true for 50% of women aged 40 to 42. These results are particularly impressive considering that over 60% of women over 35 had undergone chemotherapy.  Dr. Partridge, other than age, what factors did you find were associated with a successful pregnancy?  Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah. The biggest factor, other than age, that was associated with successful live birth pregnancy was use of assisted reproductive technologies. So either having gone through IVF prior to diagnosis and banking eggs or embryos prior to diagnosis and then using them during the study, for undergoing stimulation of the ovaries during the study and then using it during the study. And that's what we also looked at in this most recent analysis of the initial POSITIVE data.  Giselle Carvalho: I see. Thank you. The group of patients who underwent embryo oocyte cryopreservation at diagnosis were more likely to be nulliparous and treated with chemotherapy. Presumably these represent the patient group most afraid they will be infertile, as they would be receiving chemotherapy, and most desirous of pregnancy, as they had not yet had any children. Fertility preservation techniques are expensive and not easily available for all patients, particularly in less wealthy countries. Is there any group of your breast cancer patients with a high enough likelihood of pregnancy without assisted reproductive technology that you would not recommend this?  Dr. Ann Partridge: Sure. So we are so glad to have assisted reproductive technologies available in many places, but as you know, they're not available everywhere. And even where they're available for some people, it's either inaccessible for a number of reasons or it doesn't feel right emotionally or ethically. And then finally, sometimes people need fairly quick treatment and they just don't have the time, even though we don't think there are long delays. And so we do and are able to know who can get pregnant after standard chemotherapy. Not perfectly, but we can give estimates. And the gestalt is, the younger a woman is, the less likely she is to become amenorrheic and the associated infertile, although it's not a perfect match in terms of amenorrhea being a surrogate. And then there are particular chemotherapy regimens that are more gonadotoxic than others. The more cyclophosphamide, for example, or alkylating agent, the more anthracycline, the higher the likelihood generally of causing at least amenorrhea and likely infertility. The huge caveat there is that for some of our newer therapies, we have no good information about how they might impact on menstrual status, let alone the actual rates of fertility. So we need to collect those data. But certainly, if someone's very young, they're going to get four cycles of TC or they have inflammatory breast cancer, we often take kind of a let the chips fall where they may approach, because they just aren't able to access it and we'll often do something like ovarian suppression through the chemotherapy to help support them and hope that it improves their menstrual functioning in the long run and/or fertility. Giselle Carvalho: Thank you for your insight. So you found that pregnancy incidence over time differed by age group, although incidence of menstrual recovery over time was similar across all age groups, which I conclude that menstrual recovery does not translate into fertility. The addition of gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs to chemotherapy was not associated with time to pregnancy. However, of course, such use was not randomized.  Dr. Azim, if assisted reproductive technology is not available to patients for reasons such as socioeconomic factors, would you recommend using GnRH analogs with chemotherapy for the purpose of fertility preservation?  Dr. Hatem Azim: Yes. The short answer is yes. Of course, POSITIVE study was not designed to address the question around GnRH analogs, but we do have several randomized studies and meta analyses that have shown clearly that the use of GnRH analogs with chemotherapy reduce the risk of premature ovarian insufficiency. And subgroup analysis of some of these studies have shown a trend towards higher pregnancy rates as well. So, of course, if a patient does not have access to assist reproductive technology, GnRH analogs in combination with chemotherapy represent a very good alternative.  Giselle Carvalho: I see. Thank you. Thank you for your response. At enrollment, 93.2% of women on POSITIVE trial had stage 1 or 2 disease and 66% had no negative disease. Therefore, one possible bias is that investigators might have been more comfortable with temporarily interrupting endocrine therapy if the risk of relapse was low. Dr. Partridge, what recommendations would you have for women with stage three hormone receptor positive breast cancer who desire to attempt pregnancy? Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, thank you. That's a really good question. It comes up in our tumor boards and discussions about patient care all the time, and I think, as you know, only a small proportion, about 6%, had stage 3 disease. Those patients are at higher risk of recurrence by nature of their stage. Not that all stage 3 are created equal, because, of course, if someone had a complete pathologic response to preoperative therapy and their stage 3 disease at diagnosis went to a PCR, then that person may have even better outcomes in the long run than someone who had postoperative treatment, and we don't know their likelihood even with stage 1 or 2 disease. But someone that you're concerned about their risk of recurrence, they still remain at risk of recurrence. And while we do not think, based on the POSITIVE data and all the data that we've had from retrospective studies and other data sets collected for other reasons, that a pregnancy would worsen their outcome, we certainly don't believe that a pregnancy at this point in time will dramatically improve their outcome or as a treatment for breast cancer. That's when I have a heart to heart conversation with the patient, really acknowledging they still remain at high risk. And most of my colleagues tend to want the patient to get more endocrine therapy into their system before they take a break. We've kind of discussed this, and we want someone to get more like at least three to five years. That may be a little bit paternalistic, because, as we know, taking the break for people with a little lower risk didn't seem to worsen outcomes. Maybe it's fine. I don't know that a break at five years is any better than a break at two years. I don't know. Hatem, how do you handle this in your practice?   Dr. Hatem Azim: Well, I completely agree with you, Ann. I mean, it's very much decided on a patient by patient basis. The level of uncertainty that some patients accept to take is not necessarily like others. And sometimes we as physicians, we adopt this. I agree with this paternalistic approach. Nevertheless, it's very important for the patient who is 32, is not necessarily counseled like the patient who's 39, and her acceptance and the feasibility of waiting a bit longer as well in order to attempt pregnancy - the success of pregnancy afterwards is not necessarily the same. So I'm not sure we could adapt a one size fits all approach here. And I do not necessarily tend to factor much the elements around the stage. I think my point to patients is usually, well, you do have give and take this amount of risk of relapse, for example, and whether we accept to take such, what we could refer to as relatively unconventional approach of temporary interrupting endocrine therapy, and when we are comfortable to go ahead with this journey, depending on the feasibility of getting pregnant afterwards as well. So, yeah, I completely agree. It's very customized, based on and tailored according to the patients' situation. Giselle Carvalho: Thank you. I really appreciate your response to this. So, moving forward, tamoxifen alone was the most commonly prescribed endocrine therapy, followed by tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. The latter was preferred over aromatase inhibitors ovarian function suppression in the selected population. Endocrine therapy prescription changed in the second half of the recruitment period after July 2017 across all continents, likely due to the results of the SOFT and TEXT trials. It demonstrated absolute improvements in all disease outcomes by escalating endocrine therapy, which was more clinically meaningful in patients with high risk disease. Dr. Azim, how do you imagine this change could impact positive outcomes? Dr. Hatem Azim: Honestly, I'm not necessarily sure that it impacts significantly the way you interpret the data and the way we counsel our patients. So, in our study, some 50% of patients received GnRH analogs and around 15% received AI. And most of the patients, I would say, were recruited in the second half of the study after we had the results from, for example, SOFT and TEXT. Furthermore, as we alluded to earlier, we had 60% of patients who received chemo. So most of our patients had a stage 1 and 2 disease in which you would argue that the absolute difference between the different hormonal therapy options is not necessarily massive. Whether or not this would impact much, I'm not sure. I think the main counseling recommendations would apply, that patients who receive endocrine therapy would be asked to interrupt it for at least three months and then they attempt pregnancy afterwards. I don't know what you think, Anne, but I'm not sure that if we have more patients, and this is pretty much the case now, we have more patients treated with AI. I tend to do this a lot, especially if I'm thinking of interrupting, so I think I'm giving them maybe the best option first. I'm not sure this is necessarily, I mean, affecting me much, while interpreting that it does not appear that temporary interruption on the short term has an impact. Dr. Ann Partridge: I completely agree with your strategy. Depending on the patient and their tolerance, if they have enough risk to warrant ovarian suppression with AI or tamoxifen, of course I recommend that. And yet, at the same time, I agree with you in this group that was in POSITIVE, I think the groups are relatively low enough risk. Although 40% had no positive disease, the majority got chemo, so they weren't that low risk. And so I think over time, these kinds of patients are more and more going to get ovarian suppression. I'm doing that more in my practice as tolerated. And I hope that all that means is that their breast cancer outcomes will be better independent of a pregnancy. Giselle Carvalho: And on the topic of women with higher risk disease, CDK4/6 inhibitors are now used in the high risk adjuvant setting. How do you envision this impacting fertility? Dr. Hatem Azim: Well, this is a very good question. Of course, this is something, this is an area of research that we have to address. Some analysis from some of the adjuvant studies, for example, the PENELOPE-B, I think they reported on some of the results of their study in which they were evaluating palbociclib in the adjuvant setting and did not appear that there was significant differences in terms of the level of estradiol levels and FSH and anti-Müllerian hormone, for example. I think these were the parameters that were evaluated in this study. So, of course, more information. Of course, palb is not the CDK4/6 inhibitor approved in the adjuvant setting. So we need more information as well about the other CDK4/6 inhibitors and longer follow-up.  