Podcasts about Novartis

Tracey Felicidade Jones is the CEO and Founder of Trace Brand Building, a global branding and marketing agency with operations in South Africa and the United States that helps businesses build memorable, iconic brands. With over 20 years of experience in FMCG and pharma, Tracey's leadership has earned her company an impressive client list, including international brands like Dr. Oetker and Novartis, and results such as helping clients achieve Guinness World Records. Tracey's journey from growing up in South Africa during and after apartheid to relocating and successfully expanding her business in the US gives her a unique, resilient perspective on brand-building and entrepreneurship. In this episode… What does it really take to rebuild your life and business from the ground up? For some, reinvention is a branding exercise. For others, it's survival. How do you start over in a new country, in a new market, and still manage to build something stronger than before? For Tracey Felicidade Jones, the answer begins with grit and perspective. A lifelong entrepreneur who has faced everything from rolling blackouts to armed hijackings in South Africa, Tracey believes that true brand reinvention mirrors personal resilience. Drawing on her background in dietetics, global marketing, and storytelling, she built a business rooted in authenticity — helping companies rediscover their identity through archetypes and emotional connection. After relocating to Colorado, she reimagined her agency to fit the American market, proving that adaptability and heart can turn disruption into growth. Her story is a reminder that great brands, like great people, thrive by staying true to their essence while boldly embracing change. Tune in to this episode of the Smart Business Revolution Podcast as John Corcoran interviews Tracey Felicidade Jones, CEO and Founder of Trace Brand Building, to discuss how she reinvented her global agency after moving from South Africa to the US. Tracey also shares her vision for the future of creative leadership and the importance of staying authentic in a rapidly changing world.

What if you could help someone completely transform their career in just 45 minutes, not by training them to be someone they're not, but by revealing who they've always been? In this episode, Steve Woodruff, author of "Clarity Wins" and "The Point," shares his unexpected journey from Vanderbilt astronomy student dreaming of becoming an astronaut to becoming the "King of Clarity" who's spent 20 years helping professionals discover and communicate their true identity. Through a pivotal relationship with a manager-friend who made one simple observation ("Let Steve run with sales and Rob run with service because that's what you're good at"), Steve discovered that fitting people into their strengths, not training them to overcome weaknesses, is the ultimate key to success.  From consulting with pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, Novartis, and GSK to leading 100 emerging leaders globally during the pandemic to transforming his own pastor's preaching, Steve has developed the Clarity Fuel Formula, a brain science-backed framework that helps anyone cut through noise and connect powerfully. His philosophy is simple but revolutionary: "You can't read the label of the jar you're in." We need someone on the outside to reveal who we really are. Steve reveals how he helps people experience that jaw-dropping moment when someone finally sees them (and they see themselves), why the first 15 seconds of any interaction matter most, how "memory darts" beat elevator pitches every time, and why his biggest professional thrill is attaching the right words to someone's identity and watching their entire career trajectory transform.   [00:03:59] The Journey: From Aspiring Astronaut to King of Clarity Childhood dream: becoming an astronaut Started at Vanderbilt University studying astronomy Hit a wall with calculus and physics, realized he loved words more than numbers Shifted to psychology, fascinated by how the human mind and communication work Moved into business sales and marketing [00:07:39] What Steve Does: Revealing Who People Really Are Works with corporations (pharma/biotech primarily) on communication training Developed the Clarity Fuel Formula: framework for clear communication in every format Real passion: entrepreneurs, solos, small businesses, and individuals Specializes in helping people discover their identity, purpose, and how to articulate it [00:09:23] Most Impactful Result: The Infrastructure Builder Met Jason, a sales training manager at pharma company, for networking lunch Through conversation, Steve identified Jason's core strength: infrastructure building Gave Jason the exact words to describe his superpower Jason found perfect role at training organization in disarray [00:12:00] Pandemic Pivot: Training 100 Leaders Globally via Zoom Companies forced to move training online during COVID Steve led personal branding workshop for 100 emerging leaders globally All done from his desk via Zoom, no travel for days required [00:14:38] What Inspires Steve: The Jaw-Drop Moment Most people (including himself for years) are only half-aware of who they really are People are guessing, trying different things without true north Has unique ability to ask questions and see themes emerge quickly The magic moment: 45-60 minutes in, holds up "figurative mirror" [00:17:04] The Relationship That Changed Everything During first 10-year career job, Steve and colleague split country for sales/service One person better at sales, other better at service, but both trying to do both This insight plus reading StrengthsFinder completely revolutionized Steve's view of work [00:21:41] Recent Impact: Transforming His Pastor's Preaching Steve's work applies 100% to church settings, not just business Pastor came to dinner, Steve discussed "memory darts" concept Memory darts: short, vivid ideas using analogies, illustrations, or stories instead of elevator pitches Pastor wanted to improve preaching and asked Steve for help [00:23:58] Where to Find Steve & His Resources Company: Clarity Fuel (clarityfuel.com redirects to stevewoodruff.com) Most active on LinkedIn with newsletter and regular posts about clarity Two books: "Clarity Wins" (branding, niches, pigeonholes) and "The Point" (universal framework for clear communication) The challenge: "The Point" is for 8 billion people, anyone, any role, any place, anytime [00:26:40] The First 15 Seconds: Why They Matter Most Success boils down to the first 15 seconds of any interaction Must earn attention with something interesting, relevant, and compelling Get rid of the elevator pitch (telling and selling) Learn to answer "What do you do?" in 15 seconds that makes people say "Huh? Tell me more" Biggest problem: TMI (Too Much Information)   KEY QUOTES  "You can't read the label of the jar you're in. We are not able to be objective about ourselves. We need someone on the outside who can look at us and say, this is really who you are." - Steve Woodruff "I'm not here to train people to become what they're not. I'm here to reveal to them who they are. When you try to train people to be what they're not, you're setting yourself and them up for a world of hurt." - Steve Woodruff "We have stewardship over our lives. We have one life. If we're wasting it, even with good intentions doing the wrong thing, that's a terrible shame." - Steve Woodruff "People don't need information. They need to know why they should care." - Steve Woodruff "Nobody wants to hear your monologue. They want to hear something that makes them say, 'What in the world are you talking about? Tell me about it.' And we're off and running." - Steve Woodruff CONNECT WITH STEVE WOODRUFF 

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a landscape marked by significant scientific advancements, regulatory approvals, and strategic shifts that are reshaping the industry.Starting with Regeneron, the company's ophthalmic drug Eylea HD has recently secured two FDA approvals. These endorsements not only grant a new indication but also introduce a more flexible dosing regimen. This positions Eylea HD competitively against Roche's Vabysmo, highlighting the importance of regulatory navigation and strategic positioning in the pharmaceutical sector. These approvals come after extensive negotiations with both the FDA and third-party manufacturers, emphasizing the intricate processes involved in bringing a drug to market.In oncology, Bayer has achieved an accelerated FDA approval for Hyrnuo, a treatment targeting HER2-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. This move allows Bayer to challenge Boehringer Ingelheim's Hernexeos, underscoring the fiercely competitive nature of the oncology market. Such advancements are driven by innovative treatments that address specific genetic mutations in cancer patients, reflecting a broader trend towards precision medicine.Meanwhile, Moderna is investing heavily in mRNA production capabilities with a new $140 million facility in Norwood, Massachusetts. This development underscores Moderna's commitment to mRNA technology, which gained significant attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. The facility aims to establish robust domestic manufacturing infrastructures to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities—a critical move considering recent global disruptions.Novartis is also making headlines with its plans for a flagship production hub in North Carolina. This expansion is expected to create 700 jobs and expand its manufacturing footprint by 700,000 square feet, highlighting Novartis's strategic emphasis on scaling up operations to meet growing demands and enhance production efficiency.In another strategic collaboration, Antheia has joined forces with Teva's TAPI division to enhance the commercialization prospects for its biosynthetic pipeline. This alliance marks a significant step toward advancing biologically derived pharmaceuticals, promising to revolutionize drug production through more sustainable and scalable alternatives to traditional chemical synthesis.On the regulatory front, Merck has received broad EU approval for a subcutaneous formulation of Keytruda. This development could significantly expand Keytruda's market reach across Europe, demonstrating how regulatory agility can extend drug lifecycles and maximize therapeutic impact across diverse patient populations.Compliance challenges remain prevalent, as illustrated by Pfizer and Tris Pharma's settlement of allegations related to ADHD medication Quillivant's quality control issues for $41.5 million. This case highlights ongoing efforts to ensure stringent quality standards within pharmaceutical manufacturing processes.Abbott is expanding its diagnostics portfolio through a $23 billion acquisition of Exact Sciences, known for its Cologuard colorectal cancer test. This acquisition indicates a strategic shift towards enhancing diagnostic capabilities alongside therapeutic offerings—a trend increasingly evident in holistic healthcare solutions.GSK is embarking on a $7 billion collaboration with biotechs Quotient and Profound through Flagship Pioneering. This partnership aims to leverage novel protein and genomic technologies to drive innovation in drug discovery and development, illustrating the industry's focus on integrating advanced biotechnological insights into traditional pharmaceutical frameworks.These developments collectively underscore crSupport the show

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

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies 'ChatGPT, MD?' - Large Language Models at the Bedside Management decisions in myocarditis Statistics Made Easy: Mendelian randomisation Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Folkert Asselbergs, Massimo Imazio Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, Massimo Imazio, Emer Joyce, and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Folkert Asselbergs Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails.  Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, Emer Joyce, and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. E mma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson. Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Capital Intereconomía ha seguido en directo una apertura de las bolsas europeas marcada por la fuerte rotación del sentimiento inversor. Luis García Langa (SDC Analistas) ha analizado un mercado que pasa del “pánico” al entusiasmo tras el efecto arrastre de Nvidia, cuyos resultados han devuelto el optimismo al sector tecnológico global. Sin embargo, la falta del informe de empleo de octubre —que la Fed no podrá utilizar en su próxima decisión— añade incertidumbre al rumbo de los tipos de interés. En el plano empresarial, los inversores miran hoy a Walmart, que publica resultados después del tropiezo de Home Depot, y al sector farma, donde Novartis prevé elevar sus ventas anuales un 5-6% hasta 2030. En materias primas, el bitcóin rebota con fuerza mientras el oro cede terreno tras varias sesiones de impulso. La mañana se ha completado con el consultorio de bolsa junto a Franco Macchiavelli, que ha resuelto dudas de los oyentes en pleno resurgimiento del apetito por el riesgo.

Melissa sits down with Dr. Laila Agrawal, a board-certified breast oncologist who leads a sexual health clinic dedicated to the breast cancer community. As part of the "Empowered Intimacy: Getting Your Sexy Back After Breast Cancer" series, they talk about how to restore sexual comfort, pleasure, and connection after a breast cancer diagnosis. Dr. Agrawal offers practical guidance on vibrators, lubricants, vaginal estrogen, and pelvic floor therapy, while clearing up common misconceptions and stressing the importance of open communication with both partners and providers. This episode focuses on both the emotional and physical sides of intimacy and teaches listeners how to regain desire, comfort, and confidence in their sexual health after a breast cancer diagnosis. Special thanks to Lilly and Novartis for supporting the Cancer Fashionista Foundation and making this series possible.

In this episode of the HR Leaders Podcast, we sit down with Michiel van Duin, Chief People Technology, Data and Insights Officer at Novartis to discuss how the company is building a human-centered AI ecosystem that connects people, data, and technology.Michiel explains how Novartis brings together HR, IT, and corporate strategy to align AI innovation with the company's long-term workforce and business goals. He shares how the team built an AI governance framework and a dedicated AI and innovation function inside HR, ensuring responsible use of AI while maintaining trust and transparency.From defining when AI should step in and when a “human-in-the-loop” is essential, to upskilling employees and creating the first “Ask Novartis” AI assistant, Michiel shows how Novartis is making AI practical, ethical, and human.

