Podcasts about NCI

Tonight is all about Precious Peter and his report of AEW's latest episode of Dynamite. Peter has graciously volunteered to watch AEW Dynamite for the entire month of June. That's four weeks of Peter watching Dynamite. On this episode, we get report from week 1. How did it go? Has Peter started regretting his choices in life? Today we find out.......Did you know that only 4% of the budget of the National Cancer Institute is spent on children's cancer research? 96% of the NCI budget is spent on adult cancer research. That's quite the difference. Our kids deserve more. All kids deserve a fighting chance. 4% doesn't give kids much of a fighting chance. It's time to move that needle! It's kids got #morethan4

In this episode of the Bench to Bedside podcast, Dr. Roy Jensen is joined by Dr. Tara Lin, principal investigator for the myeloMatch clinical trial at The University of Kansas Cancer Center, and Dr. Jesus Gonzalez Lugo, recently recognized with a National Career Development Award. They revisit the NCI-sponsored, first-of-its-kind national precision medicine trial for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and share progress since its 2024 launch, including growth to five enrolling treatment protocols with seven more awaiting activation, more than 1,000 patients screened nationwide, and participation across 200+ U.S. sites. Dr. Lin explains how the master screening protocol returns comprehensive diagnostic results in 72 hours, improving treatment matching and access across KU Cancer Center's main campus, community satellites, and network sites. Dr. Lugo discusses outreach efforts to reduce barriers to trial participation, including education for physicians and patients, community partnerships, and Spanish-language media engagement, and both guests reflect on how myeloMatch could help guide use of the many new AML therapies now available. 00:00 Welcome Back to myeloMatch 01:09 Trial Growth and Milestones 02:58 How Precision Matching Works 04:57 Expanding Access Across Regions 06:15 Dr Lugo Award and Outreach 09:04 Future of AML Treatment 11:21 Closing and Resources Links from this Episode: ·       Listen to our first myeloMATCH episode, "MyeloMATCH: The New Front in the Battle Against Leukemia" ·       Learn more about myeloMATCH ·       Learn more about Dr. Tara Lin ·       Learn more about Dr. Jesus Gonzalez Lugo ·       Learn more about the Winn Career Development Award To ensure you get our latest updates, follow us on the social media channel of your choice by searching for KU Cancer Center.

In this episode, HVAC veteran Adam Mufich of National Comfort Institute (NCI) pulls back the curtain on one of the industry's most overlooked problems: the majority of residential HVAC systems in the United States are not delivering the correct amount of airflow. Drawing on decades of hands-on experience, Adam opens up about his own journey from confident installer to humbled diagnostician, sharing the moment he started measuring his systems and realized how much he had been getting wrong. His candor and expertise make this a must-listen for any HVAC professional serious about doing better work. Adam walks listeners through a sobering picture painted by a Department of Energy study covering 44 research projects across the country. The data reveals that between 50 and 93 percent of systems tested moved less than the minimum 350 CFM per ton of capacity, and between 67 and 100 percent of systems leaked more than 100 CFM to the outside. Equipment oversizing is rampant, with some studies showing that up to 93 percent of systems exceed what Manual J calculations would call for. The ripple effects are enormous: compressor failures, blown blower motors, cracked heat exchangers, wasted energy, and homeowners who are simply not comfortable in their own homes. Adam argues that the single most powerful fix is also the most underused one — properly sizing the equipment in the first place. The bulk of the episode dives into two distinct approaches NCI teaches for addressing these problems. The first is the Air Upgrade, a targeted set of repairs focused near the equipment to reduce static pressure and increase fan airflow. This includes reworking the filter system (a commonly undersized 16x25x1 filter can triple the allowed pressure budget on its own), improving duct fittings with lower equivalent lengths, cleaning evaporator coils and blower wheels, adjusting fan speed, and sealing duct joints. The second approach is full Duct Optimization, a more comprehensive renovation that addresses the entire duct system, incorporates Manual D calculations, installs balancing dampers, improves insulation, and uses tools like flow hoods and MeasureQuick to verify that every room in the house is receiving the correct airflow and BTUs. Adam also spends time on the practical and human side of this work — how to talk to homeowners, how to prioritize what matters to them, and how to overcome the very real obstacles that keep technicians from doing thorough airflow work. He addresses everything from fear of opening walls (his solution: build relationships with drywall contractors and offer turnkey repairs) to the simple but powerful mindset shift of treating airflow as something to be measured, not felt with your hand. His closing message is clear: the tools and methods exist, the training is available, and virtually every house in the country has a problem worth solving. The only thing standing in the way is the willingness to do it right. Topics Covered The current state of the HVAC industry based on a DOE meta-analysis of 44 studies Why equipment oversizing is the number one contributor to airflow problems and how to address it How a 50 percent oversized AC system can increase energy consumption by up to 91 percent (per the ASME Journal of Sustainable Buildings) Tools for proper load calculations, including Ample Energy and Conduit apps Why most systems are not moving enough airflow and what the consequences are (heat exchanger failures, compressor failures, comfort complaints) Duct leakage to the outside and its effects on comfort, indoor air quality, and building pressurization The four pillars of NCI's approach: safe, healthy, comfortable, and efficient systems The Air Upgrade approach: targeted repairs near the equipment to reduce static pressure and increase fan airflow The Duct Optimization approach: full duct system renovation with balanced airflow to every room Static pressure profiling: taking four measurements (before/after filter and before/after coil) to pinpoint restrictions Static pressure budgets and how to use them to identify which part of a system is the biggest problem Fan Law 2 as a planning tool to predict system performance before making changes The TrueFlow Grid and its forecasting feature for planning equipment changes Filter sizing and its massive impact on total external static pressure Duct fitting equivalent lengths and how to reduce resistance near the equipment Sealing duct joints and why it adds static pressure that must be planned for The importance of rechecking and adjusting refrigerant charge after any airflow improvement Air balancing with a flow hood to verify delivered CFM at every register Measuring delivered BTUs using tools like MeasureQuick, JobLink, and NCI's ComfortMax workflow Overcoming obstacles: technician buy-in, access to ducts in walls, attic space limitations, and homeowner hesitation Building relationships with drywall contractors to offer turnkey duct repair solutions Why airflow is invisible and why measuring it is non-negotiable   To learn more about NCI and its training offerings, visit https://www.nationalcomfortinstitute.com/. Watch Adam Mufich's previous symposium session, Fan Law 2 for Techs, at https://www.hvacrschool.com/videos/fan-law-2-for-techs-with-adam-mufich/.  Have a question that you want us to answer on the podcast? Submit your questions at https://www.speakpipe.com/hvacschool. Purchase your tickets or learn more about the 7th Annual HVACR Training Symposium at https://hvacrschool.com/symposium. Subscribe to our podcast on your iPhone or Android. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Check out our handy calculators here or on the HVAC School Mobile App for Apple and Android.

Disaster recovery is no longer just about backups. It is about resiliency, recovery speed, cyber readiness, and operational flexibility.In this episode of Nutanix Weekly, Phil Sellers is joined by Andy Greene and Chris Calhoun from XenTegra to break down Nutanix Multi-Cloud Snapshot Technology (MST) and how organizations are using it to modernize disaster recovery without overspending on infrastructure.The conversation explores how MST enables organizations to replicate snapshots to S3-compatible storage providers like AWS S3, Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud, Wasabi, Backblaze, and Nutanix Objects to improve resiliency, optimize storage costs, and simplify long-term retention.The team also discusses:Nutanix Instant Restore in NCI 7.5.1Faster VM recovery and improved availabilityRansomware and clean room recovery strategiesPilot light vs. zero compute DR modelsHybrid cloud resiliencyLong-term snapshot retentionBalancing recovery objectives with budget realitiesWhether you are building a modern DR strategy or evaluating new approaches to cyber resilience, this episode provides practical insight into how Nutanix MST helps organizations stay available when it matters most.

Dr. Paul Han on Uncertainty in Medicine and Building Tolerance Through AdaptationIn this episode of The Girl Doc Survival Guide, Christine interviews Dr. Paul Han, an NIH Senior Scientist specializing in risk communication, medical decision-making, and uncertainty in healthcare, whose career shifted from general internal medicine and palliative care to research via an NCI cancer prevention fellowship. Han shares that persistent “gray zone” questions in primary and end-of-life care, plus personal circumstances like spousal support and financial stability, enabled his mid-career leap into the unknown. He explains uncertainty as two-sided: something healthcare tries to reduce but also a necessary source of curiosity for clinicians and hope for patients, especially in serious illness. Han connects uncertainty to cognitive biases as flawed attempts to regain certainty, and reframes “uncertainty tolerance” from merely enduring anxiety to situation-specific adaptation, emphasizing virtues such as humility, flexibility, and courage; he also notes his own recent prostate cancer diagnosis.00:00 Meet Dr Paul Han01:31 Midcareer Leap to Research03:58 Drawn to Gray Zones04:40 What Enables a Big Switch06:48 Uncertainty as Friend and Foe11:15 Why Uncertainty Feels Scary13:48 Biases Born From Uncertainty15:37 Rethinking Uncertainty Tolerance18:32 Virtues for Adaptive Care21:15 Letting Go of Outcomes23:22 Closing Thoughts

Applications are now open for the September 2026 cohort of the Digital4Business Joint Professional Master's Degree in Advanced Digital Technologies for Business. For this intake, successful applicants will pay no tuition or registration fees, thanks to co-funding from the European Union and the Digital4Business consortium. The programme gives learners the opportunity to complete a fully online, internationally accredited Master's designed around the digital skills businesses need most, including artificial intelligence, data science, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. Digital4Business has a strong Irish connection. National College of Ireland is one of the four higher education institutions delivering the programme, alongside Linköping University in Sweden, NOVA IMS in Portugal, and the University of Bologna in Italy. NCI is also overseeing the validation and accreditation of programmes, while Professor Horacio González-Vélez of NCI is the overall Digital4Business coordinator. Irish organisations Skillnet Ireland and Digital Technology Skills are also members of the consortium. Apply now for Digital4Business online master's The project was originally launched at National College of Ireland, with Irish Government representatives welcoming the initiative and its role in developing advanced digital skills for Europe's workforce. At the launch, then Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Simon Harris, addressed the event by video message, welcoming the collaboration of higher education institutions, research centres, training providers and industry partners. "We are always stronger together, especially when we harness pan-European cooperation," he said. Dara Calleary, then Minister of State for Trade Promotion and Digital Transformation, also attended the launch at NCI and highlighted the importance of digital technologies for Ireland's economic progress and talent development. Study built around real life Digital4Business has been designed for recent graduates, managers, and ambitious professionals who want to build advanced digital skills without stepping away from work. While the programme follows a full-time structure, classes take place in the evening, making it a realistic option for people balancing full-time jobs, family life, and other commitments. Learners complete a 60 ECTS Master's over two semesters in one academic year, fully online. Career support built into the programme Alongside academic delivery, Digital4Business places a strong focus on community, career progression, and practical support. Students have access to employability webinars, one-to-one coaching, mentoring, peer exchange, and career-focused sessions covering CV development, networking, interview performance, communication, and leading through digital change. Wider support also includes industry engagement, work-based learning, and networking opportunities, helping students feel connected to both peers and the professional world. Student experience Current student Grace Rubinger said: "Balancing the programme with work and family life takes structure and consistency. I usually watch lectures twice a week and set aside additional time for readings and assignments. That steady rhythm helps me stay engaged without becoming overwhelmed." Current student Luis Pereira said: "Between the introductions and discussions, you quickly realise everyone comes from different backgrounds but is dealing with the same challenge of balancing work, life, and study. That shared experience makes it feel more like a group than studying alone." Supporting strategic digital careers The combination of academic learning, practical application, and career support is central to Digital4Business. The programme was developed to help learners build technical knowledge, confidence, and the strategic perspective needed to apply digital technologies in real business contexts. For graduates, professionals, and managers lo...

Impairment… here we go again! In this episode, I revisit IAS 36, but this time we focus on one of the areas that students often find difficult: Goodwill Impairment. I walk through the key principles, explain why goodwill must be tested through a cash-generating unit (CGU), and tackle one of the biggest exam complications: the treatment of non-controlling interests (NCI).You'll learn how goodwill impairment is tested in SBR questions, when impairment losses affect the parent and NCI, and why the measurement of NCI changes the calculation completely. Most importantly, I work through practical examples and journal entries so you can see exactly how the examiner expects you to approach this topic and pick up the marks in the exam.Thanks for listening to this episode of Pass Your SBR ACCA Exams with Tom Clendon.If you'd like to view the exam question on screen and see my working, subscribe to the YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@tomclendonSBR.For access to on-demand support and guidance for your ACCA SBR Journey, visit my website to see my current course offering: https://tomclendon.co.uk/.Chapters:(00:00) Introduction to goodwill impairment(01:02) Recap of IAS 36 impairment basics(02:30) Annual impairment review vs annual impairment loss(03:12) Goodwill impairment and the P&L treatment(04:41) Why goodwill is tested within a CGU(06:23) Goodwill, CGUs and exam application(06:54) NCI measurement and its impact on goodwill(08:54) Example 1: Full goodwill impairment (Bowie)(11:52) Accounting treatment and journal entries for full goodwill(12:52) Example 2: Partial goodwill impairment (Ziggy)(16:11) Journal entries and exam technique tips(17:31) Final exam advice and close

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2026 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Lucas Harrison, Christopher Kalmar, and Priyanka Naidu- and special guest, Andrea L. Pusic, MD, discuss the following articles from the May 2026 issue: "Cost of Care and Surgical Outcomes between Direct-to-Implant and Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction" by Chakraborty, Bouhadana, Bernstein et al. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/DTI_TE_Comparison Dr. Andrea L. Pusic is our special guest. She serves as Chief of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Director of Patient-Reported Outcomes, and the Joseph Murray Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Pusic also holds a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. She completed her general surgery residency at Dalhousie University, followed by a plastic surgery residency at McGill University and a microsurgery fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Her clinical practice focuses on breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery, including both autologous tissue reconstruction and implant-based techniques, with a strong emphasis on individualized, patient-centered care and quality-of-life outcomes. An internationally recognized leader in patient-reported outcomes research, Dr. Pusic has authored more than 200 publications. She developed the BREAST-Q, a widely used instrument for measuring patient satisfaction and quality of life after breast surgery. She also co-led the NCI-funded Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration across 11 centers studying patient perspectives on breast reconstruction. Dr. Pusic now leads the PROVE Center, where she advances the use of patient-reported outcomes to improve surgical quality, patient experience, and healthcare value. READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCMay26Collection

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2026 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Lucas Harrison, Christopher Kalmar, and Priyanka Naidu- and special guest, Andrea L. Pusic, MD, discuss the following articles from the May 2026 issue: "Single versus Multiple Perforator Flaps in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Regression Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Financial Metrics" by DeVito, Ke, Wen, et al. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/MutliperfAutoBreast Dr. Andrea L. Pusic is our special guest. She serves as Chief of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Director of Patient-Reported Outcomes, and the Joseph Murray Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Pusic also holds a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. She completed her general surgery residency at Dalhousie University, followed by a plastic surgery residency at McGill University and a microsurgery fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Her clinical practice focuses on breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery, including both autologous tissue reconstruction and implant-based techniques, with a strong emphasis on individualized, patient-centered care and quality-of-life outcomes. An internationally recognized leader in patient-reported outcomes research, Dr. Pusic has authored more than 200 publications. She developed the BREAST-Q, a widely used instrument for measuring patient satisfaction and quality of life after breast surgery. She also co-led the NCI-funded Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration across 11 centers studying patient perspectives on breast reconstruction. Dr. Pusic now leads the PROVE Center, where she advances the use of patient-reported outcomes to improve surgical quality, patient experience, and healthcare value. READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCMay26Collection

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2026 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Lucas Harrison, Christopher Kalmar, and Priyanka Naidu- and special guest, Andrea L. Pusic, MD, discuss the following articles from the May 2026 issue: "Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Evaluating the Shift" by Cordray, Khan, Voytik, et al. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/PrePecVSSubPec Dr. Andrea L. Pusic is our special guest. She serves as Chief of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Director of Patient-Reported Outcomes, and the Joseph Murray Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Pusic also holds a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. She completed her general surgery residency at Dalhousie University, followed by a plastic surgery residency at McGill University and a microsurgery fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Her clinical practice focuses on breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery, including both autologous tissue reconstruction and implant-based techniques, with a strong emphasis on individualized, patient-centered care and quality-of-life outcomes. An internationally recognized leader in patient-reported outcomes research, Dr. Pusic has authored more than 200 publications. She developed the BREAST-Q, a widely used instrument for measuring patient satisfaction and quality of life after breast surgery. She also co-led the NCI-funded Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration across 11 centers studying patient perspectives on breast reconstruction. Dr. Pusic now leads the PROVE Center, where she advances the use of patient-reported outcomes to improve surgical quality, patient experience, and healthcare value. READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCMay26Collection

In this episode, Tom Fox welcomes Edye Edens about launching her Life Sciences Law Group (“Eedee Law”) after years of contracting in life sciences compliance across multiple firms. Edye explains she founded the firm to better align her practice with supporting clinical trial sites, vendors, and academia, which often lack the budgets and in-house legal resources of sponsors and CROs. She describes a multidisciplinary team model that includes non-attorney quality, TMF, regulatory, and inspection-readiness professionals with deep study-operations experience, enabling rapid, practical support at different price points, including fractional engagements and urgent FDA inspection support. Edye outlines four core client segments: independent sites/site networks, academic medical centers' research compliance functions, NCI-designated cancer centers, and vendors entering clinical trials who need guidance on Part 11, HIPAA, QMS, and vendor qualification. She discusses growing AI-related client needs, emphasizing evolving regulatory expectations and “compliance at the speed of business,” and shares how to connect via website, LinkedIn, and email. Key highlights: Building A Different Firm Indy Roots National Reach Lessons From Academic Medicine AI Vendors And Regulation Resources: Edye Edens on LinkedIn Eedee Law Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the use of AI in compliance programs, Tom Fox's new book, Upping Your Game, is available. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com. To learn about the intersection of Sherlock Holmes and the modern compliance professional, check out Tom's latest book, The Game is Afoot-What Sherlock Holmes Teaches About Risk, Ethics and Investigations on Amazon.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the Bench to Bedside podcast, Dr. Roy Jensen, vice chancellor and director of The University of Kansas Cancer Center, is joined by Dr. Kristy Brown and Dr. John Jakicic, co-leaders of KU Cancer Center's new Obesity, Metabolic Health & Cancer research program, the first of its kind at an NCI-designated cancer center focused on the obesity–cancer link. They discuss rising obesity rates, obesity's link to at least 13 cancers, and key biological mechanisms including insulin and glucose signaling, inflammation, and hormone changes such as estrogen. The guests explain how this new program will harmonize cancer and obesity research, study how changes in adiposity and tissue quality affect cancer risk and treatment response, and develop interdisciplinary, community-informed prevention and intervention strategies, including lifestyle approaches and newer obesity medications, to improve outcomes and survivorship. 00:00 Obesity and Cancer Link 01:03 Why KU Cancer Center Launched Program 03:47 How Obesity Fuels Cancer 05:57 Reversing Risk Questions 07:10 First of Its Kind Program 09:30 Obesity as the New Tobacco 10:35 Team Science and Partnerships 13:10 Patient Impact and Trials 16:46 Tissue Quality and Muscle 18:52 Next Decade Opportunities 21:31 Equity and Real-World Barriers 22:12 Evidence and Expert Validation 24:25 Closing and Resources Links from this Episode: ·       Learn more about the new Obesity, Metabolic Health & Cancer Research Program at KU Cancer Center To ensure you get our latest updates, follow us on the social media channel of your choice by searching for KU Cancer Center.