In my view from a counseling perspective, I think maybe you would have a certain level of uncertainty regarding whether or not this could have a mental impact on fertility. But the concept as well of possibly proposing a temporary interruption as we adopted in POSITIVE, would still apply. These patients would be treated as well, often, because if they are receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, it means that they have a high stage disease, so often they will be treated as well with GnRH analogs. I would counsel them pretty much the same, acknowledging a certain level of uncertainty regarding the data we have today on CDK4/6 inhibitors. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, if they got a full course, they would generally be further out than many people on POSITIVE, because we treat with, for example, the abemaciclib for two years and then you want to wash out and things like that. In POSITIVE, the average was two years. And so you'd expect people of higher risk to be a little further out, which I think would make everybody a little more comfortable too, because someone who's very high risk, you'd worry about very early bad recurrence, too. Giselle Carvalho: Yeah. Thank you. So, Dr. Partridge, regarding adherence to endocrine therapy resumption after the two year break, what was the percentage of patients who resumed treatment and which strategies would you suggest to increase adherence in this case? Dr. Ann Partridge: That's a really great question. In the study, it was well over 70%, which is actually higher than you see in the general population of breast cancer survivors, especially young women. So in some cases, and I can tell you anecdotally, I experienced in my clinic that patients were more likely to start and take their endocrine therapy when they had the promise of the POSITIVE trial, to take a break to have a baby, because some of them don't want to start it, let alone stay on it, if they're told they have to take a full five to ten years. So it actually promoted adherence, ironically. And then for the people who got back on in the real world, the data suggests that by four years, somewhere close to half to 30% to half are no longer taking it. And so in POSITIVE it was, I think, 74% got back on, and that was only at the time point cut off when we did the initial primary data report. And of course more people will have gone back on because some people were still having babies and in the middle of things. And so I think that it's not as much of an issue with POSITIVE. In part, these are very compliant people, right? They're participating in a clinical trial to share the data with the rest of the world. They could have gotten pregnant on their own and they want to do it with their doctors. And so I think this is a little bit of a different group, but it was very reassuring to see that most people got on hormonal therapy after their interruption. Giselle Carvalho: And recurrence of hormone receptor positive breast cancer may occur late. How long do you plan to follow patients enrolled in the POSITIVE trial? Dr. Ann Partridge: So our plan is to follow them for at least 10 years. And it's interesting because we're starting to get close to that. We started enrollment in 2015, so I saw someone earlier this week who will have her 10 year mark next year because she got on in 2015. And that's very exciting. Obviously, it would be great to follow them even longer because ER positive breast cancer can recur many years later. But I do think that we feel as though at least 10 years will give us a good, very evidence-based feeling about the safety. Giselle Carvalho: Thank you. Thanks for sharing. With enrollment occurring at 116 institutions in 20 countries across four continents, this representation of different races and ethnicities provides strength to support this recommendation for this group of patients worldwide. Dr. Azim, what are your hopes for future analysis from this study and what future research in the area are you planning or would like to see performed?  