Authors Drs. Jessica Ross and Alissa Cooper share insights into their JCO PO article, "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-Like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas"  Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Ross and Cooper discuss the landscape of Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) and seizure-related homolog protein 6 (SEZ6) across NECs from eight different primary sites. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO PO and an Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, I'm excited to be joined by Dr. Jessica Ross, third-year medical oncology fellow at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, as well as Dr. Alissa Cooper, thoracic medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School. Both are first and last authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 or SEZ6 Protein Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas." At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Jessica and Alissa, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thanks very much for having us. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Thank you. Excited to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It's interesting, a couple of days before I decided to choose this article, one of my GI oncology colleagues actually asked me two questions. He said, "Rafeh, do you know how you define DLL3 positivity? And what is the status of DLL3 positivity in GI cancers, GI neuroendocrine carcinomas?" The first thing I looked up was this JCO article from Martin Wermke. You might have seen it as well, on obrixtamig, a phase 1 study, a DLL3 bi-specific T-cell engager. And they had some definitions there, and then this article came along, and I was really excited that it kind of fell right in place of trying to understand the IHC landscape of two very interesting targets. Since we have a very broad and diverse audience, especially community oncologists, trainees, and of course academic clinicians and some people who are very interested in genomics, we'll try to make things easy to understand. So my first question for you, Jessica, is: what is DLL3 and SEZ6 and why are they important in neuroendocrine carcinomas? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, good question. So, DLL3, or delta-like ligand 3, is a protein that is expressed preferentially on the tumor cell surface of neuroendocrine carcinomas as opposed to normal tissue. It is a downstream target of ASCL1, and it's involved in neuroendocrine differentiation, and it's an appealing drug target because it is preferentially expressed on tumor cell surfaces. And so, it's a protein, and there are several drugs in development targeting this protein, and then Tarlatamab is an approved bi-specific T-cell engager for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the second line. SEZ6, or seizure-like homolog protein 6, is a protein also expressed on neuroendocrine carcinoma cell surface. Interestingly, so it's expressed on neuronal cells, but its exact role in neuroendocrine carcinomas and oncogenesis is actually pretty poorly understood, but it was identified as an appealing drug target because, similarly to DLL3, it's preferentially expressed on the tumor cell surface. And so this has also emerged as an appealing drug target, and there are drugs in development, including antibody-drug conjugates, targeting this protein for that reason. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Over the last 10 to 15 years or so, there's been an increasing focus on precision oncology, finding specific targets that actually drive the cancer to grow, not just within lung cancer but in multiple other primary cancers. But specifically, at least speaking from a thoracic oncology perspective, the field of non-small cell lung cancer has completely exploded over the past 15 years with the discovery of driver oncogenes and then matched targeted therapies. Within the field of neuroendocrine carcinomas, including small cell lung cancer but also other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, there has not been the same sort of progress in terms of identifying targets with matched therapies. And up until recently, we've sort of been treating these neuroendocrine malignancies kind of as a monolithic disease process. And so recently, there's been sort of an explosion of research across the country and multiple laboratories, multiple people converging on the same open questions about why might patients with specific tumor biologies have different kind of responses to different therapies. And so first this came from, you know, why some patients might have a good response to chemo and immunotherapy, which is the first-line approved therapy for small cell lung cancer, and we also sort of extrapolate that to other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. What's the characteristic of that tumor biology? And at the same time, what are other targets that might be identifiable? Just as Jesse was saying, they're expressed on the cell surface, they're not necessarily expressed in normal tissue. Might this be a strategy to sort of move forward and create smarter therapies for our patients and therefore move really into a personalized era for treatment for each patient? And that's really driving, I think, a lot of the synthesis of this work of not only the development of multiple new therapies, but really understanding which tumor might be the best fit for which therapy. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation, Alissa. And as you mentioned, these are emerging targets, some more further along in the process with approved drugs, especially Tarlatamab. And obviously, DLL3 was something identified several years back, but drug development does take time, and readout for clinical trials takes time. Could you, for the sake of our audience, try to talk briefly about the excitement around Tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, especially data that has led to the FDA approval in the last year, year and a half? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Sure. Yeah, it's really been an explosion of excitement over, as you're saying, the last couple of years, and work really led by our mentor, Charlie Rudin, had identified DLL3 as an exciting target for small cell lung cancer specifically but also potentially other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies. Tarlatamab is a DLL3-targeting bi-specific T-cell engager, which targets DLL3 on the small cell lung cancer cells as well as CD3 on T cells. And the idea is to sort of introduce the cancer to the immune system, circumventing the need for MHC class antigen presentation, which that machinery is typically not functional in small cell lung cancer, and so really allowing for an immunomodulatory response, which had not really been possible for most patients with small cell lung cancer prior to this. Tarlatamab was tested in a phase 2 registrational trial of about 100 patients and demonstrated a response rate of 40%, which was very exciting, especially compared with other standard therapies which were available for small cell lung cancer, which are typically cytotoxic therapies. But most excitingly, more than even the response rate, I think, in our minds was the durability of response. So patients whose disease did have a response to Tarlatamab could potentially have a durable response lasting a number of months or even over a year, which had previously not ever been seen in this in the relapsed/refractory setting for these patients. I think the challenge with small cell lung cancer and other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies is that a response to therapy might be a bit easier to achieve, but it's that durability. The patient's tumors really come roaring back quite aggressively pretty quickly. And so this was sort of the most exciting prospect is that durability of response, that long potential overall survival tail of the curve really being lifted up. And then most recently at ASCO this year, Dr. Rudin presented the phase 3 randomized controlled trial which compared Tarlatamab to physician's choice of chemotherapy in a global study. And the choice of chemotherapy did vary depending on the part of the world that the patients were enrolled in, but in general, it was a really markedly positive study for response rate, for progression-free survival, and for overall survival. Really exciting results which really cemented Tarlatamab's place as the standard second-line therapy for patients with small cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed on first-line chemo-immunotherapy. So that has been very exciting. This drug was FDA approved in May of 2024, and so has been used extensively since then. I think the adoption has been pretty widespread, at least in the US, but now in this global trial that was just presented, and there was a corresponding New England Journal paper, I think really confirms that this is something we really hopefully can offer to most of our patients. And I think, as we all know, that this therapy or other therapies like it are also being tested potentially in the first-line setting. So there was data presented with Tarlatamab incorporated into the maintenance setting, which also showed exciting results, albeit in a phase 1 trial, but longer overall survival than we're used to seeing in this patient population. And we await results of the study that is incorporating Tarlatamab into the induction phase with chemotherapy as well. So all of this is extraordinarily exciting for our patients to sort of move the needle of how many patients we can keep alive, feeling functional, feeling well, for as long as possible. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Very exciting session at ASCO. I was luckily one of the co-chairs for the session that Dr. Rudin presented it, and I remember somebody mentioning there was more progress seen in that session for small cell lung cancer than the last 30, 35 years for small cell, very exciting space and time to be in as far as small cell lung cancer. Now going to this project, Jessica, since you're the first author and Alissa's the last, I'm assuming there was a background conversation that you had with Alissa before you embarked on this project as an idea. So could you, again, for other trainees who are interested in doing research, and it's never easy to do research as a resident and a fellow when you have certain added responsibilities. Could you give us a little bit of a background on how this started and why you wanted to look at this question? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So, as with many exciting research concepts, I think a lot of them are derived from the clinic. And so I think Alissa and I both see a good number of patients with small cell, large cell lung cancer, and then high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. And so I think this was really born out of a basic conversation of we have these drugs in development targeting these two proteins, DLL3 and SEZ6, but really what is the landscape of cancers that express these proteins and who are the patients that really might benefit from these exciting new therapies. And of course, there was some data out there, but sort of less than one would imagine in terms of, you know, neuroendocrine carcinomas can really come from anywhere in the body. And so when you're seeing a patient with small cell of the cervix, for example, like what are the chances that their cancer expresses DLL3 or expresses SEZ6? So it was really derived from this pragmatic, clinically oriented question that we had both found ourselves thinking about, and we were lucky enough at MSK, we had started systematically staining patients' tumors for DLL3, tumors that are high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, and then we had also more recently started staining for SEZ6 as well. And so we had this nice prospectively collected dataset with which to answer this question. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. And Alissa, could you try to go into some of the details around which patients you chose, how many patients, what was the approach that you selected to collect the data for this project? Dr. Alissa Cooper: This is perhaps a strength but also maybe a limitation of this dataset is, as Jesse alluded to, our pathology colleagues are really the stars of this paper here because we were lucky enough at MSK that they were really forethinking. They are absolute experts in the field and really forward-thinking people in terms of what information might be needed in the future to drive treatment decision-making. And so, as Jesse had said, small cell lung cancer tumor samples reflexively are stained for DLL3 and SEZ6 at MSK if there's enough tumor tissue. The other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, those stains are performed upon physician request. And so that is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of the tumor samples we were able to include in this dataset because, you know, upon physician request depends on a number of factors, but actually at MSK, a number of physicians were requesting these stains to be done on their patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers of of other histologies. So we looked at all tumor samples with a diagnosis of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of any histology that were stained for these two stains of interest. You know, I can let Jesse talk a bit more about the methodology. She was really the driver of this project. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So we had 124 tumor samples total. All of those were stained for DLL3, and then a little less than half, 53, were stained for SEZ6. As Alissa said, they were from any primary site. So about half of them were of lung origin, that was the most common primary site, but we included GI tract, head and neck, GU, GYN, even a few tumors of unknown origin. And again, that's because I think a lot of these trials are basket trials that are including different high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas no matter the primary site. And so we really felt like it was important to be more comprehensive and inclusive in this study. And then, methodologically, we also defined positivity in terms of staining of these two proteins as anything greater than or equal to 1% staining. There's really not a defined consensus of positivity when it comes to these two novel targets and staining for these two proteins. But in the Tarlatamab trials, for some of the correlative work that's been done, they use that 1% cutoff, and we just felt like being consistent with that and also using a sort of more pragmatic yes/no cutoff would be more helpful for this analysis. Dr. Alissa Cooper: And that was a point of discussion, actually. We had contemplated multiple different schemas, actually, for how to define thresholds of positivity. And I know you brought up that question before, what does it mean to be DLL3 positive or DLL3 high? I think you were alluding to prior that there was a presentation of obrixtamig looking at extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas, and they actually divvied up the results between DLL3 50% or greater versus DLL3 low under 50%. And they actually did demonstrate differential efficacy certainly, but also some differential safety as well, which is very provocative and that kind of analysis has not been presented for other novel therapies as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, that was sort of the first time that we saw a systematic presentation of considering patients to be, quote unquote, "high" or "low" in these sort of novel targets. I think it is important because the label for Tarlatamab does not require any DLL3 expression at all, actually. So it's not hinging upon DLL3 expression. They depend on the fact that the vast majority of small cell lung cancer tumors do express DLL3, 85% to 90% is what's been demonstrated in a few studies. And so, there's not prerequisite testing needed in that regard, but maybe for these extra-pulmonary, other histology neuroendocrine carcinomas, maybe it does matter to some degree. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely agree that this evolving landscape of trying to understand whether an expression for something actually really does correlate with, whether it's an immune cell engager or an antibody-drug conjugate is a very evolving and dynamically moving space. And one of the questions that I was discussing with one of my friends was whether IHC positivity and the level of IHC positivity, as you've shown in one of those plots where you have double positive here on the right upper corner, you have the double negative towards the left lower, whether that somehow determines mRNA expression for DLL3. Obviously, that was not the question here that you were looking at, but it does kind of bring into question certain other aspects of correlations, expression versus IHC. Now going to the figures in this manuscript, very nicely done figures, very easy to understand because I've done the podcast for quite a bit now, and usually what I try to do first is go through the figures before I read the text, and and a lot of times it's hard to understand the figures without reading the text, but in your case, specifically the figures were very, very well done. Could you give us an overview, a quick overview of some of the important results, Jessica, as far as what you've highlighted in the manuscript? Dr. Jessica Ross: Sure. So I think the key takeaway is that, of the tumors in our cohort, the majority were positive for DLL3 and positive for SEZ6. So about 80% of them were positive for DLL3 and 80% were positive for SEZ6. About half of the tumors were stained for both proteins, and about 65% of those were positive as well. So I think if there's sort of one major takeaway, it's that when you're seeing a patient with a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, the odds are that their tumor will express both of these proteins. And so that can sort of get your head thinking about what therapies they might be eligible for. And then we also did an analysis of some populations of interest. So for example, we know that non-neuroendocrine pathologies can transform into neuroendocrine tumors. And so we specifically looked at that subset of patients with transformed tumors, and those were also- the majority of them were positive, about three-quarters of them were positive for both of these two proteins. We looked at patients with brain met samples, again, about 70% were positive. And then I'd say the last sort of population of interest was we had a subset of 10 patients who had serial biopsies stained for either DLL3 or SEZ6 or both. In between the two samples, these patients were treated with chemotherapy. They were not treated with targeted therapy, but interestingly, in the majority of cases, the testing results were concordant, meaning if it was DLL3 positive to begin with, it tended to remain DLL3 positive after treatment. And so I think that's important as well as we think about, you know, a patient who maybe had DLL3 testing done before they received their induction chemo-IO, we can somewhat confidently say that they're probably still DLL3 positive after that treatment. And then finally, we did do a survival analysis among specifically the patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinomas. We looked at whether DLL3 expression affected progression-free survival on first-line platinum-etoposide, and then we looked at did it affect overall survival. And we found that it did not have an impact or the median progression-free survival was similar whether you were DLL3 positive or negative. But interestingly, with overall survival, we found that DLL3 positivity actually correlated with slightly improved overall survival. These were small numbers, and so, you know, I think we have to interpret this with caution, for sure, but it is interesting. I think there may be something to the fact that five of the patients who were DLL3 positive were treated with DLL3-targeting treatments. And so this made me think of, like in the breast cancer world, for example, if you have a patient with HER2-positive disease, it initially portended worse prognosis, more aggressive disease biology, but on the other hand, it opens the door for targeted treatments that actually now, at least with HER2-positive breast cancer, are associated with improved outcomes. And so I think that's one finding of interest as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely proof-of-concept findings here that you guys have in the manuscript. Alissa, if I may ask you, what is the next important step for a project like this in your mind? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Jesse has highlighted a couple of key findings that we hope to move forward with future investigative studies, not necessarily in a real-world setting, but maybe even in clinical trial settings or in collaboration with sponsors. Are these biomarkers predictive? Are they prognostic? You know, those are still- we have some nascent data, data has been brewing, but I think that we we still don't have the answers to those open questions, which I think are critically important for determining not only clinical treatment decision-making, but also our ability to understand sequencing of therapies, prioritization of therapies. I think a prospective, forward-looking project, piggybacking on that paired biopsy, you know, we had a very small subset of patients with paired biopsies, but a larger subset or cohort looking at paired biopsies where we can see is there evolution of these IHC expression, even mRNA expression, as you're saying, is there differential there? Are there selection pressures to targeted therapies? Is there upregulation or downregulation of targets in response not just to chemotherapy, but for example, for other sort of ADCs or bi-specific T-cell engagers? I think those are going to be critically important future studies which are going to be a bit challenging to do, but really important to figure out this key clinical question of sequencing, which we're all contemplating in our clinics day in and day out. If you have a patient, and these patients often can be sick quite quickly, they might have one shot of what's the next treatment that you're going to pick. We can't guarantee that every patient is going to get to see every therapy. How can you help to sort of answer the question of like what should you offer? So I think that's the key question sort of underlying any future work is how predictive or prognostic are these biomarkers? What translational or correlative studies can we do on the tissue to understand clinical treatment decision-making? I think those are the key things that will unfold in the next couple of years. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: The last question for you, Alissa, that I have is, you are fairly early in your career, and you've accomplished quite a lot. One of the most important things that comes out from this manuscript is your mentorship for somebody who is a fellow and who led this project. For other junior investigators, early-career investigators, how did you do this? How did you manage to do this, and how did you mentor Jessica on this project with some of the lessons that you learned along the way, the good and other things that would perhaps help other listeners as they try to mentor residents, trainees, which is one of the important things of what we do in our daily routine? Dr. Alissa Cooper: I appreciate you calling me accomplished. Um, I'm not sure how true that is, but I appreciate that. I didn't have to do a whole lot with this project because Jesse is an extraordinarily smart, driven, talented fellow who came up with a lot of the clinical questions and a lot of the research questions as well. And so this project was definitely a collaborative project on both of our ends. But I think what was helpful from both of our perspectives is from my perspective, I could kind of see that this was a gap in the literature that really, I think, from my work leading clinical trials and from treating patients with these kinds of cancers that I really hoped to answer. And so when I came to Jessica with this idea as sort of a project to complete, she was very eager to take it and run with it and also make it her own. You know, in terms of early mentorship, I have to admit this was the first project that I mentored, so it was a great learning experience for me as well because as an early-career clinician and researcher, you're used to having someone else looking over your shoulder to tell you, "Yes, this is a good journal target, here's what we can anticipate reviewers are going to say, here are other key collaborators we should include." Those kind of things about a project that don't always occur to you as you're sort of first starting out. And so all of that experience for me to be identifying those more upper-level management sort of questions was a really good learning experience for me. And of course, I was fantastically lucky to have a partner in Jesse, who is just a rising star. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thank you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, excellent. It sounds like the first of many other mentorship opportunities to come for you, Alissa. And Jessica, congratulations on your next step of joining and being faculty, hopefully, where you're training. Thank you again, both of you. This was very insightful. I definitely learned a lot after I reviewed the manuscript and read the manuscript. Hopefully, our listeners will feel the same. Perhaps we'll have more of your work being published in JCO PO subsequently. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Hope so. Thank you very much for the opportunity to chat today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yes, thank you. This was great. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so as you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Disclosures: Dr. Alissa Jamie Cooper Honoraria Company: MJH Life Scienes, Ideology Health, Intellisphere LLC, MedStar Health, Physician's Education Resource, LLC,  Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis,  Research Funding: Merck, Roche, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Abbvie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences

John Rossman the Managing Partner and Founder of Rossman Partners. He is a business strategist, operator, and expert on digital transformation, leadership, and business reinvention. He has consulted with many great brands including Novartis, Fidelity Investments, Microsoft, Walmart, and Nordstrom. He served as senior innovation advisor at T-Mobile and senior technology advisor to the Gates Foundation. He is an operator and builder whose love is diving into business problems and customer needs designing solutions and business opportunities. EXPERIENCE Former Amazon Executive Responsible for the launching and scaling the merchant integration team and played a key role in launching and scaling the Amazon marketplace business, which is now over 50% of all units sold at Amazon.com. Also responsible for the enterprise services business with responsibilities for Toys R Us, Target.com, NBA.com and other great brands. Media Analyst Sought after expert commentary regarding Amazon as interviewed by New York Times, CNBC, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, BBC, Geekwire and many others. Author Author of Big Bet Leadership: Your Transformation Playbook for Winning in the Hyper Digital Era. Releases Feb 27, 2024. Author of Think Like Amazon: 50 1/2 Ideas to Become a Digital Leader. Author of The Amazon Way on IoT: 10 Principles for Every Leader from the World's Leading Internet of Things Strategies. Author of The Amazon Way: Amazon's 14 Leadership Principles. Assignments - Interim chief technology officer for the Gates Foundation - Innovation advisor to T-mobile - Interim CIO for a national retailer Speaker Keynote speaker on innovation, leadership and digital transformation. John leads workshops on a wide variety of innovation, internet of things, digital strategy, and creating a culture of agility, trial and error, scaling and accountability. His goal is to give audiences tools they can immediately use to operate differently. Advisor Rossman Partners helps it's clients compete and win in the digital era. I work with my clients to both define strategy and create change for the organization. Bringing a broad range of expertise and trusted partners to the table, I first listen and understand, and then help create a customized approach for your situation.  

This live event was recorded on November 17 at the Mattamy Athletic Centre. Hosted by Rubicon Strategy and made possible by our event sponsors Bruce Power, Enbridge Gas, Novartis, Toronto Metropolitan University and the Mattamy Athletic Centre.__Curse of Politics was created by Air Quotes Media with support from our presenting sponsor TELUS, as well as CN Rail, the Canadian Climate Institute, Interac, and Unsmoke Canada.David Herle, Scott Reid, Jordan Leichnitz, and Kory Teneycke provide insights on the latest in Canadian politics.Thank you for joining us on #CurseOfPolitics. Please take a moment to give us a rating and review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or your favourite podcast app.Watch conversations from Curse of Politics via Air Quotes Media on YouTube.The sponsored ads contained in the podcast are the expressed views of the sponsor and not those of the publisher.

En este episodio de Value Investing FM, Adrián y Paco tenemos el placer de entrevistar a Juan Carlos Acitores Peñafiel, de Acifiel Sicav. Nos explicará por qué empezó a invertir, qué le atrajo del mundo de la inversión, cuál es su estilo de inversión y cómo ha evolucionado, cuáles son sus fondos e inversores de referencia y cuál es la lección más importante que ha aprendido como inversor. Repasaremos algunos de sus errores y tesis de inversión por sectores: Sector farma: Sanofi, Novartis y Roche Oil: BP y Total Energies Bebidas alcohólicas: AB InBev Ropa deportiva: Adidas y Puma Consumo: Unilever Autos: BMW, Stellantis, Renault, Volkswagen

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into several groundbreaking advancements and strategic shifts in the industry that promise to reshape the landscape of patient care and therapeutic innovations.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has introduced a novel regulatory pathway aimed at expediting the approval process for custom gene-editing therapies. Articulated by FDA officials Vinay Prasad, M.D., and Martin Makary, M.D., this new approach is set to revolutionize personalized medicine, particularly for genetic disorders where tailored interventions are crucial. Gene editing technologies, like CRISPR-Cas9, have opened unprecedented avenues for addressing genetic conditions directly at their source. However, the regulatory framework has struggled to keep pace with these advances, often hampering innovation with lengthy and complex approval processes.This proposed pathway seeks to streamline these requirements by adopting a risk-based assessment model that considers the unique properties of gene-editing therapies. Unlike traditional drugs, which follow a uniform clinical trial path, gene-editing treatments require a more nuanced regulatory approach due to their precision and potential off-target effects. The framework emphasizes adaptive trial designs—allowing for modifications based on interim results—and integrates real-world data to create a dynamic regulatory process. This not only promises faster development times but also fosters innovation by making it easier for companies to bring cutting-edge therapies to market.The implications are far-reaching. For researchers and biotech firms, this represents a chance to reduce time-to-market significantly while maintaining high safety standards. It also sets a precedent for future regulatory models that prioritize patient-centric approaches, acknowledging the diverse genetic landscapes of individuals with rare diseases. On a broader scale, this shift underscores the increasing recognition of personalized medicine's potential to transform healthcare delivery.In parallel developments, Gilead Sciences has achieved positive phase 3 results for its single-tablet regimen combining bictegravir and lenacapavir for HIV treatment. This milestone offers hope for simplifying treatment protocols for patients currently on multi-tablet regimens, potentially enhancing adherence and improving health outcomes. Gilead's preparation for regulatory filings marks an essential step forward in their therapeutic portfolio.Turning to cancer treatment advancements, Kyowa Kirin's collaboration with Kura Oncology has led to FDA approval for an oral medication targeting a subset of acute myeloid leukemia patients. This approval highlights the power of strategic partnerships in expediting the development of targeted cancer therapies and brings new hope to patients with limited treatment options.Meanwhile, several pharmaceutical companies, including Fresenius, Sun Pharma, and Teva, have been involved in product recalls ranging from hospital drugs to antibiotics and ADHD medications. These recalls underscore ongoing challenges in maintaining drug safety standards and emphasize the need for rigorous quality control measures across the industry.Zealand Pharma has opted to pause development of its dual GLP-1/GLP-2 agonist, dapiglutide, due to an increasingly crowded metabolic disorder treatment landscape. By reallocating resources towards programs with greater clinical differentiation potential, Zealand reflects broader industry trends prioritizing investments in areas with clearer paths to market success.In malaria treatment advances, Novartis has achieved significant progress with its next-generation drug 'Ganlum,Support the show

