Podcasts about Melanoma

The detection of melanoma and a range of other skin diseases could become faster and more accurate with a new AI powered tool 

Today's witnesses are from Matthew West's website, called popwe.org. If you don't know who Matthew West is, he is a singer, songwriter, and storyteller. This website is for the non-profit that he has with his father, a pastor. Matthew and his father encourage people to share their stories. They have various categories of stories. Today, I chose three testimonies from the God Stories Category. Often, we can hear our own story in someone else's story. When we listen to others tell their story, it helps us see that we are not alone. Hearing how God worked in their situation gives us hope that He will work in ours, too! I pray that when you hear this testimony, you get the faith and hope to believe that miracles can happen in your situation, too. I pray you know that God is there with you, and if you invite Him into your situation, He can help. I hope you enjoy these testimonies.First is Diane: I run a Christian camp for people who have developmental and physical disabilities, or as I like to say, “diversabilities.” Because isn't that who we all are? We experienced great tragedy in September of 2020 when we lost many of our physical buildings, including our activity spaces, bunkhouses, and gymnasium, in a fire. Many of which had been built in the 1940s.Our campers were devastated. Many have been coming to camp for over 40 years, but without indoor facilities and bunkhouses to serve and host our campers, the future looked bleak. That said, we dutifully signed up for FEMA support to rebuild and began the process of determining eligibility in early 2021.After much prayer and consideration, we made a commitment to continue serving campers someway, somehow. And we were overwhelmed by the blessing of grants, private donations and many volunteers. We cleared our 18-acre property of fire debris, established and activity meadow, purchased 18 beautiful bell tents and opened our gates to 10 campers a week for 6 weeks. We had only a few doors left after the fires and that first year, all activities and meals were outside. Before the fires and COVID we were serving 25 campers a week, but we promised we would do what we could, and God provided everything we needed!Fast forward 4 ½ years and here we are, still providing camp with temporary facilities. We continue to work with FEMA and have only just begun to receive money to begin the process of rebuilding.We were gifted a master plan through the assistance of the Christian Camp and Conference Association (CCCA) in 2021, and now we are working with an incredible architecture and design firm of which 90% is being paid for through FEMA funds. For us 10% is a significant funding gap, but we trust our Father in heaven to pave a way for us to continue moving forward with rebuilding. If all goes well, we anticipate breaking ground on our new buildings later this year.And finally, to the reason for this long explanation. Our campers love those VBS songs you mention in some of your devos, and I like to re-introduce a few of them every year, so when I read your post this morning, I knew it was time to bring this old chestnut back to our campfire songs, “This little light of mine.” As we rebuild Upward Bound Camp we stand on the firm foundation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, sharing and rejoicing in His love for all of us!Second is Heather: My story is about meeting my husband at the warehouse we where we worked, marrying him and then losing him to cancer after twelve life changing years of marriage and seven kids later.He came to me one day asking, “is this a pimple?” I said,” No love, you should get that checked.” He wasted no time, and the test came back as Melanoma. Within a year of that diagnosis, he went to be with Jesus.He fought really hard and had a heart of gold the whole way through. He said these words to me towards the end” I am at peace with this.”Those words will stay in my heart always. He loved Jesus so much and trusted him. I believed before I met Doug, but I honestly believe that he was put on this earth to prepare me and the kids spiritually for what was ahead. For things we did not know were going to happen.He served God in many ways, but if not for him I believe our lives would have taken a much different path. With him rooting me in the Catholic faith and me coming to truly believe it, allowed me to have the strength to carry on and keep the kids rooted in their faith.He was an amazing man. I thank you God for blessing us with him if even for a short time. We love you Daddy/ Douglas.Third is Roy: Last night, my family and I were at your concert here in Lincoln. What a beautiful evening of worship! Seeing my family laugh, sing, and worship together was a powerful reminder of God's faithfulness and goodness.Matthew, we met about 15 years ago at a Parenting Simulcast. I was the parenting manager running point that day. It was such a joy to work with you during that event, and I still treasure the memories of that experience.I'm reaching out to tell you how deeply your song, The God Who Stays, has impacted my life. It became an Ebenezer for me during one of the most broken seasons I've ever experienced.In 2014, I left that organization due to downsizing and took over a struggling Bible and youth camp in New England. After six difficult years of ministry, the camp had to close during COVID, and the board dissolved it. I was devastated.It felt like I had failed everyone—including God. After closing the doors and letting the staff go, my wife took our kids away for a weekend and told me, “You need to do business with God.”I went to a place we called “One Tree Hill,” a beautiful hillside at the base of Mount Monadnock, and I listened to The God Who Stays on repeat. I cried like I've never cried before. It was there, in my brokenness, that I encountered Christ in such a profound way.I felt His warmth and embrace, even in the midst of my pain and failure. I was ready to give up leadership entirely, but in that moment, Christ whispered to me: I am not done with you yet. I have been preparing you for what's next.Within 48 hours of that encounter, I connected with the ministry I serve today.  This January, I will celebrate four years stewarding this organization, which serves vulnerable families through foster care, family preservation, and ministry to families impacted by incarceration.These last four years have brought so much healing and restoration. Not only in my ministry but in my marriage and family. My wife and kids (25, 21, and 17) have endured so much over the past 15 years, through four major moves and countless challenges. But God has been faithful. To sit together last night in worship reminded me how far He has carried us. Thank you, Matthew, for allowing God to use your music to minister to so many, including me. The God Who Stays will forever be a reminder of His steadfast love and presence in my life.Thank you all so much for being brave enough to share your stories. I know these stories are going to touch the lives of so many people. www.findingtruenorthcoaching.comCLICK HERE TO DONATECLICK HERE to sign up for Mentoring CLICK HERE to sign up for Daily "Word from the Lord" emailsCLICK HERE to sign up for my newsletter & receive a free audio training about inviting Jesus into your daily lifeCLICK HERE to buy my book Total Trust in God's Safe Embrace