Dr. Hatem Azim: So Ann mentioned, of course, it would be crucial to conduct the long term follow up of these patients, and provide more reassuring evidence on the safety of this approach of adjuvant endocrine therapy. So this is something we're really looking forward to. Other analysis that we are working on is the breastfeeding analysis. So looking at patients who underwent breastfeeding and how far the feasibility of this approach, obviously, but how far as well this had an impact on their breast cancer outcome. So this is something that hopefully we are going to report on soon, expected end of this year. As well, we are working on evaluating, we had a large translation research program within POSITIVE, addressing several questions, including the evolution of ovarian function parameters over time and the ovarian reserve. Also, we are working on reporting on this information. We hope that this could happen maybe in the coming year. Giselle Carvalho: Great. And finally, what advice do you give young women in your clinic who have been diagnosed with early stage hormone positive breast cancer and who are hoping to attempt pregnancy. Dr. Hatem Azim: We address these kinds of questions relatively early in their treatments and often they are very much concerned about their chance of future fertility. Usually early on, for example, before going for chemo and so on, I just share the information that this is something that we certainly could discuss and certainly there are the possibility that we could consider in the future that it's not a ‘no go' at least. And definitely it's something that we could work on once treatment is completed and recover from the adverse events of therapy. And because throughout the journey of treatments as well, women's wishes evolve over time and their perception of their pregnancy project as well evolve and change over time. So I think it's important to acknowledge, in my view, it's very important to acknowledge that this is feasible, this is possible, and because this as well provides an important psychological boost for them. And then as the patient comes over for their follow up after therapy and so on, start understanding, getting a little bit deeper into these kind of questions regarding feasibility, timing. If they are ER positive, then if it's okay to interrupt, not to interrupt, to explain a bit better and to consider a bit better regarding what kind of risk we're talking about. Articulating better, what do we mean by risk? So that sometimes you have a patient that is willing to accept a 10% risk, although others 1% risk for them represent a major threat. Also, it matters nulliparous versus a patient who already has two or three kids. So I think I tend to go a bit more granular in this kind of information as patients are out of chemo and on hormonal therapy and start addressing these matters. But I think it's important early on to share the information that nowadays we do have sufficient information not to discourage women who would like to have a pregnancy in the future. Giselle Carvalho: Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Partridge, would you like to add some final comments on this? Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, I think this is just such an important issue for our young breast cancer survivors and cancer survivors diagnosed at a young age, regardless of the type of cancer. So I think paying attention to this at diagnosis and through their survivorship is critical, both for their thriving in survivorship as well as for their long term health and cancer outcomes. Getting back to that adherence issue, people, if they're unhappy, won't do all the right things for themselves, sometimes medically and emotionally. And we know that infertility can be associated with long term distress for patients with and without cancer. So we need to pay attention to this and I'm really happy that ASCO is doing a podcast on this and I'm really happy that JCO is doing a podcast on this.  Giselle Carvalho: Thank you. I really would like to thank you both, Dr. Azim and Dr. Partridge for attending this interview. This is Giselle Carvalho. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows asco.org/podcast. 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.  Dr. Azim Employment Company name: Pierre Fabre, EMERGENCE THERAPEUTICS Stock and Other Ownership Interests Company name: Innate Pharma, Diaacurate Travel, Accommodations, Expenses Company name: Novartis Dr. Partridge Research Funding Company name: Novartis Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company name: UpToDate    

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price and Dr. Rosalyn Juergens, Medical Oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Center and Co-Chair of LCC's Medical Advisory Committee, discuss the top highlights in lung cancer research presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Conference held in Chicago this past June.

Dive into the latest developments in glioblastoma treatment with Tamika Wong, MPH, Director of Clinical Research in Neurosurgery, and Dr. Morana Vojnic, Medical Oncologist and Director of Oncologic Services at the Brain and Spine Metastases Program, both from Lenox Hill Hospital. This episode offers a deep dive into groundbreaking clinical trials and treatments, clarifying complex brain tumor and glioblastoma terminology for a broader understanding. Listen as Tamika and Dr. Vojnic highlight the critical role of hope and advanced care strategies in improving patient outcomes. Episode Sponsor: Imvax. To learn more visit https://www.imvax.com/. Trigger Warning: This episode includes discussions on medical conditions, cancer treatments, and clinical trials. Visit to Learn More: For more information and support resources, visit GBMResearch.org. Disclaimer: The content discussed on The Glioblastoma AKA GBM Podcast is based on personal stories and experiences. It is not intended as medical advice. Always consult with healthcare professionals for medical guidance and treatment options.