Aos 32 anos, Roberta passou pelo maior susto da sua vida: no meio da correria para levar a filha pequena à natação, ela infartou. Mas não foi rápido assim. Antes de sair de casa, Roberta sentiu um soco no peito, o braço formigando, a respiração falhando… Chegando no hospital, ouviu de uma médica que “não era nada”, quase foi medicada e liberada. Até que o chefe da emergência interveio, reconhecendo o infarto. Ela lembra da escuridão chegando e de repetir em pensamento: “Deus, não me leva agora, eu quero ver minha filha crescer.” Roberta ficou internada no CTI, o diagnóstico foi duro: artéria principal 100% obstruída, colesterol alto, risco genético. E ela só tinha 32 anos!O maior sofrimento, porém, não foi a dor no peito, mas a ausência. Roberta perdeu a festa junina da filha e, dias depois, passou o aniversário da pequena no hospital. Chorava pedindo que cuidassem da menina, enquanto tentava controlar a pressão que não baixava. Sobreviveu, mas carregou a culpa: e se tivesse se cuidado antes?Roberta dormia pouco, se alimentava mal, não fazia exercícios e carregava o peso das contas e da responsabilidade pela mãe idosa. Até que o corpo cobrou.Com o tempo, transformou culpa em mudança. Reaprendeu a viver com mais leveza: alimentação regrada, exercícios, terapia para lidar com o trauma. Um ano e meio depois, engravidou novamente, em uma gestação de alto risco, mas que lhe deu mais uma filha. Hoje, diz que ama ainda mais a vida, que valoriza o simples, da água caindo no chuveiro a um abraço apertado.Roberta sabe que teve sorte. Por isso, deixa um recado: qualquer sinal diferente no corpo merece atenção. Infarto não é só coisa de gente mais velha. Cuidar de si é também uma forma de cuidar de quem se ama.A história da Roberta é uma parceria do Histórias de ter.a.pia com a Novartis para a campanha #OVilãoDoSeuCoração para conscientização dos perigos do colesterol ruim. Saiba mais sobre o Vilão do Coração em saude.novartis.com.br/vilaodocoracao/.#OVilaoDoSeuCoracao #SaúdeCardiovascular #Prevenção #ControleDoColesterol #CuideDoSeuCoração #PubliNovartis BR-36280

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!Headlines rarely explain how discrimination actually works; the paperwork does. We take you inside a sweeping class action against Novartis where plaintiffs alleged a nationwide pattern of gender bias driven less by explicit rules and more by subjective decisions about promotions, performance reviews, and discipline. As we unpack the filings, we surface the mechanics that matter: a management development program that functioned as a gate, shifting criteria that discounted strong results, assignment patterns that boosted some careers and stalled others, and a hostile culture that complaints allegedly failed to correct.We ground the big picture in human stories. Amy Velez's strong sales numbers met an MDP denial and rapid discipline after FMLA leave, while a male partner avoided similar consequences. Sonia Klinger's contested review hinged on a narrow sales window shaped by denied resources, followed by lost raises and stock options. Manel Heider Tabertka's national performance didn't translate into advancement access; a male peer's did. Michelle Williams described communications about advancement that quieted once she disclosed her pregnancy, plus a reduced raise processed during maternity leave without consent. Together, these narratives illustrate how subjective frameworks can override merit and reframe protected leave as a liability.We also examine the remedies sought: not just damages, but court-ordered structural change across promotions, transfers, training, evaluations, compensation, and discipline, monitored by an equality task force. That request raises a critical governance question for any large employer: when internal policies fail to prevent systemic bias, how far should external oversight go? Our takeaways center on building systems that stand up to scrutiny—clear advancement criteria, calibrated reviews, transparent metrics, and independent audits that close the gap between policy and practice.If this conversation resonates, follow the show, share it with a colleague who cares about fair workplaces, and leave a review with your answer to one question: should courts mandate HR reform when companies don't fix it themselves? If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended November 1, 2025. In this episode: Pfizer's unwavering pursuit of Metsera; Lilly's obesity momentum; Merck & Co.'s MFN negotiations; Novartis's promising Sjögren's results; and the rising Chinese pressure on US innovation. Story links: https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-2K33BM6BLBDU7JH7QMETUXUKPE/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Aditya Bagrodia discuss the evolving landscape of testicular cancer survivorship, the impact of treatment-related complications, and management strategies to optimize long-term outcomes and quality of life. TRANSCRIPT:  Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We all know that testicular cancer is a rare but highly curable malignancy that mainly affects young men. Multimodal advances in therapy have resulted in excellent cancer specific survival, but testicular cancer survivors face significant long term treatment related toxicities which affect their quality of life and require surveillance and management. With that, I'm very happy today to be joined by Dr. Aditya Bagrodia, a urologic oncologist, professor, and the GU Disease Team lead at UC San Diego[KI1]  Health, and also the lead author of the recently published paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Key Updates in Testicular Cancer: Optimizing Survivorship and Survival." And he's also the host of the world-renowned BackTable Urology Podcast. Dr. Bagrodia, I'm so happy that you're joining us today. Welcome. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Thanks, Pedro. Absolutely a pleasure to be here. Really appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: Absolutely.  So, just to say that our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Let's get things started. I'm really excited to talk about this. I'm biased, I do treat testicular cancer among other GU malignancies and so it's a really, really important topic that we face every day, right? Fortunately, for most of these patients, we're able to cure them. But it always comes up the question, "What now? You know, scans, management, cardio oncology, what survivorship programs we have in place? Are we addressing the different survivorship piece, psychology, fertility, et cetera?" So, we'll try to capture all of that today. Aditya, congrats again, you did a fantastic job putting together the insights and thoughts and what we know today about this important topic. And so, let's get focused specifically about what happens when patients get cured. So, many of us, in many centers, were fortunate enough to have these survivorship programs together, but I find that sometimes from talking to colleagues, they're not exactly the same thing and they don't mean the same thing to different people, to different institutions, right? So, first things first. What do you tell a patient perhaps when they ask you, "What can happen to me now that I'm done with treatment for testicular cancer?" Whether it's chemotherapy or just surgery or even radiation therapy? "So, what about the long term? What should I expect, Doctor, that might happen to me in the long run?" Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think that question's really front and center, Pedro, and really appreciate you all highlighting this topic. It was an absolute honor to work with true thought leaders and the survivorship bit of it is front and center, in my opinion. It's really the focus, you know, we, generally speaking should be able to cure these young men, but it's the 10, 15, 20 years down the way that they're going to largely contend with. The conversation really begins at diagnosis, pre-education. Fortunately, the bulk of patients that present are those with stage one disease, and even very basic things like before orchiectomy, talking about a prosthetic; we know that that can impact body image and self esteem, whether or not they decide to receive it or not. Actually, just being offered a prosthetic is important and this is something, you know, for any urologist, it's kind of critical. To discussing fertility elements to this, taking your time to examine the contralateral testicle, ask about fertility problems, issues, concerns, offer sperm banking, even in the context of a completely normal contralateral testicle, I think these things are quite important.  So if it's somebody with stage one disease, you know, without going too far down discussing adjuvant therapy and so forth, I will start the conversation with, "You know, the testes do largely two things. They make testosterone and they make sperm." By and large, patients are going to be able to have acceptable levels of testosterone, adequate sperm parameters to maintain kind of a normal gonadal state and to naturally conceive, should that be something they're interested in. However, there's still going to be, depending on what resource you look at, somewhere in the order of 10-30% that are going to have issues. Where I think for the stage one patients, it's really incumbent upon us is actually to not wait for them to discuss their concerns, particularly with testosterone, which many times can be a little bit vague, but to proactively ask about it every time. Libido, erectile quality, muscle mass maintenance, energy, fatigue. All of these are kind of associated symptoms of hypogonadism. But for a lot of kids 18-20 years old, it's going to be something insidious that they don't think about. So, for the stage one patients, it absolutely starts with gonadal function. If they are stage two getting surgery, I think the counseling really needs to center around a possibility for ejaculatory dysfunction. Now, for a chemotherapy-naive, nerve-sparing RPLND, generally these days we should be able to preserve ejaculatory function at high volume centers, but you still want to bring that up and again kind of touch base on thinking about sperm banking and so forth before the operation, scars, those are things I think worth talking about, small risk of ascites. Then, I think the intensity of potential long term adverse effects really ramps up when we're talking about systemic therapy, chemotherapy. And then there's of course some radiation therapy specific elements that come up. So, for the chemotherapy bits of it, I really think this is going to be something that can be a complete multi-system affected intervention. So, anxiety, depression, our group has actually shown using some population resources that even suicidality can be increased among patients that have been treated for germ cell tumor. You know, really from the top down, tinnitus, hearing changes, those are things that we need to ask about at every appointment. Neuropathy, sexual health, that we kind of talked about, including ED (erectile dysfunction), vertigo, dizziness, Raynaud's phenomenon, these are kind of more the symptoms that I think we need to inquire about every time. And what we do here and I think at a lot of survivorship programs is use kind of a battery of validated instruments, germ cell tumor specific, platinum treated patient specific. So we use a combination of EORTC questions and PROMIS questions, which actually serves as like a review of systems for the patient, also as a research element. We review that and then depending on what might be going on, we can dig into that further, get them over to colleagues in audiology or psychology, et cetera.  And then of course, screening for the hypertension, hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome with basically you or myself or somebody kind of like us serving, many times it's the role of the PCP, just making sure we're checking out, you know, CBC, CMP, et cetera, lipid parameters to screen for those kind of cardiac associated issues along with secondary malignancies. Dr. Pedro Barata: So that's super comprehensive and thorough. Thank you so much. Actually, I love how you break it down in a simple way. Two functions of the testes, produce testosterone and then, you know, the problem related to that is the hypogonadism, and then the second, as you mentioned, produce sperm and of course related to the fertility issues with that.  So, let's start with the first one that you mentioned. So, you do cite that in your paper, around 5-10% of men end up getting, developing hypogonadism, maybe clinical when they present with symptoms, maybe subclinical. So, I'm wondering, for our audience, what kind of recommendations we would give for addressing that or kind of thinking of that? How often are you ordering those tests? And then, when you're thinking about testosterone replacement therapy, is that something you do immediately or are there any guidelines into context that? How do you approach that? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: So, just a bit more on digging into it even in terms of the questions to ask, you know, "Do you have any decrease in sexual drive? Any erectile dysfunction? Are your morning erections still taking place? Has the ejaculate volume changed? Physically, muscle mass, strength? Have you been putting on weight? Have you noticed increase in body fat?" And sometimes this is complicated because there's some anxiety that comes along with a cancer diagnosis when you're 20, 30 years old, multifactorial, hair loss, hot flashes, irritability. Sometimes they'll, you know, literally they'll say, "You know, my significant other or partners noticed that I'm really just a little bit labile." So I think, you know, there's the symptoms and then checking, usually kind of a gonadal panel, FSH, LH, free and total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, that's going to be typically pretty comprehensive. So if you've got symptoms plus some laboratory work, and ideally that pre-orchiectomy testosterone gives you some delta. If they started out at an 800, 900, now they're 400, that might be a big change for them. And then, when you talk about TRT (Testosterone Replacement Therapy) recommendations, you know, Pedro, yourself, myself, we're kind of lucky to be at academic centers and we've got men's health colleagues that are ultra experts, but at a high level, I would say that a lot of the TRT options center around fertility goals. Exogenous testosterone treats the low T, but it does suppress gonadal function, including spermatogenesis. So if that's not a priority, they can just get TRT. It should be done under the care of a urologist, a men's health, an endocrinologist, where we're checking liver chemistries and CBCs and a PSA and so forth. If they're interested in fertility preservation, then I would say engaging an endocrinologist, men's health expert is important. There's medications even like hCG, Clomid, which works centrally and stimulate the gonadal access. Niche scenarios where they might want standard TRT now, and then down the way, 5, 7 years, they're thinking about coming off of that for fertility purposes, I think that's really where you want to have an expert involved because there's quite a bit of nuance there in recovery of actual spermatogenesis and so forth.  To kind of summarize, you got to ask about it. Checking it is, is not overly complicated. We do a baseline pre-orchiectomy and at least once annually, you can tag it in with the tumor markers, so it's not an extra blood draw. And if they have symptoms of course, kind of developed, then we'll move that up in the evaluation. Dr. Pedro Barata: Got it. And you also touch base on the fertility angle, which is truly important. And I'm just curious, you know, a lot of times many of us might see one, two patients a year, right, and we forget these protocols and what we've got to do about that.  And so I'm interested to hear your thoughts about when you think about fertility, and how proactive you get. In other words, who do you refer for the fertility clinic, for a fertility preservation program? You know, do all cases despite getting through orchiectomy or just the cases that you're going to, you know you're going to seek chemotherapy at some point? What kind of selection or it depends on the chemo, like how do you do that assessment about the referral for preservation program that you might have available at UCSD? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, I mean I feel really fortunate to sit on the NCCN Testis Cancer Guidelines. It's in there that fertility counseling should be discussed prior to orchiectomy. So 100% bring it up. If there are risk factors, undescended testicles, previous history of fertility concerns, atrophic contralateral testicle, anything on the ultrasound like microlithiasis in the contralateral testicle, you kind of wanna get it there. And then again, there's kind of niche scenarios where you're really worried, maybe get a semen analysis and it doesn't look that good, arrange for the time of orchiectomy to have onco-testicular sperm extraction from the, quote unquote, "normal" testis parenchyma. You know, I think you have to be kind of prepared to go that route and really make sure you're doing this completely comprehensively.  So pre-orchiectomy all patients. Don't really push for it too hard if they've got a contralateral testicle, if they've had no issues having children. There's some cost associated with this, sperm banking still isn't kind of covered even in the context of men with cancer. If they've got risk factors, absolutely pre-orchiectomy. Pre-RPLND, even though the rates of ejaculatory dysfunction at a high-volume center should be low single digits, I'll still offer it. That'd be a real catastrophe if they were in that small proportion of patients and now they're going to be reliant on things like intrauterine insemination, where it becomes quite expensive.  Pre-chemo, everybody. That's basically a standard these days where it should be discussed and it's kind of amazing currently, even if you don't have an accessible men's health fertility clinic, there are actually companies, I have no vested interest, Fellow is one such company where you can actually create an account, receive a FedEx semen analysis and cryopreservation kit, send it back in, and all CLIA certified, it's based out of California. The gentleman that runs it, is a urologist and very, very bright guy who's done a lot of great stuff for testis cancer. So, even for patients that are kind of in extremis at the hospital that kind of need to get going like yesterday, we still discuss it. We've got some mechanisms in place to either have them take a semen analysis over to our Men's Health clinic or send it off to Fellow, which I think is pretty cool and that even extends to some of our younger adolescent patients where going to a clinic and providing a sample might be tricky.  So, I think bringing it up every stage, anytime there's an intervention that might be offered, orchiectomy, chemo, surgery, radiation, it's kind of incumbent on us to discuss it. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha. That's super helpful. And you also touch base on another angle, which is the psychosocial angle around this. You mentioned suicidal rates, you mentioned anxiety, perhaps depression in some cases as well as chronic fatigue, not necessarily just because of the low testosterone that you can get, but also from a psychological perspective. I'm curious, what do the recommendations look like for that? Do these patients need to see a social worker or a psychologist, or do they need to answer a screening test every time they come to see us and then based on that, we kind of escalate, take the next steps according to that? Do they see a psychologist perhaps every so often? How should that be managed and addressed? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: It's an excellent question and again, these can be rather insidious symptoms where if you don't really dig in and inquire, they can be glossed over. I mean, how easy to say, "Your markers look okay, your scans look okay. See you in six months," and keep it kind of brief. First off, I think bringing it up proactively and normalizing it, that, "This may be something that you experience. Many people do, you're not alone, there's nothing kind of wrong with you." I also think that this is an area where support groups can be incredibly useful. We host the Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation support group here. They'll talk about chemo brain or just like a little bit of an adjustment disorder after their diagnosis. Support groups, I think are critical. As I mentioned, we have a survivorship program that's led by a combination of our med oncs, myself on the uro-onc side, as well as APPs, where we are systematically asking about essentially the whole litany of issues that may arise, including psychosocial, anxiety, depression, suicidality. And we've got a nice kind of fast path into our cancer center support services for these young men to meet with a psychologist. If that isn't going to be sufficient, they can actually see a psychiatrist to discuss medications and so forth. I do think that we've got to screen for these because, as anticipated from diagnosis, those first 2 years, we see a rise. But even 10, 15 years out, we note, compared to controls, that there is an increased level of anxiety, depression, suicidality that might not just take place at that initial acute period of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Super important.  So I guess if I were to put all these together, with these really amazing advances in technology, we all know AI, some of us might be more or less aware of biomarkers coming up, including microRNA for example, and others, like as I think of all these potential long term complications for these patients, look at the future, I guess, can we use this as a way to deescalate treatment where it's not really necessary, as a way to actually prevent some of these complications? Like, how do we see where we're heading? As we manage testicular cancer, let's say, within the next 5 or 10 years, do you think there's something coming up that's going to be different from what we're doing things today? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Totally. I mean, I think it's as exciting as a time as there's ever been, you know, maybe notwithstanding circa 1970s when platinum was discovered. So microRNAs, which you mentioned, you know, there's a new candidate biomarker, microRNA-371. We are super excited here at UCSD. We actually have it CLIA-certified available in our lab and are ordering these tests for patients kind of in their acute stage, you know, stage one and surveillance, stage two, post-RPLND, receiving chemotherapy. And essentially this is a universal germ cell tumor specific biomarker, except for teratoma, suffice it to say 90% sensitive and specific. And I think it's going to change the way that we diagnose and manage patients. You know, pre-orchiectomy, that's pretty straightforward. Post-orchiectomy, maybe we can really decrease the number of CT scans that are done. Maybe we can identify those patients that basically have occult disease where we can intervene early, either with RPLND or single cycle chemo. Post-RPLND, identify the patients who are at higher risk of relapse that may benefit from some adjuvant therapy. In the advanced setting, look at marker decline for patients in addition to standard tumor markers. Can we modulate their systemic therapy?  So, the international interest is largely on modifying things. There's really cool clinical trials that we have for stage one patients, that treatment would be prescribed based on a post-orchiectomy microRNA. I think the microRNAs are really exciting. Teratoma remains an outstanding question. I think this is where maybe ctDNA, perhaps some radiomics and advanced imaging processing and incorporating AI may allow us to safely avoid a lot of these post-chemo RPLNDs. And then identification using SNPs and so forth of who might be most susceptible to some of the cardiac toxicity, autotoxicity and personalizing things in that way as well. Dr. Pedro Barata: Super exciting, right, what's about to come? And I agree with you, I think it's going to change dramatically how we manage this disease.  This has been a pleasure sitting down with you. I guess before letting you go, anything else you'd like to add before we wrap it up? Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Yeah, first off, again, just want to thank you and ASCO for the opportunity. And it's easy enough to, I think, approach a patient with the testicular germ cell tumor as, "This is an easy case. We're just going to do whatever we've done. Go to the guidelines that says do X, Y, or Z." But there's so much more nuance to it than that. Getting it done perfectly, I think, is mandatory. Whatever we do is an impact on them for the next 50, 60, 70 years of their life. And I found the germ cell tumor community, people are really passionate about it. If you're ever uncertain, there's experts throughout the country and internationally. Ask somebody before you do something that you can't undo. I think we owe it to them to get it perfect so that we can really maximize the survivorship and the survival like we've been talking about. Dr. Pedro Barata: Aditya, thanks for sharing your fantastic insights with us on this podcast. Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: All right, Pedro. Fantastic. Appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: And also, thank you to our listeners for your time today. I actually encourage you to check out Dr. Bagrodia's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We'll post a link to the paper in the show notes. Remember, it's free access online, and you can actually download it as well as a PDF. You can also find on the website a wealth of other great papers from the ASCO Educational Book on key advances and novel approaches that are shaping modern oncology.  So with that, thank you everyone. Thank you, Aditya, one more time, for joining us. Thank you, have a good day. 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. Pedro Barata  @PBarataMD   Dr. Aditya Bagrodia @AdityaBagrodia Follow ASCO on social media:         @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)         ASCO on Bluesky        ASCO on Facebook         ASCO on LinkedIn         Disclosures:      Dr. Pedro Barata:  Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical  Honoraria: UroToday  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon  Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck   Dr. Aditya Bagrodia: Consulting or Advisory Role: Veracyte, Ferring  