What happens when you're forced to stop doing what you love—and rebuild your life from the inside out? In this deeply moving episode of All Talk Oncology, host Kenny Perkins sits down with Leah Adams, a melanoma survivor, passionate runner, and daughter of a stage four cancer fighter. Diagnosed at just 26 years old with Stage 1A melanoma, Leah shares how cancer interrupted her daily running routine—and how she eventually turned pain into power. From being unable to run post-surgery, to completing multiple marathons, Leah's story is a powerful testament to the strength of the human spirit and the power of reframing your mindset. Whether it's her honesty about guilt, body image, or mental recovery—this conversation is full of hard truths, healing lessons, and undeniable hope. Key points discussed: Leah's diagnosis at age 26 and her emotional reaction to stopping running The surgeries she underwent and how melanoma impacted her body and mindset Why she believed she gave herself cancer—and how she forgave herself How running became both her therapy and her triumph The shift in self-talk and mindset that changed her emotional healing Her public vulnerability through social media and how it helped others Her journey through frequent skin checks, biopsies, and long-term follow-ups Crossing the five-year cancer-free mark and what that milestone meant Why she now advocates for skin checks and sun protection Her mission to use her story to spread awareness and hope   Immortalize your voice by being an ALL TALK ONCOLOGY GUEST! Just fill-out this FORM.   SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS: All Talk Oncology: Instagram & Facebook JOIN OUR FREE COMMUNITY: Facebook Community WEBSITE: https://www.alltalkoncology.com

A new report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE has found only four out of 20 popular sunscreen products actually meet their claims of sun protection. The findings have sparked concerns among consumers. But experts and advocates say putting on sunscreen is still important for skin cancer prevention. - صارفین کے حقوق کے گروپ CHOICE کی ایک نئی رپورٹ میں پتہ چلا ہے کہ 20 مشہور سن اسکرین مصنوعات میں سے صرف چار ہی اپنے دعوے کے مطابق سورج سے درج شدہ لیول کا تحفظ فراہم کرتی ہیں۔ اس تحقیق کے نتائج نے صارفین میں تشویش پیدا کر دی ہے۔ تاہم، ماہرین اور جلد کی صحت کے حامی کہتے ہیں کہ سن اسکرین کی مبالغہ آمیز لیبیلنگ کے باوجود جلد کےکینسر کی روک تھام کے لیے سن اسکرین لگانا اب بھی انتہائی اہم ہے۔

A new report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE has found only four out of 20 popular sunscreen products actually meet their claims of sun protection. The findings have sparked concerns among consumers. But experts and advocates say putting on sunscreen is still important for skin cancer prevention. - В новом отчете группы по защите прав потребителей CHOICE было обнаружено, что только четыре из 20 популярных солнцезащитных средств действительно соответствуют заявленным характеристикам защиты от солнца. Результаты вызвали беспокойство у потребителей. Однако эксперты и защитники говорят, что нанесение солнцезащитного крема по-прежнему важно для профилактики рака кожи.

A new report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE has found only four out of 20 popular sunscreen products actually meet their claims of sun protection. The findings have sparked concerns among consumers. But experts and advocates say putting on sunscreen is still important for skin cancer prevention.

Cancer-fighting implant shows promise in treating melanoma, pancreatic and colorectal tumors. Rice-led study serves as foundation for FDA investigational new drug application and emerging new company to launch from RBL LLC. Veiseh's team at Rice University has created an implant that functions like a “cytokine factory,” delivering IL-12 — a powerful immune-stimulating molecule — directly into the tumor environment. This approach boosts the body's ability to fight cancer while avoiding the severe side effects usually associated with systemic IL-12 therapy.

Interview with Jade Homsi, MD

Hablamos de melanoma con María Vitale, Medical Manager Dermatology de Cantabria Labs y con Raúl de Lucas Laguna, Dermatólogo y Jefe de Dermatología Pediátrica del Hospital Universitario La Paz.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hablamos de melanoma con María Vitale, Medical Manager Dermatology de Cantabria Labs y con Raúl de Lucas Laguna, Dermatólogo y Jefe de Dermatología Pediátrica del Hospital Universitario La Paz.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Melanoma is on the rise in Canada, a recent study found the number of new cases increased 17 per cent last year. We hear about the questions you have about sunscreen and other ways to project yourself from skin cancer and we speak with Dr. Cheryl Rosen, head of dermatology with the University Health Network.

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible.  Starting with LBA9500, this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the RELATIVITY-098 trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the RELATIVITY-047 trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the AMPLITUDE trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in LBA5006, were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the MAGNITUDE study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today's presentations is Abstract 7504, presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called MagnetisMM-6 trial part 1. Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level ‘G', comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Ray is joined by three women taking part in the campaign. Kelsey O'Donnell is a Skin Cancer Clinical Nurse Specialist at the Mater Hospital, Noelle O'Connor who has conducted research into attitudes towards suncare in Ireland, and Lydia O'Toole who was diagnosed with Stage 4 Melanoma in 2022.