ACT-IAC's 2026 Health Innovation Summit featured a panel on mission-critical AI decision-making across CMS, FDA, and NCI. Panelists described AI's growing day-to-day role, including secure NIH-wide tools, productivity gains (reported time savings), and reducing administrative friction like performance reviews, emphasizing impact occurs when AI is embedded in workflows with “human in the lead.” The session closed with vendor guidance: show products via video, be future-focused, lead with data-sharing and tool strengths, and bring a “total package.”Voyagers Program | ACT-IAC A Hell of a Regiment: To Gettysburg and Beyond with the Twentieth Maine | ACT-IAC Summary - A Hole in One with ACT-IACSubscribe on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episode! For more from ACT-IAC, follow us on LinkedIn or visit http://www.actiac.org.Learn more about membership at https://www.actiac.org/join.Donate to ACT-IAC at https://actiac.org/donate. Intro/Outro Music: See a Brighter Day/Gloria TellsCourtesy of Epidemic Sound(Episodes 1-159: Intro/Outro Music: Focal Point/Young CommunityCourtesy of Epidemic Sound)

Host: Mindy McCulley, MS, Extension Specialist for Instructional Support, Family and Consumer Sciences Extension, University of Kentucky  Guest: Laurie McClouth, PhD, Assistant Professor, Behavioral Science, Markey Cancer Center Cancer Conversations Episode 74 On Cancer Conversations, Dr. Laurie McLouth, assistant professor of behavioral science at UK and researcher at the Markey Cancer Center, discusses cancer survivorship: who is considered a survivor, how survivorship is evolving, and what it means to live with and beyond cancer. Topics include the NCI definition of survivorship, national statistics (more than 18 million survivors in the U.S.), advances that extend life with cancer, physical and psychosocial domains of survivorship (late effects, mental health, financial toxicity, work and social roles), the new national survivorship care standards, and Markey's Cancer Survivorship Research Initiative focused on survivors and caregivers. Expect practical insights on care coordination between oncology and primary care, the importance of planning long-term follow-up (including for childhood survivors), and growing attention to caregiver needs and community-based support—plus where to find resources from the Markey Cancer Center and UK Cooperative Extension. Connect with the UK Markey Center Online Markey Cancer Center On Facebook @UKMarkey On Twitter @UKMarkey

Send us Fan MailHi Everyone, Hope this finds you grounded and doing well in this chaotic time.In this episode, I speak with Vancouver lawyer, Paul Jaffe. Paul has been in practice for decades and offers great insight into the justice system in Canada. During Covid, he went up against BC Medical Officer, Bonnie Henry,  when pubs could be open but not churches. He isn't afraid to speak his mind on a variety of other subjects such as the horrific ostrich cull or Jim Heller's defamation lawsuit for simply saying potential mass graves.Paul has been the head commissioner at the NCI, the National Citizen's Inquiry, several times now, asking pertinent questions to our well-being. I encourage you to check out this most extraordinary group, a citizen-led and citizen-funded effort that began first by examining Canada's response to COVID-19, and has gone on to other important topics that deeply affect us personally and as Canadians. Kelowna was the last city to hold this ongoing, multi-city event asking "Are Farmers Safe in Canada?" I spoke as an expert witness Edmonton with the theme "Are Children Safe in Canada?" on The Flexner Report of 1910 when it was in Edmonton. It is a great eyeopener of how people have experienced the traumas of Covid, the ostrich cull, human trafficking, farmer's injustices and so on.Their website is nationalcitizensinquiry.org. MY I:I WORK: (individual)I am now accepting new patients. I have a fifteen minute complimentary consultation to see if we are a match. I charge $150 per half hour. If you are wanting Classical Homeopathy that would take 3- half hours if you are a new patient. Previous patients, we can discuss time and a discount.WORKSHOP FOR ADDICTS and/or TRAUMA SURVIVORS:This group workshop will begin online soon. It covers telling your story by writing, and performing (optional) leading to a radio/podcast show or on stage. We will allow each person's story to come alive in an honest and safe way. It's also really fun once we move past the fear and trepidation. Again 15 minute complimentary consultation to see if it is a fit for you.BOOK REVIEWHere's the latest book review for my book, Transforming Trauma, a drugless and creative path to healing PTS and ACE (adverse childhood experiences.) written by Vijay Vaishnav, MD (Hom), CCHSupport the show#trauma #medical error #music #musicals #originalsongs #autism #soloshows #NationalCitizensInquiry #Creativity in Healing #Medicalfreedom #MindControl #Canadaontheedge #HealthCanada #CanadaLaw #TrueHope #truth #apocaloptimist #transformingtrauma #grief #grievingdeeply #homeopathy #loveheals #naturopathicmedicine  #druglessmedicine #energymedicine #expressiveartsheal #empoweredvoices #knowledgeispower #singtohealthyroids #erasetoxiclegacies #peaceispossible #VictimeRecoveryBooks: Transforming Trauma, a drugless and creative path to healing PTS and ACE is published by Hammersmith Books is available globally. Surviving a Viral Pandemic through the lens of a naturopathic medical doctor. On Amazon both paperback and eBookFlawed, a novel - an eccentric family saga - is on Amazon both paperback and eBook...audiobook now on AudibleMusic: Instrumental album: Sophie's Heart - Avi Noam Gross (streaming)websites: drheatherington.com; heatherherington.comemail: drheatherh@icloud.comnew phone number  672 399 1942Breathe in and out slowly and gently wherever you are. We will survive this dark time of the world. It starts with you: standing, jumping, singing in the light of love and even if just a little at first, joy. 

On this episode of SurgOnc Today, Flavio Rocha, Professor and Division Head of Surgical Oncology at OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, leads a discussion about engagement of surgeons in the National Clinical Trials Network cooperative groups with Sepideh Gholami, Associate Professor and Director of Translational Research in Surgical Oncology at Northwell Health, and Michael Lowe, Associate Professor and Director of the Melanoma Program at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University. They discuss the impact that surgeons can have on the design and implementation of NCI-sponsored clinical trials and offer insights on ways for surgeons to engage with the cooperative groups.

On March 5th, 2026, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless TD, and Minister for Education and Youth, Hildegarde Naughton TD announced that almost €6 million in funding would be used to support thirty-two projects designed to engage the public in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through the Research Ireland Discover Programme. The Research Ireland Discover Programme is a national initiative to widen participation in STEM. This year's projects will engage with people of all ages, from early childhood through to adulthood, through creative, community-embedded, and inclusive approaches to STEM engagement. Research Ireland Discover Programme awards NCI NCI's STEM for All: Multiple Inclusive STEM Engagements for Families, Communities project, led by Professor Paul Stynes, Dean of the School of Computing, has been awarded €60,000.00 in funding. About the project The STEM for All project builds on Research Ireland funded programming, supporting STEM identities, skills, and aspirations of children and families facing significant socio-economic challenges in Dublin's Inner City by creating multiple, accessible, inclusive opportunities for disenfranchised families to gain confidence, competence, and a sense of belonging in STEM, and the research and innovation world Professor Paul Stynes, Dean of NCI's School of Computing, shares, "This funding allows us to further advance our research into inclusive STEM education, building a stronger evidence base on what works in engaging children and families from underrepresented communities. As Principal Investigator, it enables us to evolve and scale our programmes in a way that is both research-informed and community-driven, strengthening pathways into STEM from an early age through to future study and careers. It also reinforces NCI's role in leading impactful, inclusive research that connects education, community engagement, and long-term societal outcomes." NCI's Early Learning Initiative (ELI) is a grassroots public purpose project addressing systemic inequalities; empowering at-risk children to discover their STEM identities through creative, engaging experiences that encourage scientific thinking. STEM is embedded across ELI's early intervention programmes: STEM Play & Learn (home visits, ages 4–6), weekly Coding Clubs (ages 7–12), Senior Coding Club (ages 13–16), STEM events for families. Local advocacy, accessible family learning, and parent engagement are central to inclusive education, building science capital, and resilient communities. Recognising parents' profound role in shaping children's learning outcomes and aspirations, ELI's programming expands, incorporating insights from their 2024 Parental Attitudes to STEM and Digital Technology research, including findings from in-depth case studies exploring long-term STEM engagement in disadvantaged families. To deepen impact and engagement several new elements will be introduced: Think Like a Scientist pilot, an initiative aimed at bridging a gap in children's scientific understanding through inquiry-based learning; bespoke parent technology clinics; and STEM 101 sessions demystifying core concepts, giving parents tools to support their child's learning. In parallel, ELI is developing longitudinal analysis framework exploring how sustained participation in the STEM programmes influences young people's aspirations and progression to third-level education. Brigina O'Riordan, Assistant Director of ELI's Community Services Programmes, shares, "This funding will enable children and families in Dublin Inner City to engage in high quality, accessible, and engaging STEM learning experiences, building confidence, curiosity, and awareness in the scientific method. This programme is intentionally designed to promote access, inclusion, and diversity, with strong participation from underrepresented groups, supported by NCI as a safe and welcoming community space." Researc...