This episode covers: Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies Lp(a) - What to expect in the very near future Myocardial infarction in older and frail adults Mythbusters: is beetroot good for your heart? Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: JP Carpenter, Vijay Kunadian, Erik Stroes Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177 Want to watch that extended interview on Lp(a), go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177?resource=interview   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails.    Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Rick Grobbee, Nicolle Kraenkel, Vijay Kunadian and Erik Stroes have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Rick Grobbee  Guest: Erik Stroes  Want to watch that extended interview on Lp(a), go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177?resource=interview Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2177 Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Rick Grobbee and Erik Stroes have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report.

On this episode of #TheShot of #DigitalHealth Therapy, Jim Joyce and I had the pleasure of chatting with the globally minded and endlessly curious Alette Ramos Hunt, PhD, Global Director, Digital Innovation & AI for Drug Discovery at Novartis. From being a third culture kid (Danish dad, Filipino mom, born in Japan, raised in Hong Kong) to becoming one of the sharpest voices connecting biotech, digital health, and AI, Alette brings perspective that's as international as it is insightful. We explored her fascinating path from studying proteins in Glasgow to driving AI innovation in pharma, and how she's bridging the gap between molecules, humans, and machines. She reminded us that practical AI and game-changing AI both have a place - one makes us efficient, the other makes us dream bigger. It's an episode filled with humility, humor, and yes.. human intelligence - proving that even in a world of algorithms, empathy still leads the way. Fun mentions as always: Chandana Fitzgerald Jeff Weness Milind Kamkolkar [00:00-02:00] Bloopers, sunshine, and background banter. [00:03-05:00] Alette's third-culture upbringing — Japan, Hong Kong, Denmark. [00:05-07:00] Boarding school, biochemistry, and falling in love with proteins. [00:10-12:00] From academia to Pfizer — bringing science to life. [00:13-15:00] Leap to HealthXL — discovering digital health beyond the lab. [00:18-21:00] Entering Novartis — pre-ChatGPT AI strategy and innovation cycles. [00:22-25:00] Practical AI vs. game-changing AI — redefining productivity. [00:24-28:00] AI and drug discovery — startups, partnerships, and collaboration. [00:29-34:00] Lessons on open-minded leadership and partnering with purpose. [00:36-39:00] Jim's classic closing story and Alette's advice: Value your strengths, cherish your partners.

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended October 31, 2025. In this episode: third quarter dealmaking picks up; Novartis still has M&A firepower even after Avidity acquisition; Hanmi's obesity contender shows Phase III promise; NVIDIA partnership progresses Lilly's AI plans; and Lilly builds gene therapy push with Adverum buy. Story links: https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-MQMX2YHSAVHBTJFR4RAEAYNFNQ/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

This Week in Review covers 5 episodes from October 27 to October 31, featuring major developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries.Episodes included:1. Pharma Shifts: Dual-Action Obesity Drugs & Regulatory Waves2. Navigating Pharma's New Frontiers: Breakthroughs and Challenges3. Gene Therapy Challenges and Regulatory Shifts: Industry Innovations4. Biotech Breakthroughs: Transformative Acquisitions and FDA Milestones5. Novartis' $12B RNA Therapeutics BreakthroughKey topics covered:- Strategic acquisitions and partnerships- Regulatory updates and FDA approvals- Clinical trial results and breakthroughs- Industry trends and market developmentsStay informed with Pharma Daily's comprehensive coverage of the pharmaceutical and biotech world.Support the show