Dr. Fitzroy Dawkins is a Medical Oncologist with over 30 years of experience teaching at Howard University College of Medicine. Throughout his career, he's conducted research in oncology and advocated for clinical trials as a biotech executive. His book Fighting For Survival: Conquering Cancer And The African American Patient provides a roadmap for improving treatment outcomes for African-Americans, particularly related to cancers. He squarely addresses the historical and cultural hesitancy to participate in clinical trials, while exploring the impact this has on treatment options. From the fears and anxieties to the guilt and the denial often accompanied with treating cancer, Dr. Dawkins offers hope and actions to lessen the gap in cancer survival rates specifically, and health-care outcomes generally. Follow 365 Brothers on IG @365brothers or visit us at 365brothers.com for more info.  Host Rahbin Shyne - IG @365shyne

Dr Charles B. Simone.  I am an Internist, a  Medical Oncologist, a Radiation Oncologist, and an Immunologist, trained at the Cleveland Clinic, the National Cancer Institute, and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Simone begins by letting us know that the virus was created on purpose and the DOD created the vaccine and then it was sold to Big Pharma. This was planned false flag to remove the President of the US. The cures have always existed but Big Pharma has kept it from the people. Now the people are learning that they do exist and that the Big Pharma and the Gov has been trying to hide from us.

Dr. Elizabeth Comen learned at a very early age that two women can have the same diagnosis with breast cancer, but how they experience it, feel in their bodies, what they want to feel whole, and to thrive in the world, is completely different. Since then, she has dedicated her medical career to saving the lives of women. Her latest book All In Her Head uncovers the truth and lies early medicine taught us about women's bodies and why it matters today. This episode is to empower women, of all ages, to take their health into their own hands and become their greatest advocates for themselves and one other.Mentioned in this episode:All in Her Head Written by Elizabeth ComenChantecaille Tinted MoisturizerYSE Beauty Wide Awake Eye CreamSponsors:From now until May 31st you can shop Macy's Gold Jewelry Month at macys.com. Don't wait the sale ends soon and you won't want to miss these insane deals.Fatty15 is on a mission to replenish your C15 levels and restore your long-term health. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/ LIPSTICK and using code LIPSTICK at checkout.Start your Spring and Summer shopping hauls now and get 15% off your order of $100 or more at HillHouseHome.com with code LIPSTICK15. Again that's code LIPSTICK15 for 15% off your order at HillHouse Home.comGet 30% off your first product order or subscription on Biosil's website www.biosil.beauty with code LIPSTICK. Go to signos.com and get up to 20% off select plans with code LIPSTICK.Please note that this episode may contain paid endorsements and advertisements for products and services. Individuals on the show may have a direct or indirect financial interest in products or services referred to in this episode.Produced by Dear Media.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to another insightful episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, hosts Rahul and Rohit Gosain delve into the world of locally advanced rectal cancer, focusing on the latest treatment strategies and advancements in the field. Joined by esteemed guests Dr. Deborah Schrag, a medical oncologist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Dr. Krishan Jethwa, a radiation oncologist from the Mayo Clinic, the discussion centers around the groundbreaking Prospect study. This study challenges the traditional approach to rectal cancer treatment, emphasizing the importance of balancing therapeutic efficacy with minimizing chronic side effects. The conversation covers a range of topics, from the utilization of different chemotherapy regimens to the evolving paradigm of radiation therapy. Dr. Schrag and Dr. Jethwa provide valuable insights into determining the optimal treatment course for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including the selective omission of surgery and the significance of MSI high status in treatment decisions. Tune in to learn about the latest advancements in rectal cancer treatment, the implications of the Prospect study, and the importance of personalized, multidisciplinary approaches in oncology care. Don't miss out on this informative discussion that sheds light on the complexities of managing rectal cancer and the evolving treatment landscape. Stay informed and up-to-date with the Oncology Brothers podcast as they continue to explore the dynamic world of oncology treatment. Subscribe now and join the conversation! Guests: Dr. Deborah Schrag, Medical Oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dr. Krishan Jethwa, Radiation Oncologist, Mayo Clinic