- Overview of Metastatic Melanoma, Including Diagnosing & Staging - New Treatment Approaches - Targeted Therapy & the Role of Precision Medicine - The Role of Immunotherapy - Clinical Trial Updates - Follow-Up Care - Tips for Caring for Your Skin During Cancer Treatments, Including Sun & Wind Safety Recommendations - Controlling Side Effects, Symptoms, Discomfort & Pain - Key Questions to Ask When Communicating with Your Health Care Team - Guidelines to Prepare for Telehealth/Telemedicine Appointments, Including Technology, Prepared List of Questions, and Discussion of OpenNotes - Questions for Our Panel of Experts

- Overview of Metastatic Melanoma, Including Diagnosing & Staging - New Treatment Approaches - Targeted Therapy & the Role of Precision Medicine - The Role of Immunotherapy - Clinical Trial Updates - Follow-Up Care - Tips for Caring for Your Skin During Cancer Treatments, Including Sun & Wind Safety Recommendations - Controlling Side Effects, Symptoms, Discomfort & Pain - Key Questions to Ask When Communicating with Your Health Care Team - Guidelines to Prepare for Telehealth/Telemedicine Appointments, Including Technology, Prepared List of Questions, and Discussion of OpenNotes - Questions for Our Panel of Experts

- Overview of Metastatic Melanoma, Including Diagnosing & Staging - New Treatment Approaches - Targeted Therapy & the Role of Precision Medicine - The Role of Immunotherapy - Clinical Trial Updates - Follow-Up Care - Tips for Caring for Your Skin During Cancer Treatments, Including Sun & Wind Safety Recommendations - Controlling Side Effects, Symptoms, Discomfort & Pain - Key Questions to Ask When Communicating with Your Health Care Team - Guidelines to Prepare for Telehealth/Telemedicine Appointments, Including Technology, Prepared List of Questions, and Discussion of OpenNotes - Questions for Our Panel of Experts

This Oncology PER®Spectives™ podcast examines the recent advancements in the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma.In this activity, expertsYana Najjar, MD; Rahul A. Sheth, MD, FSIR; and Douglas Johnson, MD, MSCI, discuss the challenges of immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance and the practical strategies for overcoming this by using direct intratumoral injections of oncolytic viral immunotherapies, which rely on close interdisciplinary collaboration between medical oncologists and interventional radiologists.

Megan Williams sy'n sgwrsio gyda'r meddyg teulu o Sir Gaerfyrddin, Dr Sioned Rowlands.

Dr Bill Nelson talks with Dr Ashani Weeraratna about her work in melanoma research, the progress that has been made in treating patients with melanoma, and the importance of federal research funding in finding advancements in treatment for this disease.

Dr. Justin McLawhorn discusses Melanoma and the importance of sunscreen usage, especially during the summer months.