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Philipp Vetter und Holger Zschäpitz über KI-Manie an der Wall Street, eine Gewinnwarnung bei Symrise und die lukrativen Lehren aus 200 Jahren Börsenhistorie. Außerdem geht es um Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, Caterpillar, Apple, Amazon, Paypal, UPS, SK Hynix, Wayfair, Draftkings, Flutter, Trump Media & Technology, Booking Holdings, Bloom Energy, BNP Paribas, Novartis, Huawei, ZTE, Siemens, iShares Core MSCI World (WKN: A0RPWH), Amundi MSCI All Country World (WKN: LYX00C), Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA (WKN: DBX0VH), iShares Core S&P 500 (WKN: A0YEDG). Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter.[ Hier bei WELT.](https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html.) [Hier] (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6zxjyJpTMunyYCY6F7vHK1?si=8f6cTnkEQnmSrlMU8Vo6uQ) findest Du die Samstagsfolgen Klassiker-Playlist auf Spotify! Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien) Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Vanderlei e a esposa tinham planejado alguns dias de descanso em Fortaleza, mas, no meio de um passeio na praia, ele começou a se sentir muito mal. A vista escureceu, a respiração faltou e a dor no peito se tornou insuportável. A cada passo, ele sentia como se o pulmão fosse esmagado.A esposa correu em busca de ajuda, mas ouviu que ali só havia um pequeno posto de saúde. O hospital mais próximo ficava a quase três horas de distância de onde os dois estavam. No caminho, o braço esquerdo de Vanderlei começou a doer como se estivesse sendo atravessado por um ferro em brasa. O medo maior, no entanto, não era da morte. Era da esposa voltar para casa com ele em um caixão.No hospital, veio a confirmação: Vanderlei tinha sofrido um infarto. As artérias estavam quase totalmente obstruídas. Ele precisou passar por uma cirurgia de cateterismo às pressas. Foram mais de vinte dias internado, entre fisioterapias dolorosas, crises de choro e a sensação constante de que poderia não resistir. Tudo isso longe de casa, já que os dois estavam em Fortaleza, mas moram em São Paulo.O que o manteve de pé foi a presença da esposa. Ele não deixava que ela saísse nem por alguns minutos. Era a mão dela segurando a sua que lhe dava força para enfrentar cada procedimento, cada medo, cada madrugada gelada na UTI de hospital.Sete anos depois, Vanderlei ainda se emociona ao lembrar do que viveu. O infarto deixou cicatrizes físicas e emocionais, mas também mudou como ele enxerga a vida. Hoje, agradece por estar vivo e por ter sua esposa ao lado quando tudo parecia terminar. Ao olhar para trás, Vanderlei vê o quanto negligenciou sua saúde, sem ter uma rotina com alimentação saudável, exercícios e acompanhamento médico, e faz um alerta: saúde em primeiro lugar sempre!A história do Vanderlei é uma parceria do Histórias de ter.a.pia com a Novartis para a campanha #OVilãoDoSeuCoração para conscientização dos perigos do colesterol ruim.Saiba mais sobre o Vilão do Coração em saude.novartis.com.br/vilaodocoracao/#OVilaoDoSeuCoracao #SaúdeCardiovascular #Prevenção #ControleDoColesterol #CuideDoSeuCoração #PubliNovartis BR-36281

Novartis started the week early with a Sunday afternoon announcement of the acquisition of neuromuscular drug developer Avidity Biosciences for $12B. That's the second biggest buy of the year after Johnson & Johnson's January acquisition of Intra-Cellular. The Avidity buy could read through positively to Dyne Therapeutics, as both are aiming to treat neuromuscular ailments with RNA-targeting therapies. Dyne shares have nearly doubled over the past month, jumping approximately 40% after Novartis' news dropped.  The Avidity deal is the latest in an uptick on the pharma M&A front. Also this week, Eli Lilly doubled down on gene therapy with a pick up of Adverum Biotechnologies and its lead program for wet age-related macular degeneration. And Roche, which last month acquired 89bio in a $3.5 billion deal centered on a MASH candidate, said in its third-quarter earnings call on Thursday that more deals could be in the future. Finally, beyond the big guys, Leerink Partners predicts which small- to mid-cap firms might also be on the hunt for new pipeline goodies.  Following the dealmaking news, Novartis held its earning call on Tuesday. CEO Vas Narasimhan downplayed the deals Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Amgen have made with the White House, saying they don't address the root of the drug pricing problem President Donald Trump hopes to solve.   On other earnings calls, BioMarin announced plans to divest the hemophilia gene therapy Roctavian. Regeneron faced further questions about Eylea and issues with the Catalent plant that's been tripping up its regulatory applications. But the company didn't address last week's news that it was dropping a CAR T asset picked up from 2seventy bio. These are but two of the latest examples of underperforming assets in the cell and gene therapy space.  BridgeBio had positive news for patients with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy this week after acing a Phase III trial for an investigational substrate supplementation therapy. Analysts predict the asset could be before the FDA later this year or early next.   Finally, with the U.S. government shutdown going on a month, BioSpace takes a look at how the FDA is operating. 

Live from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review ESMO 2025's bladder cancer headlines, from the evolving role of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to ctDNA-guided adjuvant therapy and antibody-drug conjugates redefining metastatic management.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Live from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review the major ESMO 2025 prostate cancer studies, including ENZARAD, EMBARK, CAPItello-291, PSMAddition, and PR21. Together, they unpack their clinical impact and how evolving biomarkers, imaging, and treatment sequencing are redefining standards of care.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Wrapping up our live ESMO 2025 coverage from Berlin, Germany, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis review pivotal kidney cancer data, including RAMPART's results, emerging first-line combinations from KEYMAKER-U03 and more, offering a forward-looking view of where RCC research is heading next.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

Today's guest is Scott Bradley, VP of AI and Innovation at Novartis. As the eighth largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue, Novartis' medicines reach millions of people worldwide. Their focus on the discovery and development of novel, breakthrough treatments sees them reimagining not just the delivery of said treatments, but the practice of medicine at large. Scott joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to examine how artificial intelligence is transforming trial design, operations, and patient engagement — while also reshaping industry trust and accountability. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the ‘AI in Business' podcast!

Novartis' biggest deal in more than a decade gives the Swiss pharma three programs for muscular dystrophies that are close to the finish line. On the latest BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury's analysts discuss the $12 billion deal for Avidity in the context of Novartis' recent acquisitions and the antibody-oligonucleotide conjugate platform it is gaining.The team dives into RNA versus DNA modalities, noting antisense and siRNA approaches appear to be gaining traction with major pharmas as traditional gene therapy and gene editing approaches hit rocky times. Still, they note hopeful progress among base editing therapies given the promising early track records of over a dozen base editors in the clinic. They also discuss BioCentury's conversation with base editing inventor David Liu; Alkermes' $2.1 billion acquisition of Avadel; and β-catenin data from Parabilis. This episode of BioCentury This Week is sponsored by Evotec.View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/657412#AntibodyOligonucleotideConjugates #RNAtherapeutics #BaseEditing #MuscularDystrophy #WntPathway #BetaCatenin #Orexin2Receptor #PrecisionMedicine00:01 - Sponsor Message: Evotec 02:04 - 12th China Healthcare Summit08:11 - Novartis' $12B Deal16:58 - Alkermes M&A20:01 - David Liu Base Editing25:02 - Parabilis' DataTo submit a question to BioCentury's editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.Reach us by sending a text

Swiss pharma giant Novartis sees Q3 income up by a quarter, allowing it to achieve its FY guidance and countering the fall in generic drug sales Stateside. BNP maintains its forecasts despite Q3 net income and revenue missing expectations. The French bank says it is determined to appeal a U.S. jury's verdict that ruled it breached sanctions on Sudan during the reign of President Omar al-Bashir. UK lender HSBC sees Q3 profits fall by 14 per cent on the back of legal provisions on a Bernie Madoff-related lawsuit. However, the bank still beat forecasts and hiked its net income guidance for the year.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

APAC stocks failed to sustain the momentum from the record highs on Wall St and were mostly subdued.US President Trump and Japanese PM Takaichi signed an agreement on the US-Japan alliance and framework for securing the supply of critical minerals and rare earths.European equity futures indicate a lower cash market open with Euro Stoxx 50 future down 0.2% after the cash market closed with gains of 0.6% on Monday.DXY is net negative amid gains in the JPY with USD/JPY slipping below the 152 mark post-Trump and Takaichi meeting.Global fixed income markets are broadly firmer. Crude has struggled for direction following the prior day's choppy performance.Looking ahead, highlights include German GfK (Nov), Richmond Fed (Oct), CaseShiller Home Prices (Aug), Consumer Confidence (Oct), ECB SCE (Sept), RBNZ's Richardson, Supply from Italy, UK, Germany & US.Earnings from Visa, Electronic Arts, PPG Industries, UnitedHealth, SoFi, PayPal, UPS, DR Horton, VF Corp, HSBC, BNP Paribas, Novartis, Logitech, Iberdrola & ASM International.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Ohne Aktien-Zugang ist's schwer? Starte jetzt bei unserem Partner Scalable Capital. Mit eigenem KI-Chatbot, der dir alle Fragen rund ums Investieren beantwortet. Alle weiteren Infos gibt's hier: scalable.capital/oaws. Aktien + Whatsapp = Hier anmelden. https://www.whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaMpX3bDjiOUINh85d3P Milei-Sieg freut Finanzmärkte. Novartis kauft Avidity Biosciences. Peltz kauft Janus Henderson. Qualcomm macht KI-Chips. Keurig Dr Pepper wächst. HSBC hat Probleme wegen Madoff. Gerresheimer verbucht falsch. US-Bergbau fällt. T-Mobile US (WKN: A1T7LU) verkauft mehr Verträge mit Smartphones als in den letzten zehn Jahren und ist stärker als die Konkurrenz. Jetzt startet ein neuer CEO – wie ist seine Strategie? Der weltgrößte Hersteller von Zigarren und Pfeifentabak kommt aus Dänemark. Aber die Scandinavian Tobacco Group (WKN: A2AD2Q) wächst kaum noch. Rauchfreie Produkte sollen das Business beleben. Diesen Podcast vom 28.10.2025, 3:00 Uhr stellt dir die Podstars GmbH (Noah Leidinger) zur Verfügung.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into several significant shifts in the industry, marked by scientific advancements, regulatory changes, and strategic corporate maneuvers.Starting with a major acquisition, Novartis has strategically purchased Avidity Biosciences, a San Diego-based biotech company specializing in muscular dystrophy treatments, for a striking $12 billion. This substantial investment underscores Novartis's dedication to expanding its neuroscience portfolio. Avidity's innovative RNA-based therapies show great promise for treating neuromuscular diseases, highlighting a broader industry trend where large pharmaceutical companies are investing heavily in late-stage biotech firms to bolster their pipelines with cutting-edge technologies. Such moves are pivotal as they align with the growing emphasis on precision medicine and the development of novel therapeutic options for conditions with limited existing treatments.In other acquisition news, Eli Lilly has expanded its gene therapy portfolio through acquiring Adverum Biotechnologies for up to $262 million. This acquisition is expected to bolster Eli Lilly's position in the gene therapy space, particularly in ophthalmology. Gene therapy offers transformative potential by directly addressing underlying genetic causes of diseases, with Adverum's focus on ophthalmic conditions potentially offering innovative solutions for unmet medical needs in eye-related disorders. The acquisitions by Novartis and Eli Lilly reflect broader trends within the pharmaceutical industry where companies actively seek to diversify their pipelines through mergers and acquisitions. These transactions emphasize strategic incorporation of advanced biotechnologies such as RNA therapeutics and gene therapy into development portfolios aiming to deliver breakthroughs in patient care.On the regulatory front, Bayer has achieved a milestone with the U.S. FDA approval of Lynkuet (elinzanetant), a nonhormonal medication designed to manage menopause symptoms. This approval represents a significant step forward in providing alternative treatment options to a traditionally hormone-reliant segment, emphasizing the industry's shift towards diversifying therapeutic solutions and addressing unmet medical needs. This move highlights continuous efforts to address women's health issues through new pharmacological interventions.Meanwhile, Merck's Winrevair has received an updated FDA label following successful results from the Phase 3 Zenith trial. This label expansion is anticipated to enhance its market position, potentially propelling Winrevair to blockbuster status. These developments highlight the critical role of rigorous clinical trials in validating drug efficacy and safety, which ultimately influence regulatory decisions and market dynamics.BridgeBio has also made headlines with its successful Phase 3 trial for a rare disease candidate. By demonstrating significant improvements in clinical outcomes and biomarkers, BridgeBio is poised to file for FDA approval. This reflects an increasing focus on precision medicine within the industry, particularly in addressing rare and genetic disorders.In diabetes management news, Innovent and Eli Lilly's mazdutide has outperformed Novo Nordisk's semaglutide in a head-to-head study focused on glucose regulation and weight loss. As a GLP-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist, mazdutide offers broader therapeutic effects, showcasing the competitive landscape in metabolic disorders where novel mechanisms are vying for superiority.Regulatory activities remain pivotal, as demonstrated by Syndax receiving a second indication for its leukemia drug Revuforj. Such expansions underscore the importance of ongoing clinical research and regulatory engagement in maximizing a drug's therapeutic reach.NSupport the show