Anne-Cécile Guitton est présidente de NCI, un acteur de référence du capital-investissement régional en France, avec près de 400 millions d'euros sous gestion. Diplômée d'Audencia, elle débute sa carrière dans le secteur bancaire, où elle découvre le tissu des PME normandes en tant que chargée d'affaires. Elle y développe une compréhension fine des enjeux des dirigeants, au plus près du terrain : une expérience qui marquera durablement sa manière d'investir. En 2001, elle rejoint NCI, alors jeune structure encore inconnue du marché, à une époque où le capital-investissement est quasi inexistant en région. Il faut tout construire : expliquer le métier, convaincre les dirigeants, créer la confiance. Elle participe activement à cette évangélisation, dans un environnement où les entrepreneurs ne connaissent ni les codes, ni les opportunités offertes par ce type de financement. Son parcours est marqué par une constante : l'ancrage territorial au service de la création de valeur. À contre-courant des logiques purement financières ou centralisées, elle défend un modèle d'investissement de proximité, où le rôle de l'investisseur dépasse largement l'apport de capital : accompagner, structurer, transmettre. Un positionnement singulier, qui fait de NCI un acteur hybride, à la croisée du développement économique régional et du private equity, avec une mission forte : faire émerger des entreprises solides, durables et enracinées dans leur territoire. Dans cet épisode, Anne-Cécile revient avec transparence sur : - les débuts du capital-investissement en région, quand il fallait convaincre des dirigeants qui n'en avaient jamais entendu parler - la construction de NCI, passée de 12 millions d'euros à une plateforme multi-stratégies - les enjeux clés de la transmission d'entreprise, au cœur du marché actuel - la spécificité d'un modèle régional face aux grands fonds nationaux - les mutations du secteur, entre consolidation, complexification et nouvelles opportunités Elle partage également les coulisses du développement de NCI : l'ouverture progressive de nouveaux bureaux, la diversification vers l'innovation et la dette privée, ainsi que la structuration d'une base d'investisseurs fidèle, construite sur la durée. Enfin, Anne-Cécile délivre un message clair : le capital-investissement est avant tout un métier de relation, de confiance et d'engagement dans le temps. Elle encourage aussi les jeunes talents, et en particulier les femmes, à oser franchir les portes de cet univers encore trop peu diversifié. Merci Anne-Cécile Guitton, Voix de la FinanceHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Amy LeBlanc, DVM, a board-certified veterinary oncologist, Senior Scientist, and the Director of the intramural NCI's Comparative Oncology Program, will review canine osteosarcoma and the clinical, biologic, and molecular features that make it a relevant animal-patient model for humans. She will share new data from the NCI's Comparative Oncology Program regarding MYC, and its value as a predictive biomarker for the disease in canine patients.Dr. Amy LeBlanc is a board-certified veterinary oncologist, Senior Scientist, and the Director of the intramural NCI's Comparative Oncology Program. In this position, she conducts preclinical mouse and translational pet dog studies that are designed to inform the drug and imaging agent development path for human cancer patients, specifically those with osteosarcoma. She directly oversees the NCI Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium (COTC), which provides the infrastructure necessary to connect participating veterinary academic institutions with stakeholders in drug development to execute fit-for-purpose comparative clinical trials in novel therapeutics and imaging agents. Her program provides support to several extramural NCI-funded initiatives, including the Integrated Canine Data Commons and Cancer Moonshot-funded canine immunotherapeutic clinical trials conducted under the PRECINCT network.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Andrea Apolo discuss practice-changing studies and other novel approaches in bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers that were presented at the 2026 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.  And today is super exciting, we're highlighting key abstracts that were presented at the 2026 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, and I'm just delighted to be joined by the chair of this year's meeting, who is also a dear friend, Dr. Andrea Apolo. Dr. Apolo serves within the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI as head of the Bladder Cancer Section, and she is also acting deputy chief of the Genitourinary Malignancies Branch.  Welcome, Andrea, it is so great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Oh, thank you so much for having me. What a great ASCO that we had, it is really exciting, lots of really great data. So I look forward to chatting about it. Dr. Monty Pal: Excellent. And you know, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode in case our listeners want to have a peek.  The theme of this year's GU meeting was "Patient-Centered Care: From Discovery to Delivery." I love that theme. And really, this is one of the most competitive meetings out there, more than 850 abstracts being presented on high-impact science. Andrea, I just wanted to get right into it and dive into what I think we both felt were some of the most exciting abstracts of the meeting.  And the first of those is one that I know is near and dear to your heart, being a bladder cancer expert yourself, and that is the KEYNOTE-B15 study presented by Matt Galsky. Can you give us a flavor for what that study entailed and some of the key results? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, I think this was kind of the missing study that we have been waiting for since we saw the EV-302 data in metastatic disease in the frontline setting. We wanted to know how well this combination would work in muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. And we saw half of that puzzle, you can say half of the piece of the puzzle, when we saw the data at ESMO, the EV-303 data in patients that were cisplatin-ineligible. And then now we are getting the full story with patients that are platinum-eligible, cisplatin-eligible, with the EV-304 data. So that study randomized patients to receive chemotherapy, so different than the EV-303 where the patients were randomized just to receive the radical cystectomy. These patients were randomized to receive neoadjuvant EV plus pembro and then adjuvant EV plus pembro versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin with no adjuvant component to the control arm. So I think this is a really, really important study. Dr. Monty Pal: And share with us some of the results because this in my mind is definitely practice-changing. This is one of those studies that I think you walked into the office on Monday and you are like, "Okay, this is what I am doing now," right? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah. So the study was positive. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it met the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also met. So really, really great results. Consistent with what we saw with EV-303, the median event-free survival was not reached for the EV plus pembro arm, and it was 48 months for the patients receiving gem-cis. And then looking at the 24-month estimated event-free survival, it was 79% for the EV plus pembro and 66% for the chemo, the gem-cis arm. And that was a hazard ratio of 0.5. So that is really exciting. That is the event-free survival. And then the overall survival, the medians were not reached for either arm, but when you look at the 24-month estimated overall survival, it was 87% for the EV plus pembro versus 81% for the gem-cis, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.65. So very positive study.  And then another question that we had was the pathologic CR rate. Very consistent with what we saw with the EV-303, the pathologic response rate was about 56% for the patients that received EV plus pembro and about 32%, 33% for the patients that received gem-cis. So very consistent with the findings that we have been kind of seeing in phase 2 studies, and this is a pT0N0, so that is important. Dr. Monty Pal: So Andrea, you know, I think that the big question in folks' minds is at this point, we see the data from NIAGARA, cis-gem-durva, we have now seen this data. Put it into context for us. Is there a patient in this day and age who maybe shouldn't get IO altogether, who should maybe get the NIAGARA regimen as opposed to EV-pembro in this context? What are your thoughts there? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Now, that is a great question. I would say with this data, it is very enticing to give EV pembro to our patients in the perioperative setting, and for that to be the new standard of care for all patients, regardless of cisplatin eligibility. So similar to what we saw with EV-302 really changing the standard of care in the frontline setting, I think these two studies, the EV-303 and the EV-304, change the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the perioperative setting, and this should be the new standard of care if the patients don't have a restriction to receiving an immunotherapy. Dr. Monty Pal: I totally agree with that assessment. It is great to hear it from the expert's mouth as well. Thanks a lot for that, Andrea.  The next abstract I wanted to tackle is one that is, I would say, near and dear to my heart because I know these folks really well. It is led by the SWOG group, and this is SWOG S1602. The number there for the audience gives you a sense of how long the study has been running for. The 16 prefix means it is something that we kicked off back in 2016. So this study is really 10 years in the making, right? So Rob Svatek presented this data. It is interesting, right, because it addresses this issue of the BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin) shortage, right, where we have needed to sort of rely potentially on other alternative sources or regimens and so forth. Tell us about this trial, Andrea. Dr. Andrea Apolo: This is one of my favorite studies. We talked about putting it in the main oral abstracts, but we put it in one of the educational sessions that talked about non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer because we thought that would be the best audience for it. But it doesn't take away from how important this abstract is, and the tremendous effort that went into the study. Almost a thousand patients enrolled. I think 984 were eligible to enroll in this study. So it is a very high enrolling, randomized, cooperative group study in high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. And really the study was designed to address two questions. One is the BCG shortage and can we use a different strain, Tokyo versus TICE? And whether there is a priming effect if you gave intradermal BCG to patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, can that enhance the effect if you gave it a little bit earlier? I think the study is really important, and it met its primary endpoint, which was it is not inferior to TICE. The findings were really terrific in terms of the outcomes. Numerically. When you look at the endpoint, it looked like the Tokyo strain was as good, if not maybe a little bit better, but not statistically significant than the TICE. And then they broke it down by carcinoma in situ, they broke it down by papillary tumors, and the Tokyo strain was non-inferior in both of those instances. But interestingly, the intradermal BCG did not change outcomes. There was really no priming effect, which was really backed up by pre-clinical data that there would be, but there wasn't a priming effect when the intradermal BCG was given in the Tokyo strain. So that was a really, really interesting finding. But a great study, really important outcomes in the field for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Monty Pal: Totally. And it just seems like we can't get away from BCG, right? You know, as hard as we try, I mean, I appreciate the studies that sort of build on it that are emerging right now, but it seems like BCG at least for the foreseeable future is kind of here to stay, right? Dr. Andrea Apolo: It works. It is one of the most effective treatments we have for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So, you know, I think it is here to stay and, you know, we need to find alternatives in terms of strains so we don't deal with this shortage that we have been dealing with for so many years now. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, indeed. Moving on to some of the other highlighted studies from the meeting, you had mentioned the EV-303 data, so we probably don't need to rehash that study design in much detail. But there was also a rapid oral abstract presented by Dr. Ullén that I think is of interest here, right, that really hones in on pathologic outcomes and DFS from that trial. Do you mind just outlining that for our listenership? Dr. Andrea Apolo: This is the KEYNOTE-905, also known as the EV-303 study. This is a follow-up to the EV-303 data looking at the pathologic response rates, looking at the downstaging effect, looking at the surgical margins after treatment with the neoadjuvant EV plus pembro in the 303. Now, remember in the 303, patients got three cycles of neoadjuvant EV plus pembro and then six cycles in the adjuvant setting. A little bit different than the 304, where they got four cycles, which is really kind of the standard in the neoadjuvant setting, and then five cycles in the adjuvant setting. So still a total of nine cycles. But in the 303, the treatment arm had no systemic therapy, so it was just radical cystectomy. And they looked at the negative margins that you get with the EV plus pembro treatment, which was 92.6% versus 79% with patients receiving just the surgery alone. And then the pathologic CR rate, there was more follow-up on that, it was 57% for the patients receiving EV plus pembro, and as we would expect, about 9% for the patients that just went on to surgery alone because you can achieve a pathologic response rate with TURBT alone. Then they looked at the pathologic downstaging, so anything less than a pT2, and that was 66% in the patients that received the EV plus pembro. So very interesting findings, and it is also really just nice to have now the EV-304 data, like I was saying, there were two pieces of it, the cisplatin-eligible and the cisplatin-ineligible, and just to have those contemporary controls are really important. How did the cisplatin-ineligible do versus the cisplatin-eligible patient in terms of the event-free survival and in terms of the overall survival? So I feel like now we have all of this data that we can kind of put together in the perioperative setting and we can really inform our patients a little bit more about their outcomes depending on whether they are cisplatin-eligible or not, which you know cisplatin-ineligible patients often just, they are sicker, they may have obstruction, their tumors may be larger, they just tend to be a more delicate population than the cisplatin-eligible patients. So not surprisingly, you know, we see that in the EV-303 the disease-free survival for the patients is pretty poor. So the disease-free survival that was reported for this follow-up of the specific abstract was 23.6 months for the patients that just got surgery, and it was not reached for the patients that had the EV plus pembro, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.37. Dr. Monty Pal: Excellent, excellent distillation. So Andrea, in the interest of time, I mean, we could probably talk about bladder cancer forever, but I am going to move us on to the subject of kidney cancer. We have two late-breaking abstracts, LITESPARK-011, which looked at lenvatinib and belzutifan versus cabozantinib in the advanced setting, and then we have an adjuvant study, LITESPARK-022, that looked at pembrolizumab with or without belzutifan in the adjuvant setting. Both studies positive. One for progression-free survival, the other for disease-free survival. Both I think making a big dent in how we treat kidney cancer. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, we have been waiting for these trials for a long time. So one of the things that we have been talking about at GU ASCO is to have plenary sessions. And if we would have had a plenary session, these two abstracts would have been part of it because they are important data, really big studies where we are trying to improve the outcomes of our patients with kidney cancer. So the first one, the LITESPARK-011, like you said, this is for advanced renal cell carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, where we really don't have a standard of care after IO therapy, right? So we give IO-IO, we give VEGF-IO, but we don't really have a good standard of care. We usually give monotherapy TKIs. So the combination of belzutifan and lenvatinib versus what a standard of care is, cabozantinib, is really an important question to ask. And you know, this is a pretty large study, about 750 patients were randomized. And belzutifan plus lenvatinib demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival versus cabozantinib, but not overall survival, at least not yet, is what the authors are saying. So for the progression-free survival, the hazard ratio was 0.7 and it was 14.8 months for the combination, belzutifan plus lenvatinib arm versus cabozantinib, which was 10.7 months. So I think that is significant. And for the overall survival, it did favor the combination again with a hazard ratio of 0.85. The median was 35 months versus 28 months for the monotherapy cabozantinib, but it did not reach statistical significance. And the authors said that this will be further tested at a final analysis, these were the interim results.  And for the overall survival, the overall survival was 53% for the combination versus 40%. This is significant. And the CR rates were lowish for both of them, it was like 5% for the combo and 1% for cabo monotherapy. So I think that the findings are important because we don't have a standard of care. And although there is no survival benefit, there was a trend. So I think this could be considered in patients that are fit, a treatment option for these patients in the later line settings. Dr. Monty Pal: Great points. I mean lots of great discussion around toxicity as well as efficacy. I mean certainly this is a regimen that may not be suitable for every patient in my portfolio, but certainly one to consider.  Now Andrea, let's shift focus to LITESPARK-022, the adjuvant trial that I mentioned previously. So this is again looking at pembrolizumab with or without belzutifan, met the primary endpoint of disease-free survival. What are your impressions there of the data? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, the data looks great. And this was a really large study, 1,800 patients were randomized, and the study met the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, benefiting the combination of pembro plus belzutifan. And that is really terrific. The medians were not reached for either arm. And in terms of the overall survival results, also the medians were not reached, but the hazard ratio was 0.78 and did not reach a statistical significance. So there was again a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival for the combination of pembrolizumab plus belzutifan, but not an overall survival benefit.  So I guess, Monty, you know, we can kind of talk about what that means. There was a lot of discussion about belzutifan and some of the side effects, specifically anemia and managing anemia in this setting and requirements for transfusions. Generally, the authors said it was well tolerated, but we know that combination studies do have more toxicity. So it may be a select group of patients again, similar to the advanced setting, where we opt for a combination, possibly until we see more follow-up data in terms of the overall survival. Dr. Monty Pal: I have to agree with you. You know, in my group, we have been talking about a lot of pembrolizumab-based studies that are running right now, some through the NCI, some, you know, our own sort of homegrown investigator-sponsored trials, and you know, I think for the foreseeable future we are comfortable just maintaining pembrolizumab. Things might change if, for instance, we ultimately see a survival advantage emerge, but I just have my own personal doubts around that, that will be interesting.  Okay, so now we are going to move to the last disease category that we are going to cover, which is prostate cancer. So there, we have the long-awaited results from the PEACE-3 study. These are the final OS results from this trial looking at enzalutamide with or without radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. So Andrea, would love to get your perspectives on this. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, so this study had been presented before and we had seen positive results for the combination of enzalutamide and radium with some interim overall survival results also showing a benefit. But like you said, these are the final results with a median follow-up of 58 months. So it was really nice to see the final results. And with the combination of enzalutamide and six cycles of radium, it did show an improvement in overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.76. The median overall survival increased from 32.6 months to 38.2 months with the combination. So that is really great. There was some crossing over of the overall survival curves around 18 months was still seen. And again, there was also an improvement in the rPFS with a hazard ratio of 0.71, and the median rPFS improved from 16.4 to 19 months with the combination. So, you know, we have been awaiting the final results, but we kind of knew a lot about the benefits of the combination. And it is something that is kind of slowly trickling into the community in terms of adapting it and using it. There is more buzz now about it and I think these overall survival results will hopefully shift the community into incorporating the combination in these patients. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. So well said. I mean, Andrea, congratulations on a terrific meeting. You have really done it again. Incredible, incredible output from this year's ASCO GU. I just want to thank you for joining us on the program today. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Oh, thank you so much for having me, Monty. It was really a joy to work with the ASCO team and with all the investigators and the Education Committee and the Scientific Committee. Everyone was really outstanding. So to me it was an honor to be part of this meeting, and I am so happy that it was so successful and really presented some amazing data that I think will be practice-changing to our patients. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks a ton. And also a huge thanks to our listeners. If you enjoyed the content of today's podcast, please don't forget to like and subscribe to our channel wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal  Dr. Andrea Apolo @apolo_andrea  Follow ASCO on social media:          ASCO on X    ASCO on Bluesky         ASCO on Facebook          ASCO on LinkedIn          Disclosures:       Dr. Monty Pal:      Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview     Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis     Dr. Andrea Apolo: No disclosures to report.

Approximately 5–10% of all breast cancers are hereditary, and among those, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are responsible for about 60% of cases. Yet, overall, only about 1-2% of all breast cancers in the general population are caused by BRCA mutations. Once childbearing is complete, the NCCN recommends risk-reducing BSO in patients carrying these mutations. But what about the uterus? Since childbearing is complete, and the ovaries are now removed, the sole purpose of the uterus- which is to initiate, nourish, and grow a child -is no longer applicable. Is there a call for inclusion of a hysterectomy at time of risk reducing BSO? This has vast and important implications regarding subsequent hormone therapy. In this episode, which comes from one of our podcast family members, we will dive into the latest data pushing towards the inclusion of hysterectomy at time of prophylactic BSO. It's fascinating data from just last year (2025, in the Journal of the NCI). Listen in for details.1. Kotsopoulos J, Seca M, Gronwald J, et al. Menopausal Hormone Therapy and the Risk of Breast Cancer in Women With a Pathogenic Variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2025. 2. Kotsopoulos J, Gronwald J, Karlan BY, et al. Hormone Replacement Therapy After Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk Among BRCA1 Mutation Carriers. JAMA Oncology. 2018

Rochester is now home to one of the nation's 60 NCI-designated cancer centers. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg explains the eight-year journey, the 1,400-page applications, and why this achievement positions our region as a leader in cancer research and treatment. From immunotherapy and precision medicine to cellular therapies and AI, the future of cancer care is being built right here in Western New York.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. David Einstein and Dr. Ravi Madan discuss JCO article, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations," underscoring the need for a consensus on clinical trial designs implementing novel endpoints in this population, the importance of PSA doubling time as a prognostic factor and with an emphasis on treatment de-escalation to limit toxicity and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. David Einstein and Dr. Ravi Madan. Dr. Einstein is a medical oncologist specializing in genitourinary malignancy working at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, part of the DFCI Cancer Center, and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Madan is a senior clinician at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he focuses on conducting clinical research in prostate cancer, particularly in the field of immunotherapy. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations." So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Einstein and Dr. Madan. David Einstein: Thanks for having us. This is a great pleasure. Ravi Madan: Appreciate being here. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to start from a very wide angle. And the main question is why did you feel that there was the need to convey a consensus and a working group to talk about this specific topic: biochemically recurrent prostate cancer? What has been the change in current clinical practice and in the trial design that we are seeing nowadays? And so, why was it necessary to convey such a consensus and provide considerations on novel clinical trials? David Einstein: Yeah, so I think it's very interesting, this disease state of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. It's very different from other disease states in prostate cancer, and we felt that there was a real need to define those differences in clinical trials. Years ago, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was the primary disease state that was explored, and over time, a lot of things shifted earlier to metastatic disease defined on a CAT scan and bone scan to an earlier disease state of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. And the clinical trial principles from late-stage could be applied to MCSPC as well. However, BCR is very different because the patients are very different. And for those reasons, there are unique considerations, especially in terms of toxicity and treatment intensity, that should be applied to biochemically recurrent prostate cancer as opposed to just using the principles that are used in other disease states. And for that reason, we thought it was very important to delineate some of these considerations in this paper with a group of experts. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. So, one of the main changes that have been applied in recent years in clinical practice when looking at biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is the use of molecular imaging and particularly of PSMA PET. So, first of all, just a quick question: was the topic of the consensus related on which threshold of PSA to use to order a PET scan to evaluate this kind of patient? David Einstein: Yeah, thanks for that question. It's a super important one. The brief answer is that no, we did not address questions about exactly when clinicians would decide to order scans. We were more concerned with the results of those scans in how you define different disease states. But I think as a broader question, I think a lot of folks feel that finding things on a scan equates that with what we used to find on conventional scans. And fundamentally, we actually sought to redefine that disease space as something that's not equivalent to metastatic disease, and rather coined the term "PSMA-positive BCR" to indicate that traditional BCR prognostic criteria and factors still apply, and that these patients have a distinct natural history from those with more advanced metastatic disease. Ravi Madan: And if I may just add that the National Cancer Institute is running a trial where we're prospectively monitoring PSMA-positive BCR patients. And that data is clearly showing that, much like what we knew about BCR a decade ago, PSMA findings in BCR patients do not change the fact that overall, BCR is an indolent disease state. And the findings, which are usually comprised of five- to seven-millimeter lymph nodes, do not endanger patients or require immediate therapy. And so, while PSMA is a tool that we can be using in this disease state, it doesn't really change the principal approach to how we should manage these patients. And as Dr. Einstein alluded to, there is a drive to create a false equivalency between PSMA-positive BCR and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but that is not supported by the data we're accumulating or any of the clinical data as it exists. Davide Soldato: One thing that it's very important and you mentioned in your answer to my question was actually the role of PET scan and conventional imaging, so CAT scan and bone scan that we have used for years to stage patients with metastatic prostate cancer. And you mentioned that there is a distinction among patients who have a positive PET scan and a BCR, and patients who have a positive conventional imaging. And yet, we know that sometimes the findings of the PET scan are not always so clear to interpret. So, I just wanted to understand if the consensus reached an agreement as to when to use conventional imaging to potentially resolve some findings that we have on PET scan among thess patients with BCR? David Einstein: Yeah, I think there's a number of questions actually buried within that question. One of which is: does PSMA PET result in false positives? And the answer has definitely been yes. There's a known issue with false-positive rib lesions. And so, first and foremost, we need to be very careful in calling what truly is suspicious disease and what might actually not be cancer or might be something that is totally separate. So I think that's the first part of the answer to that question. The second is to what extent do we need to use paired PET and conventional imaging to define this disease state? In other words, do you have to have positive findings on one and negative findings on the other in order to enter this definition? The challenge there, as we discussed, is that logistically, oftentimes it's hard to get patients to do multiple sets of scans to actually create that definition. Sometimes it's difficult to get insurers to pay for such scans. And finally, it's hard to sometimes blind radiologists to the results of one scan in reading the other. So, we did have some deliberations about to what extent you could use some of the CAT scan portion of a PSMA PET in order to at least partially define that. We also talked about using bone scans to confirm any bone findings seen on PET. But I think another important part of this is not just the baseline imaging, but also what's going to be done serially on a study in order to define responses and progression. And that's sort of a whole separate conversation about to what extent you can interpret changes in serial PET. Ravi Madan: And just to pick up on the key factor here, I think that the PSMA PET in BCR is pretty good at defining lymph node disease, and that's actually predominantly 80 to 90 percent of the disease seen on these findings. It might be pretty good at also defining other soft tissue findings. The real issues come to bone findings. And one thing the group did not feel was appropriate was to just define only PSMA-positive bone findings confirmed on a CT bone window. There's not really great data on that, but the working group felt that, when in the rare situation, because it is relatively rare, a PSMA-positive finding is in a bone, a bone scan should be done. And it's worth noting that Phu Tran, who is a co-author and a co-leader of this working group, his group has already defined that underlying genomics of conventionally based lesions, such as bone scan, are more aggressive than findings on next-gen imaging, such as PSMA. So, there is also a genomic underlying rationale for defining the difference between what is seen on a PET scan in a bone and what is seen on a bone scan. Davide Soldato: Coming back to this issue of PET PSMA sometimes identifying very small lesions where we don't see any kind of correlates on conventional imaging or where we see only very little alteration on the bone scan or in the CT scan, was there any role that was imagined, for example, for MRI to distinguish this type of findings on the PET scan? Ravi Madan: So, I think that, again, what can be identified on a PSMA frequently cannot be seen on conventional imaging. We didn't feel that it was a requirement to get an MRI or a CT to necessarily confirm the PSMA findings. I think that generally, we have to realize that in this disease state, that questionable lesions are going to be seen on any imaging, including PSMA. We've actually probably put way too much faith in PSMA findings thus far, as Dr. Einstein alluded to with some of the false positives we're seeing. So, I think that these false positives are going to have to be baked into trials. And in terms of clinical practice, it highlights the need to again, not overreact to everything we see and not necessarily need to biopsy everything and put patients' health in jeopardy to delineate a disease that's indolent anyway. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. That was very clear. So, basically, the main driver was really also the data showing that if we have a BCR, so a patient with a biochemically recurrent disease that is positive on the conventional imaging, this is usually associated with a different aggressiveness of the disease. But coming back to a comment that you made before, Dr. Madan, you said that even if we talk about PSMA-positive BCR, we are still talking about BCR and the same criteria should apply. So, what we have used for years in this space to actually try to stratify the prognosis of patients is the PSA doubling time, so how quickly the PSA rises over time. So, coming back to that comment, was the consensus on the PSA doubling time basically retained as what we were using before, so defining patients with a doubling time less than 12 months, 10 months, 9 months, as patients with a higher risk of progressing in terms of developing metastatic disease? Ravi Madan: Yes, so that's a very important point. And the working group defined high-risk BCR as a PSA doubling time less than six months. And this really comes from Johns Hopkins historical data, which shows that if your doubling time is three months or less, there's about a 67 percent chance of metastasis at five years. If it's between three and six months, it's 50 percent. And if it's over six months, if it's between six and nine months, it's roughly only 27 percent. There are trials that are accruing with eligibility criteria that they may describe as high-risk that are beyond six months, but the data as really it's been defined in the literature highlights that truly high-risk BCR is less than six months. And the working group had a consensus on that opinion, and that was our recommendation. David Einstein: And I think an important follow-on to that is that's regardless of PET findings, right? And so, we present a couple of case studies of patients with positive PET findings who have a long doubling time, in whom the disease is in fact indolent, as you would have expected from a traditional BCR prognostic standpoint. Obviously, there are patients in whom they have fast doubling times, and even if they do not have PET findings, that doesn't make them not high-risk. Ravi Madan: And just to follow up that point, I will let you know a little bit of a free preview that my colleague Melissa Abel from the NCI will be presenting PSMA findings in the context of PSA doubling time at ASCO GU if that data is accepted. Davide Soldato: Looking forward for those data because I think that they're going to clarify a lot of the findings that we have in this specific population. And coming back to one of the points that we made before, so PET PSMA has a very high ability to discriminate also a very low burden of disease, which we currently refer to as oligometastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, which is not entirely defined as an entity. But what we are seeing both in some clinical trials, which use mainly conventional imaging, but also what we're starting to see in clinical practice, is that frequently we use the metastasis-directed therapy to treat these patients. So, just a little bit of a comment on the use of this type of strategy in clinical practice and if the panel thought of including this as, for example, a stratification criteria or mandated in the design of novel clinical trials in the field of BCR? David Einstein: Yeah, I think that's an incredibly important point. You know, fundamentally, there's a lot of heterogeneity in practice where some folks are using local salvage approaches, some are using systemic therapies, in some cases surveillance may be reasonable, or some combination of these different strategies. We certainly have phase two data from multiple trials suggesting that met-directed therapy may help buy patients time off of treatment until subsequent treatments are started. And that in and of itself may be an important goal that we can come back to in discussing novel endpoints. I think what our panel acknowledged was that, in some sense, the clinical practice has gotten even farther ahead than where the data are, and this is being offered pretty routinely to patients in practice. And so, what became clear was that we, in developing clinical trials, cannot forbid investigators from doing something that would be within their usual standard of care, even if it might not be supported by the most robust data. But at minimum, it definitely should be used as a stratification factor, or in some trial designs, you can do met-directed therapy after a primary endpoint is assessed. And that offers a compromise between testing, say, the effect of a systemic therapy but also not excluding patients and investigators from doing what they would have done had they not been on a study. Ravi Madan: And I would just like to follow up your phrasing in the question of "oligometastatic prostate cancer." We have a figure in the paper and it highlights the fact that, unfortunately, that term in prostate cancer is imaging agnostic. And we've already discussed in this podcast, as well as in the paper, that imaging used to define a metastatic lesion, whether it's PSMA or conventional imaging, carries with it a different clinical weight and a different prognosis. So, we feel in the working group, that the correct term for this disease state of PSMA-positive BCR is just that: PSMA-positive BCR. We also have to realize that when we talk about oligometastatic disease, while it's imaging agnostic, it seems to be numerically based, whether it's five or three or 10 depending on the trial. But PSMA-positive BCR does not have a limit in terms of the number of lesions. And so again, we just feel that there is an important need to delineate what we're seeing in this disease state, which again is PSMA-positive BCR, and that should be differentiated frankly from oligometastatic disease defined on other imaging platforms. David Einstein: Right, and that also makes clear that patients can have polyfocal disease on PET that still is not what we would consider metastatic, but goes beyond the traditional definition of oligometastatic. So, in other words, just because someone has PET-detected disease only, that does not automatically equate with oligometastatic. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. So, you were speaking a little bit, Dr. Einstein, about the different types of treatment that we can propose or not propose to this patient because you mentioned, for example, that in clinical practice MDT, so metastasis-directed therapy, is becoming more and more used. For these patients, we can potentially use systemic treatments, which include androgen deprivation therapy, which can be given continuously or in an intermittent fashion. And recently, we can also use novel systemic therapies, for example, enzalutamide, to treat this type of patient. So, given that the point of the consensus was really to provide consideration for novel clinical trials in this space, what was the opinion on the panel regarding the control arm? So, if we're looking at a novel therapy in the BCR space, does the control arm need to include a therapy or not? And if so, which therapy? David Einstein: Yeah, this is a super important question and one that's subject to a lot of discussion, especially in light of recent data from EMBARK. What we came to a consensus around was the fact that neither MDT nor systemic therapy should be required as a control arm on BCR trials. And we can talk about a number of reasons for that. There's also the pragmatics of what investigators might actually accrue patients to and what they would consider their standard of care, and that's important to factor in, too. I think that one of the major goals of our working group was outlining what kinds of trials we would like to see in the future and where the limitations of the current data stand. For example, EMBARK proposes a strategy of a single treatment discontinuation and resumption at a predefined threshold indefinitely. That's probably not how most people are practicing. Most folks are probably using some version of intermittent therapy as they would have before this trial, but we actually don't have any data supporting that. Moreover, we don't have data comparing different intermittent strategies to one another. We don't know what the right thresholds are, we don't know how much time we buy patients off treatment, and we don't know to what extent MDT modifies that. And so, those are all really important questions to be asking in future versions of these trials. I'd say my second point would be that a lot of drug development is happening with novel therapies that are not hormonal, trying to bring them into this space. And when you think about trying to compare one of those types of therapies to a hormonal therapy on short-term endpoints, the hormonal therapy is always going to win. Hormonal therapy is almost universally effective, it will bring down PSAs, and it will prolong, quote-unquote, "progression." The downside of that is that hormonal therapy doesn't actually modify the disease, it suppresses it, and it tends to have fairly transient effects once you remove it. And so, part of our goal was in trying to figure out some novel endpoints that would allow these novel types of therapies to be examined head-to-head against a more traditional type of hormonal therapy and have some measurement of some of the more long-term impacts. Davide Soldato: So, jumping right into the endpoints, because this is a very relevant and I think very well-constructed part of the paper that you published. Because in the past we have used some of these endpoints, for example, metastasis-free survival, as potentially a proxy for long-term outcomes. But is this the right endpoint to be using right now, especially considering that frequently this outcome is measured using conventional imaging, but we are including in these trials patients who are actually negative on conventional imaging but have a positive PSMA when they enter this type of trial? David Einstein: Yeah, there's a number of challenges with those types of endpoints. One of which is, as you say, we're changing the goalposts a little bit on how we're calling progression. We still don't exactly understand what progression on PET means, and so that's something that is challenging. That said, we're also cognizant of the fact that many times investigators are likely to get PET scans in the setting of rising PSA, and that's going to affect any endpoint that relies purely on conventional imaging. So, there's some tension there between these two different sets of goalposts. One thing that we emphasize is that not only are there some challenges in defining those, but also there're challenges in what matters to a patient. So, if a progression event occurs in the form of a single lesion on a PET scan or even a conventional image, that might be relevant for a clinical trial but might be less relevant for a patient. In other words, that's something that, in the real world, an investigator might use serial rounds of metastasis-directed therapy or intermittent therapy to treat in a way that doesn't have any clinical consequences for the patient necessarily. In other words, they're asymptomatic, it's not the equivalent of a metastatic castration-resistant disease progressing. And so, we also need to be cognizant of the fact that if we choose a single endpoint like PFS, that there's going to be many different versions of progression, some of which probably matter clinically more than others, and some of which are more salvageable by local therapies than others. Ravi Madan: So I think the working group really thoughtfully looked at the different options and underscored perhaps strengths and weaknesses, and I think that's presented as you mentioned in the paper. But I think it's also going to depend on the modality, the approach of the therapeutic intervention. In some cases if it's hormone-based, then maybe PSA is providing some early metrics, maybe metastasis-free survival is more relevant in a continuous therapy, but intermittent therapies might have a different approach. There's emerging immunotherapy strategies, radiopharmaceutical strategies, they might have some more novel strategies as well. I think we have to be open-minded here, but we also have to be very clear: we do not know what progression is on a PSMA scan. Just new lesions may not carry the clinical significance that we think, and we may not know what threshold that ultimately becomes clinically relevant is. So, I do think that there was some caution issued by the working group about using PSMA as an endpoint because we still do not have the data to understand what that modality is telling us. Again, I'm optimistic that the National Cancer Institute's prospective data set that we've been collecting, which has over 130 patients now, will provide some insights in the months and years ahead. Davide Soldato: So, just to ask the question very abruptly, what would you feel like the best endpoint for this type of trials is? I understand that is a little bit related to the type of treatments that we're going to use, whether it's intermittent, whether it's continuous, but do we have something that can encapsulate all of the discussion that we have up until this point? David Einstein: Yeah, so that's a perfect segue to the idea of novel endpoints, which we feel are very important to develop in these novel disease spaces. So, one thing that we discussed was an endpoint called treatment-free survival, which conceptually you can think of as exactly what it sounds like, but statistically you actually have to do some work to get there. And so essentially, you imagine a series of Kaplan-Meier curves overlaid: one about overall survival, one time to next therapy, one time on initial therapy. You can actually then take the area under those curves or between those curves and essentially sum it up using restricted mean survival time analysis. And that can give you a guide about the longitudinal experience of a patient: time spent on treatment versus off treatment; time spent with toxicity versus without toxicity. And importantly, each one of those time-to-event metrics can be adjusted depending on exactly what the protocol is and what is allowed or not allowed and what's prespecified as far as initiation of subsequent therapies. So, we felt that this was a really important endpoint to develop in this disease space because it can really capture that longitudinal aspect. It can really reward treatments that are effective in getting durable responses and getting patients off of therapy, because unfortunately, PFS-based endpoints generally reward more or longer systemic therapy versus shorter or no systemic therapy, and that's sort of an artificial bias in the way those endpoints are constructed. So, I think that there are challenges of course in implementing any new endpoint, and some of the things that are really critical are collecting data about toxicity and about subsequent therapies beyond what a typical trial might collect. But I think in this kind of disease space, that longitudinal aspect is critical because these are really patients who are going to be going through multiple rounds of therapy, going to be going on and off treatments, they're going to be using combinations of local and systemic therapies. And so, any one single endpoint is going to be limited, but I think that really highlights the limitations of using PFS-based endpoints in this space. Ravi Madan: I also think that in the concept of treatment-free survival lies one of the more powerful and, honestly, I was surprised by this, that it was so universally accepted, recommendations from the committee. And that was that the general approach to trials in this space should be a de-escalation of the EMBARK strategy as it's laid out with relatively continuous therapy with one pause. And so, I think again, buried in all of this highlights the need for novel endpoints like treatment-free survival. We get to the fact that these are patients who are not at near-term clinical risk from symptoms of their disease, so de-escalating therapies does not put them at risk. And if you look at, for example, lower-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, it's become realized that we need to de-escalate, and there are now trials being done to look at that. Historically, we know that BCR is an indolent disease process for the vast majority of patients who are not at near-term risk from clinical deterioration. So, therefore, we shouldn't wait a decade into abundant BCR trials to de-escalate. The de-escalation strategy should be from the outset. And that was something the committee really actually universally agreed on. David Einstein: And that de-escalation can really take multiple forms. That could be different strategies for intermittent therapy, different start-stop strategies. It could also mean actually intensifying in the short-term with the goal long-term de-intensification, kind of analogous to kidney cancer where we might use dual checkpoint inhibitors up front with some higher upfront toxicity but with the hope of actually long-term benefit and actually being able to come off treatment and stay in remission. Those kinds of trade-offs are the types of things that are challenging to talk about. There's not a one-size-fits-all answer for every patient. And so, that's why some of these endpoints like treatment-free survival would be really helpful in actually quantifying those trade-offs and allowing each patient to make decisions that are concordant with their own wishes. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. That was very clear, especially on the part of de-escalation, because, as you were mentioning, I think that we are globally talking about a situation, a clinical situation, where the prognosis can be very good and patients can stay off treatment for a very long period of time without compromising long-term outcomes. And I think that well-constructed de-escalation trials, as you were mentioning and as the consensus endorsed, are really needed in this space also to limit toxicity. This brings us to the end of this episode. So, I would like to thank again Dr. Einstein and Dr. Madan for joining us today. David Einstein: We really appreciate the time and the thought, and I think that even starting these types of discussions is critical. Even just recognizing that this is a unique space is the beginning of the conversation. Ravi Madan: Yeah, and I want to thank JCO for giving us this forum and the opportunity to publish these results and all the expert prostate cancer investigators who were part of this committee. We produced some good thoughts for the future. Davide Soldato: We appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations." 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 opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Hello and welcome to the latest episode of OCTalks, the podcast series from Oncology Central. I am Jade Parker, Senior Editor of Oncology Central. Today I am joined by Leanne Bailey who is Branch Director of the Community Outreach Research and Engagement branch of the NCI's Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities. In this interview, we will discuss contributing factors to early onset cancers, how are certain groups disproportionately affected and initiatives that are seeking to reduce disparities in cancer care. Thank you for joining us, LeeAnn.

Theodoros Teknos, MD, and Gary Schwartz, MD, discuss how the recent $25.5 million NCI grant renewal solidifies Case Comprehensive Cancer Center as a powerhouse consortium delivering cutting-edge clinical trials, early detection and community-focused cancer prevention across Northeast Ohio.Learn more about Daniel Simon, MDLearn more about Theodoros Teknos, MDLearn more about Gary Schwartz, MDNEW! View our Science@UH video podcast on YouTubeLearn more about the University Hospitals Research & Education Institute

In this engaging and informative episode, Bryan sits down with Elliot to discuss his recent training experience with the National Comfort Institute (NCI), covering two intensive courses on duct system optimization and residential air balancing. The conversation offers valuable insights for HVAC professionals looking to improve their technical skills and provide better service to their customers. With a mix of technical expertise and practical field experience, this episode breaks down complex HVAC concepts into actionable strategies for contractors and technicians. Elliot shares his key takeaways from the NCI training, emphasizing how the courses filled critical knowledge gaps about the "invisible stuff" in HVAC systems—the air itself. The discussion reveals a common industry problem: most HVAC professionals focus heavily on equipment while neglecting proper duct design and air balancing. Elliot explains how he learned to move beyond guesswork in duct design, discovering that flex duct has actual CFM ratings and that proper system design requires understanding static pressure, equivalent length of fittings, and the science behind airflow. The conversation highlights the importance of oversized return air systems—a point both hosts stress repeatedly—and explains why Florida (and possibly the entire nation) suffers from chronically undersized returns. The hosts discuss various duct system approaches, from traditional trunk lines to the flex-and-fitting systems, acknowledging that different markets require different solutions based on climate, building construction, and supply chain availability. Throughout the episode, Bryan and Elliot tackle practical installation challenges that technicians face daily. They discuss the importance of proper flex duct installation, explaining how compressed or sagging ductwork dramatically reduces airflow efficiency. The conversation covers the critical role of balancing dampers in every branch run, the impact of proper duct strapping, and how simple adjustments like straightening kinked flex duct can immediately improve CFM delivery. The hosts also address the limitations of builder-grade installations, noting that most new construction lacks the dampers necessary for proper air balancing. They emphasize a practical, process-based approach to HVAC work that focuses on getting clients measurable results without requiring perfect conditions or unlimited budgets. The episode concludes with a strong endorsement of the National Comfort Institute's training programs and tools, particularly the TrueFlow Grid and measureQuick technologies that simplify complex air balancing calculations. Bryan and Elliot stress the importance of ethical, high-performance contracting that delivers real value to customers rather than just marketing sizzle. They encourage HVAC professionals to invest in training and proper tools, acknowledging that while the initial investment may seem steep, the ability to provide superior service and reduce callbacks makes it worthwhile. The conversation serves as both a technical deep-dive and a call to action for contractors to elevate their skills and focus on the whole system—equipment, ductwork, and building envelope—to truly solve customer comfort problems. Topics Covered NCI Training Experience - Elliot's overview of the duct system optimization and residential air balancing courses, including instructor quality and course relevance to Florida's HVAC market Duct Design Fundamentals - Moving from guesswork to calculated design using CFM ratings, square footage calculations, and proper system output considerations Static Pressure Management - Understanding static pressure drop across coils, the importance of variable speed fans, and strategies to reduce total external static pressure Return Air Systems - Why bigger returns are always better, the critical importance of oversized return grills, and the impact of filter face velocity on system performance Equivalent Length of Fittings - How fittings add "phantom" duct length to runs, techniques to reduce equivalent length, and the dramatic impact of turning vanes on 90-degree turns Flex Duct vs. Trunk Lines - Comparing different duct system approaches across various markets, the pros and cons of metal, duct board, and flex systems, and the flex-and-fitting methodology Proper Flex Installation - The importance of stretching flex duct correctly, proper strapping techniques, and how sagging or compressed flex drastically reduces airflow Air Balancing Techniques - The necessity of balancing dampers in every branch run, methods for achieving proper air distribution, and using velocity comparisons for troubleshooting Throw and Mixing in Rooms - Understanding that grills, not duct size, control air throw and mixing, and the role of Manual T in selecting appropriate terminal devices Practical Installation Tips - Simple improvements technicians can make during service calls, like straightening kinked ductwork and adding straps to reduce sag High-Performance Tools - The TrueFlow Grid, measureQuick app, hot wire anemometers, and other technologies that simplify complex air balancing calculations Building Performance Perspective - Moving beyond equipment-only focus to consider the entire system: ductwork, building envelope, and how they all interact Ethical Contracting - Delivering real value to customers, avoiding the "all sizzle, no steak" approach, and providing solutions that work within real-world budgets and constraints   Learn more about NCI's training opportunities HERE. Have a question that you want us to answer on the podcast? Submit your questions at https://www.speakpipe.com/hvacschool. Purchase your tickets or learn more about the 7th Annual HVACR Training Symposium at https://hvacrschool.com/symposium. Subscribe to our podcast on your iPhone or Android. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Check out our handy calculators here or on the HVAC School Mobile App for Apple and Android.