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Jiasen He summarizes "Predictive Impact of Tumor Mutational Burden on Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma” by Dr. Miles C. Andrews, et al. published on June 07, 2024. Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Jiasen He: Hello and welcome to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Jiasen, and today we'll be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Predictive Impact of Tumor Mutational Burden on Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma," by Dr. Miles C. Andrews and colleagues. This study was supported by Foundation Medicine, a for-profit company that conducts FDA-regulated molecular diagnostics, including assays used to measure tumor mutational burdens, or TMB, as described in this article. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has become a cornerstone in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. They work by activating the patient's own immune system, representing a fundamentally different approach from traditional chemotherapy. Several biomarkers have emerged as promising tools to predict ICI therapy response, and TMB is one of the most extensively studied. TMB is defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of an interrogated genome sequence. In the KEYNOTE-158 study, patients with high TMB showed better response rates and longer progression-free survival compared to those with low TMB, which led to the FDA tumor-agnostic approval of TMB as a biomarker to guide ICI therapy. In this manuscript, Dr. Andrews and colleagues set out to answer an important question: does TMB predict outcomes of ICI therapy in real-world patients with advanced melanoma? To explore this, they analyzed de-identified data from the nationwide Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB). To be included, patients needed to have had at least two visits to a Flatiron Health clinic and a Foundation Medicine Comprehensive Genomic Profiling report. Eligible patients had received first-line treatment with either monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or dual therapy with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. They also needed a tissue-based TMB score from either the FoundationOne or FoundationOne CDx genomic test. For this study, TMB less than 10 mutations per megabase was considered low TMB; TMB equal to or more than 10 mutations per megabase was considered high TMB; and TMB equal to or more than 20 mutations per megabase was considered very high TMB. Of the 497 patients in the final cohort, 29% had low TMB, while 71% had high TMB, and 50% had very high TMB. The authors observed that patients with very high TMB were more often male, had BRAF wild-type tumors, and were more likely to receive anti-PD-1 monotherapy. This group also had tumors more commonly sampled from brain and lung metastases. Patients with high TMB but not very high TMB were more likely to carry the BRAF V600K mutation and were least likely to have lung metastases. Meanwhile, those with low TMB tended to be younger and had disease limited to non-visceral sites. As expected, the presence of ultraviolet mutation signatures, a known driver of melanoma, was strongly associated with TMB. UV signatures were found in just 18% of the low TMB group, but in 89% of the high TMB and 93% of the very high TMB group. High TMB was found to be prognostic of improved real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients receiving both monotherapy and dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, even after adjusting for other established prognostic factors. Interestingly, in the low TMB group, overall survival was likely confounded by the availability of effective second-line targeted therapy, particularly for BRAF-mutant patients. These patients had better outcomes compared to their BRAF wild-type counterparts, likely reflecting a greater reliance on salvage therapy in low TMB patients who derived less benefit from first-line immunotherapy. The authors then further examined the ICI outcomes using stepwise TMB thresholds, with TMB less than 10 as low, 10 to 19 as high, and equal to or more than 20 as very high. For those receiving ICI monotherapy, both PFS and OS were highest in the very high TMB group, followed by the high TMB group, and lowest in the low TMB group. However, in patients treated with dual ICI therapy, the results diverged. While low TMB patients still had the poorest outcomes, those with high TMB (mutations 10 to 19 per megabase) had better PFS and overall survival than those with very high TMB (mutations equal to or more than 20 per megabase). The authors then conducted exploratory multivariable modeling, showing that among very high TMB patients with BRAF mutations, dual ICI therapy was associated with a significantly higher hazard ratio compared to monotherapy. They concluded that dual ICI may not benefit, and could even harm, patients with very high TMB, whereas those with TMB between 10 and 20 mutations per megabase may get more from the intensified regimen. Importantly, as the authors stated in the manuscript, we need to note that in this cohort, very high TMB patients were more likely to have brain metastases at treatment initiation, be male, and lack BRAF V600E/K mutations—all factors associated with poorer prognosis. This might partially explain inferior outcomes to dual ICI in very high TMB patients, as patients were not randomly assigned to therapy in this retrospective, real-world study. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution and validated in future studies. In summary, this study showed that in a real-world setting, high tumor mutational burden predicts better outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Interestingly, the authors found that dual ICI therapy may offer no added benefit for patients with very high TMB compared to ICI monotherapy. However, this was a retrospective, non-randomized study, and the cohorts were imbalanced for some known risk factors, which could confound outcomes. As a result, these findings should be interpreted with caution and will need to be validated in future prospective studies. Thank you for tuning into JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. Until then, stay informed and stay inspired. 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.

Smriti Patodia, Senior Editor of The Lancet Oncology, is joined by Professor Caroline Robert from Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, France to discuss the EBIN trial. EBIN was an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 37 centres in eight European countries, and aimed to investigate the use of a targeted-therapy induction regimen before treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations. They discuss the disease burden of advanced melanoma with BRAF mutations, the key findings from the EBIN trial, and the future implications of the study findings, especially for a select sub-population of patients with advanced melanoma.Read the full article:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(25)00133-0/fulltext?dgcid=buzzsprout_icw_podcast_May_25_lanoncTell us what you thought about this episodeContinue this conversation on social!Follow us today at...https://thelancet.bsky.social/https://instagram.com/thelancetgrouphttps://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournalhttps://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancethttps://youtube.com/thelancettv

May is Melanoma Awareness month and yet so many men don't use sunscreen. So what can be done to encourage them to start using sunscreen and just how damaging can the sun be to our skin?

Making strides against melanoma: how can medical oncologists and interventional oncologists join forces to deliver smarter, patient-centered care? In this episode of BackTable, Dr. Tyler Sandow, hosts Dr. Sunandana Chandra, medical oncologist at Northwestern, and Dr. Riad Salem, interventional oncologist at Northwestern to discuss the evolving management of advanced melanoma. --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from Replimune. --- SYNPOSIS The doctors open the episode with an overview of melanoma and recent advances in its treatment, highlighting key trials such as DREAMseq and CheckMate 067. The discussion explores the shift from medical oncologist as solo primary providers to a dynamic, multidisciplinary approach to advanced cancer care—emphasizing cutting-edge treatments like immunotherapy and intratumoral oncolytic viruses. Dr. Salem shares practical insights on the procedural techniques of administering intratumoral oncolytics like Replimune, emphasizing the importance of thorough documentation and patient-centered care. The doctors also provide an overview of the ongoing IGNYTE-3 Trial, a Phase 3 study assessing the safety and efficacy of the oncolytic immunotherapy RP1 in combination with nivolumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The episode underscores the transformative potential of innovative melanoma treatments and the crucial role of integrated, team-based approaches in improving cancer patient outcomes. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction03:48 - The Evolution of Melanoma Treatment: From Chemotherapy to Immunotherapy14:05 - The Role of Oncolytic Viruses in Melanoma Treatment20:14 - Interventional Radiology's Role in Cancer Treatment27:00 - Collaborative Approach to Cancer Care32:53 - Hyper Documentation and Communication Efficiency44:47 - Future of Intratumoral Oncolytics48:10 - Multidisciplinary Approach in Advanced Cancer Management51:46 - Conclusion and Final Thoughts --- RESOURCES DREAMseq Trial: Atkins MB, Lee SJ, Chmielowski B, et al. Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(2):186-197. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01763 CheckMate 067 trial: Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Rutkowski P, et al. Final, 10-Year Outcomes with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(1):11-22. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2407417

In this episode of SHE MD, Dr. Thaïs Aliabadi and Mary Alice Haney welcome melanoma specialist Dr. Omid Hamid. They explore the rising incidence of melanoma in young people, debunk common misconceptions, and discuss groundbreaking treatments. Dr. Hamid explains the different stages of melanoma and the revolutionary immunotherapy treatments that are changing patient outcomes. The hosts and guest discuss real-life cases, including those of celebrities Khloe Kardashian and Teddy Mellencamp, to illustrate the importance of awareness and regular skin checks. The conversation also touches on melanoma during pregnancy and genetic predisposition to the disease - learn why genetic testing is crucial, even without family history.Access more information about the podcast and additional expert health tips by visiting SHE MD Podcast and Ovii. Sponsors: Myriad: Knowing your family's history of cancer is the first step to understanding your own cancer risk and may qualify you for the MyRisk Hereditary Cancer Test with RiskScore hereditary cancer test. It's easy, accurate and covered by most insurers. Learn more at GetMyRisk.comCymbiotika: Go to Cymbiotikia.com/SHEMD for 20% off your order + free shipping today.Purely Elizabeth: Visit purelyelizabeth.com and use code SHEMD at checkout for 20% off. Purely Elizabeth. Taste the ObsessionEquip: To learn more about Equip treatment, visit equip.health/sobermomlife.Strivektin: Discover the Science Behind Great SkinDavid's Protein: David is giving my listeners an exclusive offer – buy four cartons and get the fifth free at davidprotein.com/shemdCure Hydration: Cure is offering 20% off your first order! Stay hydrated and feel your best by visiting curehydration.com/SHEMD and using promo code SHEMD at checkout. Dr. Omid Hamid's Key Takeaways:1. Reduce Sun Exposure: Limit time spent in direct sunlight, especially during peak hours. Use protective clothing, hats, and sunglasses to shield your skin from harmful UV rays.2. Schedule Regular Skin Checks: Schedule routine visits with a dermatologist for comprehensive skin examinations. Self-examine your skin monthly for any new or changing moles or lesions.3. Use Effective Sunscreen: Apply broad-spectrum sunscreen with at least SPF 30 daily, even on cloudy days. Reapply every two hours when outdoors, and after swimming or sweating.4. Get Genetic Testing Done: If you have a family history of melanoma or other cancers, consider genetic testing to assess your risk. Tests like the MYRIS can identify melanoma-related gene mutations.5. Avoid Tanning Beds: Steer clear of tanning beds, as they significantly increase the risk of developing melanoma and other skin cancers.6. Be Your Own Health Advocate: Stay informed about your health, ask questions, and seek second opinions if necessary. Advocate for yourself and your loved ones by being proactive about potential health concerns.In This Episode: (00:00) Intro: Melanoma Awareness Month(02:40) Dr. Omid Hamid: Melanoma specialist introduction(6:58) Surgery for melanoma explained(10:49) Immunotherapy revolutionizes melanoma treatment(14:57) Genetic testing for melanoma risk(23:25) Importance of advocating for yourself(32:22) Teddy Mellencamp's stage 4 melanoma journey(50:51) Hormonal changes and melanoma risk(57:00) Two key melanoma prevention tipsRESOURCES:Melanoma Research Alliance: https://www.curemelanoma.org/blog/omid-hamid-mdMelanoma Research Foundation https://melanoma.org/Myriad Genetics: https://myriad.com/ GUEST BIOGRAPHY:Omid Hamid, MD, is the Chief of the Translational Research and Immuno-Oncology Department at The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute and serves as the Co-Director of the Melanoma and Phase I Programs. Academic Title as Professor, Department of Medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. His areas of expertise include immunotherapy and Phase I drug development.Dr. Hamid has published extensively and has been at the forefront of the development of paradigm-shifting breakthroughs including BRAF/MEK targeted agents, AntiCTL4A, antiPD1, and PDL1 therapies. His current interests include new immunotherapeutic options for patients including bi-specific antibodies, Adoptive T-cell Therapy, and oncolytic therapies with a focus on combinatorial approaches resulting in potentially great patient benefit.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello Sunday is a skincare brand on a mission to make SPF a daily essential, not just a beach-day afterthought. Founded by Amy Ford after spending years under the intense Australian sun, the brand was born from her realization that sun protection is crucial year-round—even on cloudy days in the UK. Amy returned home with a clear vision: to create affordable, effective SPF products that combine skincare benefits with broad-spectrum protection. She teamed up with a dedicated group of skincare lovers and formulation experts to bring that vision to life. Hello Sunday's formulas are designed to fit seamlessly into any routine, promoting healthy, protected skin every day because every day is a SUN day.In this episode, Amy also discusses:The risk of exposure to UV rays even at low levelsBeing new and different merging skincare and sun careExpensive doesn't mean betterWhy using SPF is the #1 thing you can do for your skin to age healthily Entering in the US in Sephora and growing in this marketWe hope you enjoy this episode and gain valuable insights into Amy's journey and the growth of www.us.hellosundayspf.com. Don't forget to subscribe to the Glam & Grow podcast for more in-depth conversations with the most incredible brands, founders, and more.Be sure to check out Hello Sunday at www.us.hellosundayspf.com and on Instagram at @hellosundayspfRated #1 Best Beauty Business Podcast on FeedPostThis episode is brought to you by WavebreakLeading direct-to-consumer brands hire Wavebreak to turn email marketing into a top revenue driver.Most eCommerce brands don't email right... and it costs them. At Wavebreak, our eCommerce email marketing agency helps qualified brands recapture 7+ figures of lost revenue each year.From abandoned cart emails to Black Friday campaigns, our best-in-class team manage the entire process: strategy, design, copywriting, coding, and testing. All aimed at driving growth, profit, brand recognition, and most importantly, ROI.Curious if Wavebreak is right for you? Reach out at Wavebreak.co