The real challenge for today's HR leaders isn't adopting AI, but ensuring people still feel seen, heard, and valued in a world shaped by it. Today's CHROs face a powerful question: how can we design organizations that are as human as they are high-performing? At Novartis, this challenge sparked a bold rethink of what it means to lead, grow, and belong. In this episode, Rob Kowalski, Chief People and Organization Officer at Novartis, shares how the company is reimagining HR through human-centered experiences that transform culture into a living system. He unpacks Novartis' Inspired, Curious, and Unbossed culture framework, the "behaviors in action" that make culture discussable, and programs like Future Me that redefine career growth through lattices instead of ladders. Rob also explores how storytelling connects every employee—scientists to HR teams—to patient impact, why leaders must balance empowerment with accountability, and how "unbossed" leadership is reshaping management itself. From AI coaching tools to redefining what growth and retention really mean, this conversation gives CHROs a fresh blueprint for building organizations that are truly human by design. ________________ Start your day with the world's top leaders by joining thousands of others at Great Leadership on Substack. Just enter your email: ⁠⁠https://greatleadership.substack.com/

US equity futures are indicating a higher open today. Europe markets have opened higher in early trades. And Asian markets have wrapped up the day higher almost everywhere as trade tensions around the world eased significantly. US and China finalized an outline trade agreement on Sunday, which has been the factor behind the positive sentiment. Japan's Nikkei broke through 50K for the first time in a broad rally. Taiex and Kospi also at fresh record highs.Companies mentioned: Plymouth Industrial REIT, Novartis, Avidity Biosciences, SoftBank, Sony, Warner Bros Discovery

The U.S. and China agree the framework of a trade deal with Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping due to meet later this week in South Korea. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the move will help to dial down any further trade tensions between the two nations. Equity markets in Greater China have responded positively to the news while the Nasdaq is set to start the week 1 per cent higher. France has avoided a hat-trick of ratings agency downgrades, but Moody's has revised its forecast for the country to ‘negative', citing ongoing political turmoil and deficit fears. Swiss pharma giant Novartis has swooped for U.S. biotech firm Avidity in a $12bn cash deal.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Philipp Vetter und Holger Zschäpitz über einen möglichen Handelsfrieden zwischen den USA und China, einen Mega-Deal im Biotech-Sektor und was sonst noch wichtig wird in dieser Woche. Außerdem geht es um Novartis, Bayer, Avidity Biosciences, YPF, Banco Macro, BBVA Argentina, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, Porsche Automobil Holding, Baidu, CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, Robinhood, Oklo, Uber, Siemens. Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter.[ Hier bei WELT.](https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html.) [Hier] (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6zxjyJpTMunyYCY6F7vHK1?si=8f6cTnkEQnmSrlMU8Vo6uQ) findest Du die Samstagsfolgen Klassiker-Playlist auf Spotify! Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien) Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into some of the most significant shifts and strategies shaping our industry.Novartis's acquisition of Avidity Biosciences for a staggering $12 billion marks a pivotal moment in the pharmaceutical landscape this year. With this acquisition, Novartis underscores its commitment to bolstering its neuromuscular disease pipeline. Avidity Biosciences has made a name for itself with its cutting-edge RNA therapeutic technologies, particularly its Antibody Oligonucleotide Conjugates (AOCs). This platform uniquely combines monoclonal antibodies with oligonucleotides, enhancing precision in targeting specific cell types. The integration of Avidity's technology into Novartis's research efforts could accelerate the development of new therapies, potentially transforming patient care with more effective and targeted treatment options. This move not only highlights the industry's focus on specialized therapeutic areas but also anticipates future advances in RNA therapeutics, extending beyond neuromuscular disorders to areas like oncology.In a similar vein, the FDA has shown its willingness to reconsider drugs that previously faced setbacks. GSK's Blenrep has made a return to the U.S. market after receiving approval for treating certain myeloma patients. This approval is particularly noteworthy given the drug's earlier negative advisory committee vote and postponed decision. It marks a significant rebound for GSK's oncology portfolio and reflects the FDA's dynamic approach towards drugs that show potential in specific therapeutic combinations.Meanwhile, Sanofi continues to make waves with Dupixent, achieving over €4 billion in quarterly sales due to its expanded indications. This success contrasts with a decline in Sanofi's vaccine sales, demonstrating shifting dynamics within pharmaceutical portfolios where biologics and specialty drugs are increasingly pivotal. Sanofi's recent financial report highlighted a notable 17% drop in vaccine sales due to reduced demand and pricing challenges in Europe. In response, companies must navigate fluctuating public health demands and economic pressures effectively.On the global stage, efforts to make transformative therapies like Vertex's Trikafta more accessible are gaining momentum through innovative trade-policy workarounds. A buyers club aims to introduce a lower-cost alternative produced by Bangladesh's Beximco, highlighting ongoing challenges and creative strategies in global drug accessibility.Roche's expansion through Chugai's $200 million M&A deal for an IgA nephropathy asset underscores the strategic importance of regional markets in driving growth. Similarly, Lonza's acquisition of a California biologics site aligns with its goals to meet increasing biomanufacturing demands.The industry is also adapting to technological advancements, with AI integration into life sciences commercialization being touted as a frontier for growth. Despite this potential, many organizations remain unprepared to harness AI fully. Leading companies embedding AI solutions aim for measurable outcomes that could significantly drive strategic decision-making and operational efficiencies.Eli Lilly's acquisition of Adverum Biotechnologies aligns with its strategic interests in gene therapy, focusing on promising therapeutic programs that address unmet medical needs. This acquisition centers around Ixo-vec for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), highlighting broader industry trends towards investing heavily in innovative therapies that address unmet needs.Conversely, Sanofi's halt on an RSV vaccine development highlights the inherent risks in vaccine development pipelines. Meanwhile, Regeneron's decision to discontinue a CAR T candidate acquired from 2seventy bio showcases ongoing reassessment witSupport the show

Ever tried to escape work by picking up a hobby, only to discover it teaches you everything about your profession? In this fascinating conversation with Philip Atkinson, author of "BeeWise: 12 Leadership Lessons from Inside a Busy Hive," Cam and Otis explore how the complex world of beekeeping offers surprising insights into organizational leadership."I was looking in my private life to start a new hobby to do nothing to do with work," Philip explains about his beekeeping journey. "And it was all about complex organizations and decision making and communication and what the bees do. And of course, bang, it hit me. Beekeeping is a metaphor for complex life in working organizations today."From seasonal cycles that mirror business planning to colony division that reflects organizational scaling, Philip draws powerful parallels between the busy hive and today's workplace. "The bees have a natural survival instinct, and they need to adapt and grow," he shares, explaining how this translates to leadership challenges. "As a single leader, I can't do everything. I actually need to create an environment to scale things by trusting other people to be great."Whether you're fascinated by nature, looking for fresh leadership perspectives, or simply curious about how a hobby can transform into a life's purpose, this conversation offers rich insights into what we can learn from these remarkable creatures—or, as Philip would say, Apis Melifera.More About Philip:Philip Atkinson is a leadership coach, organizational transformation expert, and founder of Hive-Logic. With leadership roles at Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Publicis, Philip has worked with some of the world's largest organizations to build stronger teams and healthier cultures. Based near the Swiss border in France, he supports senior leaders across Europe and beyond through coaching, facilitation, and strategy. His warm, thought-provoking communication style has landed him features in Forbes, Management Today, CEO World, and BBC TV and radio. Philip is also a beekeeper. In his book Bee Wise: 12 Leadership Lessons from a Busy Beehive, he draws powerful insights from the hidden workings of the hive. The book explores decision-making, inclusion, communication, and purpose with contributions from global thought leaders at EY, L'Oréal, and more. All profits support Bees for Development, a charity helping families build sustainable livelihoods through beekeeping.#LeadershipLessons #BeekeepingAndBusiness #OrganizationalWisdom #HiveLogic #AdaptiveLeadership #Teamwork #NatureInspiredLeadership #LeadershipDevelopment #TribeAndPurpose #10xYourTeamChapter Times and Titles:From Corporate Life to Beekeeping [00:00 - 05:00]Introduction to Philip Atkinson and "BeeWise"The search for a hobby, "nothing to do with work"The moment of realization: "Beekeeping is a metaphor"Apis Melifera: More Than Just Bees [05:01 - 10:00]The fascinating terminology of beekeepingHow the beekeeping community responded to Philip's insightsInitial connections between hives and organizationsSeasonal Wisdom from the Hive [10:01 - 20:00]"Close some of the other projects first" - lessons in prioritizationThe bee lifecycle and seasonal changesHow nature's patterns inform business planningColony Division: A Model for Scaling [20:01 - 35:00]"The bees have a natural survival instinct."How colonies grow by dividing and multiplyingParallels to organizational growth and leadershipCreating an Environment for Others to Thrive [35:01 - 45:00]"As a single leader, I can't do everything."Trusting others to be greatBuilding systems that scale beyond individual capacityThe Busy Hive as Leadership Metaphor [45:01 - End]Key takeaways from Philip's bookHow to connect with Hive-LogicFinal thoughts on learning from nature

Host: Susanna Price Guest: Stephanie Schwarting Want to watch the episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176 Want to watch the extended interview on Arrhythmias in Cardiac Amyloidosis? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests:  Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Stephanie Schwarting has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board for Alnylam, Bayer, Pfizer; principal investigator in trials sponsored by Alexion, Novo Nordisk and Intellia. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Arrhythmias in cardiac amyloidosis Taking the 'O' out of HOCM: managing LVOT obstruction Snapshots Host: Susanna Price Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Stephanie Schwarting, Ahmad Masri Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176 Want to watch that extended interview on Arrhythmias in Cardiac Amyloidosis? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2176?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Susanna Price have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder Mycardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Ahmad Masri has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Pfizer, Ionis, Attralus, Cytokinetics and Janssen. Consulting fees from Cytokinetics, BMS, BridgeBio, Pfizer, Ionis, Lexicon, Attralus, Alnylam, Haya, Alexion, Akros, Edgewise, Rocket, Lexeo, Prothena, BioMarin, AstraZeneca, Avidity, Neurimmune, and Tenaya. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Stephanie Schwarting has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board for Alnylam, Bayer, Pfizer; principal investigator in trials sponsored by Alexion, Novo Nordisk and Intellia. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Today's guest is Xiong Liu, Director of Data Science and AI at Novartis. Novartis is among the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, pioneering data and advanced analytics in the pursuit of new medicines and patient outcomes. Xiong joins Emerj Editorial Director Matthew DeMello to examine how generative AI and foundation models are transforming R&D, clinical workflows, and research collaboration across the life sciences. The discussion highlights how domain-specific data strategies, improved data quality, and shared benchmarks are accelerating discovery and operationalizing AI for measurable ROI in biopharma. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the ‘AI in Business' podcast! If you've enjoyed or benefited from some of the insights of this episode, consider leaving us a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, and let us know what you learned, found helpful, or liked most about this show!