On November 19th, 2025, National College of Ireland in (NCI) collaboration with Citi proudly announced the official kick-off of the Citi upStart programme for the 2025/26 academic year. The initiative, designed to foster innovation and entrepreneurship among postgraduate students, saw Citi organisers, mentors, NCI students, academics, and new partners gather for the launch event. Activate mentorship This year's programme features 165 NCI postgraduate students who took part in a series of rigorous in-house idea-development workshops facilitated by NCI academic staff. This intensive process saw 60 students progress to team formation, advancing the most promising proposals which were then presented via elevator pitches at the event. Addressing participants and mentors, Dr Prag Sharma, Director, Future of Finance Think tank, former Global Head of AI CoE at Citi expressed his admiration for the nascent ideas, and provided crucial advice on AI's role: "AI is a tool for you to use, alongside the other tools you have acquired through college and your working life. AI augments our skills; so, become experts in using it to accelerate your capabilities." Following the pitches, a "speed dating" session allowed mentors from various Citi departments to connect with student teams, exploring project proposals and identifying alignment with their skills and insights. Dr Anu Sahni, Programme Director for the MSc in AI for Business, Data Analytics, and Knowledge Transfer Champion at National College of Ireland underscored the transformative power of mentorship: "Having the guidance and support of an experienced mentor can provide a mentee with a broad range of personal and professional benefits, including gaining practical advice and encouragement, as well being exposed to new ideas, and new ways of thinking, and now having another big organisation, Mphasis onboard to support this initiative, we will definitely see a remarkable amount of value added to an already innovative collaboration." New supports This year's cohort has already benefited from additional supports, including valuable insights into innovative solution development from Georgina Lupu Florian and Adrian Florian of Wolfpack Digital. Pritesh Tiwari, CEO of Data Science Wizards (itself a spin-out company from NCI MSc in Data Science), provided guidance on idea building and validation, while Swapnil Parashar, Director of Software Engineering at Oracle Cloud, shared industry perspectives on innovation. New partnership A?significant development for this year's programme is the new strategic partnership withMphasis, a global AI-led, platform-driven technology solutions provider. Mphasis will support participating student teams through project guidance and will sponsor awards and prizes for the winners at the upcoming Dragons' Den event. Rohit Jayachandran, Head of Banking & Financial Services at Mphasis, said: "Our long-standing partnership with Citi has opened the door to impactful collaborations, such as Dragons' Den. At Mphasis, we see immense potential in the next generation of technologists, and working with Citi upStart allows us to nurture that potential and fuel innovation for the future. Additionally, Mphasis' philosophy, "AI Without Intelligence Is Artificial", aligns perfectly with the programme's focus on intelligent application of technology." The ten participating teams, comprised of master's students in Cloud Computing, Data Analytics, AI, AI for Business, Fintech, or Cybersecurity, are developing a diverse range of impactful ideas. These include "Finpals," an AI-driven solution for automating credit risk analysis; "Lendloop," a peer-to-peer lending platform; "Medinova AI" and "Medtrix," both focused on enhancing healthcare access and patient support; "Phantom," an all-in-one Irish tourism app; and "Venture Forge," which aims to innovate within the Carbon Credits Market using blockchain technology. You can read more about the teams and their projects here on the NCI we...

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

In this episode, North Carolina resident Jerry Millwood shares a decades-long history of Sasquatch encounters, tracing his fascination back to the 1970s after seeing The Legend of Boggy Creek.What began as curiosity grew into a sustained, personal journey of observation and research—one that has included multiple sightings and unexplained events both in the region and on his own property.Jerry walks us through the progression of his experiences, from early signs like unusual tree breaks and activity in the surrounding woods to increasingly close encounters, including sightings near his home and even within view of his front yard. Along the way, he describes recurring patterns of behavior he's witnessed over the years: rock-throwing incidents, powerful vocalizations, heavy nighttime movement, and what he believes are deliberate visits after dark.Beyond the encounters themselves, Jerry speaks candidly about the difficulty of coming forward with stories like these, the social pressure that often keeps witnesses silent, and why skepticism is essential in separating genuine experiences from misinterpretation or hoaxes. He also highlights the importance of community—how local knowledge, trusted researchers, and shared fieldwork have helped him test what he's seen and stay grounded in the search for answers.The episode closes with Jerry discussing his involvement in organized research efforts, including groups such as Sasquatch Recon and NCI. He reflects on how documenting and sharing his experiences has led to unexpected validations, new connections, and a deeper commitment to understanding what may be happening in the wild places around him.Whether you're a long-time believer, a careful skeptic, or somewhere in between, Jerry's account offers a detailed, thoughtful look at what sustained, real-world Sasquatch activity can feel like over a lifetime.Get Our FREE NewsletterGet Brian's Books Leave Us A VoicemailVisit Our WebsiteSupport Our SponsorsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/sasquatch-odyssey--4839697/support.

On Wednesday, December 3rd, NCI's Mayor Square campus building will host the College's very first Sustainability Day. At this event, live poster presentations will highlight NCI's work in sustainability. These presentations will be followed by an afternoon of skills sharing sessions alongside NCI's annual Bring and Buy Sale in partnership with NCISU. All proceeds from the Bring and Buy Sale will go to a charity nominated by the Students' Union. This event is open to the public. Event Details: When: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025. Time: 10am to 5pm. Where: NCI's Mayor Square campus building. Who: Open to the public. Free to attend. To view the full schedule of Sustainability Day visit NCI's Event Page. At National College of Ireland, sustainability is not just a buzzword; it's a guiding principle that permeates every aspect of our institution. From our academic programmes to our campus operations, we prioritise sustainability to ensure a thriving future for generations to come. Days such as this give everyone at NCI, staff, students, and faculty, along with friends, family, and community neighbours the chance to come together. While days like this showcase the warm atmosphere that NCI consistently strives to create, it is highly rewarding when these days also serve a good cause. Being aware of sustainability issues and knowing how we can make changes is so important, and as nights grow colder and the festive season approaches, the Bring and Buy Sale allows the NCI community to come together to help others. Every little step creates the bigger picture. Sustainability in Action NCI has put sustainability at the very heart of our 5 Year Strategic Plan. The College aims to become one of the most sustainable third level institutions in the country and will align our teaching, research and campus to ensure sustainable practice across everything we do. "We are excited to welcome the community to NCI for Sustainability Day 2025. Community engagement and education are essential to achieving our sustainability goals. This event not only highlights NCI's own research and work in sustainability but also shares practical skills and ideas to empower the community to contribute through meaningful, everyday changes of their own." ~ Frances Sheridan, Vice Dean for Undergraduate Programmes and Learning and Teaching at NCI's School of Computing. You can learn more about sustainability at NCI by visiting their Sustainability page. #ChangingLivesThroughEducation See more stories here. More about Irish Tech News Irish Tech News are Ireland's No. 1 Online Tech Publication and often Ireland's No.1 Tech Podcast too. You can find hundreds of fantastic previous episodes and subscribe using whatever platform you like via our Anchor.fm page here: https://anchor.fm/irish-tech-news If you'd like to be featured in an upcoming Podcast email us at Simon@IrishTechNews.ie now to discuss. Irish Tech News have a range of services available to help promote your business. Why not drop us a line at Info@IrishTechNews.ie now to find out more about how we can help you reach our audience. You can also find and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat.

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ece Cali Daylan interviews author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley about the article, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer" by Bradley, et al published October 13, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss the manuscript, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study." The PACIFIC-2 study was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of simultaneous durvalumab with concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab to the concurrent chemoradiation followed by placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized 2:1 to durvalumab and placebo, respectively. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet its primary endpoint. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two arms. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 53% of the patients in the durvalumab arm compared to 59% of the patients in the placebo arm. Of note, the frequency of pneumonitis was similar in the two arms. Approximately 28% of patients in each arm developed pneumonitis, and about 5% of the pneumonitis observed in each arm was grade 3 or higher in severity. Treatment discontinuation rates secondary to the adverse events were higher in the durvalumab arm, 25% compared to 12%. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and death were more frequently seen in the durvalumab arm during the first four months of the treatment, which corresponds to the simultaneous administration of chemoradiation and durvalumab. Dr. Bradley, before we delve into the results, can you please explain the rationale for this study design and how this concept fits into the current treatment landscape? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, this trial came on the heels of PACIFIC after there was a progression-free survival benefit showed in PACIFIC that in the locally advanced unresectable population that consolidation immunotherapy, in this case durvalumab, had a progression-free survival benefit. A number of us in the clinical trial space thought to add concurrent immunotherapy in addition to consolidation immunotherapy that that would also improve outcomes for patients. So a number of trials were launched to follow up of PACIFIC. In this case, this is a phase III trial where the control arm was placebo. There was no overall survival results yet from PACIFIC, just a PFS benefit, and a number of countries across the world had not approved maintenance durvalumab in this space. So this trial looked at the experimental arm, which was concurrent immunotherapy, durvalumab, and chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab versus placebo. Dr. Ece Cali: And if we were to focus on the safety profile first, an increased pneumonitis risk was a theoretical concern when immunotherapy is given concurrently with radiation. Do we see any major differences in the safety profile between the two arms in this trial? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: No, and we were concerned about the addition of concurrent immunotherapy and chemoradiation, like you said, towards concern about increased pneumonitis rate, but we did not see increased pneumonitis in the experimental arm over placebo. And the grade 3 or higher, as you said, it was roughly 5%, more or less, in both arms, so we didn't see increase in pneumonitis toxicity with concurrent IO and chemoradiation. Dr. Ece Cali: But interestingly though, despite the lack of significantly increased toxicity with durvalumab, unfortunately, administering immunotherapy simultaneously with chemoradiation therapy did not improve survival. Lack of superiority of this treatment regimen, as you mentioned, is further confirmed across multiple similar negative trial readouts such as ECOG-ACRIN 5181 and CheckMate 73L. Dr. Bradley, in your view, what are some potential explanations for why this strategy did not pan out in clinical trials? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Regarding toxicity, let me go back and point out that we did see an increased number of immune-mediated adverse events. It was 34.7% in the concurrent immunotherapy arm versus 15.7% in the placebo arm. So that led to a higher number of discontinuations of immunotherapy which I think probably had an effect. So we didn't... there was an increased pneumonitis toxicity, but there were expected immune-mediated toxicities that caused people to stop giving immunotherapy. You can see that in the PFS curves. They were, you know, they crossed over after like a month, but initially there was lower PFS for the experimental arm, and then the experimental arm got better after we divided into four months, before four months and after four months. Dr. Ece Cali: For one reason or another, it looks like the simultaneous administration did not really improve outcomes. We now know that simultaneously giving them another concurrent radiation should really no longer be pursued in clinical trials for this patient population. Can you share with our audience what strategies are being studied in this setting and what trials to watch out for in the future? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Sure, I think when you add concurrent radiation to immunotherapy, there were more central tumors in this trial, I think you're killing lymphocytes and negating the effect of immunotherapy. So I think that's the smoking gun for this trial, for the ECOG trial, for the small cell trial that NRG reported, LU005, and other trials. So correct, I don't think there's any need to continue to pursue concurrent immunotherapy in this space of lung cancer. But that's not to say there aren't many other trials that are either ongoing, have accrued and awaiting results, or being planned for the next phase of clinical trials. We have a trial within NRG Oncology called NRG-LU008. It's a randomized phase III trial that is using an SBRT boost to a peripheral primary and chemoradiation to the nodes, because the primary tumor is the one that fails more often than the lymph nodes, and that's compared to PACIFIC in the control arm. PACIFIC-9 is another trial in the same line as the other PACIFIC trials. That one is using dual checkpoint inhibition versus the control arm being PACIFIC. So there are three arms in that trial, durva and oleclumab, durva and monalizumab versus the PACIFIC arm. And that trial is completed accrual, but we have no results from that study yet. Johnson & Johnson has a trial open looking at a nanoparticle. That's a radiosensitizer where bronchoscopy is used to inject the primary tumor and the lymph nodes with a radiosensitizer. That's a randomized phase ll trial that's ongoing. It's got three arms, two different doses of this radiosensitizing drug and then a control arm without injection at all. The control arm is again the PACIFIC arm. And then those of us within the NCI-based clinical trials evaluation program, CTEP, are proposing an intergroup trial that would compare induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemoradiation followed by maintenance immunotherapy versus PACIFIC in a phase III study. So I think there's other trials that are either completed, ongoing completed, or on the horizon to assess in this patient population. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, we definitely have an unmet need to improve survival outcomes for stage III patients, and it's great to hear that there are so many efforts looking at different strategies to improve outcomes for these patients.  Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley, for this informative discussion and for sharing your insights. Any last thoughts? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, we need something, you know. PACIFIC was first reported in 2017, and we really haven't made progress in terms of changing that standard of care control for the last eight years. So we need progress in this area. Dr. Ece Cali: Yep, definitely. Thank you so much for joining, Dr. Bradley.  And thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. DISCLOSURES Dr. Bradley Honoria: Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Varian, Inc, Genentech, Inc. Research Funding: Varian Medical Systems Dr. Cali Research Funding Company: BeiGene, Nuvalent, Inc., Astra Zeneca 

In this timely episode, hosts Val and Dana break down what's shifting in pediatric cancer research funding, and why it matters for kids right now. As a follow-up to an earlier episode about federal funding in 2026, we unpack details on the appalling federal funding cuts planned for pediatric cancer research.In this episode we see:What a projected 37% cut to NCI's budget could mean for pediatric research (fewer grants, center consolidations, and mid-stream project disruptions).Why “More than Four” still matters, and how 4% of NCI funds for pediatrics has always fallen short.The latest on the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI), including the executive order matching $50M (bringing CCDI to $100M for the year) and how data + AI can accelerate precision options for kids.Potential impacts to programs like the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, Pediatric Early Phase Clinical Trials Network, intramural high-risk research, and training awards for emerging scientists.On-the-ground advocacy updates from Capitol Hill, and the power of survivor voices leading the charge.Bright spots in Florida's state investments in cancer research infrastructure, and why long-term, consistent funding is still essential.If you'd like to read more:Recap the facts from this conversation in our blog on federal funding cuts.Review the NCI's report directly by clicking this link.If this conversation moves you, please like, comment, and share to help us educate for change. Leaving a review helps more families find tangible hope.Tune in to hear this inspiring and informative conversation. Don't forget to subscribe, leave a review, and join the fight to make Game Over: c*ncer a reality.Connect with Dana: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danaknichols/Connect with Val: https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-solomon/Upcoming Ckc Events: https://cannonballkidscancer.org/category/make-an-impact/events/----------------------------------Podcast Produced by Hi Hello Labs: Website: https://www.hihellolabs.com/

Dr. Dipen J. Parekh is a globally renowned urologic oncologist, healthcare innovator, and leader in academic medicine. He was appointed Executive Vice President for Health Affairs at the University of Miami and Chief Executive Officer of its health system (UHealth) on June 1, 2025. He remains Founding Director of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute and is an accomplished researcher and professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine who holds the Victor A. Politano Endowed Chair in Urology and is widely celebrated for his groundbreaking contributions to the field of robotic-assisted urologic oncology. Having served as Chief Operating Officer of UHealth from 2020-2025, Chief Clinical Officer from 2017-2020, Chairman of the Department of Urology since 2012, Executive Dean of Clinical Affairs at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and Director of Robotic Surgery for UHealth, Dr. Parekh brings a wealth of academic, clinical, administrative, and institutional experience to the role.Over the course of his career, Dr. Parekh has performed more than 6,000 robotic urologic cancer surgeries, making him one of the most experienced practitioners worldwide. He led the groundbreaking RAZOR trial, published in The Lancet in 2018, which established the efficacy of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy as comparable to open surgery for bladder cancer. He is an NCI funded surgeon scientist with over 200 peer reviewed publications in urologic oncology. His dedication to innovation has also included establishing advanced robotic surgery programs in academic centers across the globe.

“It started out by doing a kind of a white paper that we called Imperatives for Quality Cancer Care. Ellen Stovall, our CEO [of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship] at the time, gave this report to Dr. Richard Klausner, who was the head of National Cancer Institute at the time. He called Ellen immediately and said, ‘Why are we not doing something about this?' Within one year, we had the Office of Cancer Survivorship at NCI,” ONS member Susan Leigh, BSN, RN, told ONS member Ruth Van Gerpen, MS, RN-BC, APRN-CNS, AOCNS®, PMGT-BC, member of the ONS 50th anniversary committee, during a conversation about her involvement in cancer survivorship advocacy. Van Gerpen also spoke with ONS members Deborah Mayer, PhD, RN, AOCN®, FAAN, and Timiya S. Nolan, PhD, APRN-CNP, ANP-BC, about the history and future of cancer survivorship. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Episode Notes  This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 201: Which Survivorship Care Model Is Right for Your Patient? Episode 91: The Seasons of Survivorship Episode 49: The Cancer Survivorship Conundrum ONS Voice article: Our Unified Voices Can Improve Cancer Survivorship Care ONS book: Oncology Nurse Navigation: Delivering Patient-Centered Care Across the Continuum (third edition) ONS course: Essentials in Survivorship Care for the Advanced Practice Provider Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: Incorporating Nurse Navigation to Improve Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Delivery Survivorship Care: More Than Checking a Box The Missing Piece of Survivorship: Cancer Prevention Oncology Nursing Forum articles: Patient Perceptions of Survivorship Care Plans: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation Survivorship Care Plans: Health Actions Taken and Satisfaction After Use ONS Survivorship Learning Library Rehabilitation of People With Cancer: Position Statement from the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses (ARN) and endorsed by the Oncology Nursing Society Connie Henke Yarbro Oncology Nursing History Center American Cancer Society Survivorship resources Cancer Survivors Network Cancer Nation (formerly National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship) Cancer Survival Toolbox Imperatives for Quality Cancer Care: Access, Advocacy, Action, and Accountability (white paper) National Cancer Survivors Day Foundation New England Journal of Medicine article: Seasons of Survival: Reflections of a Physician With Cancer by Fitzhugh Mullan To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities. To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode Leigh: “Another way that [National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship] got very involved with looking at how we keep this information coming and how we really share care with our outside physicians is the development of survivorship care plans. And then we also hoped that we would see more survivorship clinics by now. But between trying to get people to develop care plans and clinics, it's been like pulling teeth. It has been very difficult. And a lot of this struggle to get this going has been, first of all, there isn't enough money to do this. There isn't enough time for immediate staff to take these on, and we just don't have enough staff as it is now. And survivorship is not a moneymaker, so it's just something that has to be done kind of on the side.” TS 11:54 Mayer: “When I became ONS president in the '80s—I was the fourth ONS president—we were given a cancer grant to do something with our presidency. And that was when I really wanted to bring attention to rehabilitation as a means to address cancer survivorship issues because we had a very ‘treat 'em and street 'em' attitude. We gave you your treatment, and we sent you home, and you had to figure out the rest. And there wasn't a lot of knowledge or support to help you put your life back together again afterwards. And so in that process, it was an interdisciplinary group of professionals that tried to come up with what was an appropriate position statement because ONS was just starting to do position statements. And so we developed a first position statement on cancer rehabilitation to address survivorship issues in like 1987 to '89.” TS 17:15 Mayer: “When I went back to school for my PhD, I did my dissertation on health behaviors of cancer survivors and realizing the huge gap in the care that they were getting for anything other than their cancer. We were still focused on their tumor and on treating their tumor. But we were missing the picture that if the cancer didn't kill them, their heart disease would, and they would develop diabetes and other things. … But as people started living longer and longer, we were missing all these other chronic illnesses that would contribute to their quality of life and overall lifespan. So my dissertation put me on a different path, and I think the second part of my career was really focusing on instead of just relieving suffering and the quality of life issues, really looking at cancer care delivery and how we could do a better job of doing the team of teams that people needed to have their issues addressed.” TS 19:34 Nolan: “I ended up having my first permanent role on a hematology-oncology unit at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. And there, I literally saw patients who were fighting for their lives. And despite the severity of their illness, they wanted more than just survival. They wanted to have meaning. They wanted to have dignity. They wanted to have impact with the time that they had left, whatever it was. And so those experiences planted a seed in me. And that seed was that cancer care must extend beyond treatment and we need to embrace, really, quality of life.” TS 23:31 Leigh: “I was not the researcher. I was not the major writer. I was not the identifier of a lot of the risk factors. But I spread the seed. I took all that information from different sources and shared that with all of the audiences that I spoke to. So I was called a seed spreader, kind of the Johnny Appleseed of oncology nursing at that particular time. And then once we saw academia step in and say, ‘We need to get good data about what's going on here,' … then my stories and stories from survivors started decreasing and the presentations were given more from the academic standpoint.” TS 34:41 Nolan: “I really believe in community, academic, government, and industry approaches to survivorship as well. We can no longer operate in silos. We really need to learn how to walk across the aisle, build bridges as we can so that we can do this work together because we know that communities bring lived wisdom and context. And academicians bring the research and the ability to create the evidence. The government brings policy and public health infrastructure, and certainly industry brings innovation and scalability. But also in this new paradigm that we find ourselves in, the industry may also bring the dollars to be able to help us to do even more work.” TS 43:45

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Fumiko Chino discuss several of the top abstracts presented at the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, including research on federally funded clinical trials and financial reimbursement for trial participation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today, we are highlighting key abstracts that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I am delighted to be joined today by the chair of this year's meeting, Dr. Fumiko Chino. Dr. Chino is an associate professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a research focus on access, affordability, and equity. She is also a consultant editor of JCO Oncology Practice and the host of the Put into Practice podcast. I have got to listen to that.  Dr. Chino, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I am overjoyed to be here, and absolutely, you should take a listen. Dr. Monty Pal: Definitely. And FYI for listeners, our full disclosures are all available in the transcript of this episode, so do have a look if you are inclined. Now, we have really seen some fantastic advances in health services and quality and supportive care, digital health, and beyond. There are some great abstracts that were presented at this year's meeting. I have actually picked a couple that I am particularly interested in and that I believe you share my interest in as well.  So, the first is an abstract actually from my friends at SWOG (Abstract 94). So, this was a terrific abstract from Joe Unger and Michael LeBlanc and Dawn Hershman. And this, I think, really hits on a very, very key issue right now, which is the benefit of federally funded trials. Do you mind just kind of spelling out some of the observations from what I think is a really brilliant piece of work? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely, and I think Dr. Unger's work is really important for our current funding environment. I think that this research is really essential to do to show the role of federal sponsorship in the design and conduct of clinical trials. Because what they did was really look at a landscape analysis over the last 20 years looking at funding and were able to show quite clearly that federal funding really matters for advancing the science in cancer care. So what they showed was that the federal funding was more commonly essential for early-stage clinical trials, so those phase 1, phase 2 trials that really help advance the science. And that federal funding was really essential for multimodality drug combinations, combinations with drug and surgery, combinations with drug and radiation. Those trials were much more likely to be federal funded. And then the last thing is that they showed that the patients that are, I think, the largest at risk for gaps in care who really need the advancements in science that keep U.S. health care amazing and wonderful and world-leading, so the kids, the pediatric patients, the patients with rare cancers, and the patients actually that could benefit from de-escalation or right-sizing of treatment, they were also all more likely to have federal funding. So I think this research that was presented really shows that if, unfortunately, current status of restricted federal funding continues, that we are going to lose out in terms of the next generation of cancer cures, cancer de-escalations, and the type of combination treatments that make advancements in science. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed. You know, I always point to Joe Unger's paper, and I think it is in JAMA Oncology, right, that showed life-years gained from NCI trials. It is such an important piece of work. I think this is a really nice complement to that, isn't it, to show the specific areas that otherwise would be, am I right in saying, kind of largely untouched? Dr. Fumiko Chino: I think you are right in that what we know from what industry will sponsor versus what the federal government will sponsor, that the federal government really helps make up the gap to really make those advancements that save lives, that lead to more birthdays, that advance our knowledge and our capacity for providing more cures and more successful futures for our patients. I always like pointing to the de-escalation research, which is, and this is not to dig pharma, but no pharmaceutical company is going to run a trial that says you can give less of their drug, right? It just does not make sense for the business end of the science. And so, thinking about how to right-size treatments, how to do more with less, that really is the purview of the federal government. Dr. Monty Pal: Absolutely. Absolutely.  I am going to shift gears here and bring up another abstract that I found to be quite intriguing, and this relates to reimbursement of expenses, et cetera, for clinical trials. This is an abstract from Courtney Williams and team. It brings to mind the importance, I think, of recognizing the hardships that patients take on by clinical trials, but I also would love for you to comment on that sort of fine line between reimbursement for expenses and then, you know, sort of undue enticement. It is a challenging balance there. But give me your reflections on this abstract. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. You are speaking about Dr. Williams' Abstract 93 from the Alabama group, and Alabama actually has this incredible group of health services researchers which is, are doing really important work in this space. What this trial shows is that, you know, it is a small pilot study, it is 30-something patients that received some support primarily for their travel and additional expenses related to their clinical trial participation for breast cancer. It showed that the money helps, and I think what we all know is that it is expensive to participate in clinical trials. It requires additional visits. It often requires some significant travel burden for our patients, and I do not feel that money reimbursement for clinical trial expenses is an inducement. Nobody participates in a clinical trial to get the money for their gas, right? We know that our patients are making some pretty significant sacrifices in order to participate in clinical trials, and what this type of program does is just actually reimburse them for their outlaying of funds.  And I loved this trial because the patients were actually given $1,000 a month for the first 4 months of their trial participation, and what the study showed is that the patients were using it for things like travel-related food, for things like transportation, caregiver expenses, or even some of their out-of-pocket medical expenses like cost sharing or prescriptions. And that they said that overall, the reimbursement really made a difference in terms of their capacity for staying on the clinical trial. Because we know our clinical trials really are not able to enroll the full diversity of patients that often have a disease, and that the patients that are at biggest risk for a health care disparity or a gap in care are also the least likely to enroll in a clinical trial.  Programs like this are an essential part of showing how financial toxicity can be overcome with pretty straightforward assistance to patients to help reimburse them for the things that they are already taking out of their pocket, for parking costs, for that $10 soup that they buy at the cancer center, for those additional expenses that we are, unfortunately, putting on them. Dr. Monty Pal: Very well said. And you know, I have started to dabble in clinical trials looking at CAR T-cell therapies for kidney cancer, and I have to tell you, it is just insane the amount of cost that a patient would have to take on to comply with the stipulations for some of these novel therapies. We require that they stay within 30 minutes of the facility for 28 days, and unless we are compensating for some of that, I mean, how can one afford a hotel stay that is that long? I mean, it is just, it is unprecedented, and it would certainly provide a huge barrier to many patients who would otherwise enroll. Really well said. I also wanted to bring up another financially driven topic, and treating renal cell, again, I would say the vast majority, 90% plus of my patients in clinic are on oral drug therapies. And I cannot tell you how often a patient will show up in my practice and say, "Doc, I have got 15 days out of this 30-day prescription left. What do I do with it?" You know, or some come with pill bottles from a deceased loved one. And it is so frustrating to say, "Take it to the pharmacy and they will just get rid of it for you." But sounds like there is an abstract from Dr. Mackler, Abstract 102, that seems to address this topic quite well. Am I right? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. This presentation, I was the most excited about seeing because this group, which helps run a cancer drug repository, theirs is called YesRx, presented their data from the last approximately two years of running this repository, and they were able to show incredible benefit for their patients in Michigan. And it is a really straightforward program. It is run by pharmacists. It has support from the legislation in Michigan. And what they were able to show is that they repurposed medications that would otherwise have been discarded. They delivered them directly to the oncologist, which then actually dispersed them to the patients. They helped 1,000 patients in less than two years. They saved them millions of dollars, over $15 million presented in the abstract. And it is just a win-win-win because I know that patients actually, and sometimes patient caregivers, they feel very sad to have spent a lot of money out of pocket for their medication, and then if they have a dose reduction or, obviously, you know, if the surviving spouse then has to get rid of their medication, just dispose of them, it is very disheartening. And this is a way of kind of reclaiming power for patients. So they were able to accept donations from all over the state of Michigan and then also help over 1,000 patients. And so, it is a phenomenal program. Dr. Monty Pal: Just wild when I came across the dollar amounts, right, that they were saving. It just, it seems like a place that, you know, we just have to look, as cancer centers, right, and really take this on. Just brilliant. On that same theme of cost savings and so forth, you know, I think there has been a lot of focus on what recent policies have done in the context of us having access to therapies and so forth. And one of the topics that has come up is the Inflation Reduction Act and how changes pertaining to the IRA have really played a role in one's ability to take on some of these expensive prescriptions. And I believe John Lin and colleagues tackled that issue in Abstract 97. Could you comment on that, Fumiko? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. Dr. Lin is one of my colleagues here at MD Anderson, so I know him very well, and he has been doing really phenomenal work over the last several years with looking at drug affordability and access. And what his analysis shows is that for patients, after the Inflation Reduction Act's cap on out-of-pocket expenses, is that it really did show that out-of-pocket expenses decreased. So what the Inflation Reduction Act did is that it eliminated the 5% co-insurance and placed this $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses. And what that led to for these patients that were not able to have the low-income subsidy is that there were lower costs, and that there was a lower rate of drug abandonment, meaning that the prescription was not refilled. There was also a lower rate of unfilled prescriptions as well. And I think that it shows that health policy really can improve access to care. I think the flip side of the fact that the IRA, this policy, really did seem to help people is that what his research showed is that actually, even with the benefits of this cap, is that actually it is still really high in terms of the rate of people who are not able to fill their prescriptions or that completely abandon them over time. And that unfortunately, even with this change, that over half of people without the low-income subsidy were potentially not getting the full benefit of their medications because they were not able to afford them. And so I think it really kind of highlights that we still need to do more work about making drugs affordable. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. And I mean, in a setting like this, I mean, I think it is important to recognize that $2,000 is a lot, it is a big chunk of change, right, for a lot of families in the U.S. What do you think of the prospect of, like, decreasing that cap? Is that something that from a policy standpoint you would be supportive of? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Well, so something that is a real option for patients on Medicare is there is something called the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, and what it allows you to do is actually prorate the $2,000 over the whole year. And so instead of having to pay $2,000 as soon as you fill your prescription, because you are going to have, if you have an expensive medication, it is essentially you have to pay the $2,000 in January, right? It allows you to prorate it, so essentially $170 a month, and that comes to you as like a regular bill. And I think that as rolled out as part of the IRA is a really lovely way of thinking about how do we make these payments more stable over time, so it is not a huge hit sort of at the beginning of the year. And I think that alone actually can make a difference in terms of trying to help make sure that people can actually get their medications. Dr. Monty Pal: That is an excellent tip. Excellent tip.  We are going to shift gears entirely. We have been talking a lot about the dollars and cents of things and talk about an abstract from Sophia Smith and colleagues. So this is Abstract 550 at your meeting. And this hinged on a program of sorts to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. We do not often think about PTSD in the vernacular for oncology patients, but indeed, I mean, it is something that they must face, especially in the context of long-term survivorship. Can you talk a little bit about Dr. Smith's abstract? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. I love this work from Dr. Smith, who is at Duke. She worked with Dr. Applebaum, who was my old colleague at Memorial Sloan Kettering. And this group of researchers really is trying to figure out how to best support people into survivorship so that they can actually thrive. And their patient population for this work was actually people who received stem cell transplant, and they focused on people who had PTSD symptoms. And what they were able to show through this SMART design, which is essentially this serial, multiple randomized trial, so everyone got randomized upfront to either usual care or this app, so this digital app that actually helped coach people through cancer distress. And then for the people who were non-responders, they were then additionally randomized to either the app plus coaching or a therapist versus the cognitive behavioral therapy or CBT.  And what they were able to show is that, number one, anyone who had the app seemed like they did better than those who did not start the path with the app. But then the additional help of either the therapist or the coach or the CBT made additional benefit over time. And so, I think this shows a really nice stepped care, which is you can potentially have some right-sizing of treatments cost saving, if we sort of give everyone the app, which is, I think, overall pretty low cost. And that for the people who do not get the full benefit from the app, then you can think about these maybe more tailored approaches, the therapist, the coach, the CBT, but that some people actually just respond to the app. And I think it allows us to, again, right-size the care for our patients. And I think it is really innovative to think about how technology can help improve access to care in the setting of something like PTSD. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant summary. Brilliant summary.  Gosh, it looks like such an exciting meeting this year. Congratulations on a terrific program for the ASCO Quality Care Symposium. I know you played a huge role in developing it, and thanks for sharing your insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Fumiko Chino: No, I really appreciate you having me. ASCO Quality is my favorite meeting of the year. You know, it is really a phenomenal meeting, and I am so excited for next year in Boston in 2026. Dr. Monty Pal: Awesome. And thanks to our listeners too. You are going to find links to all the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers: Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal Dr. Fumiko Chino @fumikochino Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Monty Pal:     Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis Dr. Fumiko Chino:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Institute for Value Based Medicine Research Funding: Merck

In Part 2 of my interview with Lakshmi Grama, we find out what happened when the NCI team involved people affected by cancer in naming a new part of the cancer.gov website. Lakshmi also reveals how NCI was already exploring the possibilities of generative AI for precision communication about cancer. Missed Part 1 of our […] The post Lakshmi Grama on how people affected by cancer helped shape Cancer.gov’s Clinical Trials Information (Part 2) appeared first on Health Communication Partners.

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Alanna Church, MD, Associate Director, Laboratory for Molecular Pediatric Pathology at Boston Children's Hospital, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School, and Conference Cochair joins us on OsteoBites to discuss insights and higlights from the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Discovery and Innovation in Pediatric Cancer—From Biology to Breakthrough Therapies, September 25-28 in Boston.Dr. Church is currently a Molecular and Pediatric Pathologist at Boston Children's Hospital, where she is a founder and associate medical director of the Laboratory for Molecular Pediatric Pathology (LaMPP). She is an Assistant Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School, the Program Director for the Harvard Molecular Genetic Pathology Fellowship, and the incoming Chair of Clinical Practice for the Association for Molecular Pathology. Her clinical and research work focuses on bringing molecular testing to the clinical care of children with cancer. Through institutional projects (the Profile study, GAIN consortium study), she has profiled thousands of children's tumors and has used these results to make real-time impacts on their diagnoses and treatments. She is involved in national initiatives to improve the quality and access to molecular testing for children with cancer, including the NCI-funded Count Me In Study (Dana Farber, Broad Institute), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Institutes of Health, and the Children's Oncology Group.

The Statin Dilemma: What Your Cardiologist Might Not Be Telling YouIn this episode of the Evolving Wellness Podcast, host Sarah Kleiner speaks with Dr. James Caner, an accomplished cardiologist with expertise in both conventional and alternative heart health treatments. They discuss the perplexing rise of atrial fibrillation, especially in seemingly healthy individuals, the shortcomings of standard cardiology practices, and the potential benefits of natural medicine. Dr. Caner shares his insights on various natural therapies, including the promising results of using LifeWave carnosine patches and developing comprehensive natural supplement regimens for cholesterol and blood pressure management. The conversation also touches upon genetic predispositions, the impact of COVID-19 on heart health, and strategies for holistic cardiovascular care.Natural Cardiology Institute's Mission:Founded by Dr. James Kneller, the Natural Cardiology Institute is committed to transforming heart care by combining evidence-based medicine with natural therapies. Their mission is to help patients achieve optimal heart health through prevention, education, and personalized care plans that address both lifestyle and medical needs. With over 20 years of expertise, NCI seeks to deliver better outcomes for all patients by blending advanced cardiology with holistic, integrative approaches.Schedule a telemedicine consultation with Dr. James Kneller:https://drjames-kneller007.clientsecure.me/ Connect with James Kneller, M.D., Ph.D., FHRSWebsite: www.naturalcardiologyinstitute.comYouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/jamesknellermd________________________________________Sponsored By:→ Troscriptions | There's a completely new way to optimize your health. Give it a try at http://troscriptions.com/SARAHK, or enter SARAHK at checkout for 10% off your first order.→ Bon Charge| Go to https://us.boncharge.com/products/red-light-face-mask?rfsn=8108115.26608d & use code for SARAHKLEINER for 15% off storewide.Timestamps00:00 Introduction to Atrial Fibrillation00:44 Guest Introduction: Dr. James Caner01:41 Podcast Overview and Disclaimers02:56 Dr. James Caner's Approach to Cardiology05:03 Understanding Electrophysiology07:31 The Rise of Atrial Fibrillation14:01 Impact of COVID-19 on Heart Health20:36 Natural Therapies and Treatments35:00 The Mystery of Plaque Reversal35:38 Conventional Medicine vs. Natural Remedies37:03 The Role of Cholesterol in Heart Health38:16 Genetic Predispositions and Heart Health41:04 Challenges with Insurance and Alternative Treatments44:36 Developing Natural Supplements for Heart Health52:05 Exploring Carnasine Patches59:32 Final Thoughts and Resources________________________________________

Some quotes: “When we treat the house as the biggest duct, comfort and performance finally line up.” “Field data becomes financial data the moment a homeowner decides—so it has to be right.” “If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.” — often attributed to Lord Kelvin Fresh back from the early-September NCI Summit in Austin, Bill and Eric recap three big themes: whole-home thinking, data you can trust, and tools that make better work faster. The “high-performance HVAC” mindset came through in a lively contractor panel moderated by Ben Lipscomb, where folks like Mitch Bailey, Dustin Cole, Ty Branaman, Jeremy Begley, MIcahel Cianfrocco, and others talked about uniting HVAC and building science to solve real problems, improve installs, and reduce callbacks. NCI's training depth—airflow, combustion, diagnostics—was front and center, and the format (several sessions presented twice) helped attendees catch more of what mattered. Eric highlighted his session on using recorded field data for smarter troubleshooting and clearer homeowner communication, calling out platforms like MeasureQuick to aggregate, analyze, and report. On the show floor, you two dug into standout tools: the Shaeco fin-restoration attachment for oscillating tools (a genuine hail-damage time saver), the EEV-Mate for driving unipolar electronic expansion valves (with a demo Ty Branaman filmed), and Testo's 860i wireless thermal imager that streams to a phone or tablet—great for homeowner show-and-tell. Startups NOSO Labs (AI for windshield-time prep and voice-note capture) and Thalo Labs (multi-point system sensors) hinted at where the trade is headed. With ~210 attendees and ~20 exhibitors—Fieldpiece, TEC, Daikin, Energy Circle, TSI, Sauermann, and more—the vibe was busy, practical, and optimistic. They also shouted out the Canadian contingent (including Anthony Woo, Contractor of the Year-Small) and noted EOS adoption gains. Bill also notes that BetterHVAC.org sign-ups ticked up to ~250 contractors, and he previewed a heavy fall travel calendar (Nexstar Super Meeting, Women in HVACR, BPA New England, Heat Pump Summit, ASHRAE Buildings XVI, etc.). NCI's next Summit is slated for September 2026 the Great Smoky Mountains—contractors should keep an eye out. LINKS: Bill: https://www.linkedin.com/in/billspohn/ Eric: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-kaiser-323a1563/ NCI site: https://www.nationalcomfortinstitute.com/ NCI Homeowner site: https://www.myhomecomfort.org/ NCI Summit Site: https://www.gotosummit.com/ The GRIT Foundation: https://www.thegritfoundation.com/ The Joe Groh Foundation: https://www.josephgrohfoundation.org/ Shaeco Coil Straightener: https://trutechtools.com/condenser-coil-connection/ EEV Mate: https://trutechtools.com/eevmate Testo 860i: https://trutechtools.com/testo-860i-wireless-thermal-imaging-camera/ BetterHVAC: www.BetterHVAC.org This episode was recorded in September 2025.  

Today I get to talk with Lakshmi Grama, former Associate Director for Dissemination and Digital Communications at the National Cancer Institute. She shares stories of early days at NCI, bringing everyone to the table, and power dynamics in health information. Communication about clinical trials is a very specialized part of health communication, but stories from […] The post Lakshmi Grama on how people affected by cancer helped shape Cancer.gov's Clinical Trials Information (Part 1) appeared first on Health Communication Partners.

In this episode of The Buzz, LM Bennett discusses her transition from bench science to team science at the NIH and NCI, co-authoring a field guide, and her new book, 'How to Succeed at Collaborative Research: A Practical Guide for Teams.' The conversation delves into the significance of trust, emotional intelligence, and effective communication in scientific collaborations, as well as the challenges of virtual teamwork. She also shares insights on designing successful retreats and fostering interdisciplinary teams, emphasizing the importance of intentionality and preemptive planning in collaborative efforts.HOME | LM Bennett Consulting Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episode! For more from ACT-IAC, follow us on LinkedIn or visit http://www.actiac.org.Learn more about membership at https://www.actiac.org/join.Donate to ACT-IAC at https://actiac.org/donate. Intro/Outro Music: See a Brighter Day/Gloria TellsCourtesy of Epidemic Sound(Episodes 1-159: Intro/Outro Music: Focal Point/Young CommunityCourtesy of Epidemic Sound)

Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Petros Grivas discuss innovative new intravesical therapies and other recent advances in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Monty Pal here at the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. And I'm really delighted to be your new host here. Today's episode is going to really sort of focus on an area near and dear to my heart, something I actually see in the clinics, and that's bladder cancer. We're specifically going to be discussing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, which actually comprises about 75% of new cases. Now, in recent years, there's been a huge shift towards personalized bladder-preserving strategies, including innovative therapies and new agents that really are reducing reliance on more primitive techniques like radical cystectomy and radiation therapy. And I'm really excited about this new trend. And really at the forefront of this is one of my dear friends and colleagues, Dr. Petros Grivas. He's a professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Hematology Oncology at the University of Washington. It's going to take a while to get through all these titles. He's taken on a bunch of new roles. He is medical director of the International Program, medical director of the Local and Regional Outreach Program, and also professor in the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. Petros, welcome to the program. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you so much, Monty. It's exciting for me to be here. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Just FYI for our audience, our disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  We're going to get right into it, Petros. Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, this is a really, really challenging space. We see a lot of recurrence and progression of the disease over time, about 50% to 70% of patients do have some recurrence after initial treatment, and about 30% are ultimately going to progress on to muscle-invasive or metastatic disease. Now, I will say that when you and I were in training, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer was something that was almost relegated to the domain of the urologist, right? They would use treatments such as BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) in a serial fashion. It was rare, I think, for you and I to really enter into this clinical space, but that's all changing, isn't it? I mean, can you maybe tell us about some of the new therapies, two or three that you're really excited about in this space? Dr. Petros Grivas: Monty, you're correct. Traditionally and conventionally, our dear friends and colleagues in urology have been managing patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The previous term was superficial bladder cancer. Now, it has changed, to your point, to non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this has to do with the staging of this entity. These tumors in superficial layers of bladder cancer, not invading the muscularis propria, the muscle layer, which makes the bladder contract for urine to be expelled. As you said, these patients have been treated traditionally with intravesical BCG, one of the oldest forms of immunotherapy that was developed back in the 1970s, and this is a big milestone of immunotherapy development. However, over the years, in the last 50 years, there were not many options for patients in whom the cancers had progression or recurrence, came back after this intravesical BCG. Many of those patients were undergoing, and many of them still may be undergoing, what we call radical cystectomy, meaning removal of the bladder and the lymph nodes around the bladder. The development of newer agents over the last several years has given the patients the option of having other intravesical therapies, intravesical meaning the delivery of drugs, medications inside the bladder, aiming to preserve the bladder, keep the bladder in place. And there are many examples of those agents. Just to give you some examples, intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy drugs that you and me may be giving intravenously, some of them can be given inside the bladder, intravesical installation. One example of that is a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel. These drugs are given in sequence one after the other inside the bladder, and they have seen significant efficacy, good results, again, helping patients keeping the bladder when they can for patients with what we call BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And again, there's criteria that the International Bladder Cancer Group and the FDA developed, how to define when BCG fails, when we have BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And we're actually going to get into some of the FDA requirements and development pathways and so forth. What I'm really interested in hearing, and I'm sure our audience is too, are maybe some of the new intravesical treatments that are coming around. I do think it's exciting that the gemcitabine and docetaxel go into the bladder indeed, but what are some of the top new therapies? Pick two or three that you're excited about that people should be looking out for in this intravesical space. Dr. Petros Grivas: For sure, for sure. In terms of the new up-and-coming therapies, there are a couple that come to mind. One of them is called TAR-200, T-A-R 200. This agent is actually a very interesting system. It's an intravesical delivery of a chemotherapy called gemcitabine, the one that I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that is actually being delivered through what we call a pretzel, which is like a rounded [pretzel-shaped] structure working like an osmotic pump, and that is being delivered inside the bladder intravesically by urologists. And this drug is releasing, through the osmotic release mechanism, this chemotherapeutic drug, gemcitabine, inside the bladder. And this can be replaced once every 3 weeks in the beginning. And the data so far from early-phase trials are really, really promising, showing that this agent may be potentially regulatory approved down the road. So TAR-200 is something to keep in mind. And similarly, in the same context, there is a different drug that also uses the same mechanism, and this osmotic release, this pretzel, it's just encoded with a different agent. The different agent is an FGFR inhibitor, a target therapy called erdafitinib, a drug that you and me may give in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma if they have an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And that drug is called TAR-210. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And can I ask you, in that setting, do you have to have an FGFR3 mutation to receive it? Or what is the context there? Dr. Petros Grivas: So for TAR-210, TAR-2-1-0, usually there is a checking to see if there is an FGFR3 mutation or fusion. And the big question, Monty, is do we have adequate tissue, right? From a limited tissue on what we call the TURBT, right, that urologists do. And now there is a lot of development in technology, for example, urine circulating tumor DNA to try to detect these mutations in the urine to see whether the patient may be eligible for this TAR-210. Both of those agents are not FDA approved, but there are significant promising clinical trials. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So now let's go to a rapid-fire round. Give us two more agents that you're excited about in this intravesical space. What do you think? Dr. Petros Grivas: There is another one called cretostimogene. It's a long name. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: They really make these names very easy for us, don't they? Dr. Petros Grivas: They are not Greek names, Monty, I can tell you, you know. Even my Greek language is having trouble pronouncing them. The cretostimogene, it's actually almost what we call a growth factor, a GM-CSF. The actual name of this agent is CG0070. This is a replicating mechanism where GM-CSF is replicating in cells. And this agent has shown significant results again, like the TAR-200, in BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. I would say very quickly, two agents that actually were recently approved and they're already available in clinical practice, is nadofaragene firadenovec, another long name. That's a non-replicating vector that has the gene of interferon alfa-2b that stimulates the immune system in the bladder. It's given once every 3 months. And the last one that was, as I mentioned, already FDA approved, it's an interleukin-15 superagonist. It's another long name, which is hard to pronounce, but I will give it a try. It's a drug that was recently actually approved also in the UK. The previous name was N-803. It's given together with BCG as a combination for BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: This is a huge dilemma, I think, right? Because if you're a practicing, I'm going to say urologist for the moment, I guess the challenge is how do you decide between an IL-15 superagonist? How do you decide between a pretzel-eluting agent? How do you decide between that and maybe something that's ostensibly, I'm going to guess, cheaper, like gemcitabine and docetaxel? What's sort of the current thinking amongst urologists? Dr. Petros Grivas: Multiple factors play into our account when the decision is being made. I discuss with urologists all the time. It's not an easy decision because we do not have head-to-head comparisons between those agents. As you mentioned, intravesical chemotherapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel has been used over the years and this is the lowest cost, I would say, the cheapest option with good efficacy results. Obviously, the nadofaragene firadenovec every 3 months and the interleukin-15 superagonist, N-803, plus BCG have also been approved. The question is availability of those agents, are they available? Are they reimbursed? Cost of those agents can come into play. Frequency of administration, you know, once every 3 months versus more frequent. And of course, the individual efficacy and toxicity data, preference of the patients; sometimes the provider, the urologist, may have something that they may be more familiar with. But we lack this head-to-head comparison. Of course, I want to make sure I mention that radical cystectomy may still be the option for appropriate patients. So that complicates also the decision making and has to be individualized, customized, and personalized, taking into account all those factors. And there is not one size fitting all. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So I think we discussed five intravesical therapies. As you point out, and you know, I'm going to get some calls about this: I think I referred to radical cystectomy as being a more primitive procedure. Not true at all. I think it's something that still is, you know, a mainstay of management in this disease space. But I guess it gets even more complicated, am I right, Petros? Because now we have systemic therapies that we can actually apply in this non-muscle invasive setting for at this point, refractory disease. Can you maybe just give us a quick two-minute primer on that? Dr. Petros Grivas: Absolutely, and systemic therapies now come into play, as you said. And a classical example of that, Monty, came from the KEYNOTE-057 trial that we published about 6 years ago. This is intravenous pembrolizumab, given intravascularly, intravenously, as opposed to the previously discussed intravesical administration of agents. Pembrolizumab was tested in that KEYNOTE-057 trial and showed efficacy about, I would say, one out of five patients, about 20%, had a complete response of the tumor in the bladder in a year after starting the treatment. Again, it's hard to compare across different agents, but obviously when we give something intravenously, there is a risk of toxicity, side effects systemically, what we call immune-related adverse events. And this can also play in the decision making, right? When you have intravesical agents versus intravascular agents, there is different toxicity profiles in terms of systemic toxicity. But intravenous pembrolizumab has been an option, FDA approved, since, if I remember, it was early 2020 when this became FDA approved. There are other agents being tested in this disease, but like atezolizumab through the SWOG study that Dr. Black and Dr. Singh led, but atezolizumab is not FDA approved for this indication. Again, this is for BCG unresponsive, high-risk, non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So maybe teach us how it works, for instance, at an expert center like the Fred Hutch. When you see a patient with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, there's obviously the option of surgery, there's the intravesical therapies, which I imagine the urology team is still really at the helm of. But then, I guess there has to be consideration of all options. So you've got to bring up systemic therapy with agents like pembrolizumab. In that context, are you involved that early on in the conversation? Dr. Petros Grivas: That's a great discussion, Monty. Paradigm is shifting as we mentioned together. The urologists have been treating these patients and still they are the mainstay of the treaters, the managers in this disease. But medical oncologists come to play more and more, especially with the FDA approval of intravenous pembrolizumab about 5 years ago [GC1]  [KM2] . We have the concept of multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic here at Fred Hutch and University of Washington. This happens every Tuesday morning, and we're very excited because it's a one-stop shop for the patients. We have the urologist, a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and experts from radiology and pathology, and we all review cases specifically with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. But every now and then, we see patients with BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. And this is where we discuss and we talk to the patient about pros and cons of all those options. And that's a classic example where medical oncologists may start to see those patients and offer their input and expertise. In addition to that, sometimes we have clinical trials, we may see these patients because there are systemic agents that may be administered in this setting. We have the SunRISe trial program that includes also a systemically administered checkpoint inhibitor. So that's another example where we see patients either in the context of multi-clinic or in individual solo clinics to counsel the patients about the pros and cons of the systemically administered agents in the context of clinical trials. Usually checkpoint inhibitors are the class of agents that are being tested in this particular scenario. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I can see a scenario where it's really going to require this sort of deep dive, much in the way that we do for prostate cancer, for instance, where the medical oncologist is involved very early on and planning out any sort of systemic therapy component of treatment or at the very least, at least spelling out those options. I think it's going to be really interesting to see what this space looks like 5 or 10 years down the road. In closing, I wanted to go through something that I think is so different in this space, at least for the time being, and that is the paradigm for FDA approval. When you and I have our fellows in the clinics, we always say, “Look, you know, the paradigm in this disease and that disease and the other disease needs to be phase 3 randomized trials, right? Big thousand patient experiences where you're testing clinical endpoints.” That's tough in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, right? Because thankfully, outcomes can actually be quite good, you know, in this setting, right? It's tough to actually estimate overall survival in some of these early-stage populations. Tell me what the current regulatory bar is, and this is a tough thing to do in 2 minutes or less but tell me where you see it headed. Dr. Petros Grivas: You alluded to that before, Monty, when I was giving the background and we talked about the regulatory approval. And I have to very quickly go back in time about 10 years ago because it's important for context that can help us in other disease types too. We had workshops with the FDA and the NCI with the help of the International Bladder Cancer Group and other colleagues. And we try to define a framework, what endpoints are meaningful for those patients in this disease. It was a multidisciplinary, multiple stakeholders meeting, where we tried to define what is important for patients. What are the available agents? What are the trial designs we can accept? And what are the meaningful endpoints that the regulatory agencies can accept for regulatory approval? And that was critical in that mission because it allowed us to design clinical trials, for example, single-arm trials in a disease where there was no standard of care. There was intravesical valrubicin and chemotherapy anthracycline that was approved for many years, but was not practically used in clinical practice, despite being approved, the valrubicin. And because of that, the FDA allowed these single-arm trials to happen. And obviously the endpoint was also discussed in that meeting. For example, for carcinoma in situ, complete response, clinical complete response, because the bladder remains intact in many patients, clinical complete response was a meaningful primary endpoint, also duration of response is also very important. So what is the durable clinical complete response in 1 year or 18 months is relevant. And when you have papillary tumors like Ta or T1 with CIS, for papillary tumors, event-free survival becomes one of the key endpoints and you look at it over time, for example, at 12 or 18 months, what is the event-free survival? So clinical complete response, duration of response, event-free survival, depending on the CIS presence or papillary tumors, I think these are endpoints that have allowed us to design those trials, get those agents approved.  Now, the question going forward, Monty, and we can close with that is, since now we have the embarrassment of riches, many more options available compared to where we were 6 and 7 years ago, is now the time to do randomized trials? And if we do randomized trials, which can be the control group? Which of those agents should be allowed to be part of the control group? These are ongoing discussions right now with the NCI, with other agencies, cooperative groups, trying to design those trials and move forward from here.[GC3]  Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, it's awesome to have you here on the program so we can get some early looks into some of these conversations. I mean, clearly, you're at the table at a lot of these discussions, Petros. So I want to thank you for sharing your insights with us today. This was just tremendous. Dr. Petros Grivas: Thank you, Monty. You know, patients in the center, I just came back from the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network meeting in Washington, D.C., and we discussed all those questions, the topics you very eloquently mentioned and asked me today, and patients gave us great feedback and patients guide us in that effort. Thank you so, so much for having me and congratulations for the amazing podcast you're doing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Oh, cheers, Petros, thanks so much.  And thank you to the listeners who joined us today. If you really like the insights that you heard on this ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:      Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal  Dr. Petros Grivas @PGrivasMDPhD   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal:   Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Petros Grivas: Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Strata Oncology, Abbvie, Bicycle Therapeutics Replimune, Daiichi Sankyo, Foundation Medicine, Bicycle Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Urogen Pharma, Tyra Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Gilead Sciences, Acrivon Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, ALX Oncology, Genentech Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences

What really causes cancer? Will we ever find a cure? And why does our mistrust of medicine and obsession with big pharma conspiracies have such a grip on the way we think about it? In this episode, Jonathan Van Ness sits down with oncologist Dr. Stacy Wentworth to explore the biggest questions surrounding cancer—what science can tell us, what it can't (yet), and how to reframe the way we talk about this disease. From cutting through fear and misinformation to finding space for hope and empowerment, this conversation offers clarity and compassion for anyone touched by cancer. Full Getting Better Video Episodes now available on YouTube.  Follow Dr. Stacy Wentworth on Instagram @drstacywentworth  Follow us on Instagram @gettingbetterwithjvn  Follow Jonathan on Instagram @jvn Follow Dr. Stacy's Substack here.  BIO: Dr. Wentworth is an award-winning physician, author, and cancer survivorship expert.  She has two decades of experience leading patient centered care teams in diverse settings – from NCI designated comprehensive cancer centers to rural hospitals. Her research has been featured at national conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Wentworth is the founder of the Cancer Culture Substack, where she explores how personal beliefs, history, and science influence our experience and attitude toward cancer. Senior Producer, Chris McClure Producer, Editor & Engineer is Nathanael McClure Production support from Anne Currie and Chad Hall Our theme music is also composed by Nathanael McClure. Check out the JVN Patreon for exclusive BTS content, extra interviews, and much much more - check it out here: www.patreon.com/jvn Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

North Carolina beach towns brace for a surge of dangerous seas; 'Boston will not back down': mayor hits back at Trump officials' sanctuary city threats; TennCare expands coverage to include obesity medications; Immigrant power growing in northeast Colorado town; MN dairy farmers get vocal about confronting corporations; AL oncologist warns NIH, NCI cuts could put cancer patients at risk.

Episode 2672 - BEST OF: Vinnie Tortorich welcomes Dr. Thomas Seyfried and they discuss metabolic dysfunction, glucose, glutamine, and cancer therapies. https://vinnietortorich.com/2025/07/glucose-glutamine-cancer-dr-thomas-seyfried-episode-2672 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS   YOU CAN WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE - Glucose, Glutamine, and Cancer Vinnie explains why he recommends listening to Dr. Thomas Seyfried. (2:00) Vinnie has been in remission and avoided chemo for 17 years by leading a ketogenic lifestyle. There are all kinds of side effects from chemotherapy, even though it can save people. There have been several theories of disease. (8:00) NCI states that cancer is a genetic disease of dysregulated cell growth, called the somatic mutation theory. Another theory suggests that damage to organelles can cause mutations in cells, or that mutations may have a mitochondrial metabolic origin. The treatment of cancer as a metabolic disease also allows people to participate in the management of their disorder. He explains the importance of oxygen and energy and how they affect the cells. (11:00) This is known as the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer. Dr. Seyfried explains some fascinating experiments and theories. (14:00) Once there is an agreement on the mitochondrial metabolic theory, treatment for cancers could be much less toxic and more manageable. (17:00) Metabolically treating cancer can help because even if there is recurrence, it can often be treated with fewer chemicals. (20:00) The idea is to reduce or eliminate the cancer through diet and medication that target the fermentation metabolism. Glutamine is an amino acid and has many uses in the body. (22:30) Dr. Seyfried explains the press-pulse therapeutic strategy. The Glucose Ketone Index What kind of diet and supplementation can help those who may have cancer? (27:30) The Glucose Ketone Index (GKI) calculator and its function are explained. How the GKI happens varies per person, but if you can keep the GKI measurement at 2.0 mmol or below, you can put pressure on the tumor cells. (29:00) Each person is their own experiment, but low-carb is beneficial as it keeps your ketones active. Vinnie asks Dr. Seyfried to explain ketone measurements and monitors. (32:30) They discuss genetics, such as the BRCA1 mutation. (36:00) They discuss the frustration of some doctors' approaches to other diseases. (40:00) Type 2 diabetes has replaced smoking as the number one risk factor for cancer! (43:15) They discuss the challenges of today's diet and lifestyle. (46:00) Low-cost and convenience foods are taking their toll on society's health. Type 2 diabetes is a diet and lifestyle issue. Give people the opportunity to make their own choices. Many doctors need to be re-educated, and people need to know all their options. (50:30) Processed food and glucose are a highly addictive force on the brain. (51:00) Dr. Seyfried is a professor who shares information about and is developing a protocol, which he hopes will be available soon. His website is: More News If you are interested in the NSNG® VIP group is currently closed for registration, but you can get on the wait list - Don't forget to check out Serena Scott Thomas on Days of Our Lives on the Peacock channel.  “Dirty Keto” is available on Amazon! You can purchase or rent it . Make sure you watch, rate, and review it! Eat Happy Italian, Anna's next cookbook, is available!  You can go to  You can order it from .  Anna's recipes are in her cookbooks, website, and Substack–they will spice up your day!  Don't forget you can invest in Anna's Eat Happy Kitchen through StartEngine.  Details are at Eat Happy Kitchen.    PURCHASE  DIRTY KETO (2024) The documentary launched in August 2024! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's fourth documentary in just over five years. Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  Then, please share my fact-based, health-focused documentary series with your friends and family. Additionally, the more views, the better it ranks, so please watch it again with a new friend! REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! PURCHASE BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE (2022) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! FAT: A DOCUMENTARY 2 (2021) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  FAT: A DOCUMENTARY (2019) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: 

In this wide-ranging episode, Eric Kaiser and Bill Spohn welcome longtime HVAC pro and educator Adam Mufich to the podcast. Adam shares his unique path through the industry—from growing up in a third-generation HVAC family and starting his own company, to becoming a trainer at the National Comfort Institute (NCI). The trio dives into how social media unexpectedly played a pivotal role in Adam's professional growth, helping him connect with future collaborators through YouTube live streams and online forums. They explore Adam's evolution into technical writing and training, his thoughts on public speaking, and what it's like to work alongside industry veterans like David Richardson and Jim Davis. A significant portion of the conversation is dedicated to NCI's new initiatives, including the upcoming High-Performance Heat Pump Retrofit class and the ComfortMax workflow integration with MeasureQuick, which aims to automate performance diagnostics for greater accuracy and efficiency. They also discuss: Why real-world hands-on training matters The importance of airflow and static pressure measurement The philosophy behind “If you're not measuring, you're just guessing” How modern tools like MeasureQuick elevate technician performance Upcoming NCI Summit (Sept. 9–12 in Texas) and member benefits Whether you're a seasoned tech, a contractor, or someone just entering the trade, this episode underscores the importance of staying curious, embracing new technology, and building community within the HVAC industry. “If you're not measuring, you're just guessing.” – NCI Philosophy “Better precision tools won't replace you—they'll help you up your game.” – Adam Mufich “I'll never know everything about HVAC. That's why I keep learning every day.” – Adam Mufich   Adam'sLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-mufich-5225055a/ NCI website: www.NCIhvac.com or https://www.nationalcomfortinstitute.com/pro/ The NCI Store on TruTechTools: https://trutechtools.com/nci-store.html Find an NCI contractor: https://www.myhomecomfort.org/find-a-contractor/ NCI Consumer site: https://www.myhomecomfort.org/ NCI Summit Link: https://www.gotosummit.com/ NCI Membership details: https://www.nationalcomfortinstitute.com/membership/ Adams's first episode with us, EP112: https://www.buildinghvacscience.com/ep112-being-humble-persistent-and-curious-in-the-trades-with-adam-mufich-march-2023/     This episode was recorded in June 2025.  

In this episode of The Brave Enough Show, Dr. Sasha Shillcutt and Dr. Stacy Wentworth discuss:  How to turn a career letdown into a comeback Saying no to unpaid work can lead to career success Stepping into brave spaces and creating our own story    “Asking yourself, 'who is driving the bus? And who has not been driving the bus, that should have a turn?' Is a great question to make brave moves.” - Dr. Stacy Wentworth    Dr. Wentworth is an award-winning physician, author, and cancer survivorship expert. She has two decades of experience leading patient centered care teams in diverse settings - from NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers to rural hospitals. Her research has been featured at national conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Wentworth is the founder of the Cancer Culture Substack, where she explores how personal beliefs, history, and science influence our experience and attitude toward cancer.    https://cancerculture.substack.com/  https://pod.link/1767700499    Brave Enough CME Conference 2025 This conference will specifically address how to combat the isolation of women working in healthcare with strategies to foster deeper connections and promote accountability. The conference will cover specific topics to create allyship and peer mentorship by focusing on topics women in medicine face, in order to leave the conference with strong allies. We want every woman to leave with a group of friends that can be there for her all year through. Attendees will have time to connect with phenomenal speakers, ask questions, and experience live coaching in a protected, safe environment.   Join our online community! A private, safe society for women physicians to gain work-life control. Sasha's community is off social media, a protected place for women to find out how to manage things like time management, gender bias, and navigating egos in the workplace. It's private, confidential, and the mentoring you have always wanted in a safe, closed environment. Join our community created for women physicians like you today!   Follow Brave Enough:   WEBSITE | INSTAGRAM | FACEBOOK | TWITTER | LINKEDIN Join The Table, Brave Enough's community. The ONLY professional membership group that meets both the professional and personal needs of high-achieving women.

In today's episode, I'm joined by Jason Phillips — founder of the Nutritional Coaching Institute (NCI), performance nutrition expert, and one of the most trusted voices in sustainable transformation.We dive into what it really takes to reach your health and fitness goals after struggling with food — especially if you come from a background of disordered eating, restrictive dieting, or fear around tracking. Jason shares his personal story about anorexia, the truth about metabolic adaptation and macros, and how to rebuild your relationship with food while prioritizing a health, skin or fitness goal. Whether you're a client trying to heal your body or a coach supporting others through that process, this episode will give you clarity, strategy, and hope.⸻

Tonight's guest, Rob Effler, is from Western North Carolina. In 2023, he started North Carolina Investigates with co-founder George Lunsford. Prior to that, in 2007, he was the founder of GoDark Paranormal Investigations. In 2012, he started to receive reports of Sasquatch sightings in his area of North Carolina. That came as quite a surprise to him, because, up until then, he thought Sasquatch were only in the Pacific Northwest. Little did he know, it wouldn't be long that he'd see, with his own eyes, how wrong he was about that.We hope you'll tune into tonight's show and listen to Robert talk about the 5 Sasquatch sightings he's had over the years. He's also going to talk about North Carolina Investigates and the work he's done with NCI and his team members.If you'd like to contact Robert, to share a Sasquatch sighting you've had, in North Carolina, with him, please send an email to RGE2010@gmail.com and put the type of cryptid sighting you're reporting in the subject line.If you've had a Bigfoot sighting and would like to be a guest on the show, please go to BigfootEyewitness.com and let me know.If you'd like to help support the show, by buying your own Bigfoot Eyewitness t-shirt or sweatshirt, please visit the Bigfoot Eyewitness Show Store, by going to https://Dogman-Encounters.MyShopify.comI produce 4 other shows that are available on your favorite podcast app. If you haven't checked them out, here are links to all 4 channels on the Spreaker App...My Bigfoot Sighting https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-bigfoot-sighting Dogman Tales https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dogman-tales--6640134Dogman Encounters https://www.spreaker.com/show/dogman-encounters-radio_2 My Paranormal Experience https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-paranormal-experience Thanks, as always, for listening!

In this episode of The Next Level Health & Fitness Podcast, I'm joined by someone who's been a mentor and friend to me for over six years — Jason Phillips. Jason is the founder of NCI (Nutritional Coaching Institute), a powerhouse in the coaching and certification space. We dove deep into the current state of the coaching industry, where it's heading, and how to actually stand out in a saturated space. One of the biggest topics we covered was Jason's bold move to buy back NCI after selling it last year — the behind-the-scenes story, the lessons he learned, and what led him to step back in as owner. Jason also dropped an exclusive scholarship opportunity for listeners looking to level up their coaching skills through NCI — a limited-time chance to join at a massive discount. We also hit on the mindset piece — specifically, how clients can develop more patience in their journey and why that's the game-changer when it comes to long-term results. This one's packed with wisdom, business insights, and real talk.   NCI Scholarship - Apply Here   Register For 30-Strong - Register Here Join The Collective - Join Here Interested in working with a coach? Get a free nutrition consultation - Schedule Here Join Us On Patreon - Join Here   Submit your questions to be featured on our Q&A episodes.   Order from Cured Supplement Order from Legion Supplements and get 20% off your first order by using discount code: keynutrition   Connect with us on Instagram Host Brad Jensen – @thesoberbodybuilder Jason Phillips - @realjasonphillips Next Level Nutrition – @mynextlevelnutrition   Episode Timestamps 00:00 Covid's Impact: Rise of Online Coaching 04:38 Prime Opportunity for Dedicated Coaches 09:01 Coaching: Connection Beyond Communication 13:25 Respecting Client Investment and Experience 15:32 Jason: Versatile Business Coach 20:25 Active Shooter Alert at FSU 22:24 Business Sale Driven by Burnout 26:04 "NCI: Execution & Support Focused" 30:03 "Proven Success in Gym Growth" 31:12 "Coaching: Business vs. Transaction" 34:15 "Coaches' Success Tied to Growth" 37:56 Evolving Expertise: Learning from the Past 41:45 Rethink Business Education Priorities 45:08 "Building a Genuine Coaching Community" 48:55 "Connection and Generosity" 51:27 "Subscribe and Share, Please"