Episodio número 26 de Cuéntame Más Ciencia con la Dra. Marisol Soengas, jefa de grupo de Melanoma en el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO).Marisol realizó su tesis con la celebérrima Margarita Salas y, más adelante, formó parte del grupo de Scott Lowe en Nueva York. Dos experiencias científicas que marcaron profundamente su desarrollo como investigadora y como persona. Actualmente, dirige en el CNIO el grupo de investigación en melanoma, desde donde ha realizado importantes descubrimientos que han contribuido a entender mejor las metástasis y a desarrollar nuevas aproximaciones terapéuticas.Ha sido también presidenta de ASEICA (Asociación Española de Investigación sobre el Cáncer) y participa activamente en iniciativas para visibilizar y combatir las desigualdades de género en la Ciencia. Desde hace un año, Marisol afronta el cáncer desde una nueva perspectiva: la personal. Fue diagnosticada con cáncer de mama, una situación que encara con valentía, convirtiéndose en una voz comprometida en defensa de todas las personas que viven con esta enfermedad.Episodio grabado por ⁠⁠⁠⁠Fernando de Miguel⁠⁠⁠⁠.Cuéntame Más Ciencia es un podcast financiado por la Fundación Ramón Areces y elaborado por el programa E-Visibility de la Comisión de Comunicación de ECUSA. Visita nuestra web ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.ecusa.es⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ y síguenos en las redes sociales⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Las opiniones y declaraciones expresadas en Cuéntame Más Ciencia representan el punto de vista de cada participante y no de ECUSA como asociación, ni de cualquier otra institución.

Federico, Isabel González y Teresa de la Cierva hablan del melanoma con las dermatólogas María Vitale y Natividad Cano.

In this episode of Feel Better, Feel Great, Dr. Andrea McSwain explores the deeper layers of skin cancer, toxic burden, and the powerful connection between your internal health and skin. Learn how to identify the three main types of skin cancer—basal cell, squamous cell, and melanoma—while discovering how detox pathways, inflammation, oxidative stress, and conventional skincare products contribute to skin damage. Packed with holistic prevention strategies like clean beauty swaps, anti-inflammatory nutrition, natural sun protection, and daily detox support, this episode empowers you to protect your skin from the inside out. Tune in to decode your body's signals, reduce your toxic load, and embrace radiant, resilient skin. #skincancerawareness #HolisticSkincare #DetoxYourSkin #FunctionalMedicine #NaturalHealth #OxidativeStress #ToxicBurden #CleanBeauty #AntiInflammatoryLifestyle

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

Join us for the inaugural episode of "TWAD: Cancer, Cures and Coffee" with Dr. Ashwani Rajput and special guest Dr. Kelly Paulson. In this episode, we dive deep into the topic of Melanoma, one of the most serious types of skin cancer. Dr. Paulson, a medical oncologist at Swedish Cancer Institute First Hill in Seattle, shares her expertise on the importance of early detection, risk factors, and the latest advancements in treatment. Learn how to protect yourself and your loved ones from Melanoma and discover the role of the immune system in fighting cancer. Don't miss this informative and engaging discussion.Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioSee below Do you want to know more?Check out the Providence blog for more information on melanoma and other cancer related topics. ·       Cancer survivor speaks with doctor he credits for saving his life·       Saint Patrick HealthBreak - Skin Cancers·       A year to remember: Advancements, recognition and transitions To learn more about our mission programs and services, go to Providence.org.Follow us on social media to get continued information on other important health care topics. You can  connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and X.For all your healthcare information on the go, download the Providence app. Whether you're tracking symptoms, scheduling appointments, or connecting with your healthcare providers, the Providence app has your back.To learn more about the app, check out the Wellness Brief podcast episode. Wellness Brief: Simplifying Care-There's an App for That. We'd love to hear from you. You can contact us at FutureOfHealthPodcasts@providence.org Dr. Ashwani Rajput BioAshwani Rajput, MD, FACS, joined Providence Swedish in September 2024 as the regional executive medical director (EMD) of the Swedish Cancer Institute. Dr. Rajput comes to us from Johns Hopkins University, where he is a professor of Surgery and Oncology, as well as the director of the Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in the Washington, D.C. region. Dr. Rajput completed his medical school, general surgery training, and a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular genetics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He went on to the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., for a fellowship in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO). There, he was recruited to join the faculty at Roswell Park with appointments in GI Surgical Oncology as well as Pharmacology and Therapeutics. His laboratory investigated the key signal transduction pathways in colorectal metastases using novel orthotopic murine models. In 2009, Dr. Rajput was recruited to the University of New Mexico as the inaugural division chief of Surgical Oncology. During his tenure in New Mexico, he also served as the director of surgical services for the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and vice-chair of surgery for academic affairs and faculty development. Under his leadership, an ACGME-approved fellowship in CGSO was created and launched. Throughout his roles in New Mexico and D.C., he has actively addressed cancer health care outcomes and health equity. Under Dr. Rajput's leadership, he will develop and implement a cancer strategic vision and enhance collaboration across our geography. He will oversee the SCI medical directors and partner with the Senior Director of Operations to deliver excellence in cancer care. Dr. Rajput and his wife, Sunita, have four children. Outside of work, he enjoys playing tennis, piano, the arts, and traveling.

Dr. Marc Hurlbert discusses melanoma prevention, Dave Thompson reviews the news, Matt Olien critiques Clown in a Cornfield, and we explore Arctic archaeology.

ເຖິງແມ່ນວ່າຈະມີການຣົນນະຣົງໃນການປ້ອງກັນມະເຮັງຜິວໜັງໃນ ອອສເຕຣເລັຍ ເປັນເວລາຫຼາຍສິບປີແລ້ວ, ແຕ່ຊາວໜຸ່ມສມັຍນີ້ຍັງ ບໍ່ມີຄວາມຕື່ນໂຕ ຕໍ່ ອັນຕະຣາຍຂອງ ໂຣກນີ້. ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານກ່າວວ່າ ອິດທິພົນຂອງ ສື່ສານມວນຊົນ ເປັນສາເຫດຫຼັກຂອງປັນຫານີ້.

Are you or a loved one facing a diagnosis of bladder cancer, melanoma, or skin cancer? Tune in to this essential episode of Navigating Cancer TOGETHER for expert guidance and compassionate insights. Join host Talaya Dendy as she welcomes back Dr. Thomas Eanelli, a highly respected radiation oncologist based in New York. We also feature Angel Santana, co-host of The CROC Podcast, sharing powerful motivational perspectives. In observance of May Cancer Awareness, this special episode dives into critical aspects of three specific cancers: bladder, melanoma, and skin cancer. Dr. Eanelli provides invaluable medical expertise on the latest cancer treatments, diagnosis, and management of these diseases. Angel Santana offers heartfelt inspiration and emphasizes the power of support and positivity throughout the cancer journey. This episode is packed with vital information and moving stories to offer hope and guidance for anyone navigating cancer.

La incidencia del melanoma en España continúa al alza. El Registro Nacional de melanoma de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología avanza en sus estudios sobre el melanoma, tal y como explica el Dr. Rafael Botella, miembro de la Academia Española de Dermatología, que acaban de dirigir su congreso nacional en Valencia.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Listen to today's podcast... Are you protected from the sun under an umbrella? How about on a cloudy day? Do you think you're protected from the sun under the water? Does a baseball cap protect you from the sun? Are you protected from the sun if you go to a tanning salon first? Not sure of the answers, then you need to find out, as it could save your life. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer since it's more likely to spread to other parts of the body. It is increasing in both men and women. Non-melanoma skin cancer, a less deadly type of skin cancer, is the most commonly occurring cancer, accounting for about one-third of all cancer cases. Take One Action Today To Build Your #Resiliency!      So Here are today's Tips For Building Resiliency and Celebrating National Sun Awareness Week: Reduce sun exposure between 11am and 4pm. Seek shade or create your own shade. Think Slip – Slap – Slop Slip! on clothing to protect your arms and legs. Slap! on a wide-brimmed hat. Slop! on sunscreen with SPF #15 or higher. Be Prepared and Stay Safe In The Sun Remember, If you like today's wellness tips, let me know. You can leave me a review on amazon or through your #alexa app. Looking for more tips to build your resiliency? Look for my book on Amazon called Stress Out. 52 Weeks To Letting More Life In #mentalhealth #hr

Originally broadcast May 8, 2025 Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, and melanoma is its deadliest form. Cases have tripled in the past 30 years, particularly among younger people — even as rates for other common cancers have gone down. Marc Hurlbert, Ph.D., CEO of the Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA), joins “Conversations on Health Care” hosts Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter to talk about the urgent need for more research, the role of philanthropy, and... Read More Read More The post Menacing Melanoma: Marc Hulbert, PhD on How You Can Fight Back appeared first on Healthy Communities Online.

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.

3pm Hour: Jason talks about some of the latest controversy surrounding President Trump. Is the President just trolling people? Then he's joined by dermatologist Dr. Mohiba Tareen to talk about skin cancer awareness month.

Jason talks with dermatologist Dr. Mohiba Tareen about skin cancer awareness month and the simple steps you can take to prevent a deadly form of cancer.

In today's episode, supported by Replimune, we had the pleasure of speaking with Anna C. Pavlick, BSN, MSc, DO, MBA, about the use of RP1 plus nivolumab (Opdivo) for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Dr Pavlick is a professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology & Medical Oncology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York; as well as the founding director of the Cutaneous Oncology Program at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian. In our exclusive interview, Dr Pavlick discussed the rationale for investigating this combination in patients with advanced melanoma who have received prior immune checkpoint inhibition, key efficacy and safety findings from the phase 1/2 IGNYTE trial (NCT03767348), and where the future may be headed regarding the use of oncolytic viruses in melanoma.

Melanoma treatment has advanced significantly over the past decade, and it continues to evolve. In this special Melanoma Monday episode, we are joined by Kendra Rodriguez, PharmD, PGY2 Oncology Pharmacy Resident at UW Medical Center / Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, to explore where we are now in the treatment landscape—and what's on the horizon.Kendra walks through recent data from the NADINA and SWOG S1801 trials, and shares how care teams can start preparing for the shift in management to the neoadjuvant setting. You'll hear what it takes to manage complex therapies for resectable cutaneous melanoma, and how to engage patients through thoughtful communication and collaboration.CE Activity Description:The purpose of this CE activity is to describe the pathophysiology and literature behind the shift of pharmacotherapeutic management to the neoadjuvant setting in resectable cutaneous melanoma. As novel mechanisms have been sought after and approved within this disease state, attention will be given to assess the clinical utility of the first-in-class tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte, lifileucel, in addition to its logistical considerations requiring multidisciplinary coordination.Learning Objectives:Summarize the pathophysiology behind neoadjuvant treatment in cutaneous melanoma and the literature supporting its useDiscuss the novel agent lifileucel for its efficacy in cutaneous melanoma treatment and the logistics related to its useDisclosures:No relevant financial relationships for the following faculty and reviewers:• Kendra Gee-Rodriguez, PharmD• Ginger Blackmon, PharmD• Daisy Doan, PharmDClaim credit: https://www.lecturepanda.com/r/CutaneousMelanoma

Innovations in Melanoma Treatment: The Role of TIL Therapy with guest Dr. Harriet Kluger May 4, 2025 Yale Cancer Center visit: http://www.yalecancercenter.org email: canceranswers@yale.edu call: 203-785-4095

In this episode, our hosts, Megan and Danet, sit down with special guest Ashley McCrary, founder of the Eye on Grace Foundation.

During this episode, our hosts Dr. Jennifer Mabry and Dr. Emily Lee sit down with Amber Hoffert to recognize National Melanoma and Skin Cancer Awareness Month. Hear about the risks of Melanoma, the importance of taking care of your skin, signs to look for, and more! Listen To The Local Matters Podcast Today! News Talk 94.1

As tennis players, we know the sun can be just as much of an opponent in our sport from finding the right SPF and avoiding sun damage. Enter BLOQUV.  Founder and sun sport enthusiast, Corina Biton, joins us in this episode to help educate us on all things UPF apparel. As someone who loves to run, walk, paddleboard and play tennis.  After noticing white spots on my arms, she founded BloqUV when finding skin damage even though she always wore long-sleeve T-shirts. Turns out plain T-shirts only block 5% of the sun's rays! Corina created BloqUV with BloqTek, their proprietary fabric with minimum Ultraviolet Protection Factor 50 that blocks 98% UVA/UVB rays; the protection is chemical-free, inherent to the fabric and unaffected by laundering. After 15 years, BloqUV has emerged as a market leader in sun protection: unique in design, fit and sun protection technology; they're moisture-wicking and quick-dry, allowing for a wide range of uses on land and water!  Learn even more & stay tuned for a chance to win some BloqUV gear!  If you have any further questions or want to continue the conversation?! Email us at podcast@tennis-warehouse.com   Shop with us for all your TENNIS needs all over the WORLD:

Hey Heal Squad! The Roundtable is BACK and this week Maria and the squad are tackling sun myths that'll totally change your morning routine. Think sunglasses protect your eyes? Wait till you hear how ditching them could actually turn back the clock on aging! Plus, could morning sun exposure be your skin's new BFF and not the enemy we've been warned about? The squad spills it all. We're also diving deep into the lymphatic system—aka your body's secret to glowing skin and lasting energy. Dr. Alison and Christina Gomes break down easy lymphatic hacks you'll obsess over (rebounding, anyone?). Dry brushing, bed elevation, and more wellness tips you never knew you needed! Hit play and get ready to rethink everything you thought you knew about the sun, skin, and your energy levels. Trust us, your body will thank you! — HEAL SQUAD SOCIALS IG: https://www.instagram.com/healsquad/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@healsquadxmaria HEAL SQUAD RESOURCES: Heal Squad Website: https://www.healsquad.com/ Maria Menounos Website: https://www.mariamenounos.com Heal Squad x Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/HealSquad/membership  My Curated Macy's Page: Shop My Macy's Storefront Delete Me: https://bit.ly/43rkHwi   code: SQUAD Prenuvo: Prenuvo.com/MARIA for $300 off HEADLINES & RESOURCES Chart Source: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/97/3/195/2544082 Rubberband hack on TikTok EPISODE RESOURCES: ABOUT MARIA MENOUNOS: Emmy Award-winning journalist, TV personality, actress, 2x NYT best-selling author, former pro-wrestler and brain tumor survivor, Maria Menounos' passion is to see others heal and to get better in all areas of life. ABOUT HEAL SQUAD x MARIA MENOUNOS: A daily digital talk-show that brings you the world's leading healers, experts, and celebrities to share groundbreaking secrets and tips to getting better in all areas of life. DISCLAIMER: This Podcast and all related content ( published or distributed by or on behalf of Maria Menounos or http://Mariamenounos.com and http://healsquad.com ) is for informational purposes only and may include information that is general in nature and that is not specific to you. Any information or opinions provided by guest experts or hosts featured within website or on Company's Podcast are their own; not those of Maria Menounos or the Company. Accordingly, Maria Menounos and the Company cannot be responsible for any results or consequences or actions you may take based on such information or opinions. This podcast is presented for exploratory purposes only. Published content is not intended to be used for preventing, diagnosing, or treating a specific illness. If you have, or suspect you may have, a health-care emergency, please contact a qualified health care professional for treatment.