Description: Listen as NPF Medical Board Members, dermatologist Dr. Robert Kalb and rheumatologist Dr. Sergio Schwartzman discuss the connections between psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, from cytokines to triggers, current and future treatments.   Join moderator Alan Simmons as he gains insights on what connects psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with leading experts in psoriatic disease and NPF Medical Board members, dermatologist Dr. Robert Kalb with Buffalo Medical Group Dermatology, and rheumatologist Dr. Sergio Schwartzman from Schwartzman Rheumatology, as they discuss the known drivers of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, common triggers, benefits of targeted treatments, remission of disease, and upcoming treatment trends. The intent of this episode is to identify potential connections between psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and how targeted treatments have changed the outlook for management of psoriatic disease. This episode is sponsored by Novartis. Timestamps: (0:41) Intro to Psoriasis Uncovered and guest welcome dermatologist Dr. Robert Kalb and rheumatologist Dr. Sergio Schwartzman who are both involved in clinical care and research of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.  (1:15) Current known pro-inflammatory cytokines and cells found in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.   (5:33) Types of psoriasis that may lead to a higher risk of developing psoriatic arthritis. (9:33) Common triggers for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that could cause flares of the disease. (12:59) Key factors that are considered when choosing a treatment plan for any individual with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. (18:04) What treatment remission means for psoriasis. (19:36) Use of minimal disease activity (MDA) in psoriatic arthritis and what it means. (22:14) How a better understanding of the disease has led to more effective treatment choices and what choices are used by Dr. Kalb and Dr. Schwartzman for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. (28:39) New developments in treatment and research in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. (36:01) Given treatment advancements it's a wonderful time to treat psoriatic disease. 3 Key Takeaways: ·       Cytokines are chemicals in the body that moderate various processes. In psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,  an unknown trigger stimulates some cells to overproduce pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-alpha, IL-17 or IL-23 leading to the development of skin and joint disease.  ·       Treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis helps move the body towards normalizing the over reactive immune system especially with more targeted treatments that safely and effectively block specific cytokines without affecting other organ systems.  ·       Given advancements in targeted treatments the goal is to reach and maintain remission of psoriatic disease. Guest Bios:   Leading dermatologist Robert Kalb, M.D. is the Chair of the Buffalo Medical Group Dermatology Department and the Director of the Buffalo Medical Group Phototherapy Center, one of the leading centers for psoriasis care in Western New York. He is also a Clinical Professor of Dermatology at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (SUNY Buffalo), as well as an Adjunct Professor of Dermatology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania where he plays a significant role in medical education, mentoring both medical students and dermatology residents. Dr. Kalb has extensive experience managing psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin diseases. He has authored 70+ publications and is actively involved in clinical research, particularly focused on new treatment options for psoriasis. He is a member of the NPF Medical Board, American Academy of Dermatology, and is a member of the International Psoriasis Council.  Sergio Schwartzman, MD, is a world-renowned rheumatologist based in New York City who brings almost 40 years of experience and personalized clinical care for those who have psoriatic disease. Along with being in private practice at Schwartzman Rheumatology, Dr. Schwartzman is a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, the New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City where he has played a role in educating medical students, residents, fellows, and peers in rheumatology. Additionally, Dr. Schwartzman is the emeritus Franchellie M. Cadwell Clinical Associate Professor at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Dr. Schwartzman's current research interests include psoriatic arthritis, the spondyloarthritis group of diseases, ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, as well as defining and treating autoimmune diseases of the eye. He has authored, co-authored, and edited over 150 papers, abstracts, books and book chapters on topics including psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, axial spondylarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, autoimmune eye disorders, and other rheumatological and autoimmune conditions. He is a member of the NPF Medical Board. He is also a member of the American College of Rheumatology, the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN), the American Uveitis Society, and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). Resources: Ø  “Redefining Remission. A new definition for patients, providers, and payers.” Advance Online, National Psoriasis Foundation. S. Schlosser. July 14, 2025.   Ø  Treatment and Management of Psoriasis     Ø  Treatment and Management of Psoriatic Arthritis  

Send us a textIn this episode of WTR Small-Cap Spotlight, Dr. David Sans, healthcare investment banker, former Novartis oncology researcher, and long-time biotech strategist, joins host Tim Gerdeman, Vice Chair, Co-Founder, and Chief Marketing Officer of Water Tower Research, for an in-depth discussion on the state of the biotech industry. Together, they explore why optimism is returning to the sector, which technologies and therapeutic categories are leading the rebound, and how investment and IPO trends are shaping the next phase of biotech growth.  Discover the bullish underpinnings of The Wall Street Journal article last week titled “Why Biotech's Rally Can Last This Time”.

This Day in Legal History: Abrams v. United States ArguedOn October 21, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Abrams v. United States, a seminal case in the development of First Amendment jurisprudence. The case arose during the post–World War I Red Scare, when the government aggressively prosecuted speech perceived as dangerous or subversive. The defendants were Russian immigrants who distributed leaflets in New York City denouncing U.S. military intervention in the Russian Revolution and calling for a general strike. They were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for allegedly inciting resistance to the war effort.The Supreme Court upheld their convictions in a 7–2 decision, finding that the speech posed a “clear and present danger” to national security. However, it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dissent, joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, that left the most lasting impression. Holmes argued that only speech intended to produce imminent lawless action should be punished, introducing the enduring metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” as essential to democratic deliberation.Legally, the case illustrates the government's ability to impose post-speech punishment—penalties after speech has occurred—as opposed to prior restraint, which involves preventing speech before it happens. The distinction is vital in American law: prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional, while post-speech sanctions may be permitted under narrow circumstances. In Abrams, the Court leaned toward deference to governmental wartime authority, but Holmes' dissent marked the beginning of a shift toward greater speech protections.The decision laid the groundwork for the more speech-protective standards adopted in later cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The post-speech punishment principle debated in Abrams remains a cornerstone of First Amendment law, highlighting the tension between state interests and individual liberties in times of political conflict.When two alleged drug traffickers survived a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, the Trump administration immediately repatriated them rather than detain them — a decision that reveals a troubling logic behind the president's new “war” on narco‑terrorism. The administration has declared the campaign a “non‑international armed conflict,” but legal experts note that this classification offers no real authority for military detention. In other words, the United States can kill suspects under this self‑declared war framework, but it has no clear legal footing to hold survivors.Experts said the administration likely chose the least damaging option: send the survivors home and avoid a courtroom. Detaining them at Guantanamo or on U.S. soil would have triggered habeas corpus challenges, forced disclosure of evidence, and risked exposing the strikes as legally indefensible. One former State Department lawyer said any trial would have “undermined the narrative” that the attacks were lawful military operations. By refusing to hold prisoners, the administration sidesteps both judicial scrutiny and transparency.The result is a perverse incentive structure. If survivors are released but detainees are liabilities, the easiest path for officials is to ensure there are no survivors at all. The legal asymmetry—where killing is simpler than capture—encourages tactics that maximize lethality while minimizing accountability. As a result, Trump's “drug war” risks becoming less about law enforcement and more about ensuring that no one lives long enough to challenge the legality of U.S. actions.In Trump's drug war, prisoners may be too much of a legal headache, experts say | ReutersGlobal pharmaceutical companies are rapidly ramping up U.S. manufacturing in response to a looming Trump administration policy that would impose 100% tariffs on imported branded and patented drugs. While enforcement is delayed for companies that commit to domestic investment, the threat has already triggered a wave of fast-tracked spending, direct-to-consumer sales shifts, and pricing concessions in exchange for temporary tariff exemptions.Major players like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, and Roche have pledged tens of billions of dollars to build or expand plants across the U.S. to shield themselves from future penalties. Some, like Pfizer and AstraZeneca, secured multi-year tariff exemptions by agreeing to pricing deals and participation in the administration's new TrumpRx.gov program. Others, like Novartis and Sanofi, are spreading investments across multiple states and sites, creating thousands of jobs as part of their strategic insulation.The tariff threat is driving a major reshaping of global supply chains and investment strategies, as companies aim to avoid the legal and financial burden of import duties by domesticating both manufacturing and distribution. While some firms say they are already well-positioned with sufficient U.S. inventory, the broader trend reflects a defensive industry-wide shift to preemptively comply with the administration's protectionist push.Global drugmakers rush to boost US presence as tariff threat looms | ReutersTrevor Milton, the disgraced founder of electric-truck startup Nikola, is somehow back as a CEO—this time leading SyberJet Aircraft, a private jet manufacturer, according to reporting by Techdirt. Milton was convicted of fraud for deceiving investors about Nikola's technology, most famously releasing a misleading video of a prototype truck that was actually rolling downhill, not self-propelled. He was sentenced to four years in prison but never served a day, thanks to a pardon from Donald Trump earlier this year—reportedly after donating millions to Trump-aligned causes and hiring the brother of current Attorney General Pam Bondi as his attorney.Now, just months after that pardon, Milton has been tapped to lead development of a new high-speed jet for SyberJet, with promised performance metrics that already sound suspiciously ambitious. The company, privately backed, won't need to answer to public shareholders—but it will still need investor trust to raise money for a jet not slated for delivery until 2032. TechDirt points out how the company's promotional material leans into rewriting Milton's history, calling him “renowned” rather than acknowledging the full scope of his fraudulent past.The piece underscores a broader theme of “failing upward,” highlighting how white-collar offenders, especially white men with political connections, often land on their feet despite serious criminal convictions–and has some interesting implications for the future career of George Santos. Milton's quick rebound from federal fraud conviction to C-suite leadership is less an exception than a reminder of how accountability gaps persist in American corporate culture.Convicted Fraudster Trevor Milton Rides His Trump Pardon To Another CEO Job, Somehow | TechdirtIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I dive in to the governor's race in my home state. The 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial race has become a tax-policy showdown between Jack Ciattarelli and Mikie Sherrill—both of whom are framing affordability as their central mission, but doing so with deeply flawed approaches. Ciattarelli is offering aggressive tax cuts and structural overhauls that are, frankly, reckless in a state with a delicate and complicated fiscal ecosystem. His plan to flatten income tax brackets and slash corporate rates isn't just optimistic—it's ahistorical. We've seen this movie before in Kansas, where sweeping tax cuts led to revenue collapse, credit downgrades, and bipartisan regret. Ciattarelli is essentially proposing a rerun, but with no clearer escape plan if it fails.Sherrill, by contrast, is pragmatic to the point of inertia. Her emphasis on municipal service sharing and administrative tweaks is fine as far as it goes—but it doesn't go very far. Her promise to freeze utility rates via emergency powers, for instance, isn't just legally questionable, it also misdiagnoses the issue: state governments don't control wholesale energy prices. It's a symbolic gesture dressed up as policy.Neither candidate seems willing to address the structural drivers of New Jersey's notoriously high property taxes, preferring instead to nibble around the edges or promise caps that could backfire. That's a missed opportunity. As I argue in the column, New Jersey doesn't need sweeping cuts or more bureaucratic tinkering—it needs targeted relief for the people who actually feel the pinch. Expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and implementing a robust child tax credit would offer immediate, evidence-backed help to those struggling most with affordability. These aren't radical ideas; they're already working in other states.Ciattarelli's plan is built on trickle-down economics and wishful math. Sherrill's is built on competent management, but lacks ambition. The voters deserve more than either of those options.Tax Platforms in NJ Governor's Race Leave Out the Best Ideas This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of, "Empowered Intimacy: Getting Your Sexy Back After Breast Cancer," we open up an important conversation about sexual health after a breast cancer diagnosis. Melissa is joined by her friend Deltra, a mom of five living with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, and Dr. Laila Agrawal, a board-certified medical oncologist dedicated to putting sexual health at the forefront of cancer care. Many carry these concerns silently, but intimacy is an important part of quality-of-life care. Together, they share personal stories, explore why this topic is often overlooked, and offer practical tips for starting the conversation with your doctor, asking the right questions, and advocating for the support and resources that you deserve. Special thanks to Lilly, Merck, and Novartis for supporting the Cancer Fashionista Foundation and making this episode possible.

Investing in health and science research isn't just about curing diseases. It has huge impacts across society, from creating jobs to driving economic growth to boosting national competitiveness. Study shows that every $ invested in the life sciences industry generates $3 in GDP globally, whereas every job created in the life sciences industry generates five in the global economy. Life sciences are one of the most powerful engines of prosperity, yet many governments still underestimate their economic return.In this episode of The Ripple Effect: Investing in Life Sciences, host Dan Riskin speaks with Patrick Horber, President of Novartis International, and David Gluckman, Vice Chairman of Investment Banking and Global Head of Healthcare at Lazard. Together, they break down the outsized economic impact of life science innovation, from trillions in US bioscience output to China's meteoric rise as a global R&D hub. The conversation delves into the ways governments can support innovation with not just money, but through policy and regulation; plus, some of the best ways that countries can help the sector secure investment, talent, and long-term growth.This limited series, produced by GZERO's Blue Circle Studios in partnership with Novartis, examines how life science innovation plays a vital role in fulfilling that commitment. Host: Dan RiskinGuests: Patrick Horber, David Gluckman  Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bill George is a celebrated leader who served as Chair and CEO of Medtronic, the world's leading medical technology company. He is an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, where he has taught leadership since 2004, and is the bestselling author of many books, including Discover Your True North. Bill also served as a director at Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Novartis, Target, the Mayo Clinic, and World Economic Forum USA. In this episode of ⁠the Elevate Podcast⁠, Bill joins host Robert Glazer to discuss his leadership career, the importance of purpose-driven leadership, and more. To learn more about core values, check out The Compass Within. Thank you to the sponsors of The Elevate Podcast Mizzen & Main: ⁠⁠mizzenandmain.com⁠⁠ (Promo Code: elevate20) Shopify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠shopify.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Indeed: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠indeed.com/elevate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Masterclass: ⁠⁠masterclass.com/elevate⁠⁠ Found: ⁠⁠found.com/elevate Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices